Vatican Reiterates Divorced Remarried Catholics Are Banned From Communion

Christian Post ^ | 10/23/2013 | MORGAN LEE

[SeekAndFind]

A Vatican official reiterated this week that divorced remarried Catholics are still banned from taking Communion.

In a lengthy essay published on Tuesday in the Vatican newspaper "L'Osservatore Romano," Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller acknowledged the tensions the church dealt with in choosing to stand by an earlier tenant.

"Today even firm believers are seriously wondering: can the Church not admit the divorced and remarried to the sacraments under certain conditions? Are her hands permanently tied on this matter? Have theologians really explored all the implications and consequences?" Müller, the Vatican's chief doctrine official, wrote.

Müller denied that mercy superseded the authority of Biblical teachings, and added that marriage was not a sacrament "for the individuals concerned to decide on its validity, but rather for the Church."

Müller also reminded remarried Catholics that a relationship with God was not limited to their ability to take Communion.

"It is important to realize that there are other ways, apart from sacramental communion, of being in fellowship with God. One can draw close to God by turning to him in faith, hope and charity, in repentance and prayer. God can grant his closeness and his salvation to people on different paths, even if they find themselves in a contradictory life situation," he wrote.

He also encouraged priests and church leaders to make sure that they "welcome people in irregular situations openly and sincerely, to stand by them sympathetically and helpfully, and to make them aware of the love of the Good Shepherd."

Müller's words come at a time when the Freiburg diocese in Germany announced earlier this month that it intended to give Communion to divorcees. The diocese, which first launched its campaign in February 2012, had declared that the current church teaching came from a spirit of "moral condemnation" leaving remarried Catholics with a "painful feeling of exclusion" and said that it would only individually grant the sacrament after couples had been interviewed by a priest.

Immediately after the diocese announced its decision, the Vatican immediately criticized Freiburg, arguing that its position only brought "confusion."

Current church teaching dictates that Catholics who wish to remarry must have their first marriage annulled if they seek to continue participating in the church's sacraments -- an act that declares the marriage never existed. If the church does not grant an annulment, it considers the person remarrying to be committing adultery.

[GeronL]

Paul was leader of the apostles he was never explicitly appointed head of a church.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Biden’s wife Neilia and one-year-old daughter were killed in an automobile accident in 1972. He married his second wife in 1977. Really, do you have a problem with that?

[GeronL]

1) While Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles or over the church (see Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; 1 Peter 5:1-5). Nor is it ever taught that the bishop of Rome was to have primacy over the church. Rather, there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome, found in 1 Peter 5:13. Primarily from this, and the historical rise of the influence of the bishop of Rome (due to the support of Constantine and the Roman emperors who followed him), come the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20) and that the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).

2) Nowhere does Scripture state that in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (the idea behind apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is cited in the Bible as infallible. The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers. Paul does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority,” but rather to “God and to the word of His grace” (Acts 20:28-32).

Again, the Bible teaches that it is Scripture that is to be used as measuring stick to determine truth from error. In Galatians 1:8-9, Paul states that it is not WHO teaches but WHAT is being taught that is to be used to determine truth from error. While the Roman Catholic Church continues to pronounce a curse to hell, or “anathema,” upon those who would reject the authority of the pope, Scripture reserves that curse for those who would teach a different gospel (Galatians 1:8-9).

3) While the Roman Catholic Church sees apostolic succession as logically necessary in order for God to unerringly guide the church, Scripture states that God has provided for His church through the following:

(a) Infallible Scripture, (Acts 20:32; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Matthew 5:18; John 10:35; Acts 17:10-12; Isaiah 8:20; 40:8; etc.) Note: Peter speaks of Paul’s writings in the same category as other Scripture (2 Peter 3:16),

(b) Christ’s unending high-priesthood in heaven (Hebrews 7:22-28),

(c) The provision of the Holy Spirit who guided the apostles into truth after Christ’s death (John 16:12-14), who gifts believers for the work of the ministry, including teaching (Romans 12:3-8; Ephesians 4:11-16), and who uses the written Word as His chief tool (Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:17).

While there have seemingly been good (humanly speaking) and moral men who have served as pope of the Roman Catholic Church, including Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis I, the Roman Catholic Church teaching about the office of the pope should be rejected because it is not “in continuity” with the teachings of the original church related to us in the New Testament. This comparison of any church’s teaching is essential, lest we miss the New Testament’s teaching concerning the gospel, and not only miss eternal life in heaven ourselves, but unwittingly lead others down the wrong path (Galatians 1:8-9).

