The Pope on Remarried Catholics Receiving Communion

[Davidnic]

For points to be valid you do not need to then expound on every other valid point in parallel cases.

The reason sexual sins are focused on is because they are common to so many people. And the sins are often justified by those who favor the freedom to do what they want over the freedom to do as the should.

But the Church has denied Communion for racism in the past as well as many other public sins that have a societal effect. This is not historically one sided. The Church addresses sins as they become epidemic or culturally cancerous. This is why we have seen such a focus in the last few decades on the sexual. Because the justification of such sins has become so commonplace as to be seen by many as a right.

But the Church forcefully condemns many sins.

Any Catholic who thinks that they are alright if they are intentionally fleecing the poor just because they are not living in adultery is delusional. Every time someone speaks against one sin they do not need to go on a 50 post opus about all other sins to justify the Truth about the one the thread is about.

If a Catholic thinks that all other sins are unimportant because the Church often speaks on the sins that attack marriage and sexuality and the Image of God in the defenseless child...that is not the fault of the Church. And it is not incumbent on those who are defending the Teaching of the Church to add a defense of all teachings in order to prove validity of the Truth.

There are many offenses against the Image of God, from the murder of the unborn to making the born live as slaves to destitution to satisfy greed. The Church focuses on them all. And in many situations pastors have denied the Sacraments to those who they know are in manifest sin. They do this sometimes by approaching them in private to tell them to resolve the situation and sometimes by informing them in public if need be.

 

[BroIgnatius]

This thread is about "The Pope on Remarried Catholics Receiving Communion", not about all the other sins.

Anyone in a sinful lifestyle, no matter what sin is involved, is barred from the Sacraments until such time as they repent of their ways. A person who lives a lifestyle of a thief, a slanderer, drug dealer, etc. are equally barred from the Sacraments. But, the priest cannot withhold communion to such a person unless that person is a pubic sinner.

There is no imbalance. Sin is sin. All sin is important. It is important for us to repent of our sins.

The sins talked about here, however, are not just sins, but just happen to effect the validity of Sacrament of Marriage. The Church has an solemn obligation to protect the integrity of all of the Seven Sacraments given to her by God.

It is laughable that the Church protecting the integrity of the Sacraments will "backfire on the Church eventually." Its been almost 2000 years and it hasn't backfired yet.

 

[concretecamper]

This thread is about "The Pope on Remarried Catholics Receiving Communion", not about all the other sins.

The only defense against Traditional Catholics is to muddy the waters with other sins

Anyone in a sinful lifestyle, no matter what sin is involved, is barred from the Sacraments until such time as they repent of their ways. A person who lives a lifestyle of a thief, a slanderer, drug dealer, etc. are equally barred from the Sacraments. But, the priest cannot withhold communion to such a person unless that person is a pubic sinner.

But I know this guy who is a second cousin to my sister who builds houses for the poor and in their spare time feeds the hungry at the mission. Surely these works will negate their sinful life style. How dare you criticize them

The sins talked about here, however, are not just sins, but just happen to effect the validity of Sacrament of Marriage. The Church has an solemn obligation to protect the integrity of all of the Seven Sacraments given to her by God..

How dare you focus on this sin! There are greedy people in the world and all you can talk about is adultery. I know it is the topic but still

It is laughable that the Church protecting the integrity of the Sacraments will "backfire on the Church eventually." Its been almost 2000 years and it hasn't backfired yet.

But I know this person who is very active in the Church, even passes herself off as a deaconess to some and sings at every Mass on Sunday and she is greatly troubled by the Church's archaic old fashioned stance on marraige

 

[Fantine]

And I know people who lack compassion, but Jesus doesn't lack compassion--and I base my faith on Him, not them.

 

[BroIgnatius]

Good works do not mitigate a sinful lifestyle.

Jesus was compassionate and he said, "Go and sin no more." The adulteress was told by Jesus to stop sinning, to stop her lifestyle of promiscuity (John 8). Compassion without holding a person accountable is not compassion. Jesus said that he did not come to bring peace, but division, even in families, because He knew that His teachings and the Truth that He brings to us would not be accepted by many people and thus cause arguments and division.

His compassion is love, and love does not rejoice in that which is wrong (1 Cor 13). These are the words of Jesus Himself. So if you wish to follow Jesus you must follow all that he teaches, including the issues we have discussed. Jesus said in John 14:15, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments."

His commandments are administered by His Church. This happened when he made Peter the first pope of the New Covenant. He gave Peter and his successors the "keys of the kingdom" (Matt 16:19; Isaiah 22:21-22). This means that he gave the pope the authority to protect and to interpret the faith. The Bible itself says that we are not to interpret personally(1 Peter 1:20). The Bible says that the CHURCH, and not the Bible, is the pillar and foundation of Truth (1 Tim 3:15).

