What Pope Francis said about Communion for the divorced-and-remarried [CNA]

[lil_john]

So, if I understand correctly, Fr X may allow communion to divocees and remarried and not go against the Pope’s teaching and Fr Y can refuse to the same and not go against the Pope.

I have always understood that Catholic Teaching was always clearly defined. To be a Catholic, you must believe in the Triune God, etc. This news adds a grey area where there was none. I accept that the Pope is trying to bring souls back to the Church, but I cannot understand how not getting people to see the errors of their ways by living in sin and allowing them to partake in the Sacraments is the way to go. This is also sacreligious.

I am not saying that the big stick is the answer, but repentance must and should be encouraged by leaving your former sin behind. Repentance!!! that is the key word and show proof of repentance by respecting the sacrements and true repentance. And for the congregation,show a little Christian mercy to not judge the parties concerned, but as with a returning ex-convict/ prisoner, not to judge him on his past sins, but to give him a second chance.

But the errant parties must renounce the errors of their ways. That the priest may give them advice and that they take the advice to heart is but the first step. When their souls are pure againafter a good confesssion (and take heed from St Jerome who only received Communion a few times in his life because he considered himself unworthy), then may they receive Communion.

Mind you, I am not the Pope

 

[Fauken]

Who or what is AL? Do you have another link to clarify your question?

AL is Amoris Laetita.

 

[LiamQ]

Let’s approach it from this perspective.

Do you have specific quotations from Amoris Laetitia that you are wondering about?

 

[PaulfromIowa]

OP, where are you getting this term: “right to receive the Eucharist”?

I did some quick searching of Amoris Laetitia and do not see it or anything like it.

 

[Coder]

Jesus spoke of the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law. The spirit of the law of marriage is that the two are permanently one flesh and this bond is unbreakable.

However, the spirit of the law of sin is that one must be aware of and understand what they are doing in order for an action to be an offense against God. “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.”

We don’t believe in relativism of truth but there is a “relativism of practice/implementation” that has impacted the understanding (lack of actually) of many couples who marry in the Church. The Pope even went as far as to say that perhaps many Catholic marriages are null due this cultural failure in the Church and/or society (but still they are presumed valid).

So many today, may not be culpable for grave sin in remarrying when they may not have even embraced/known the full meaning of their original Catholic marriage.

If this seems too soft/lax, then to be fair, maybe sacraments should by denied to Catholics in a “legal/valid” original union who practice artificial contraception or who didn’t really believe all Church teachings but went through the motions of a “Catholic marriage” because “we’re Catholic so might as well get married in the Catholic Church”.

I think the Pope is a genius and is really exposing our hypocrisy today in a subtle way. “Let him who has no sin, cast the first stone.” “I have not come to condemn but to save.”

Should we also deny communion to the Catholics who attend mass only at Christmas and Easter while we’re at it, if we’re really going to be fair?

 

[kyrie03]

I think the Pope is a genius and is really exposing our hypocrisy today in a subtle way. “Let him who has no sin, cast the first stone.” “I have not come to condemn but to save.”

Let’s also deny communion to the Catholics who show up for mass at Christmas and Easter while we’re at it, if we’re really going to be “fair”.

Was St John Chrysostom a hypocrite for exhorting ministers to deny giving the Eucharist to those living in serious sin? Was he casting stones? (See my prior post)

Was St Paul in 1 Corinthians 1, ch 11 concerned about how someone might feel if they were denied Communion, or how it might impact their eternal salvation?
“Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinking unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.”

Was St Pope John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio paragraph 84 condemning or trying to teach a truth?
“The Church reaffirms her practice, which is based on Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state of life objectively contradicts the union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Furthermore, if there is another special pastoral reason that these were to be admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.”

 

[Coder]

No, he was not casting stones or being hypocritical. My point was not that at all. Why don’t we raise the question of receiving communion for the other situations that I mentioned as well as for remarried Catholics? If we’re not, then why is it such an issue for remarried Catholics to receive? Picking on one group only is where the hypocrisy is and I think that the Pope is a genius.

 

[kyrie03]

OP, where are you getting this term: “right to receive the Eucharist”?

I did some quick searching of Amoris Laetitia and do not see it or anything like it.

I am attempting to come to a clear understanding of WHAT is TRUE regarding reception of the sacraments.

Do we have a “right” approach the sacraments because we are members of the Church and want to be united with the Church? Or is there a “higher right”: that the Sacred Body and Blood not be profaned by those who are not-yet worthy to partake?

The confusing portion of AL focuses on leading those who are aware that they are in irregular unions back into a fuller union through use of Penance and the Eucharist while the sinners persist in the irregular unions. But the Church used to teach: before absolution could be given, there had to be repentance and firm purpose of sinning no more; that Holy Communion should be withheld from those who weren’t able or willing to meet the requirements.