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/pope-papacy.html#ixzz2iaTvywNb

[JediJones]

The answer is don’t let what someone else thinks of you including your parents affect your self-esteem. You have to stay true to your own convictions in life to be happy, but not someone else’s. If I had to make my parents happy instead of being true to my convictions then I’d be a Democrat.

[Arthur McGowan]

The Divorced-and-Remarried don’t control billions in federal dollars.

[informavoracious]

Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller acknowledged the tensions the church dealt with in choosing to stand by an earlier tenant.

Pope Benedict XVI? Pope John XXIII? Pope Leo?

[Arthur McGowan]

I recall that bishop Howard Hubbard, at a Mass celebrated BECAUSE of Andrew Cuomo’s inauguration as governor, said from the pulpit that Cuomo and his shack-up (who were seated up front) were “evangelists.”

Whether one or both of them received Communion was not clear, as I recall, from the news accounts. But the statement from Howard Hubbard was almost as scandalous in itself.

I’m sure that many Catholics are maintaining a countdown to Hubbard’s 75th birthday.

[Arthur McGowan]

No!

Newt had to obtain annulments of his prior marriage(s) in order to marry Callista in the Catholic Church.

But if Newt had never become a Catholic, he and Callista would still need an annulment before they could marry in the Catholic Church.

There two are exceptions to this: If a person becomes a Catholic and the existing spouse refuses to live in peace with the convert. I believe this is called the “Pauline privilege.” There’s something called the “Petrine privilege,” but I forget what it is.

[Toespi]

Sounds like you know more than I do.

[donmeaker]

Oddly people are permitted to have relations with other than their first spouse: If they are widowed, or if they merely quietly commit adultery without a remarriage, or if they convert to Catholicism after their second marriage. The church doesn’t want to endorse divorce, but if they don’t have to take a position, well, that isn’t their problem.

One fellow became a deacon, and his wife died. Because he was a deacon he was not permitted to remarry. He eventually was called to became a priest, and was very effective when counseling widows/widowers because he had been there.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Paul was an Apostle with the same kind of authority in the Church as the other Apostles and their successors, neither more nor less. He was the head of the local churches he "planted," and anybody who has read the Epistles knows that he is quite insistent on these churches acknowledging his authority as an Apostle like Peter, James, John and the rest--- it's the subject of quite a bit of assertion on his part.

This begins its development as Church structure at the level of deacons (diakonoi), priests (presbyteroi), and bishops (episcopoi) as you can see right in the pages of the New Testament, as these offices are passed on by the laying on of hands, to replacements and successors (Matthias, Timothy, Titus, etc.)

This authority derives from Jesus giving the keys (the symbol of authority), the power to "loose and to bind," to His Apostles; and His declaration that "whoever hears you, hears Me."

Tagline.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Oddly people are permitted to have relations with other than their first spouse: If they are widowed,

Of course.

".. or if they merely quietly commit adultery without a remarriage..."

You can't exactly say it's "permitted" if it's "quietly," -- no serious sin like that is "allowed" but quite probably the priest doesn't know anything about it. Mortal sin disqualifies one from Communion --- it doesn't take an e-mail from the pope or a proclamation from the pulpit! --- and anyone conscious of being in mortal sin who receives Holy Communion, is committing a sacrilege: one mortal sin on top of the other.

"... or if they convert to Catholicism after their second marriage. "

That depends on whether their previous marriages were valid. Baptized Christians married in other (Christian) churches, and then divorced, could not remarry another spouse after conversion to the Catholic Church, unless the previous attempted marriages were annulled.

"The church doesn’t want to endorse divorce, but if they don’t have to take a position, well, that isn’t their problem."

The Church doesn't hire PI's and pro-actively investigate everybody in the church to see what their previous marital history was, or what their present domestic relations are. It only becomes an issue if they bring it up (e.g. by asking about annulment or remarriage) at which time the Church has to investigate via the Diocesan Marriage Tribunal. And even that can;t be done without the active and willing cooperation of the parties involved. The Church has no power to subpoena witnesses!

"One fellow became a deacon, and his wife died. Because he was a deacon he was not permitted to remarry. He eventually was called to became a priest, and was very effective when counseling widows/widowers because he had been there."

That's good to know, We have three terrific deacons at our parish, two of them married men and one of them a widower. I love these guys!

[plain talk]

“Being divorced and remarried equals living in continual adultery = going to hell when you die. “

Not necessarily. God abhors sins of all stripes- pride, idol worship, homosexuality, etc. Just yelling at someone in anger is murder to God. Only God knows who goes to hell.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Joe Biden just this year took Communion at the Vatican, he was there to meet and congratulate his Pope.

Well, Pope Francis probably didn’t know that he is a divorced man.