We are not to usurp Church teachings with our opinions. We are to conform our opinions to the Church teachings. Both Ultra-Traditionalist and Liberals fail to submit there opinions to Church teachings. These two groups are merely two sides of the same rebellious and prideful coin. They just argue over different issues. (BTW, Even if a person is a conservative Catholic he behaves as a liberal the moment he places his opinion above Church teaching.)

The stating of the doctrinal and ontological facts I have given here are not my opinion, but the absolute truth. I would advise you to conform yourself to the Church teachings.

But, I am afraid this discussion has devolved into an unwillingness to follow or accept the moral precepts Christ and his Church, which include admonishing the sinner. This is a solemn duty and if we do not do this when we have the opportunity to do this then we become an accomplice to that person's sin (see Catechism 2480 and 1868)

Here is 1868
1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

- by participating directly and voluntarily in them;

- by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;

- by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;

- by protecting evil-doers.

But, since this conversation has devolved, I will not indulge that departure. I have presented the Church teaching, God's teaching, in detail and clearity, and backed it up with Scripture and Church teachings. There is nothing more to be said and i will not take the bait of that is offered by obfuscating and hijacking this discussion into personal opinions that are contrary to the doctrines of Christ.

Thus, this conversation is over. Good day.

 

[Fantine]

Good day to you, too.

I will continue not to admonish the sinner because there are so many others who do it with so much more enthusiasm, vim, and vigor than I could muster.

 

[BroIgnatius]

Back to the topic, here is an interesting article,
Bishop Olmsted: Pope Has Not Changed Catholic Practice on Communion for Divorced and Remarried

"The exhortation does not advocate the reception of holy Communion for those who are divorced and remarried. Pope Francis specifically calls those in this situation ‘to seek the grace of conversion,’” the Phoenix bishop said, citing the 78th paragraph of the exhortation..

 

[Open Heart]

I addressed this issue. Even if the getting married part was venial sin, IT DOES NOT MATTER. The state of the relationship is sinful as it is ongoing

It is ongoing venial sin.

 

[Open Heart]

See my previous post. Once informed the adultery must stop. Any lack of culpability occurs up to the time a person is informed that they situation is sin. AFTER that information, the couple is culpable.

Forgiveness forgives past sins, not future ones.

You simply are not listening, and I'm not going to repeat myself.

 

[Open Heart]

Back to the topic, here is an interesting article,
Bishop Olmsted: Pope Has Not Changed Catholic Practice on Communion for Divorced and Remarried

"The exhortation does not advocate the reception of holy Communion for those who are divorced and remarried. Pope Francis specifically calls those in this situation ‘to seek the grace of conversion,’” the Phoenix bishop said, citing the 78th paragraph of the exhortation..

So who are you going to believe? This bishop who is saying what the Pope says? Or the Pope saying what the Pope says?

 

[BroIgnatius]

It is ongoing venial sin.

I am sorry, but it is not "ongoing venial sin." Once a person who is ignorant of the doctrine on marriage and its validity, they can no longer claim ignorance, and thus from that point on to continue in a sexual relationship in an invalid marriage is mortal. This is Church teaching about the criteria of mortal sin.

Bishop Olmsted has correctly interpreted the Pope's words. It is to people like Olmsted, Burke, and especially the Prefect of the Congregation on the doctrine of the Faith to interpret. The Prefect, by the way, agrees with clerics like Olmsted and Burke.

The Pope words, carelessly and ambiguously said, as is his way, when closely examined, are suggesting an alternative procedure to determine nullity of previous marriages. He is not suggesting the infallible doctrine be changed as he cannot change infallible doctrine no matter how much people want him to.

If the Pope can change infallible doctrine then Jesus is a liar. Jesus is not a liar. Jesus trumps all and He is the one that defines a valid marriage. The Church can never change that. Period.

Interpretation of this letter or any other words or letters must use the key of infallible dogma and infallible doctrine. Without the key any interpretation is likely to be wrong.

How many times must I repeat this teaching that is not my opinion, but established Church teaching?

Here is the Bishop's Full Article, Cardinal Burke's article, and the Pope's non-binding Letter.

People, LEARN the Faith and conform your opinions to the Faith, and not the other way around.

 

[Open Heart]

I am sorry, but it is not "ongoing venial sin." Once a person who is ignorant of the doctrine on marriage and its validity, they can no longer claim ignorance, and thus from that point on to continue in a sexual relationship in an invalid marriage is mortal. This is Church teaching about the criteria of mortal sin.

