This is from First Things, as mainstream and as respectable as they get. "As for me and my house, we will serve The Lord." https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2016/09/catholics-face-a-choice CATHOLICS FACE A CHOICE Catholics face a choice. Will they uphold the Church's teaching that the divorced and remarried cannot be admitted to communion, or will they reject it? Pope Francis has brought this question before the Church, though he refuses to formulate it so starkly. He believes that an exception can be made in every case, so that the principle will be preserved even as it loses all force—as if faith need not shape practice, and practice would not remake faith. In the face of his campaign, many who value Catholic truth have fallen silent. It seems that only an outright denial of the Church's teaching could arouse their indignation. Anything short of that will be explained as a wise pastoral accommodation that is being misinterpreted by a few simple-minded fundamentalists. Such views make me want to quote Kierkegaard's The Present Age, which describes how subtle revolutions proceed (and which I recently quoted elsewhere). Here is how Kierkegaard describes the kind of transformation Francis seeks in Catholic life: Dialectical complications are difficult to root out. … No one, for example, wishes to do away with the power of the king, but if little by little it could be transformed into something purely fictitious every one would be quite prepared to cheer him. … In the same way people are quite prepared to leave the Christian terminology untouched, but they can surreptitiously interpolate that it involves no decisive thought. And so they remain unrepentant, for after all they have destroyed nothing. They no more desire a powerful king than an heroic liberator or religious authority. In all innocence they want the established order to continue, but they have the more or less certain reflective knowledge that it no longer exists. Perhaps you don’t believe that marriage really is indissoluble, that communion must be made in a state of grace, or that humans are eternally answerable for their actions. If so, you will find nothing objectionable in the course that Francis has taken. But if you believe otherwise, then the only possible response to Francis's effort is opposition. Because Christian teaching on marriage is true, it cannot change; because it is beautiful, it must not be obscured. Matthew Schmitz is literary editor of First Things.
But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD. - Joshua 24:15
When & If divorced Catholics can partake of Communion is one of those subjects that, very soon, I suspect will fade away as we will all be more worried about feeding and defending Kith & Kin from marauding Dope Heads, Common Criminals and Misguided Religion of Peace Adherents! ........... not to mention corrupt politicians looking for scapegoats to blame for it all .... in case Ya missed it!! Traditional Christians & Jews are now rated, by liberal politicians/their Media, as three notches below Whale Poop in The PC Pecking Order! GOD SAVE ALL HERE!!
"Pope Francis has brought this question before the Church, though he refuses to formulate it so starkly. He believes that an exception can be made in every case.." That is not correct. "It is important, however, to ensure that this window is not seen as providing unrestricted access to the sacraments or as if any situation could justify it. What is being proposed is a discernment that adequately distinguishes between cases. " People need to be guided in placing themselves and "their consciences before God" (Buenos Aires Bishops) "This discernment can never prescind from the Gospel demands of truth and charity, as proposed by the Church. … The following conditions must necessarily be present: humility, discretion and love for the Church and her teaching. … There can be no risk that a specific discernment may lead people to think that the Church maintains a double standard" (AL, 300). As we can see this "accompanying" then doesn't necessarily lead to the sacraments but can lead to "other forms of greater integration in the life of the Church: a stronger presence of community, participation in prayer or reflection groups, a commitment to different areas of service within the Church.”
Does this mean that people will no longer need to go through an annulment tribunal? Will parishes be divided into "liberal" and "conservative" churches? For example, I have 7 or churches I can attend within 15 miles from my home. I already know that some of the priests in some of the churches are very liberal, and will let anyone receive communion, and some priests are very conservative, and will mention at weddings and funerals that you must be a Catholic in full communion with the Church to receive. So I'm wondering if in a few years we will see some churches full of the divorced, perhaps even gay couples receiving, and other churches where only the orthodox Catholics seem to attend.
"Does this mean that people will no longer need to go through an annulment tribunal? " The internal forum is only for those who for one reason and another cannot use the external route...lack of witnesses etc. These people believe they might have had something essential missing in their first marriage. After careful discernment, they will, with the help of the pastor, know whether this is a fact. Not all will have a happy outcome but will be shown compassion and the way to integrate back into the Church, without recourse to Holy Communion.
Haven't all these routes been available all this while? If they have, then how will it be different now? The message given with AL's footnote and the Buenos Aires bishops' letter is that things have now changed to make it easier for the divorced and remarried or others in irregular unions to receive the Eucharist, even while in the state of mortal sin. The Church will no longer be Catholic (universal) if different priests discern/ accompany each couple in an irregular union according to his own understanding of what AL and mercy means ☹️ As it is, we see 2 very different interpretations by the Canadian and Buenos Aires bishops.
