Two more cardinals back Communion for divorced and remarried

[LongingSoul]

Well, the Church gives us examples. The saints. The reason this is revealed to us is to help us to achieve heaven. God judges fairly and justly.

What exactly are you getting at? Judgement is relative?

In the business of judging according to our idea of justice, Jesus gave us parables like the unmerciful servant (Matt 18:21-35) and the workers in the vineyard (Matt 20:1-16).

God may be calling on us now to find love and mercy for those who have come to the table of faith later than us. Do we want to act like the unmerciful servant and throw them in prison for the rest of their lives as they deserve?

 

[Brendan]

In the business of judging according to our idea of justice, Jesus gave us parables like the unmerciful servant (Matt 18:21-35) and the workers in the vineyard (Matt 20:1-16).

God may be calling on us now to find love and mercy for those who have come to the table of faith later than us. Do we want to act like the unmerciful servant and throw them in prison for the rest of their lives as they deserve?

But Love and Mercy, by definition, means preventing them from damaging their soul through a reception of the Eucharist in a way that is contrary to the teachings of Christ.

That is why the position taken by Cardinal Burke IS a route of mercy, as it comes from the author of mercy.

We may certainly discuss the issue, but all discussion has to be framed within the context about what we know are doctrinally true.

1. Marriage cannot be attempted while one’s valid spouse remains alive
2. Any attempt at such a marriage brings about the sin of adultery
3. Receiving Holy Communion in such a state is damaging to one’s soul and provides no Grace
4. Any absolution from such adultery (like all sin) must be contingent upon repenting of the sin and firm purpose not to commit the sin again.

Those points are simply not debatable, as they all come from Christ. The Church has no power to change any of those doctrines.

 

[LongingSoul]

But Love and Mercy, by definition, means preventing them from damaging their soul through a reception of the Eucharist in a way that is contrary to the teachings of Christ.

That is why the position taken by Cardinal Burke IS a route of mercy, as it comes from the author of mercy.

We may certainly discuss the issue, but all discussion has to be framed within the context about what we know are doctrinally true.

1. Marriage cannot be attempted while one’s valid spouse remains alive
2. Any attempt at such a marriage brings about the sin of adultery
3. Receiving Holy Communion in such a state is damaging to one’s soul and provides no Grace
4. Any absolution from such adultery (like all sin) must be contingent upon repenting of the sin and firm purpose not to commit the sin again.

Those points are simply not debatable, as they all come from Christ. The Church has no power to change any of those doctrines.

Pope Francis made it very clear that the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage would not be changing. What we are also aware of is that from age to age, the Church formulates doctrinal principles according to the needs of the contemporary faithful and the contemporary Church. The doctrines over time have been reformulated regularly to convey Christs teachings within divergent times and cultures. We also know that those reformulations are upsetting to some people at the time. We either have faith in the Church to be guided by the Holy Spirit or not. We can make the clearest dot point explanation of doctrine that we can come up with… and at the end of the day, it can only be our personal interpretation of doctrine.

 

[Sirach2]

Those who attack the process of the synod by demonising Cardinal Kasper with strawman arguments, actively work against the Church and her mission for their own very human agendas.

Interestingly enough, I received this quote in my inbox today from Archbishop Sheen:

"Whenever you hear anyone attacking belief in God, the Moral Law, the divinity of Christ and His Mystical Body, remember this rule: Never consider so much what …people say, but why they say it. Some objections come not from their reason but from their behavior or the way they live. They are protesting, arguing against, or even sneering because they have an urge to do something about the thing which they are fighting."

Also interesting is the fact that Cardinal Kasper himself was the first to uphold the indissolubility of marriage. Anybody want the quote word for word from his book? Yes indeed, many straw men.

 

[Brendan]

Pope Francis made it very clear that the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage would not be changing. What we are also aware of is that from age to age, the Church formulates doctrinal principles according to the needs of the contemporary faithful and the contemporary Church. The doctrines over time have been reformulated regularly to convey Christs teachings within divergent times and cultures. We also know that those reformulations are upsetting to some people at the time. We either have faith in the Church to be guided by the Holy Spirit or not. We can make the clearest dot point explanation of doctrine that we can come up with… and at the end of the day, it can only be our personal interpretation of doctrine.

But those ‘reformulations’ have never (and can never) contradict themselves, as God does not contradict Himself. They can expand our knowledge, but never go against what has already be taught.

The Church is not morally relativist. Not only the teachings on marriage, but ALL of the points that I listed simply cannot be changed.