[Inspectorette]

As much as I dislike Joe Biden, he is not a divorced man. His first wife was killed in a car accident.

[GeronL]

from that other post:

Nowhere does Scripture state that in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (the idea behind apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is cited in the Bible as infallible. The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers. Paul does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority,” but rather to “God and to the word of His grace” (Acts 20:28-32).

[SeekAndFind]

RE: As much as I dislike Joe Biden, he is not a divorced man. His first wife was killed in a car accident.

My mistake, my apologies to the gaffster :)

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Nowhere does Scripture state that in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (the idea behind apostolic succession)".

I disagree: on the contrary, every time authority is passed on in the NT (including to Matthias, to the deacons, to such men as Timothy and Titus), it is conferred by the laying on of hands, which is to say, ordination. That's the way it was done then. That's the way it always was done through the centuries as the Church spread through Western Asia, Northern Africa, and Europe from the Black Sea to Ireland. And that's the way it's still done to this day.

Usually when I bring this up, I get either no response, or something like "Hey, no fair using evidence."

All the evidence is on the side of a defined structure with deacons, priests and bishops (sometimes abbots). In all the churches which go back to the Apostles, including not only the Roman Catholics, but also and especially the "Uniate" churches of the Chaldeans, Melkites, Maronite, the Orthodox, the non-Byzantine churches of the East (such as the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Eritrean Church, the Armenian Apostlic Church and the Egyptian [Coptic] Church) --- also called Oriental Orthodox --- you'll not find a one of them that doesn't have deacons, priests,and bishops; you'll not find a one of them that doesn't find this "in their DNA" going all the way back to the period when the Epistles and Gospels were being written, and they were learning from the very lips of the Apostles.

This constitutes a fact-based argument. Those who ignore facts are those who are "reading their own preferences" into Scripture. Or not seeing and grasping the significance of what is there.

" What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is cited in the Bible as infallible."

Agreed, this much: Scripture does say that false teachings would arise even among Church leaders --- which, by he way, confirms that there would be a Church with identifiable leaders ("Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers." Eph 4:11).

But the next part, whoa: let's look at that word infallible---which is only used once in Scripture, and there it doesn't refer to Scripture itself or to anything in writing:

Acts 1:2-4
"...until the day in which He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandmentsto the Apostles whom He had chosen, to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God."

Get a load of that. There's infallible; and there's 40 days' worth of preaching by Our Risen Lord to the Apostles which is not contained in Scripture. St.John confirms this at the end of his Gospel when he says:

John 21:25
"And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen."

So there's your infallibility: the word of the Lord, given to the Apostles through His oral teaching,and a LOT of it. Conveyed by oral preaching, much of which wasn't written down. Prescinding for a moment from Peter, James, John, and Jude, who wrote epistles, I ask you: who has preserved the teachings of Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Cananean?

They're not in writing. If they ever were, unfortunately any writings are now lost. But their teachings are preserved by the ancient church-cultural consensus of the local churches established by them and their successors in the Apostolic Age. In places like these

look up the churches, or the archaeological remains of the oldest churches there are, and you know what? They have bishops, priests and deacons, they are liturgical, and they are apostolic by succession.

"The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture."

Agreed here, too, to this extent: It is not that all the Apostles were infallible, because they were not. It is that the Church is infallible.

The Church (not one individual, but the Body of Christ, the people of God gathered around heir bishops) had to be infallible, because the Church --- these select men and their successors --- wrote the NT Scripture! And directed the translating, transcribing, and distribution of the NT Scripture, determined the canon of the NT Scripture, all over a period of 200-300 years. The writing was done by 100 AD, but the complete and official canon was not spread, studied, and accepted by broad consensus until at least another 100 years after that. Which came first, Scripture or Church? Obviously, the Church.

More later, my friend. I have to go to bed, get up early tomorrow, repair my painted signs that sort of disintegrated last week in the rain, and go back and do the prayer vigil at our local abortion clinic. Big day.

I won't be able to answer again until Friday probably.

In the meantime, God bless you, brother in Christ.

[bicyclerepair]

What if your wife leaves YOU and YOU don’t have the $500 for the annulment????? HUH!

Think Jesus hates me now?

And why can’t Catholic priests get married? Hmm, so offspring don’t dilute the church’s assets?

FOLLOW THE MONEY!

[Marie]

And yet my childhood friend could get married in a Catholic Church to a divorced man while she was HUGE pregnant.

Longest damn ceremony that I’ve ever been through.

Catholic aerobics. “Sit! Stand! Kneel! Pray! Kneel! Stand! Pray! Sit!”