"The message given with AL's footnote and the Buenos Aires bishops' letter is that things have now changed to make it easier for the divorced and remarriedor others in irregular unions toreceive the Eucharist, even while inthe state of mortal sin." No where does it state you can receive the Eucharist in mortal sin. That is a pure assumption but nowhere does it state or imply that.
Why worry about mortal sin at all? Sure the 'new' Church position is that mortal sin is sooooo hard to commit - The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. So according to Pope Francis most Catholics who are married don't have valid marriages but those in 'irregular' unions and cohabiting have all the qualities of a sacramental marriage. For all we know Pope Francis might believe the same thing of same sex 'couples'. What weird times we live in.
This is all getting very long. This place is turning dark. I liked the spiritual debates but all the threads are becoming bitter and hateful. The non-sense of masses not being valid, our holy father who is evil, some troll who says we should all line up to be slaughtered. I think some of you have won. I am tired of...one negative thing after another. I rather talk about the spiritual matters and being a saint. Instead we bicker about Vatican 2, not having the Holy Spirit. Spiritually, I am done. And these threads are not helping. Brother al
Brother Al don't despair, Just say.......Oh Jesus in my Heart...... I believe in your tender love for me,........ I love you! God bless
"The message given with AL's footnote and the Buenos Aires bishops' letter is that things have now changed to make it easier for the divorced and remarried or others in irregular unions to receive the Eucharist, even while in the state of mortal sin." The whole point of the process is to discern if a first union was valid or not in the light of the teaching of the Church. This is what has always happened in the external forum. It is not a case of a remarried person just talking to a priest, as the Canadian Bishops clearly tell us, then being able to receive Holy Communion. No.. the person will have to go through a process to be able to understand their situation. Argentina document....."It is important, however, to ensure that this window is not seen as providing unrestricted access to the sacraments or as if any situation could justify it. What is being proposed is a discernment that adequately distinguishes between cases. " People need to be guided in placing themselves and "their consciences before God" The Canadian document explains...."The initial stage will have the pastor listen carefully to the history of the first relationship as well as to the experience of Christ Jesus and the Church in their lives. This will prepare the way for the couple to hear, in a second stage, the Lord’s teaching on marriage. In the third, the priest will summarize his understanding of the situation and the Church teaching relevant to the case, taking time as needed to clarify any points as yet unclear to the couple. In an atmosphere of unhurried consideration and prayer, they would then discuss how the couple can move forward in faithful and trusting obedience to the teachings of Christ in the company of his Church. As the Holy Father states: “What we are speaking of is a process of accompaniment and discernment which ‘guides the faithful to an awareness of their situation before God. . . ." If, after a very careful discernment between the person and the pastor and a conscience patiently formed, they come to the conclusion that the first union was indeed 'missing something.... ie not valid in the eyes of God... then they are able to move forward without impediment. ( Conscience is the capacity to judge what is to be done in a given circumstance in obedience to objective truth. It needs to be carefully and patiently formed (cf. Veritatis Splendor, 54) The Bishops all agree that the remarried persons might not come to the conclusion they were hoping for, but they will receive help in order to integrate into the life of the Church, though without recourse to Holy Communion. "As we can see this "accompanying" then doesn't necessarily lead to the sacraments but can lead to "other forms of greater integration in the life of the Church: a stronger presence of community, participation in prayer or reflection groups, a commitment to different areas of service within the Church.” (Buenos Aires Bishops)
"Things have now changed to make it easier for the divorced and remarried or others in irregular unions to receive the Eucharist, even while in the state of mortal sin." NO! Why is it so hard to understand? The person will have to undergo a process to determine if the first union was valid or not. If it wasn't valid then they are NOT committing a mortal sin. If it is determined that the first union was valid then they will be shown that in many ways they can still participate in the life of the Church.
"So according to Pope Francis most Catholics who are married don't have valid marriages but those in 'irregular' unions and cohabiting have all the qualities of a sacramental marriage." Meeting in July 2005 with priests in northern Italy, Pope Benedict also raised the question of the validity of marriages that, while performed in church, bound together two baptized Catholics who had little understanding of the faith, the meaning of the sacraments and the indissolubility of marriage. Asked about Communion for a divorced and civilly remarried person, Pope Benedict had responded, “I would say that a particularly painful situation is that of those who were married in the church, but were not really believers and did so just for tradition, and then finding themselves in a new, non valid marriage, convert, find the faith and feel excluded from the sacrament.” Pope Benedict said that when he was prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith he asked several bishops’ conferences and experts to study the problem, which in effect was “a sacrament celebrated without faith.” He said he had thought that the church marriage could be considered invalid because the faith of the couple celebrating the sacrament was lacking. He knew that further study was necessary. According to the Code of Canon Law, “For matrimonial consent to exist, the contracting parties must be at least not ignorant that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation.”
