Two more cardinals back Communion for divorced and remarried

[pnewton]

Yes.

This is something I reject from a pope: “That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error.” --Pope Pius X
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10law.htm

Let me use this statement as an example of misunderstanding in the current topic. First, I accept this premise totally, and no pope has since contradicted this statement. Today, we accept a pluralistic society, and this has been promoted as a good in today’s world. However, the newer understanding does not contradict what St. Pius said, as it is understood that a separation of church and state is an accommodation to modern society, not an absolute moral good. In an ideal society, a cooperative effort to govern between church and state could be acceptably morally.

Now if we apply this to the current debate, we need to note that no cardinal is violating Church doctrine or promoting heresy. What is being debated is whether their can be any accommodation made in regards to reception of communion. Either the Church has the authority to bind and loose, or she does not.

If she can, by authority alone, determine to give communion, then the question remains whether it remains a bad idea, or could be a benefit.

If she cannot bind or loose in this matter, then that means that the reality of the state remains what it is in God’s eyes, and in His alone. In this case, a presumption of validity in all marriages is not necessary and the Church could allow the one closest to the matter, the individual, to determine if they are in a state of mortal sin.

I have been trying to find out if the idea that a decree of nullity is a finding that the marriage was null, or a ruling nullifying the marriage.

 

[pnewton]

FYI - I just came across this:

canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/09/22/the-annulment-argument-a-quick-quide-to-the-two-sides/

It is a worthy read of the problems considered.

I would note one disagreement. I understand that a juridic process allows for an objective understanding of the nature of the marriage bond. However, it is also established in secular law not to waste time when the objective nature of the decision is obvious. Judges can issue summary judgments, or dismiss cases as frivolous. If the goal is to streamline annulments, then any case that can be decided with moral certainty without the process, would hasten the process for those that are needed. Some of the examples of when the marriage not only should not be resumed to be valid, but can be known to be invalid is when:

1. The couple enters marriage with a contract on how they will divorce.
2. One of the partners is sterilized before the marriage to prevent children.
3. Any placement of a literal shotgun between the shoulder blades of the groom.

 

[Ender]

"52. The synod father also considered the possibility of giving the divorced and remarried access to the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist.

Just so everyone is clear, this is the issue: whether those who have divorced from valid marriages and remarried may receive communion.

Some synod fathers insisted on maintaining the present regulations, because of the constitutive relationship between participation in the Eucharist and communion with the Church as well as the teaching on the indissoluble character of marriage.

“Regulations” is deceptive in this context since what is being discussed are changes to the doctrines involved. The use of the word regulation makes it appear that all that is involved are modifications to certain disciplines.

Access to the sacraments might take place if preceded by a penitential practice, determined by the diocesan bishop.

This is what I consider objectionable because it involves the repudiation of relevant doctrines. It is not being sold as a repudiation, only a modification, but the result will be the same. What penitential practice can atone for ongoing sins? If the second marriage is not adulterous then no penance is necessary, but if it is adulterous then no penance is possible so long as the adulterous relations continue. This circle cannot be squared.

The subject needs to be thoroughly examined, bearing in mind the distinction between an objective sinful situation and extenuating circumstances…

What this is saying is that one may continue to commit objectively sinful acts so long as there were “extenuating circumstances” for beginning them. That is, committing grave sins is OK so long as when you started committing them you didn’t believe they were sinful. This is preposterous.

Ender

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Just so everyone is clear, this is the issue: whether those who have divorced from valid marriages and remarried may receive communion.
“Regulations” is deceptive in this context since what is being discussed are changes to the doctrines involved. The use of the word regulation makes it appear that all that is involved are modifications to certain disciplines.
This is what I consider objectionable because it involves the repudiation of relevant doctrines. It is not being sold as a repudiation, only a modification, but the result will be the same. What penitential practice can atone for ongoing sins? If the second marriage is not adulterous then no penance is necessary, but if it is adulterous then no penance is possible so long as the adulterous relations continue. This circle cannot be squared.
What this is saying is that one may continue to commit objectively sinful acts so long as there were “extenuating circumstances” for beginning them. That is, committing grave sins is OK so long as when you started committing them you didn’t believe they were sinful. This is preposterous.

