Posted on 04/23/2014 9:41:45 AM PDT by marshmallow
Pope Francis has phoned a divorced and remarried Catholic woman in Argentina to tell her that she could "safely receive Communion", according to an extraordinary report in La Stampa.
The woman's husband, writing on Facebook, claims that the Pope – introducing himself as "Father Bergoglio" – spoke to his wife, who'd been divorced before marrying him and told her that men or women who were divorced and received Communion weren't doing anything wrong. He apparently added that this matter is under discussion at the Vatican. (Quick health warning: given the complexity of this subject, we need much more clarity on what Francis reportedly said. I find it hard to believe that he would make such an unqualified statement.)
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
I have studied a few annulment cases so far (in doing some work for a marriage tribunal) where the respondent does not respond. No signature from that person is required. The court determines that the person was notified and didn’t care to respond. The case continues on like the others, with no input from the absent person.
Maybe things were different when you did it? I don’t know. But our diocese has no requirement that both parties agree, much less that they are both involved.
An annulment can allow that to happen.
It was a definite requirement and that stopped it from happening.
"I do feel a need to acknowledge what is happening and prepare myself for what appears to be a very likely, if not inevitable, outcome when the bishops report on this matter. Cardinal Kasper was appointed to lead the Synod on Family Life and he has made no secret whatever about his view (indeed since as early as 1992, he has loudly proclaimed it) he shares his view with the great majority of German, Austrian, Swiss and Benelux bishops that there must be some 'latitude' permitted in the matter of the divorced and 'remarried' and the Sacraments."Cardinal Kasper has suggested to Cardinals at the Consistory on the 22 February, that Church law should remain unaltered but that priests should be permitted the discretion to admit divorced and 'remarried' people to the Sacraments after a suitable period of penitent reflection. The Pope is on record as praising the theology behind this suggestion. There is, I am afraid, absolutely no doubt that he supports this innovation, he has not hidden his admiration for either Cardinal Kasper or his thoughts on this particular matter. Anyone who doubts this is really just ignoring the facts.
"It is known that this 'latitude' is already being exercised by the 'turning of a blind eye' (which I have witnessed) or by positive encouragement of those affected to return to the sacraments by priests in the west. Thus little will change in practical terms except that priests who wish to adhere to Church law and decide not to exercise a 'right' to ignore it, may well suffer at the hands of bishops unsympathetic to their scruples and some have expressed fears of that situation arising."
Why not? We already see what happens to priests who exercise their duties in denying the Eucharist to individuals who present themselves for Communion who are in a state of grave and public sin. They are suppressed, disciplined and castigated.
No clergy can know the ‘mind’/’spirit’ of any seeking Communion. The burden is upon the person taking the Communion and nowhere is that authority pass off to some man of the cloth. God is the heart/mind reader and I personally know some who partake of Communion that then boast about their confessions of a multitude of sins they seemingly walked away without a change of heart/mind-spirit.
And you can divorce, then remarry and receive communion, BUT there is an annulment process to go through first. Those are the church rules, this sounds really fishy.
Why is this even posted if it can’t be substantiated?
The header is especially offensive.
.
OK, your post is scaring me.
When 'judgment day' comes NO church is going to get to advocate for their membership. Peter says that the first to go on judgment day will be the priest/preacher class. Communion is a 'conservative' action. Each and every individual is and will be held accountable for their own individual actions or lack thereof.
What the Catholic doctrine ignores is that miracle while Christ was on the Cross of that veil of the temple being rent from top to bottom. Thus each and every individual has direct access to the Creator through Christ.
Why the gathering storm over divorce might be worse than was that over contraception
3/16/2014 8:46:56 PM · 61 of 65
xone to Mrs. Don-o
Back to marriage, if you haven't read the link, you might find it interesting regarding the indissolubility of marriage as a creation of Trent, rather than a teaching of the antiquity of the Catholic church. In fact, you might consider passing this on to your cohorts. Those that follow the current issue might find it illuminating for the current time.
We maintain that the present teaching is neither de fide nor definitive doctrine but authoritative doctrine
Quotes Kasper, the lead guy for the Pope on this. Catholics arguing otherwise may be in for a disappointment whenever they get around to deciding this for you. This article is from 1973, has all the current players in it, and mirrors some of the 'mis-translated' Francis comments. You heard it here first.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies
That is the normative position of the Church. The priest cannot know the state of the individual presenting themselves for communion. However, if the individual makes known their state then the priest has an obligation to deny the Eucharist. It is a form of mercy since by being in a state of mortal sin the individual would not receive the sanctifying graces associated with receiving the Eucharist.
As for those confessions if the pentinent is not of a sincere, contrite and penitent heart then the absolution provided is voided. As for simple “boasting” well absolution is available even to jerks. I wouldn’t let that dissuade me from the grace of the sacrament, however. You have to believe that the sacrament has its own power from God and is immune from the fallibility of the individual administering it or receiving it.
sedevacantist here: what more you need to know?
You can still get a civil divorce if necessary. That doesn’t mean you can’t take communion. It’s the remarriage without an annulment that’s the problem.
I guess that for some women, sex is more important than taking communion in the Catholic Church. Okay, then. But it is not reasonable to expect the Church to change its teachings because you are lonely and horny. And if that sounds harsh—well, I’m a divorced woman who had to raise her children alone, too, so it’s not as though I don’t know how hard it is. I do.
"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
That was me. I called this dizzy person and impersonated Fr. Google Bergoglio. Wonderful how everybody swallowed it!
What's wrong is to marry a second person while your first spouse is still living. That's bigamy. (Jesus called it adultery: Luke 16:18) If the innocent spouse thinks the first marriage was never really an honest sacramental marriage from the git-go, they should petition a ruling of nullity on the first (attempted) marriage. Then remarriage would be blameless.
What do you mean by “catering to homosexuals”? Do you mean “marrying homosexuals”? Or what, exactly?
Just curious.
The latest I read was the Pope says homosexuals can live together and take communion if they don’t have sex. Any homosexual can take communion if there is no involvement in sex. So, the homo can say he/she isn’t having sex and take communion.
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.