Posted on 01/13/2017 11:05:52 AM PST by ebb tide
The Archdiocese of Malta and the Diocese of Gozo have told divorced and civilly "remarried" Catholics, with valid first marriages, that if they are sexually active they can decide for themselves to receive the sacrament of reconciliation and Holy Communion, if "he or she are at peace with God". The Maltese bishops' document, Criteria for the Application of Chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia, states the following:
9. Throughout the discernment process, we should also examine the possibility of conjugal continence. Despite the fact that this ideal is not at all easy, there may be couples who, with the help of grace, practice this virtue without putting at risk other aspects of their life together. On the other hand, there are complex situations where the choice of living “as brothers and sisters” becomes humanly impossible and give rise to greater harm (see AL, note 329).
10. If, as a result of the process of discernment, undertaken with “humility, discretion and love for the Church and her teaching, in a sincere search for God’s will and a desire to make a more perfect response to it” (AL 300), a separated or divorced person who is living in a new relationship manages, with an informed and enlightened conscience, to acknowledge and believe that he or she are at peace with God, he or she cannot be precluded from participating in the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (see AL, notes 336 and 351).
By allowing divorced and civilly "remarried" couples to be sexually active and to receive the sacrament of reconciliation and Holy Communion the bishops of Malta have abrogated the following binding magisterial documents of the Catholic Church:
Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1650
Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" (Mk 10:11-12) the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.
Pope Benedict XVI, Sacramentum Caritatis, section 29
The Eucharist and the indissolubility of marriage. If the Eucharist expresses the irrevocable nature of God's love in Christ for his Church, we can then understand why it implies, with regard to the sacrament of Matrimony, that indissolubility to which all true love necessarily aspires. There was good reason for the pastoral attention that the Synod gave to the painful situations experienced by some of the faithful who, having celebrated the sacrament of Matrimony, then divorced and remarried. This represents a complex and troubling pastoral problem, a real scourge for contemporary society, and one which increasingly affects the Catholic community as well. The Church's pastors, out of love for the truth, are obliged to discern different situations carefully, in order to be able to offer appropriate spiritual guidance to the faithful involved.(92) The Synod of Bishops confirmed the Church's practice, based on Sacred Scripture (cf. Mk 10:2- 12), of not admitting the divorced and remarried to the sacraments, since their state and their condition of life objectively contradict the loving union of Christ and the Church signified and made present in the Eucharist...At the same time, pastoral care must not be understood as if it were somehow in conflict with the law. Rather, one should begin by assuming that the fundamental point of encounter between the law and pastoral care is love for the truth: truth is never something purely abstract, but "a real part of the human and Christian journey of every member of the faithful" Finally, where the nullity of the marriage bond is not declared and objective circumstances make it impossible to cease cohabitation, the Church encourages these members of the faithful to commit themselves to living their relationship in fidelity to the demands of God's law, as friends, as brother and sister; in this way they will be able to return to the table of the Eucharist, taking care to observe the Church's established and approved practice in this regard. This path, if it is to be possible and fruitful, must be supported by pastors and by adequate ecclesial initiatives, nor can it ever involve the blessing of these relations, lest confusion arise among the faithful concerning the value of marriage
Pope St John Paul II, Familaris Consortio, section 84
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]
Comment
Cardinal Burke said the following in his recent interview with The Remnant about the bishop of San Diego allowing divorced and civilly "remarried" to decide for themselves if they can receive Holy Communion:
Recently I read a column by Ross Douthat in the New York Times, commenting on an application of AL in the Diocese of San Diego. He said, correctly, that if this interpretation of AL should be correct and acceptable then the Church's teaching on marriage is finished. And we can't have that, of course, because it's the law which God wrote on the human heart from the very creation; it’s the order, the law, which Christ confirmed in His teaching in a most clear way, as is recounted in Matthew Chapter 19 in which He confers the grace of a Christian sacrament. So the dubia must be answered. The questions have to be answered in accord with the Church's tradition in order that the Church carry out her mission for the salvation of the world. If the Church were simply to accept the way of our culture, with regard to marriage, then she will have betrayed herself and betrayed her Lord and Master, and that we just simply can't permit.