WHY the Church taught as She did in the past, is missing from most discussions about AL.

We need to go back to the source and clear up the confusion about approaching the sacraments so that we don’t become guilty or lead others to be guilty of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, eating and drinking unto condemnation.

 

[kyrie03]

No, he was not casting stones or being hypocritical. My point was not that at all. Why don’t we raise the question of receiving communion for the other situations that I mentioned as well as for remarried Catholics? If we’re not, then why is it such an issue for remarried Catholics to receive? Picking on one group only is where the hypocrisy is.

What is your point that I missed?
I’m not singling out the divorced and remarried…AL mentions them and I’m trying to reconcile what the Church used to teach with what AL is now saying.

It behooves us all -not only, or even especially the divorced and remarried -but every one of us miserable sinners to research and learn WHAT exactly IS the Eucharist, and WHAT are our duties toward God in receiving such a Precious Gift? Do you have opinions on these?

 

[Coder]

Yes opinions. If Catholics/clergy don’t act as if missing mass purposefully is a mortal sin (let alone the whole year) or that artifical contraception is a sin, then how can we expect people to decline communion under such circumstances?

 

[Coder]

By the way, I wonder how St. Paul’s admonition regarding examination of conscience before communion was practiced or what it meant exactly, given that the practice of confession as we have it now was not in existence when he wrote that Scripture passage (nor during the first centuries of the Church).

 

[kyrie03]

Jesus spoke of the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law. The spirit of the law of marriage is that the two are permanently one flesh and this bond is unbreakable.

However, the spirit of the law of sin is that one must be aware of and understand what they are doing in order for an action to be an offense against God. “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.”

We don’t believe in relativism of truth but there is a “relativism of practice/implementation” that has impacted the understanding (lack of actually) of many couples who marry in the Church. The Pope even went as far as to say that perhaps many Catholic marriages are null due this cultural failure in the Church and/or society (but still they are presumed valid).

So many today, may not be culpable for grave sin in remarrying when they may not have even embraced/known the full meaning of their original Catholic marriage.
)

I also pray, “Father forgive them, they know not what they do,” (I include my own known and unknown transgressions). True charity consists in helping ALL men come to the fullness of the truth. That is why I think the focus about receiving Communion should be on our responsibilities toward our God: He is Truth and we need to conform our lives to His.

To suggest that many marriages are null seems to deny the teaching that God’s grace is sufficient. To be validly married is pretty straight forward: male and female, exchange of vows, consummation through the marital act. Who DOESN’T experience hardships and even tremendous ones in a marriage? It is through embracing crosses that spouses can achieve salvation and even merit special graces given through the sacrament of Matrimony to assist sometimes unwilling spouses. And if the couple were not properly disposed for marriage, shouldn’t that have been discerned during marriage preparation with the priest? …but this belongs in a different thread.

 

[Coder]

To suggest that many marriages are null seems to deny the teaching that God’s grace is sufficient. To be validly married is pretty straight forward…

Take it up with the Pope I happen to agree with him.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR REMINDER

Negative and rude comments toward CAF members, clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) or toward religious and religious orders are banned.

Everyone, online and offline, deserves to be spoken to and about respectfully. However, some posters seem to feel that clergy and religious are fair game.

If you have an issue with them, take it up in private, not on this forum or any of our forums.

You may cite something from another source, if you are not using it to further an agenda. Agenda posting is not allowed.

If we deem that you are disrespectful to our clergy and religious, or that you are making a personal attack, you will receive an infraction or even a ban.

You may disagree with a cleric’s political view as long as it is done charitably.

Proof what you write before you post.

You may not make disparaging remarks about:

• Vatican II
• Clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) of any group
• Religious (brothers, sisters, and nuns) of any order or congregation
• Lawful actions and disciiplines by the Church including the historical excommunication of the SSPX. It happened. Rome explained why it happened. End of story. Rome did not put it out there for debate by the faithful.
• Another poster or his/her ideas. You can disagree. You cannot attack,insult, ridicule or dismiss as unimportant. His opinion is as important to him as your opinion is to you.
• Parishes, pastors, civil leaders.
• Other religions – if you’re unsure how to speak in public about other faiths, look at the Pope Benedict XVI. He is fraternal, polite, and intellectual in discussing religious differences.

Avoid arguments that will lead to violations of charity. You don’t have to like what you read and others do not have to like what you post. But you must be civil toward each other and those who are not on the forum.

Be careful when discussing disputes between clergy. Members will be cited for ad hominem or uncharitable posts or links to blogs that violate CAF rules.