Yes, Janet, it is important to keep underlining the fact that the policies of Pope Francis follow the thinking of Pope Benedict and earlier popes. The question can be asked, why did Pope Benedict's words on this particular matter not raise the same objections with those who now criticize Francis. I believe the answer is that they probably never read Benedict's words at the time they were reported. The whole mentality of Catholics seems to have changed in recent years, possibly influenced by the pedophile scandals, and now the pope is no longer viewed as a leader whose role is to guide and teach. Only time will tell where this sea change is going to take the Church.
Lets think about this for a moment. Lets say 2 persons got what was assumed validly married in the Catholic Church, even though they may not have either understood what the church teaches is "valid" or were not practicing at the time. Then things got tough and off they went to start a new life. Willingly. Without caring if their marriage was valid or not because they did not care if they were sinning or not. So now later they go through the process and oh yay! they were not validly married that first time. Do they still not have to repent of adultery? Did they not commit adultery at the time of leaving their spouse for someone new? Even if it was years later, even if their spouse left them first (like happened to me) it was a rejection of God and His commandment. Please people don't fall for this stuff. You will be judged by the motives of your deepest heart at the end, and you must repent of all mortal sin you have committed. Giving someone who has not repented of their sins the Eucharist is NOT a mercy, it is a way to death. It is NOT feeding them, it is condemning them. Read your scripture, go back to the beginning of the Church. This is REALLY the body and blood of Christ, given for sinners who ask forgiveness and repent. There were people in the beginning who died because of receiving unworthily. We must give up everything to be worthy of Him. All of us. He must come first always before we can truly love any husband or wife correctly.
[QUOTE="janet Walton, post: 146214, member: 1518" Meeting in July 2005 with priests in northern Italy, Pope Benedict also raised the question of the validity of marriages that, while performed in church, bound together two baptized Catholics who had little understanding of the faith, the meaning of the sacraments and the indissolubility of marriage. Asked about Communion for a divorced and civilly remarried person, Pope Benedict had responded, “I would say that a particularly painful situation is that of those who were married in the church, but were not really believers and did so just for tradition, and then finding themselves in a new, non valid marriage, convert, find the faith and feel excluded from the sacrament.” Pope Benedict said that when he was prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith he asked several bishops’ conferences and experts to study the problem, which in effect was “a sacrament celebrated without faith.” He said he had thought that the church marriage could be considered invalid because the faith of the couple celebrating the sacrament was lacking. He knew that further study was necessary. [/QUOTE] Certain parts of what then Pope Benedict said seem to have been omitted. Look at the full version - "Another priest raised the topic of Communion for the faithful who are divorced and remarried. The Holy Father answered him as follows: We all know that this is a particularly painful problem for people who live in situations in which they are excluded from Eucharistic Communion, and naturally for the priests who desire to help these people love the Church and love Christ. This is a problem. None of us has a ready-made formula, also because situations always differ. I would say that those who were married in the Church for the sake of tradition but were not truly believers, and who later find themselves in a new and invalid marriage and subsequently convert, discover faith and feel excluded from the Sacrament, are in a particularly painful situation. This really is a cause of great suffering and when I was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I invited various Bishops' Conferences and experts to study this problem: a sacrament celebrated without faith. Whether, in fact, a moment of invalidity could be discovered here because the Sacrament was found to be lacking a fundamental dimension, I do not dare to say. I personally thought so, but from the discussions we had I realized that it is a highly-complex problem and ought to be studied further. But given these people's painful plight, it must be studied further. I shall not attempt to give an answer now, but in any case two aspects are very important. The first: even if these people cannot go to sacramental Communion, they are not excluded from the love of the Church or from the love of Christ. A Eucharist without immediate sacramental Communion is not of course complete; it lacks an essential dimension. Nonetheless, it is also true that taking part in the Eucharist without Eucharistic Communion is not the same as nothing; it still means being involved in the mystery of the Cross and Resurrection of Christ. It is still participating in the great Sacrament in its spiritual and pneumatic dimensions, and also in its ecclesial dimension, although this is not strictly sacramental. And since it is the Sacrament of Christ's passion, the suffering Christ embraces these people in a special way and communicates with them in another way differently, so that they may feel embraced by the Crucified Lord who fell to the ground and died and suffered for them and with them. Consequently, they must be made to understand that even if, unfortunately, a fundamental dimension is absent, they are not excluded