Spanish bishop: Pope says he will not change Communion rule

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com ^ | September 25, 2014

[NKP_Vet]

Cordoba, Spain, Sep 25, 2014 / 02:02 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Amid widespread reports that Pope Francis might open the door to Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried, a Spanish bishop says the Pope told him that this scenario is not possible.

Bishop Demetrio Fernandez of Cordoba, Spain said that during his ad limina visit to the Vatican earlier this year, the Holy Father told him that “the Pope cannot change” what Jesus Christ has instituted.

The question of Communion for the divorced and remarried has surfaced due to an address given by Germany’s Cardinal Walter Kasper to a group of cardinals earlier this year. Some have speculated that the Church will change its teachings, which do not acknowledge a second civil marriage unless the first has received an annulment, or a Church recognition that the marriage had never been valid in the first place.

In an interview with the newspaper Diario Cordoba, Bishop Fernandez said, “We asked the Pope himself, and he responded that a person married in the Church who has divorced and entered into a new civil marriage cannot approach the sacraments.”

“The Pope said that ‘this was established by Jesus Christ and the Pope cannot change it’,” he added.

“I say this because sometimes people say that ‘everything is going to change,’ and there are some things that cannot be changed. The Church answers to her Lord and her Lord remains alive,” Bishop Fernandez continued.

However, he explained, “The Church is continuously telling us to be welcoming, that people not feel excluded, and we can always find ways to be more welcoming.”

[NKP_Vet]

Amen.

[kenmcg]

Yeah, go after divorced Catholics, but continue serving communion to abortion loving pols and convicted pedophile priests.

[icwhatudo]

One does have to wonder why Martin Omally and Nancy Pelosi are given communio while some poor guy who married a whore or some poor woman who married an abuser are denied.

[piusv]

Why is it that all we hear are others saying what Francis supposedly has said. Why isn’t Francis coming out and saying it explicitly for himself?

[Alex Murphy]

Amid widespread reports that Pope Francis might open the door to Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried, a Spanish bishop says the Pope told him that this scenario is not possible. Bishop Demetrio Fernandez of Cordoba, Spain said that during his ad limina visit to the Vatican earlier this year, the Holy Father told him that “the Pope cannot change” what Jesus Christ has instituted.

IB4TPWMA

[The_Reader_David]

I wonder about the context of the remark. Our Lord in some of his comments on divorce and remarriage made an exception for unchastity, which you Latins have ignored in your canon law, and which we Orthodox have instantiated in ecclesiastical divorces in which the innocent party can be given permission to remarry — not just in cases of the divorce of an adulterous spouse by the aggrieved innocent spouse, but for divorces of a husband by a wife whom he has tried to force into prostitution (a slightly different application of the for porneia exception).

Jesus’s comments also call only the party initiating the divorce and remarrying an adulterer (with the exception for porneia), but say nothing about a chaste spouse unjustly divorced being an adulterer should she (under Jewish law it would have been she) or he remarry. There is room for modification of your rigorist stand without violating the plain meaning of Our Lord’s injunctions on the matter, and without opening the floodgates to imitating the anything goes attitude of secular Western society. (Just as there is room for us Orthodox to tighten up our application of economia, often applied a bit too freely IMHO, to these matters.)

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Please feel free to send your second class folks, who are denied communion, to evangelical churches. We gladly accept them, teach them the Amazing Gospel of Grace, leading them to salvation in Him alone. This should solve the problem of having them darken the doors of RC churches as ungodly sinners. You can continue on with tradition.

We'll gladly help seek and save the ungodly.

"You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly." Romans 5:6

Will we accept the ungodly? Every day of the week - just like Christ does.

[impimp]

The exceptions Jesus referred to are a grounds for annulment. The word He used related to those who have strong blood ties.

[GonzoII]

Bad headline. How can he?

[The_Reader_David]

No. The word Our Lord used in the exceptions, πορνεία, (in the genitive case, as πορνείας), is not Greek for incest. The Greek word for incest is αιμομιξία. It's Greek for sexual immorality. Incest would certainly be sexual immorality, and as you observe incestuous marriages are invalid. But fornication, adultery, forced prostitution, and a host of other behaviors are also, arguably, included within the meaning of πορνεία.

[Salvation]

**Bishop Demetrio Fernandez of Cordoba, Spain said that during his ad limina visit to the Vatican earlier this year, the Holy Father told him that “the Pope cannot change” what Jesus Christ has instituted. **

Praying this is true.

Divorced Catholics can always receive Communion UNLESS they remarry.......then they are complicit the sin of adultery.

[Salvation]

**while some poor guy who married a whore or some poor woman who married an abuser are denied.**

Not true UNLESS they remarry.

[Petrosius]

You have our Lord's remarks wrong. The exception is if the marriage itself is porneia, not that porneia justifies the divorce of a valid marriage. Your reading makes no sense within the context of our Lord's response to the question if a person could divorce "for any cause whatever." The Pharisees were trying to put him in the middle of the debate between the school of Hillel and that of Shammai. If your reading were correct he would just have said that only for porneia and that Shammai was right. The context of his remarks, however, was against any divorce and that both were wrong. Jesus was reestablishing the permanence of marriage before a concession was allowed under the law of Moses. Nor would our Lord's instruction in Luke and Mark have made any sense if there were an exception that these two evangelist failed to mention.

Jesus’s comments also call only the party initiating the divorce and remarrying an adulterer (with the exception for porneia), but say nothing about a chaste spouse unjustly divorced being an adulterer should she (under Jewish law it would have been she) or he remarry.

Not quite so simple. If anyone should marry a divorced women he also commits adultery.

There is room for modification of your rigorist stand without violating the plain meaning of Our Lord’s injunctions on the matter

I would ask you to take a look at Paul:

To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord): A wife should not separate from her husband — and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband — and a husband should not divorce his wife. (1 Cor. 7:10-11)

I am sorry, but because of human weakness the Orthodox have strayed from the clear and binding instruction of Jesus Christ.

[Campion]

Just to be clear, someone in the state of serious sin should not approach the Eucharist. And a lot of Catholics are upset that people like Pelosi are not denied communion, according to the clear teaching in canon law that persons guilty of “manifest public sin” should not be communicated. However, one wrong doesn’t justify another.

[Campion]

Accept the ungodly all you want, but divorce and remarriage is still adultery. The Gospels make that perfectly clear.

[steve86]

Divorced Catholics can always receive Communion UNLESS they remarry.......then they are complicit the sin of adultery.

Not guilt of adultery if they are chaste.

[Salvation]

They are causing their former wife or husband to be adulterous.

Plus they are being adulterous — they are already married to wife or husband 1.

Solutions: Work on your first marriage.

Pursue and annulment.

[NKP_Vet]

Christ believed in baptism. I know many evangelicals that think as long as you profess you’re “born again” water baptism is not necessary. Anyone with an elementary understanding of Christianity knows that baptism is necessary for salvation. Or was Jesus lying?

[steve86]

I don’t understand how your comments follow from mine but my wife (who was previously married and divorced to escape with her life - only slight exaggeration) and I are chaste and not adulterous. I was not previously married.

[Salvation]

Oops,
Pursue an annulment.