 

[LiamQ]

AL mentions them and I’m trying to reconcile what the Church used to teach with what AL is now saying.

The Holy Father has been shining a light on exceptions to the standard practice of the Church. As far as I can tell, the Church has always understood there to be exceptions, it’s just that those exceptions have not been addressed in a pastoral manner. That’s part of what the Pope is doing. He’s trying to create a Church-wide milieu of discernment in which exceptions, when they are possible, can be addressed.

I’m not sure what there is to reconcile, although I have to show my cards: I think everything surrounding this has been blown way out of proportion and that many people I’ve read on the internet—not you—need to stop hyperventilating.

 

[kyrie03]

Take it up with the Pope I happen to agree with him.

Belongs in another thread…

Opinions aren’t usually helpful in the pursuit of salvation and leading our children on path of righteousness.

Sacred Scripture, Church Fathers, traditions, clear explanations of Church doctrine…all these assist in passing on to our children a better understanding and love of God along with impetus to resist worldly and eternally deadly pursuits.

What and why are the truths regarding reception of the sacraments? How can I explain these truths to my children in confusing climate of Church today?

 

[kyrie03]

The Holy Father has been shining a light on exceptions to the standard practice of the Church. As far as I can tell, the Church has always understood there to be exceptions, it’s just that those exceptions have not been addressed in a pastoral manner. That’s part of what the Pope is doing. He’s trying to create a Church-wide milieu of discernment in which exceptions, when they are possible, can be addressed.

I’m not sure what there is to reconcile, although I have to show my cards: I think everything surrounding this has been blown way out of proportion and that many people I’ve read on the internet—not you—need to stop hyperventilating.

Pope St John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio to the episcopate, to the clergy, and to the faithful of the whole Catholic Church on the role of the Christian family in the modern world -The Pastoral Care of the Family in Difficult Cases -taught that the divorced and remarried cannot partake of the Eucharist and why in paragraph 84. I taught this to my children. Some are now in Catholic higher education learning something different. What else did I teach them that might now be labeled “outdated” by teachers they trust? How do I help them hold fast to the truth and lead others to the truth?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The Holy Father has been shining a light on exceptions to the standard practice of the Church. As far as I can tell, the Church has always understood there to be exceptions, it’s just that those exceptions have not been addressed in a pastoral manner. That’s part of what the Pope is doing. He’s trying to create a Church-wide milieu of discernment in which exceptions, when they are possible, can be addressed.

I’m not sure what there is to reconcile, although I have to show my cards: I think everything surrounding this has been blown way out of proportion and that many people I’ve read on the internet—not you—need to stop hyperventilating.

In point of fact, the hierarchy has always sought pastoral solutions to problematic situations in which children of the Church can find themselves. I think of how the declaration of nullity process has changed just across my decades of experience, as one small example of a litany I could recite.

As for your last statement, you are quite correct. I find it remarkable that the majority of those so fixated on this are, in point of fact, not bishops, are not theologians, and are not parish priests…therefore they have nothing concrete that they need to deal with in this situation – and they also lack the many years of study and then lived experience to integrate Amoris Laetitia into what it is we do pastorally. They are also not of that part of the People of God in a situation that prompts them to seek a more remedial pastoral accompaniment.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

What and why are the truths regarding reception of the sacraments? How can I explain these truths to my children in confusing climate of Church today?

Its in the Catechism and Canon Law. From memory “those conscious of grave sin may not receive Communion without Reconciliation.”
That is all your children need to worry about from their side.

Now the Priest offering Communion also has a responsibility - to make sure obstinate and grave sinners do not scandalise by publicly receiving even if they are in good conscience because they are in fact battling a weakness that therefore does not make them privately unworthy but may make then publicly “unworthy.”

That is not your problem, that is the priest’s problem and he needs to consult with his bishop and ultimately the Pope on these matters of external discipline.

All very clear to me.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Pope St John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio to the episcopate, to the clergy, and to the faithful of the whole Catholic Church on the role of the Christian family in the modern world -The Pastoral Care of the Family in Difficult Cases -taught that the divorced and remarried cannot partake of the Eucharist and why in paragraph 84. I taught this to my children. Some are now in Catholic higher education learning something different. What else did I teach them that might now be labeled “outdated” by teachers they trust? How do I help them hold fast to the truth and lead others to the truth?

Did you give them a set of unchanging moral principles that they must personally apply with fallible prudence and good conscience to one’s own complicated life …
or a set of rules for every action and circumstance where one size allegedly fits all without question or ambiguity.

The latter I believe is for children but when they mature I believe its the principles that will last the moral distance.