We can certainly be surprised by God. But since we know that the teachings on adultery, for example, come from God, they cannot change.

That gives us a very powerful way of determining if, in fact, the source we are being surprised from is, in fact God.

Any ‘surprise’ that teaches other than the four points I mentioned above, by definition, cannot be from God.

 

[Sirach2]

The Church is not morally relativist. Not only the teachings on marriage, but ALL of the points that I listed simply cannot be changed.

This is getting circular - .

Can you explain what this item really means?

1. Any absolution from such adultery (like all sin) must be contingent upon repenting of the sin and firm purpose not to commit the sin again.

What sin? The occasional relapse from the couple’s commitment to continency? Or failure to abandon the marriage vow and leave the children without one parent? Not even the church has stated this must be done.

So if you are advocating that couples are adulterous sinners, who infrequently relapse from their firm intent, and firm resolution not to fall again, you would be wrong. Just as certain – you cannot condemn a person who inadvertently commits any other mortal sin, though they are ever so intent on not committing it. We are fallen human beings prone to sin, due to our concupiscence. That’s why we need the Eucharist to remain strong in our fight against sin. Are you saying therefore, that the church cannot absolve this “sin” when the couple fully repents and firmly resolves not to commit it again? Do you require extreme heroism from them, but not from any other “sinners?”

 

[Ender]

I can’t see a situation where the first marriage won’t be addressed by some declaration of nullity.

“Some declaration of nullity” is pretty broad, and if it is broad enough to merely be a Catholic declaration of divorce it would be a repudiation of the doctrine that marriage is indissoluble. This also doesn’t seem to be the approach Cardinal Kasper has taken.

Ender

 

[Phil502]

Well, the Church gives us examples. The saints. The reason this is revealed to us is to help us to achieve heaven. God judges fairly and justly.

What exactly are you getting at? Judgement is relative?

No I’m getting at your statement questioning if your successful marriage is lessoned by the great sinners and adulterers (as you put it) possibly going to communion. I say no it does not lesson it, you stand alone in judgement.

Do we worry when we help someone out and they don’t appreciate it or even acknowledge it? We shouldn’t, doing the right thing is in itself proper, not the acknowledgement of it.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

No I’m getting at your statement questioning if your successful marriage is lessoned by the great sinners and adulterers (as you put it) possibly going to communion. I say no it does not lesson it, you stand alone in judgement.

Do we worry when we help someone out and they don’t appreciate it or even acknowledge it? We shouldn’t, doing the right thing is in itself proper, not the acknowledgement of it.

I am confused. The Church has a sacrament,(marraige) that sacrament has responsibilities. The Church has ANOTHER sacrament (Eucharist) that one must be in a state of grace to recieve. If the Church says that a continuous sinner not in the state of grace may receive the Lord then isn’t she either contradicting the Bible and Our Lord, or lessening my sacrament of marriage?

No wonder so many of the saints were unmarried! Perhaps Paul was correct! Perhaps the greater calling is to be unmarried!

 

[Brendan]

This is getting circular - .

Can you explain what this item really means?

1. Any absolution from such adultery (like all sin) must be contingent upon repenting of the sin and firm purpose not to commit the sin again.

What sin? The occasional relapse from the couple’s commitment to continency? Or failure to abandon the marriage vow and leave the children without one parent? Not even the church has stated this must be done.

One must have the resolve to separate, or if this is not feasible, to live together as brother and sister, to not engage in sexual relations.

If they have that commitment, they yes, they can be absolved of the sin of adultery. For they are recognizing that a sexual life in their current state, is, in fact, adultery against their valid spouse.

If they fall, like any other sinner, they can be absolved, but again, the commitment, the mental resolve NOT to commit that sin again.

Also, any attempt to persuade the participants that such a relationship is anything other than adultery would be to commit a falsehood, and that is not from God. Nor is it mercy or love.

Is that more clear?

 

[Sirach2]

If they fall, like any other sinner, they can be absolved, but again, the commitment, the mental resolve NOT to commit that sin again.

Is that more clear?

My point exactly. It is painful to see radical finger-pointing that these couples are “unrepentant sinners” when the outsider does not know the heroic effort they undergo to abide by church teaching.

 

[Sirach2]

Brendan:

Any ‘surprise’ that teaches other than the four points I mentioned above, by definition, cannot be from God.

