Posted on 04/17/2016 1:32:58 PM PDT by marshmallow
April 16, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – On the flight returning from Greece, Pope Francis was asked if the Apostolic Exhortation contained a "change in discipline that governs access to the sacraments" for Catholics who are divorced and remarried. The Pope replied, "I can say yes, period." The Pope then urged reading the presentation of Cardinal Schönborn for the final answer to the question, calling Schönborn a “great theologian who knows the doctrine of the Church.”
Schonborn’s presentation boiled down Pope Francis’ more than 60,000 words in the exhortation to 3000, but in that short space made sure to include the “smoking footnote” being seen as the opening of the door to Holy Communion to Catholics living in second unions where annulment from the first union was not possible. The position contradicts Pope St. John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio as well as the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
In his presentation of the Exhortation, Cardinal Schonborn said:
Naturally this poses the question: what does the Pope say in relation to access to the sacraments for people who live in “irregular” situations? Pope Benedict had already said that “easy recipes” do not exist (AL 298, note 333). Pope Francis reiterates the need to discern carefully the situation, in keeping with St. John Paul II’s Familiaris consortio (84) (AL 298). “Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits. By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God” (AL 205). He also reminds us of an important phrase from Evangelii gaudium, 44: “A small step, in the midst of great human limitations, can be more pleasing to God than a life which.......
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5Avd7bCiV0
I’m not Catholic, (I’m Lutheran), but am curious as to how conservative Catholics feel about this subject. Any opinions?
Watch the youtube link. It will answer your question.
Sunday, April 17
Liturgical Color: White
Pope Pius X gave an address to new
cardinals on this day in 1907, in
which he condemned the heresy of
Modernism. This heresy tries to
change truths taught by the Church to
fit the thinking of the day.
Then if a remarriage removes one from communion with the church, what act returns the evildoer into communion with the church?
Would they be back in good graces if they abandoned the person they married after a divorce?
Or can they do like a Kennedy, and pay an indulgence fee for an annulment to make it.....ahem, “kosher”?
How does it work.
You can leave your wife, or live as a brother and sister, go to confession, and you are good to go.
As long as you don’t remarry. Then you are committing the sin of adultery and cannot receive the Eucharist.
What, other than that the current pope is a raving heretic and should be removed immediately?
I think his stunt with bringing only Muslims back to Rome with him after his trip to Lesbos, rejecting the two Christian families who had applied because he said “their documents were not in order,” is simply beyond any rational defense.
BTW, this latest publicity stunt was arranged for him at his request by Vatican officials over a week ago. Surely they could have gotten the documentation and travel permits for these Christian families - had the Pope wanted them to do so.
He’s an evil man, IMHO.
“You can leave your wife, or live as a brother and sister, go to confession, and you are good to go.”
Said without a hint of irony. Is that an official church position? I was asking literally. What is the church teaching on how a remarried catholic should proceed.
Is it actually their position that you should break up that new family, which may have kids? Or introduce the un-natural perversion of lifelong celibacy into that happy home?
That cannot be the -actual- position of that church can it?
What you have to understand is that Jesus Christ Himself repeatedly-— in all four Gospels-— taught and stated, and when challenged, doubled down and reiterated, that remarriage subsequent to divorce is adultery. If this were not so *offensively* clear, things would be more amenable to compromise.
Thus the person in a second “marriage” is in a state of public, pledged, and permanent adultery. As such, they are in an objective state of opposition to the Decalogue and to the Gospel of Christ.
There are only three resolutions.
One, if the first spouse dies. That would dissolve the first marriage. (Civil divorce does not do this.)
Two, if the first marriage is investigated and found to be “null”-— that is, sacramentally invalid from the git-go-— then the second marriage is in fact the first and only lawful marriage, and there’s no problem. This has nothing to do with money payments or “ indulgences,”, and to insinuate this reveals either malice or woeful ignorance.
Three, if annulment is impossible because the original marriage was in fact valid, then no power on earth -— not the Church, not the State, not the Pope —— can dissolve that sacramental bond. (Once again, like it or not, we’re “stuck” with what Jesus said. He did not call it an “irregular union”. He called it “adultery”.)
In that case, the only solution is the solution of any other grave sin: repentance, confession, absolution, and the amending of one’s life by “sinning no more.” From there on the couple would be pledged to abstain from adulterous acts.
Does this answer your question?
No Catholic with an informed conscience, who know their faith (are properly formed) can approve heresy, because they are fit to recognize it and will deplore it.