from the great mystery of the Eucharist or from the love of Christ who is present in it. This seems to me important, just as it is important that the parish priest and the parish community make these people realize that on the one hand they must respect the indissolubility of the Sacrament, and on the other, that we love these people who are also suffering for us. Moreover, we must suffer with them, because they are bearing an important witness and because we know that the moment when one gives in "out of love", one wrongs the Sacrament itself and the indissolubility appears less and less true. We know the problem, not only of the Protestant Communities but also of the Orthodox Churches, which are often presented as a model for the possibility of remarriage. But only the first marriage is sacramental: the Orthodox too recognize that the other marriages are not sacramental, they are reduced and redimensioned marriages and in a penitential situation; in a certain sense, the couple can go to Communion but in the awareness that this is a concession "by economy", as they say, through mercy which, nevertheless, does not remove the fact that their marriage is not a Sacrament. The other point is that in the Eastern Churches for these marriages they have conceded the possibility of divorce too lightly, and that the principle of indissolubility, the true sacramental character of the marriage, is therefore seriously injured. On the one hand, therefore, is the good of the community and the good of the Sacrament that we must respect, and on the other, the suffering of the people we must alleviate. The second point that we should teach and also make credible through our own lives is that suffering, in various forms, is a necessary part of our lives. I would call this a noble suffering. Once again, it is necessary to make it clear that pleasure is not everything. May Christianity give us joy, just as love gives joy. But love is always also a renunciation of self. The Lord himself has given us the formula of what love is: those who lose themselves find themselves; those who spare or save themselves are lost. It is always an "Exodus", hence, painful. True joy is something different from pleasure; joy grows and continues to mature in suffering, in communion with the Cross of Christ. It is here alone that the true joy of faith is born, from which even they are not excluded if they learn to accept their suffering in communion with that of Christ." When read in its entirety, one sees clearly that no confusion on the matter has been introduced.
1Cor 11:27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. 30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep . There are two issues involved, I believe. The first and most important is the enormity of the gift. In the early Church, sickness and death was at times associated with receiving Holy Communion without examining one's conscience and repenting of sin. We must realize the gift the Father offers. As Carmel333 says: This is REALLY the body and blood of Christ! It should go without saying that we must approach the altar in reverence, humility, and awe! But then, I said it. Secondly, isn't the intent of the Pope to encourage priests to lead the divorced and remarried in a type of examination that will encourage a grasping of the truth and repentance (no free pass for receiving Holy Communion here) . It is concern over a possible faulty process relative to the second point that is at the heart of this debate. But even deeper is the awareness of apostates within the Church that will use this to their advantage. We must beg the Lord for His protection and wisdom, and for clarity from the Magisterium. I am reminded of what Paul said to the leaders of the Churches when at Miletus. Maranatha! Acts 20: 28 "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers , to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 "I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.
It is hard to understand exactly because things have changed, or rather they are trying to change. Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio The divorced and remarried cannot be admitted to Eucharistic Communion since St. John Paul II stated communion to divorce/remarried couple - without annulments cannot be admited to the sacrament: Taken from: L'Osservatore Romano Weekly Edition in English 5 February 1997 There is no circumstance where this can be decided outside of the annulment process. This has been stated as such, just a few decades ago, by a saint, in an apostolic exhortation. Do you disagree?
From the Buenos Aires bishops' guidelines: 5) Whenever feasible, and depending on the specific circumstances of a couple, and especially when both partners are Christians walking together on the path of faith, the priest may suggest a decision to live in continence. Amoris Laetitia does not ignore the difficulties arising from this option (cf. footnote 329) and offers the possibility of having access to the Sacrament of Reconciliation if the partners fail in this purpose (cf. footnote 364, recalling the teaching that Saint John Paul II sent to Cardinal W. Baum, dated 22 March, 1996). 6) In other, more complex cases, and when a declaration of nullity has not been obtained, the above mentioned option may not, in fact, be feasible. Nonetheless, a path of discernment is still possible. If it comes to be recognized that, in a specific case, there are limitations that mitigate responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), especially when a person believes they would incur a subsequent wrong by harming the children of the new union, Amoris Laetitia offers the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and Eucharist (cf. footnotes 336 and 351). These sacraments, in turn, dispose the person to continue maturing and growing with the power of grace.
