[maxwellsmart_agent]

If a divorced person is remarried, he is committing adultery until he leaves his remarriage. If he does not, he is still committing adultery continuously by remaining in the state of continual desire for adultery. That being so, how can he receive communion in a state of sin? The whole question is ridiculous.

The bishops who postulated this cannot be thinking. The same is true in the case of homosexuality. If a man still considers to dabble in homosexual relationships, he continues to sin. There again, that person continues to live in sin and is not supposed to receive communion according to church rule.

Who even brought this up? Pope Francis? We have to look at both issues really hard. According to logic, both premises are ridiculous.

[af_vet_1981]

If a divorced person is remarried, he is committing adultery until he leaves his remarriage. If he does not, he is still committing adultery continuously by remaining in the state of continual desire for adultery. That being so, how can he receive communion in a state of sin? The whole question is ridiculous.

Fascinating possibilities
1. If he remarried, he sins, even though the scripture explicitly allows it (Deutetonomy).
2. If he divorces again, he sins.
3. The Pope, the bishop of Rome, with the other bishops, is the successor of the Apostles and has some part in binding and loosing. One can see why the first council in Jerusalem was necessary to resolve the question of Gentiles' responsibilities in the one holy catholic apostolic church. Had they simply ruled according to the scriptures and tradition would all Christians be circumcised ?