Ender

 

[Justin_Swanton]

This circle cannot be squared.
What this is saying is that one may continue to commit objectively sinful acts so long as there were “extenuating circumstances” for beginning them. That is, committing grave sins is OK so long as when you started committing them you didn’t believe they were sinful. This is preposterous.

Ender

Yep, the issue is clear enough. There’s no fudging it or dressing it up with a terminology that might make it look acceptable in certain theoretical circumstances (there are no circumstances in which it would be acceptable).

This is what is beginning to split the hierarchy down the middle. Muller, Burke and Schneider are being as blunt as a blacksmith’s hammer. They need to keep repeating what they are saying and more prelates need to join them. We ***need *this free-for-all. Sensus fidelium, get noisy!

 

[FollowChrist34]

Yep, the issue is clear enough. There’s no fudging it or dressing it up with a terminology that might make it look acceptable in certain theoretical circumstances (there are no circumstances in which it would be acceptable).

This is what is beginning to split the hierarchy down the middle. Muller, Burke and Schneider are being as blunt as a blacksmith’s hammer. They need to keep repeating what they are saying and more prelates need to join them. We ***need *this free-for-all. Sensus fidelium, get noisy!

 

[Fred_E]

The Pope is the leader of the Church and has the authority to bind and loose because he has the keys which enable him to do so.

Of course the Power of the Keys does not authorize the Holy Father to endorse error, change revelation, or otherwise exercise his authority to the detriment of the Church.

 

[1newcatholic]

FYI - I just came across this:

canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/09/22/the-annulment-argument-a-quick-quide-to-the-two-sides/

It is a worthy read of the problems considered.

I would note one disagreement. I understand that a juridic process allows for an objective understanding of the nature of the marriage bond. However, it is also established in secular law not to waste time when the objective nature of the decision is obvious. Judges can issue summary judgments, or dismiss cases as frivolous. If the goal is to streamline annulments, then any case that can be decided with moral certainty without the process, would hasten the process for those that are needed. Some of the examples of when the marriage not only should not be resumed to be valid, but can be known to be invalid is when:

1. The couple enters marriage with a contract on how they will divorce.
   **2. One of the partners is sterilized before the marriage to prevent children.
   **3. Any placement of a literal shotgun between the shoulder blades of the groom.

Regarding 2: If someone is sterilized before they become Catholic, can they later enter into a valid Catholic marriage?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Regarding 2: If someone is sterilized before they become Catholic, can they later enter into a valid Catholic marriage?

Yes, however if one is mutilated or castrated then no.

 

[pnewton]

Regarding 2: If someone is sterilized before they become Catholic, can they later enter into a valid Catholic marriage?

I apologize for lack of clarity. I meant sterilized immediately before marriage to prepare for that marriage without the risk of having children.

As Hoosier said, yes someone sterilized can still be married.

 

[1newcatholic]

I apologize for lack of clarity. I meant sterilized immediately before marriage to prepare for that marriage without the risk of having children.

As Hoosier said, yes someone sterilized can still be married.

Thank you (both).

 

[RGCheek]

*

25 “Now his elder son was in the field; and when he came and approached the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 He called one of the slaves and asked what was going on. 27 He replied, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fatted calf, because he has got him back safe and sound.’

28 Then he became angry and refused to go in. His father came out and began to plead with him. 29 But he answered his father, ‘Listen! For all these years I have been working like a slave for you, and I have never disobeyed your command; yet you have never given me even a young goat so that I might celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours came back, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fatted calf for him!’

31 Then the father said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found.’”*

---

*9 When those hired about five o’clock came, each of them received the usual daily wage.10 Now when the first came, they thought they would receive more; but each of them also received the usual daily wage.

