Posted on 02/15/2018 9:40:06 AM PST by ebb tide
The Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon, Manuel Clemente, has published an official statement in which he endorses giving Holy Communion to those who are divorced and invalidly remarried in some circumstances.
The statement, posted on the patriarchate’s website, is called “Note regarding the reception of chapter VIII of the apostolic exhortation ‘Amoris Laetitia.’” According to the cardinal, the note’s purpose is to implement the teaching of Amoris Laetitia in light of two other documents: “the correspondence between the bishops of the Pastoral Region of Buenos Aires and the guidelines given to the priests of the Diocese of the Pope (Rome) by its cardinal-vicar.”
Cardinal Clemente offers numerous quotations of the three documents to justify giving Holy Communion to those in adulterous remarriages, including the letter of the bishops of the Pastoral Region of Buenos Aires, which has been placed into the Acts of the Apostolic See by the pope. Clemente quotes the letter’s claim that the option of living in celibacy “may not, in fact, be feasible” and that “there are limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), particularly when a person judges that he would fall into a subsequent fault by damaging the children of the new union.”
The cardinal concludes that under “exceptional circumstances” there is the “sacramental possibility” (that is, the possibility of receiving Holy Communion) “in conformity with the apostolic exhortation [Amoris Laetitia] and the above-cited documents.” He adds that “discernment” should be continued “always adjusting practice more in accordance with the Christian matrimonial ideal, and better sacramental coherence.”
Pope Francis’ novel doctrine permitting Holy Communion for those in adulterous second marriage has been questioned and denounced widely by Catholic clergy and laity, particularly theologians and canon lawyers. The Church’s law continues to require that those who are conscious of mortal sin not present themselves for Holy Communion, and that priests refuse communion to those who publicly known to be living in habitual mortal sin.
The bishops of Kazakhstan have released a ringing rejection of Francis’ doctrine, and have reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s “two thousand-year-old sacramental discipline,” which prohibits giving Holy Communion to people in a public state of mortal sin. Other bishops and also cardinals have joined their names to their declaration
Clemente’s statement comes in the wake of comments the cardinal made to the press in December, when he told Agencia Ecclesia that divorced and remarried Catholics who want to begin receiving the sacraments will have to follow a “very long” process which isn’t a “quick, immediate, simple” decision. However, the cardinal added that “in some cases, with discretion and with the consent of the bishop, they can return to the sacramental life,” citing the authority of Pope Francis.
Already in Portugal the Archdiocese of Braga has followed Clemente’s lead, announcing late last year that it will give “access to the sacraments” to “divorced and remarried Christians,” without any reference to the need to give up the sexual act, affirming that “the Archdiocese of Braga will establish a group for accompanying Christians who are divorced and remarried, which will make access to the sacraments possible, in accordance with a process of individual discernment.”
The archdiocese’s embrace of the practice of giving Holy Communion to adulterers was condemned in January by eminent canon lawyer Edward Peters, who wrote: “It doesn’t matter what reasons might be offered by the storied Archdiocese of Braga for its plan to authorize the administering of holy Communion to basic divorced-and-remarried Catholics. If that is . . . their plan, they are wrong,” continues Peters. “Patently and gravely wrong. Just like the Maltese. Just like the Germans. And just like a few others if only in terms of the wiggle room they allow themselves in these cases, as do, say, the Argentinians.”
David was a polygamist who arranged for his paramour’s husband to be killed. God was not happy about any part of the episode. Did you miss that?
Matthew 10:14-15 & Mark 6:11 confirm what I just sent to you in post #17 - that CHRIST, not sin, is the issue now.
Matthew 10:14-15 & Mark 6:11 are condemnations for not receiving Christ saying that what happens to those who reject Christ will worse off than those in Sodom.
Cherry-picking the Bible, I see.
Those were YOUR scriptures that YOU cited in your misapplication on post #19. Get a clue.
In the meantime, you have yet to answer the scriptural-based reasoning in my replies to you.
God forgave David because he repented, however David was cursed for the rest of his natural life.
God allowed David to marry Bathsheba because Uriah was dead (God took away David and Bathsheba’s first child conceived in adultery before the baby could be named as punishment for Uriah’s death).
God did allowed more terrible things to occur to David as David as well as those under the king continued to suffer.
The rank hypocrisy of the Catholic Church on this matter is disgusting. If you have enough money or know the right people (or your last name is Kennedy) an anullment is granted allowing divorce and remarriage sanctioned by the Catholic Church. But the poor or those lacking connection that have been through divorce are locked on the outside looking in if they wish to remarry.
Broken relationships and divorce are a result of sin no doubt about it. But Christ came to redeem the broken not the whole. If sin is confessed and forgiven I see no reason to bar people from the altar. I wonder if those who look down their noses on the divorced and remarried would like a catalog of their ongoing sin made public. We are all sinners who throw ourselves on the mercy of God.
But in spite of David’s sin God called David a man after His own heart and in no way prevented David from approaching Him. Did you miss that part?
I'm not interested in your defense of sin.
Complete nonsense. I've known a number of people who got annulments. None are rich. None are Kennedys. All followed the process laid out by the church. I've also known others who have tried and who could not prove their case.
If sin is confessed and forgiven I see no reason to bar people from the altar.
A valid confession requires a sincere desire not to repeat the sin. If a man and woman are living in an adulterous relationship - Jesus' definition, not mine - then how can they be truly repentant?
I wonder if those who look down their noses on the divorced and remarried would like a catalog of their ongoing sin made public. We are all sinners who throw ourselves on the mercy of God.
And isn't it the duty of the church to help us sin no more? Or only when convenient?
“In Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be preserved etc.”
Polygamy (more correctly polygyny) is permitted by Torah law, theoretically even today.
Nope. Did God forgive David and Bathsheba?
Again, you have no answer for my structurally-based arguments which do not defend sin, but defend GRACE.
The gospel of the grace of Christ (Galatians 1:6-7) - something you need to learn about and understand that bringing another gospel, which is not really a gospel at all, brings a double curse on those who bring it (Galatians 1:8-9).
We’re David and Bathsheba truly repentant? We’re they forgiven?
The hypocrisy stands. Your denomination chooses who gets to remarry after divorce so it is not an absolute requirement, and the rich and famous get to flaunt it. I know Catholics who had a divorce they did not want or ask for who were victimized by their spouse then victimized again by their church when they were not allowed to participate fully because they found someone to share their life with
Yes repentance means turning away from sin. But Christ also said if a spouse is unbelieving let them go. (Divorce) there are other instances of acceptable divorce such as abandonment and abuse. These people are never allowed to find someone to share their life with? And again everyone sins even Catholics. And I’ll bet some of you even repeat sin after you present yourselves to the altar. But be that as it may - if your teaching is remarriage is adulterous then it is across the board, not just for those who can convince a priest to grant an annulment. Anything else is hypocrisy
God called David a man after His own heart. I would venture to say he was forgiven.
Wow. I am so thankful I am a Christian and not a Romam Catholic.
Yep. IIRC the OT indicates he was forgiven.
Another juvenile comment.
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.