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.
Then why are you even commenting/arguing on this thread?
If you want it to be about exclusively the Catholic Church, either label the title as a caucus or change the title to Divorced & remarried can receive the Sacrament of the Catholic Church...
As I have repeatedly said, "communion" is something common and available to all believers and is a discussable subject on this forum and this thread.
I care a lot about communion as taught in Scripture. I couldn't care less about the Sacrament of the Catholic Church.
Where in Scripture is the "annulment" provision?
Living chastely doesn't constitute a marriage??
It's only a marriage if they have sexual relations?
What if someone looks upon someone else with lust? Adultery?
Even then, if you slip up without previous intent, you can confess your sin. But true confession requires that you INTEND to do as promised.
Uh...no.
Do this in remembrance of Me. I believe Christ said that...not the roman catholic church.
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 NASB
Based on this NO ONE is qualified for the Eucharist under roman catholic definitions.
You mean like roman catholics have done regarding Mary and her "immaculate conception"?
This is FREE REPUBLIC.
Christ's command to "do this in remembrance of me" was directed to the Apostles on whom the Church is founded.
It is the Church, built on the Apostles, which gives us the Body and Blood of Christ.
Nonsense. It is open to all believers in Christ.
It is the Church, built on the Apostles, which gives us the Body and Blood of Christ.
Uhhh....I believe it was Christ Who gave us His body and blood.
23For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;
24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
25In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.
27Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
28But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.
30For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.
31But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged.
32But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world. 1 Corinthians 11:23-33 NASB
33So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment. The remaining matters I will arrange when I come.
The Church gave us Scripture. Or do you think the Bible fell out of the sky?
Jesus said of communion, “this do YOU as often as YOU take it” (1 Cor 11:23-26). Communion is between Christ and his disciples. No mention of a church being the go-between.
To whom did Jesus give this command? The Apostles, on whom the Church is built. It is through the ordained priesthood that we receive Communion.
So show in Scripture where “the Church gives us Communion” and where the Catholic Church is inseparable from Christ.
Read St. Paul.
Ephesians 4:4-13, Ephesians 1:22-23, 1 Corinthians 12:12, 1 Corinthians 10:17.
The Holy Spirit gave us Scripture (2 Peter 1:20-21;2 Timothy 3:16 ), so in a sense, yes, the Bible "fell out of the sky" from Heaven through "holy men of God", not "the Church".
It is through the ordained priesthood that we receive Communion.
More doctrine of man, as Jesus said, ”teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Mark 7:7). You cannot show where scripture teaches this man-generated doctrine.
I've been married twice. First time was a first marriage for both of us that lasted almost 4 years ended by death. Second time I was a widower before age 28 and met a divorced Christian woman raising two teenage kids alone. Her husband ended their marriage by leaving and taking another woman which technically by age should have put him in jail. He was also physically abusive.
During out dating first as friends after we had met each other at work a love grew. Her pastor had told her it was OK for her to date and later remarry because her husband had broken the vows and ended their covenant and not her and he knew both of them well.
She became very seriously ill while we were dating an illness or a fluke that left her an incomplete quadriplegic. She afterward would need care for the rest of her life and the kids needed a parent and before this happened we planned to marry in about a year. We entered into the marriage in the hospital actually 3 months into a 6 month stay for her and I took the kids home with me until she got out. We did receive counseling from her pastor before he agreed to marry us. We were married in a hospital overseen by the Catholic church in the church chapel and hosted by the Nuns who served in their mission there. We got to know them very well. One was a black belt. The Nuns had hid her and protected her for 3 months at that point.
Divorces happen for a reason and most certainly both parties need to address why honestly with themselves before remarrying so the first marriage issues do not follow them into the second one. Nearly two years ago after 29 years our vows were fulfilled and our marriage ended by her last heartbeat and breath.
How did Jesus deal with the woman at the well? Or the one who was fixing to be stoned? Adultery is adultery whether by action or by thought of which one must ask GOD's forgiveness. You can't undo it but you can be forgiven of it it you repent. Repent means change your heart. It is the heart and what is in a persons thoughts that defile someone. That is why Jesus and Paul gave specific instructions for Communion. It is for forgiveness. You forgive others then ask GOD to forgive you. You are not worthy for communion because of your physical deeds but rather because of faith in Christ shedding of His Blood for us. If you sin you ask GOD and anyone else involved if anyone else forgiveness,pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and try again. We all fail. If we break even one of God's Commandments we break them all. Our life's goal should certainly not be to keep on sinning but rather seeking to separate ourselves from sin which we alone can not accomplish.
If persons obeyed the teachings in The Bible fully but made adultery a sin which forever cuts off one from communion there indeed would be very few worthy by those standards if people were honest with themselves as instructed to be before taking communion and defining adultery as Jesus defined it.
Paul wrote about widows and widowers as well and how some could accept remaining such after loosing a spouse and it being better for some to remarry. In the beginning when GOD created man and woman he did so because both physical and emotionally needed each other. Procreation did not figure into it until after the fall of man. GOD also defines marriage as between man and a woman. Man to man or woman to woman is not recognized in The Bible so that would not even come into this debate.
Among the many things Christ did condemn the Temple leaders harshly over was placing legalisms and burdens upon persons that they themselves could not withstand and there as such was no forgiveness. Marriage should be entered into prayerfully and try to keep it Christ centered. It takes two and it takes work.
The references to the church, the ekklesia, the body of believers, is the thrust of these verses.
The roman catholic church is not the thrust of these verses.
The rcc teaches one must be subject to the bishop of Rome. Pius XII said, "To be Christian one must be Roman."
Nonsense.
To be Christian, one must be a follower of Christ...not Rome.
Read carefully. I did not say that the Church was open only to the Apostles. I said that the Church was founded on the Apostles. It was to the Twelve that Jesus gave the command to "do this in memory of me". It was to the Twelve that he gave power to bind and loose sin ("whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven"). It was to the Apostles that Jesus gave the Great Commission.
It is through the transmission of an uninterrupted Apostolic succession within the Church that we are able to receive Communion.
Yes it is.
Was Paul one of the Twelve?
It is through the transmission of an uninterrupted Apostolic succession within the Church that we are able to receive Communion.
From whom did Paul receive his commission?
Think about this.
Men wrote it. Men compiled it. Men canonized it. It was human hands which put this book together. Yes, the Holy Spirit inspired them but humans were the proximal means by which this book was assembled. Did the Holy Spirit take a permanent vacation when the job was done? Does he no longer work through the Church and guide it?
Moreover, there was a time in Church history when there was no New Testament. Read Acts 15. When Paul and Barnabas got into a dispute about circumcision in Antioch, they could not say "let's see what the Bible says about this". The New Testament had not been assembled. Instead, Scripture tells us that they returned to Jerusalem to consult with the "Apostles and ancients".
That's how it was in the early Church. It was men who guided it, not a book.
The Great Commission refers to Matt. 28. Paul wasn't around.
And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
Are you saying Paul was not told to go preach the Word??
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.