There is more happening here besides ignorance that it is a sin which diminishes its gravity. For example, if the relationship has produced children, it is wrong to expect the couple to split up, and beyond the ability of most to live together without succumbing to temptation. Therefore, given that there is an ongoing issue of lack of full consent, even after knowing that it is a sin, it remains a venial sin.

 

[BroIgnatius]

There is more happening here besides ignorance that it is a sin which diminishes its gravity. For example, if the relationship has produced children, it is wrong to expect the couple to split up, and beyond the ability of most to live together without succumbing to temptation. Therefore, given that there is an ongoing issue of lack of full consent, even after knowing that it is a sin, it remains a venial sin.

The presence of Children does not mitigate the sin. Mortal sin requires a grave sin, knowledge, and free choice to commit the sin. It says nothing about that being mitigated in any other way.

The couple is not required to split up, only not to have sex. God says that we CAN resist temptation. This is a promise of God and God is not a liar.

1 Corinthians 10

13 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it

Please provide EVIDENCE for your opinion as it is not in line with Church teaching.

 

[gabbi0408]

I'm late to the conversation, but from what I've heard and read, these "special" circumstances are very rare. Also, this is not new, but has always been Church teaching, there has always been these rare circumstances and the Church has recognized this. It may be a situation in which a couple has children and cannot separate. However they would be expected to live as brother and sister.

The thing I don't understand it what would prevent these couples from making their irregular situation regular? If divorced and remarried, why not pursue an annulment and, if granted, have their marriage validated? Or is it that they've been denied an annulment? If that's they case they must abstain from sexual relations in order to receive the Eucharist.

 

[Fantine]

Sometimes annulments are refused. One woman told me her husband had applied four times for an annulment and been refused. They had one parish priest who told them they couldn't receive Communion and another who said they could, so they would receive Communion (or not) depending on who said Mass.

(The wife had gotten her annulment.)

And I don't think the conditions are that rare. Of course I'm older, but the two remarried couples I knew, both involving quite elderly husbands, probably lived as brother and sister out of necessity. And all the remarried couples will eventually reach that stage.

They weren't giving scandal to anyone--I knew both for years before I knew they were married outside the Church. You can't give scandal if everyone assumed you were married Catholic.

 

[BroIgnatius]

I'm late to the conversation, but from what I've heard and read, these "special" circumstances are very rare. Also, this is not new, but has always been Church teaching, there has always been these rare circumstances and the Church has recognized this. It may be a situation in which a couple has children and cannot separate. However they would be expected to live as brother and sister.

The thing I don't understand it what would prevent these couples from making their irregular situation regular? If divorced and remarried, why not pursue an annulment and, if granted, have their marriage validated? Or is it that they've been denied an annulment? If that's they case they must abstain from sexual relations in order to receive the Eucharist.

Yes, separation is not required when children are involved. But, as you say, they must live as brother and sister.

It is a question as to why many of these couples just do not apply for an annulment. The two most frequent reasons couples do not even ask for an annulment, I think, is ignorance (e.g., that the kids become bastards), and pride. Education solves the first. The latter is more difficult.

If an annulment is denied, then the couple must live as brother and sister. No priest has the authority to say they may receive communion in that case. But, there are a lot of liberal priests who care less that they are exposing couples to danger by their rebellious approach.

 

[mea kulpa]

Sometimes annulments are refused. One woman told me her husband had applied four times for an annulment and been refused. They had one parish priest who told them they couldn't receive Communion and another who said they could, so they would receive Communion (or not) depending on who said Mass.

(The wife had gotten her annulment.)

And I don't think the conditions are that rare. Of course I'm older, but the two remarried couples I knew, both involving quite elderly husbands, probably lived as brother and sister out of necessity. And all the remarried couples will eventually reach that stage.

They weren't giving scandal to anyone--I knew both for years before I knew they were married outside the Church. You can't give scandal if everyone assumed you were married Catholic.

What about the priests what about the authorities and what about heaven.

The scandal isnt merely people knowing but the scandle is the adverse effects it has on the mystical body of christ and the kingdom of God... even if no one knows the situation sin causes real harm to the mystical body and that itself is the supreme scandal

 

[Open Heart]

The presence of Children does not mitigate the sin

Of course it does.

 

[BroIgnatius]

Of course it does.

LOL, of course it doesn't. Please prove your novel ideas. You seem to be very uneducated about these things. You need to conform your opinions to the Church teachings. Your opinions, like all opinions, are worthless against official Church teaching.

 

[Fantine]

Well Jesus did say "suffer the little children to come unto me," not "make the little children suffer by breaking up their families."