There are many Christians in the West who have long left the Church, but still claim all of it’s trappings.
Many of these are laity. Many are priests and bishops. Only one is the pope.
Lord, have Mercy on me, a sinner.
Divorced Persons Who Have Remarried
84. Daily experience unfortunately shows that people who have obtained a divorce usually intend to enter into a new union, obviously not with a Catholic religious ceremony. Since this is an evil that, like the others, is affecting more and more Catholics as well, the problem must be faced with resolution and without delay. The Synod Fathers studied it expressly. The Church, which was set up to lead to salvation all people and especially the baptized, cannot abandon to their own devices those who have been previously bound by sacramental marriage and who have attempted a second marriage. The Church will therefore make untiring efforts to put at their disposal her means of salvation.
Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children's upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.
Together with the Synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life. They should be encouraged to listen to the word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts in favor of justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God's grace. Let the Church pray for them, encourage them and show herself a merciful mother, and thus sustain them in faith and hope.
However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon 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 and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.
Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they "take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples."[180]
Similarly, the respect due to the sacrament of Matrimony, to the couples themselves and their families, and also to the community of the faithful, forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry. Such ceremonies would give the impression of the celebration of a new sacramentally valid marriage, and would thus lead people into error concerning the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage.
By acting in this way, the Church professes her own fidelity to Christ and to His truth. At the same time she shows motherly concern for these children of hers, especially those who, through no fault of their own, have been abandoned by their legitimate partner.
With firm confidence she believes that those who have rejected the Lord's command and are still living in this state will be able to obtain from God the grace of conversion and salvation, provided that they have persevered in prayer, penance and charity.
BTW, abstinence from sexual relations is not "perversion". It is known as continence. Perversion is the practice of unnatural sexual behavior, e.g. sodomy.
That was once upon a time, long, long ago. But not anymore, thanks to Papa Tango of Mercy.
If you are Catholic, and were validly married in the Catholic Church, any second marriage you enter into is considered invalid and thus you are committing adultery. Because you are in a situation where you fully intend to continue to commit this sin, and acknowledge it publicly since you hold yourself out to be married, you may not approach the sacraments because you are in a condition of grave sin.
To remedy this situation, you may petition for an annulment of your first marriage. If through this process it is shown that there are reasons why your marriage was not valid at the time the vows were said, your first marriage will be judged as null, and you are free to marry in the Catholic church as long as your prospective spouse is similarly unencumbered.
If you do not seek, or are not granted an annulment, then your first marriage is in force until the death of one of the spouses, and you may not validly remarry. Under those conditions, you may continue to live with your spouse for the sake of children or for companionship, but you cannot continue a sexual relationship without committing adultery.
Many Catholics do not seek annulment because they do not realize that it is important or they do not realize that in some situations the invalidity is clear and easily proven. For example, a Catholic married to another Christian in a non-Catholic church or by a non-Catholic priest or minister is not validly married (for the purpose of annulment) because the sacrament was not performed with the proper form. These annulments are straightforward and will be granted if requested. Annulments for lack of substance, or because the people entering into the marriage were improperly disposed to do so validly, are more difficult to prove and these are the ones that take much more time and effort to investigate.
In any event, unless a Catholic marriage has been annulled a Catholic may not validly remarry as long as the spouse is alive. So yes, divorced Catholics are called to be celibate. Celibacy is what all unmarried Christians are called to, anything else is at the least fornication and at worst adultery. All of us are called to it for at least part of our lives. It is not a perversion.
Love,
O2
Q. (Franc Rocca, Wall Street Journal) Some sustain that nothing has changed with respect to the discipline that regulates access to the sacraments for the divorced and remarried, that the Law, the pastoral praxis and obviously the doctrine remain the same. Others sustain that much has changed and that there are new openings and possibilities. For a Catholic who wants to know: are there new, concrete possibilities that didn’t exist before the publication of the exhortation or not?
A. (Papa Tango of Mercy) Pope Francis: I can say yes, many.
“All of us are called to it for at least part of our lives. It is not a perversion.”
Interesting. And true. But I still think it is perverse when demanded as a lifelong lifestyle.
“This has nothing to do with money payments or “ indulgences,”, and to insinuate this reveals either malice or woeful ignorance.”
It insinuates an observation that politicians AFTER Henry the VIII and the very rich seem to nearly without fail obtain an annulment. Lesser people find it tougher.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.