There may be nuances that “surprise” the rigid conformist as the synod continues its work. For instance, take your remark …

1. Marriage cannot be attempted while one’s **valid **spouse remains alive.

The church needs to define what constitutes a “valid” spouse. There is being considered the “internal forum” judgment of the parties whereby there is an absolute certainty placed in their conscience by God Himself after much earnest prayer, assuring them their first marriage was invalid. Yet for varying reasons due to human limitations, proof of that may not be available through the tribunal process. What are these folks to do, when they are the innocent party without adequate proof?

If the church were to allow these persons to act in accord with their conscience in the internal forum solution, some would label this surprise from God as unlawful, and we’d have a new crop of sedevacantists on our hands to contest it. Certainly, it would call for a judgment by competent authority to permit certain persons to be responsible for the decisions of their conscience and receive communion. Some pastors permit this even today. I witnessed to this in L&S about a month ago.

There are good books available that treat of this, and it is difficult to be concise in a forum discussion. But I simply ask that those who do not have the authority of proper office in the church to refrain from judging others, as was stated in tonight’s Divine Office reading… (very timely!)

James 4:11-12
Do not, my brothers, speak ill of one another. The one who speaks ill of his brother or judges his brother is speaking against the law. It is the law he judges. If, however, you judge the law you are no observer of the law, you are its judge. There is but one Lawgiver and judge, one who can save and destroy. Who then are you to judge your neighbor?

 

[TEPO]

How is this to be done without either ignoring or reversing the doctrines involved? Which of these doctrines would you recommend doing away with?

• A second marriage after a divorce from a valid first marriage is adulterous.
• Adultery is a grave sin.
• A person in a state of grave sin cannot receive communion until the sin is absolved.
• A sin cannot be absolved absent contrition.
• Contrition includes the intention not to repeat the sin.

Ender

None of them need to be done away with because if the Church allows multiple sacramental marriages, there is no sin. Because there is no adultery in marriage.

The Church forbids divorce and “remarriage”, because they are evil. But it is not known if having two wives is intrinsically evil.

 

[onenow1]

I believe the Question is not phrased properly, the Church cannot change dogma, especially since Jesus said divorce only in the event of adultery.

God Bless
onenow1

 

[PRmerger]

I believe the Question is not phrased properly, the Church cannot change dogma, especially since Jesus said divorce only in the event of adultery.

God Bless
onenow1

Actually, that is a mistranslation. Jesus never gave anyone permission to divorce if they commit adultery.

That would mean that any man who’s tired of his current wife and wants to get a divorce with the “permission” of Jesus just has to cheat on her, and then he can say, “Hey! Jesus gave me permission to divorce you now!”

No.

That’s absurd, right?

The Greek word for “adultery” is: moicheia.
The word that is in the NT is: porneia.

Porneia is more properly translated to “illicit union”.

Please see this article for more info:
catholic.com/quickquestions/if-jesus-made-an-exception-for-divorce-in-cases-of-adultery-why-doesnt-the-church

 

[TEPO]

If adultery is intrinsically evil then so is having two wives. Nor is it exactly clear how one could possibly be sacramentally married to two wives, or how this would be significantly different than bigamy.

Ender

If the Church declares that a sacramental marriage is permissable for a second wife, then with the Authority of the Keys, what is bound on earth shall be bound in heaven, and communion can be accepted.

…unless there has been some Divine Revelation that has occured stating otherwise.
I doubt that is the case though, since God allowed multiple wives under Mosaic Law.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

If the Church declares that a sacramental marriage is permissable for a second wife, then with the Authority of the Keys, what is bound on earth shall be bound in heaven, and communion can be accepted.

…unless there has been some Divine Revelation that has occured stating otherwise.

I don’t expect to be posting any profiles on Match.com anytime soon.

 

[TEPO]

I don’t expect to be posting any profiles on Match.com anytime soon.

I would hope nobody would. Marriage was intended to be between one man and one woman, but since it has been allowed, briefly, then that suggests that it should be used sparingly, for special reasons. Nobody would/should (this is hypothetical) be allowed a second spouce without the authority of their Bishop. There would need to be special circumstances, such as children involved, or whatever else the Church deems appropriate. The ‘family’ is what the synod is about.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I would hope nobody would. Marriage was intended to be between one man and one woman, but since it has been allowed, briefly, then that suggests that it should be used sparingly, for special reasons. Nobody would/should (this is hypothetical) be allowed a second spouce without the authority of their Bishop. There would need to be special circumstances, such as children involved, or whatever else the Church deems appropriate. The ‘family’ is what the synod is about.

Sounds like you have it all figured out.

 

[TEPO]

Sounds like you have it all figured out.

It is “possible”.