After the Commission was first given to the Apostles.
Annulment is different from divorce. It means that the marriage was never real in the first place. Since that may be difficult to prove, it requires a decree of annulment from Church authorities.
Most obviously, there can be an annulment if one of the couple was already married, and their spouse was still living. So the second marriage never really took place.
There could also be an annulment if there was a SERIOUS misrepresentation by one of the spouses—for instance if one of them was gay or transgendered and neglected to tell the other beforehand.
Sexual relations in an ordinary marriage are a natural part of marriage, and are not unchaste. But they would be unchaste if one of the couple was divorced and remarried. Then the Church requires them to avoid sexual relations until the first marriage has been annulled.
I think most Catholics know all this, although this have gotten more confused in recent years when liberal priests or bishops have gotten involved.
Can’t be. No worship of Mary or prayers to Mary...no Pope. None of the stuff we see in roman catholicism today.
After the Commission was first given to the Apostles.
Was Paul not given the same commission?
Are not all Christians given the same commission? Can you not share the Gospel with the unsaved?
they are looking at a strict definition of adultery limited by the 10 Commandments not to commit physical adultery.
27“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; 28but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 5:27-28
Christ clarified the meaning of the commandment to include the mental as well as the physical.
There's not a person on this forum, if they're honest, who can deny they've committed adultery. Now our catholic friends have probably invented some rule that redefines what this means.
In the sight of God the one who looks after a woman with lust is just as guilty as the person who physically committed adultery. It shows how truly sinful we are.
And I'll bet you lunch there isn't a catholic on these threads who've cut their hand off or who've gouged out their eyes as Jesus noted below.
Do we have record of Peter, Paul or any other follower of Christ in the NT ever doing this?
No.
Why? They understood the context and the manner in how Jesus was saying this. My coach used this kind of "exhortation" all the time to motivate us to focus in a game.
29“If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30“If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell. Matthew 5:29-30
If catholics want to take John 6:52-58 as literal they have to take this passage from Matthew as literal. That they don't is telling.
Exactly. It’s FreeRepublic.
That’s why I’m free to point out that someone’s comments are irrelevant.
The issue at hand—the reception of Communion by adulterers—has nothing to do with “the traditions of men.” It has to do with the words of Jesus Christ and the words of Saint Paul.
Yeah...not a person on these forums has ever done this.
27“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; 28but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 5:27-28
And they’re free to completely ignore you.
You’re confusing the work of the Holy Spirit to lead and guide, with doctrine which explicitly and exclusively comes from Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16).
In this case, the Catholic Church is espousing doctrine not in Scripture, something Jesus specifically condemned (”teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” Mark 7:7).
Paul was not a free agent independent of the Apostles. That is why it is important to note that the Commission was given first to the Apostles. Paul was brought to the Apostles by Barnabas following his conversion, he had hands laid on him before his missionary journeys and when issues or problems arose in his ministry, he returned to Jerusalem to consult with the Apostles and ancients, i.e. those in authority in the Church. See Acts 15.
The Church was not a horizontal construct.
Are not all Christians given the same commission? Can you not share the Gospel with the unsaved?
All Christians are called to share the Gospel but not all are called to the same ministry. Some are teachers, some are prophets.... etc, etc. See Ephesians. The ordained priesthood is one such ministry. It is a special ministry within the Church through which we receive the Holy Eucharist. Those so ordained trace their apostolic succession back to the Apostles and the Upper Room with Jesus. Only those who have had hands laid on them through the successors of the Apostles may perform this ministry.
Jesus founded a Church. He expressly uses the word "Church" as in "my Church" in his discourse with Peter (Matthew 16).
The issue at hand is the Catholic Church putting itself as the arbitrator between God and man. That is false doctrine. The only arbitrator between God and man is the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5).
He was a free agent of Christ's!
That is why it is important to note that the Commission was given first to the Apostles.
Paul was brought to the Apostles by Barnabas following his conversion, he had hands laid on him before his missionary journeys and when issues or problems arose in his ministry, he returned to Jerusalem to consult with the Apostles and ancients, i.e. those in authority in the Church. See Acts 15.
Let's revisit Acts 9.