11 And when they received it, they grumbled against the landowner, 12 saying, ‘These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’

13 But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage?14 Take what belongs to you and go; I choose to give to this last the same as I give to you. 15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?’ 16 So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”*​

A great passage, but not really analogous here.

The landowner paid them all the same wage, but he didn’t change the terms of anyone’s agreements. He didn’t tell the man who cleared the back quarter that really, he didn’t mean for that work to be done, so you don’t get paid. He didn’t tell them to shovel pig manure then laugh at them and say he didn’t mean it.

This mother of my friend stopped taking the church seriously since the church doesn’t seem to take some of its own doctrines very seriously at times. That family has now been non-Catholic for three generations.

How does that build the church, spread the Gospel or tend to the needs of the sheep?

 

[1newcatholic]

A great passage, but not really analogous here.

The landowner paid them all the same wage, but he didn’t change the terms of anyone’s agreements. He didn’t tell the man who cleared the back quarter that really, he didn’t mean for that work to be done, so you don’t get paid. He didn’t tell them to shovel pig manure then laugh at them and say he didn’t mean it.

This mother of my friend stopped taking the church seriously since the church doesn’t seem to take some of its own doctrines very seriously at times. That family has now been non-Catholic for three generations.

How does that build the church, spread the Gospel or tend to the needs of the sheep?

Anyone who wants to can quit taking their kids to church–that doesn’t make them an authority on what the Catholic church should do or teach. Some people will leave because the Catholic Church grows with the times, and others will join. There is a season to every purpose under heaven–a time to break down, and a time to build up.

If people decide not to be faithful to the church because the church doesn’t do what they want, the only thing we can do is pray for them.

The parables are relevant in that it shows that even in Jesus’ day there were obedient but indignant people who become outraged or frustrated when the One in charge shows mercy or generosity to other people. Those who work hard, those who obey, those who do the hard part are often disappointed when people who don’t work hard, people who disobey, are given the same perks as they are–but it’s God’s prerogative to do as he pleases with His own.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Anyone who wants to can quit taking their kids to church–that doesn’t make them an authority on what the Catholic church should do or teach. Some people will leave because the Catholic Church grows with the times, and others will join. There is a season to every purpose under heaven–a time to break down, and a time to build up.

If people decide not to be faithful to the church because the church doesn’t do what they want, the only thing we can do is pray for them.

The parables are relevant in that it shows that even in Jesus’ day there were obedient but indignant people who become outraged or frustrated when the One in charge shows mercy or generosity to other people. Those who work hard, those who obey, those who do the hard part are often disappointed when people who don’t work hard, people who disobey, are given the same perks as they are–but it’s God’s prerogative to do as he pleases with His own.

I guess that goes both ways. Like for the people who turned their back on the Church and married outside of Her mantle.

Over a thousand posts… This thread can’t end fast enough…

 

[RGCheek]

Anyone who wants to can quit taking their kids to church–that doesn’t make them an authority on what the Catholic church should do or teach. Some people will leave because the Catholic Church grows with the times, and others will join. There is a season to every purpose under heaven–a time to break down, and a time to build up.

If people decide not to be faithful to the church because the church doesn’t do what they want, the only thing we can do is pray for them.

No, I think they would leave because the Catholic Church would have ejected one of its core beliefs that the church even sacrificed the kingdom of England to keep.

That would look pretty stupid today if it decided to just flow with the pagan flow.

The parables are relevant in that it shows that even in Jesus’ day there were obedient but indignant people who become outraged or frustrated when the One in charge shows mercy or generosity to other people. Those who work hard, those who obey, those who do the hard part are often disappointed when people who don’t work hard, people who disobey, are given the same perks as they are–but it’s God’s prerogative to do as he pleases with His own.

The outraged people today wouldn’t be outraged because the church gave the same reward to all but because the church changed its standards and what was required.

IT’s kind of funny how you cant get that.

 

[muffindell]

No, I think they would leave because the Catholic Church would have ejected one of its core beliefs that the church even sacrificed the kingdom of England to keep.

