Yes, if you marry in the Catholic church, divorce and remarry without an annulment, (unless you marry the same person)you are committing adultery because you are still married in the eyes of God and the church. That is Catholic doctrine, it applies to Catholics.
The fact that others receive communion when they are not in a state of grace does not have any bearing on this. “Everybody does it” is not a valid excuse. In the Catholic Church, the Eucharist is where you are joined with Christ AFTER you are reconciled by the Sacrament of Reconciliation. “Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.”
Catholics consider every Christian marriage valid until it is proven not valid. Nobody is going to come looking for you and question your marriage. If Catholics married outside of the Catholic Church obtain a civil divorce and later wish to be married in the Catholic Church, they will be granted an annulment with minimal effort as the first marriage lacked proper form and is thus non-sacramental.
It becomes more complicated when the first marriage was in the Catholic Church, however, it is not terribly expensive (only $500 in my archdiocese) and those who cannot pay are not turned away, so the myth of annulments being bought for “big dollars” is just that. It is the perpetuation of these myths that keeps divorced people from seeking annulments that might very well be properly granted, allowing them back into communion with the church.
The logic is not circular. If both spouses believed in the permanence of Catholic marriage at the time of the vows, at least on those grounds the marriage is valid and sacramental, and annulment will not be granted regardless of someone changing their mind later and obtaining a civil divorce.
The divorce itself is not sufficient evidence to show that the vows were spoken invalidly, however, especially if one spouse remarries after a divorce, it is obvious that they currently don’t believe the vows that they professed during their first wedding, so it is logical to investigate WHEN they stopped believing in the permanence of marriage, before or after the vows were taken.
As for ‘emotionless souls’, do you believe that every unmarried person fits that description? Because the Bible clearly shows that sexual relations outside of marriage are sinful, so every unmarried person is called to be celibate. Married people separated from their spouses for any reason are also called to be celibate. Do you believe that life without sexual relations is meaningless, impossible, abnormal, emotionless? Deployed military and their spouses, those whose partners are ill or disabled, widows and widowers, are these all emotionless souls? Have humans no capacity for self-control?
Love,
O2
Which is actually referring to not being in union with Christ in how He sees His body, the church, because the Corinthians were not effectually remembering and thus showing the Lord's death for the church, since they we eating independently, selfishly, even to the full, and which to "shame them that have not," as if those for whom Christ died were spiritual lepers.
Read it in context, versus reading the preconceived Catholic corruption of the Lord's supper into the passage.
Paul reproves Corinthian church for coming together to eat the Lord's supper, as he charges them with not actually doing so because they were eating what is supposed to be a communal meal, the “feast of charity,” (Jude 1:12) independently of each other, so that “in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken,” and thus what they were doing was to “shame them that have not.” (1Co. 11:20-22)
Therefore Paul proceeds to reiterates the words of Christ at the institution of the Lord's supper, ending with “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew [kataggellō=preach/declare] the Lord's death till he come.” (1 Corinthians 11:23-26)
For while they were supposed to be showing/declaring the Lord's unselfish sacrificial death for the body by unselfishly sharing food with other members of the body of Christ, whom Christ purchased it with His own sinless shed blood, (Acts 20:28) instead they were both eating independently and selfishly. And thus were effectively treating other members as lepers, and as if the body was not a body, and as if others were not part of the body for whom Christ died. This lack of effectual recognition is what is being referred to as “not discerning the Lord's body,” that of the body in which the members are to treat each as blood-bought beloved brethren, as Christ did. Because they were presuming to show the Lord's death for the body while acting contrary to it, therefore they were eating this bread and drinking the cup of the Lord unworthily, hypocritically, and were chastised for it, some unto death. (1Co. 11:27-32)
Because this was the case and cause of condemnation — that of not recognizing the nature of the corporate body of Christ in independently selfishly eating — versus not recognizing the elements eaten as being the body of Christ — then the apostle's solution was, “Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.” (1 Corinthians 11:33-34)
And which leads into the next chapter in which Christ-like love is described. Paul himself was asked of the Lord, “why persecutest thou me” (Acts 9:4) as Paul was attacking the church, thus showing His identification with the church.