15But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; 16for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake.” 17So Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized; 19and he took food and was strengthened.
Now for several days he was with the disciples who were at Damascus, 20and
immediately he began to proclaim Jesus
in the synagogues, saying, “He is the Son of God.” 21All those hearing him continued to be amazed, and were saying, “Is this not he who in Jerusalem destroyed those who called on this name, and who had come here for the purpose of bringing them bound before the chief priests?” 22But Saul kept increasing in strength and confounding the Jews who lived at Damascus by proving that this Jesus is the Christ.
He did not wait on getting the permission from the other Apostles. Why? He already had his marching orders from Jesus as had the Apostles....go preach...the great commission.
Jesus founded a Church. He expressly uses the word "Church" as in "my Church" in his discourse with Peter (Matthew 16).
Yes...the word is ekklesia. 577 ekklēsía(from 1537 /ek, "out from and to" and 2564 /kaléō, "to call") – properly, people called out from the world and to God, the outcome being the Church (the mystical body of Christ) – i.e. the universal (total) body of believers whom God calls out from the world and into His eternal kingdom. Helps-Word Studies.
He was in no sense a "free agent".
Now there were in the church which was at Antioch, prophets and doctors, among whom was Barnabas, and Simon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manahen, who was the foster brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. And as they were ministering to the Lord, and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them. Then they, fasting and praying, and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away. Acts 13: 1-3
This passage makes it clear that Paul's ministry was performed in obedience to the Holy Spirit which manifested in a human authority which sent Paul on a mission.
He did not wait on getting the permission from the other Apostles. Why? He already had his marching orders from Jesus as had the Apostles....go preach...the great commission.
Correct. But he did not continue in isolation as the above passage makes clear. Paul was sent by the Church. Paul, throughout his ministry, made a point of consulting with the Apostles.
And some coming down from Judea, taught the brethren: That except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved. And when Paul and Barnabas had no small contest with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of the other side, should go up to the apostles and priests to Jerusalem about this question. And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. Acts 15: 1-2, 6-8
That doesn't sound like a "free agent". And in the end, it was Peter who delivered the decisive oration.
Yes...the word is ekklesia. 577 ekklēsía(from 1537 /ek, "out from and to" and 2564 /kaléō, "to call") – properly, people called out from the world and to God, the outcome being the Church (the mystical body of Christ) – i.e. the universal (total) body of believers whom God calls out from the world and into His eternal kingdom.
It is that but the Church is much more than that. Within the Church there are various ministries, as previously explained.
And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and to Antioch: Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith: and that through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God. And when they had ordained to them priests in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed. Acts 14: 20-22
Ordained priests, right?
Furthermore, the Church is spotless.
That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish. Eph 5: 27.
How does that arise if the Church is nothing more than a collection of sinful believers? It arises because the relationship between Christ and his Church is a mystical one, a supernatural one. The Church is the body of Christ who is the Head. The Head and the Body are one, inseparable.
Bass ackwards.
Before there was the New Testament, there was doctrine.
6The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. 7After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8“And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10“Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11“But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.” 12All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles
13After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, “Brethren, listen to me.
14“Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. 15“With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written,
Who had the last say?
Peter then Barnabas and Paul and then James.
It makes me wonder if we're reading the same text.
Those “sinful believers” have been made clean by the blood of Christ. The Blood makes us clean.
“Only those who have had hands laid on them through the successors of the Apostles may perform this ministry.”
You speak not of one with first hand knowledge, but of hear say. As one with the spiritual gift of teaching no man imparted me with anything. It was and is a gift of The Holy Spirit of God through Jesus Christ that did all the gifting and teaching to me.
“he had hands laid on him before his missionary journeys”
Acts 9:17 Ananias wasn’t and apostle and he was the only one that laid hands on Paul before he started to preach.
Acts 9:20
Galatians 1 is a good starting point, but specifically Gal 1:11-12.
Then Galatians 2 will explain that Paul had already been preaching when he went to Jerusalem to meet the other apostles.
Quit reading the ccc and start reading your bible your knowledge or lack there of is showing.
Ho hum.
Hey, don’t forget they’ve put Mary in this role also.
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.