That would look pretty stupid today if it decided to just flow with the pagan flow.

The outraged people today wouldn’t be outraged because the church gave the same reward to all but because the church changed its standards and what was required.

IT’s kind of funny how you cant get that.

’ just flow with the pagan flow’ oh come on. The Christian church is totally aligned with the Pagan flow, Christmas and everything about it is pagan, the same can be said about Easter. Both are stolen Pagan festivals

 

[RGCheek]

’ just flow with the pagan flow’ oh come on. The Christian church is totally aligned with the Pagan flow, Christmas and everything about it is pagan, the same can be said about Easter. Both are stolen Pagan festivals

hehehe, one cannot steal a date on a calendar. Dates are kind of a time share thing and everyone can use them as needed, it isn’t property.

Back in the ancient era, the common people did not have easy access to calendars but since most were farmers they had a fair knowledge of astronomical events such as equinoxes and solstices that were easily observed. So major religious days tended to coincide with these four celestial events as celebratory dates.

Of these four events, literally dozens and dozens of religions used them. Did the earlier religions have dibs on them exclusively? Of course not, and so later religions did not steal anything. That’s like someone telling you that you stole someones parking spot at a local grocer parking lot merely because they had parked there before you.

Christmas was likely chosen because of its proximity to Jesus birth which was right about a month or so after the Roman census which was also a tax collection event. Since the Romans maximized everything they could, they chose census dates to be about the time of the local cash crop harvest. In Palestine this is mostly the olive harvest which I believe is in November in that area back then. Thus the taxes and census would be around end of November beginning of December. Since Mary was able to travel there and they got there late for the census, I think it a reasonable guess to say that JEsus was likely born in mid to late December. And so the winter solstice would be an appropriate date to celebrate His birth.

No stolen pagan holidays, just historical coincidence.

 

[LongingSoul]

No, I think they would leave because the Catholic Church would have ejected one of its core beliefs that the church even sacrificed the kingdom of England to keep.

Historically people ‘leave the Church’ because of lapse, lukewarm disconnectedness or plain old pride. People faithful to Christ and with fidelity to the seat of Peter, are more able to ‘think with the Church’ and understand the role of the Magisterium in honing their faith and guiding them to heaven. That requires humility and trust that Jesus is with the Church til the end of days.

The outraged people today wouldn’t be outraged because the church gave the same reward to all but because the church changed its standards and what was required.

IT’s kind of funny how you cant get that.

In fact there are some outraged people today who can’t abide the teaching of the Church regarding the salvation of those souls “outside the Church”. When the CCC says…

**847 **This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

They don’t want the Church to teach that. They want to continue to believe that only baptised Catholics will enter the gates of heaven.

People practicing the Catholic faith are always going to struggle with pride and jealousy in the face of Gods mercy to sinners.

 

[Tomdstone]

Historically people ‘leave the Church’ because of lapse, lukewarm disconnectedness or plain old pride. People faithful to Christ and with fidelity to the seat of Peter, are more able to ‘think with the Church’ and understand the role of the Magisterium in honing their faith and guiding them to heaven. That requires humility and trust that Jesus is with the Church til the end of days.

In fact there are some outraged people today who can’t abide the teaching of the Church regarding the salvation of those souls “outside the Church”. When the CCC says…

They don’t want the Church to teach that. They want to continue to believe that only baptised Catholics will enter the gates of heaven.

People practicing the Catholic faith are always going to struggle with pride and jealousy in the face of Gods mercy to sinners.

Do you think that CCC 847 is a change in Catholic teaching?
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Churchoutside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that for salvation it is absolutely necessary that they be entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312:
“Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and non-exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

 

[PRmerger]

Do you think that CCC 847 is a change in Catholic teaching?
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Churchoutside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that for salvation it is absolutely necessary that they be entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312:
“Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and non-exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

To whom were these teachings referring? Were they talking about Protestants?