Posted on 09/16/2016 5:49:47 PM PDT by marshmallow
EDMONTON, Alberta, September 15, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — The Catholic Church has not changed her practice towards divorced and civilly remarried Catholics — despite what the faithful may have been led to believe through the media or other sources, the Alberta and Northwest Territory bishops stated in pastoral guidelines released Wednesday.
It is “erroneous” to conclude that divorced and civilly remarried Catholics can receive Holy Communion “if they simply have a conversation with a priest,” stated the guidelines, signed by the six bishops responsible for over 1,000,000 Catholics in five dioceses.
The 10-page document is intended to “answer the call of Pope Francis in his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, particularly to assist priests in their duty to accompany those Catholics who are divorced and remarried without having received a decree of nullity,” noted a statement from Edmonton’s Archbishop Richard Smith, president of the Alberta-NWT bishops.
In Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia, the Holy Father makes it clear that the Church’s pastors are to accompany divorced and remarried with a “discernment filled with merciful love, which is ever ready to understand, forgive, accompany, hope, and above all integrate.”
The Alberta bishops letter is highly significant, however, because it does not mention the infamous footnote 351 to paragraph 305 in AL in which the pope states that “in certain cases,” this integration of divorced and civilly remarried Catholics “can include the help of the sacraments.”
The Alberta bishops’ letter also stands in stark contrast to the directive from the bishops of the pastoral region of Buenos Aires in Argentina called “Basic Criteria for the Application of Chapter Eight of Amoris Laetitia.”
The Argentinean document asserts that in “complex circumstances” when the remarried couple could not “obtain a declaration of nullity,” the priests can nevertheless move forward to grant them access to Holy Communion.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
Unless they don’t go to the bathroom?
Depends
Umm. Sexual continence, not urinary continence.
Could have had so much fun with this one ... spoil sport. LOL!
Oh, naughty, you.
Interesting thing is, Catholics claim that partaking of the eucharist gives you the life of Christ and is necessary for salvation, and yet deliberately excludes people from partaking, thus damning them to hell for getting remarried after a divorce.
If they're not going to have sex, then what's the purpose of even being married?
Just a cute story. Our priest is from India, he had been here for some time when he realized there were people who were living together w/o marriage and taking Communion. Other priests have just ignored this for years.
He started talking about this at Mass and said people who were doing this needed to come talk to him and they shouldn’t be partaking in Communion. He also went privately to those he knew weren’t married.
He has spent the last 18 months doing Marriage prep and this evening 6 couples got married and the parish gave them a dinner and reception.
He has 3 more lined up for December.
It's a catch 22, the same catch 22 that I found myself in. I couldn't take the Eucharist because I was always committing mortal sins, and I couldn't get the saving graces because I couldn't get the Eucharist. Talk about a double whammy.
The story has a happy ending, however. I got the grace of Ephesians 2:8-9. 😇
It talks about the exact opposite.
It's a catch 22, the same catch 22 that I found myself in. I couldn't take the Eucharist because I was always committing mortal sins, and I couldn't get the saving graces because I couldn't get the Eucharist. Talk about a double whammy.
The story has a happy ending, however. I got the grace of Ephesians 2:8-9. 😇
The point here is that the “remarried” couple are not really married in the eyes of God at all, but are committing adultery. This is not just an opinion. Jesus says this in the Gospels of Mark and Luke and twice in Matthew.
Therefore fidelity to their real spouse (the first and only one, according to Jesus) requires sexual continence with any other putative civil partner ot would-be spouse.
Christ does not OK bigamy.
But he OKs divorce and remarriage...
The point here is that the “remarried” couple are not really married in the eyes of God at all, but are committing adultery. This is not just an opinion. Jesus says this in the Gospels of Mark and Luke and twice in Matthew.
Really??? You can't even find that in YOUR bible with out misquoting the verses or leaving something out or putting something in...
But regardless, here's the clincher...Jesus was speaking to Jews, under the law...We as Christians are not under the law...We are covered by grace..."There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus"...
It's also clear that he was forbidding what had become a common practice among the Jews: that a man could divorce his wife simply by giving her an official dismissal, a certificate of divorce, which the Pharisee Hillel said was all that was needed. (The Pharisee Shammai was stricter, and said there had to be a serious reason for it.)
This is why His followers were astonished, a found it a "hard saying": in saying they were not to divorce, Jesus went way beyond both Pharisee schools of thought, Hillel and Shammai.
See Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11, Mark 10:12, Luke 15:18.
He repeats it over and over: no divorce. And if you remarry, it's adultery.
This, then, became the practice of the early Church-- as we see in Corinthians--- and it held even for marriages between Christians and non-Christians:
1 Corinthians 7:11 But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.
1 Corinthians 7:12
But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her.
1 Corinthians 7:13
And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him.
Good morning, metmom. It’s always good to have you in the discussion.
I welcome you to express your own convictions, but I would caution you against proclaiming, with such confidence, about matters for which your knowledge and experience have not equipped you -— as when you write erroneously about Catholic doctrines.
First, you imply, slyly, that a Catholic annulment is the same as divorce. It is not. It involves an inquiry as to whether there were binding sacramental marriage bonds to begin with. Ab initio. If there were, then the bonds are held to continue til death. That’s true even if the disappointed petitioner is a powerful and wealthy man who wants a new woman, e.g. a certain 16th century king of England.
Second, you announce that Catholic doctrine states that Holy Communion is necessary for salvation. This false, unheard-of, and I can’t imagine where you’ve gotten this. It can’t gave come with your degree.
Never having received Communion, abstaining from Communion, or even being barred from Communion, does not damn anybody to hell. Please jot that down in your Catholicism notebook.
What will damn a person to hell, however, is knowing, deliberate, and unrepented mortal sin.
Adultery is one of the biggies. Right there in the Decalogue. Adulterers do not enter the Kingdom of God. Right there in the Epistles of St. Paul. And people who divorce and remarry are committing adultery. Right there in the Gospels, the very words of the Word of God, four times. And the word He used was adultery, *moicheia*.
Please jot that down, too. We may come back to it.
The most astonishing this is the assumption, in your final paragraph, that people only get married for sex. Sometimes people get involved in a second “marriage” after divorce, because they want to create a new father-mother family for the sake of the kids.
In such a case, the Catholic Church says, by way of accommodation, that, as a sort of legal fiction, they may maintain the second invalid civil marriage to strengthen the stability of their new household for the sake of the kids. But they must abstain from sex because sex with somebody other than your vowed first-and-only spouse is adultery.
Adultery is still defined as having sex with somebody other than the spouse to whom you joined yourself til death, by vow, with God as your witness.
At least, that’s how Jesus defines it.
Good morning, metmom. It’s always good to have you in the discussion.
I welcome you to express your own convictions, but I would caution you against proclaiming, with such confidence, about matters for which your knowledge and experience have not equipped you -— as when you write erroneously about Catholic doctrines.
First, you imply, slyly, that a Catholic annulment is the same as divorce. It is not. It involves an inquiry as to whether there were binding sacramental marriage bonds to begin with. Ab initio. If there were, then the bonds are held to continue til death. That’s true even if the disappointed petitioner is a powerful and wealthy man who wants a new woman, e.g. a certain 16th century king of England.
Second, you announce that Catholic doctrine states that Holy Communion is necessary for salvation. This false, unheard-of, and I can’t imagine where you’ve gotten this. It can’t gave come with your degree.
Never having received Communion, abstaining from Communion, or even being barred from Communion, does not damn anybody to hell. Please jot that down in your Catholicism notebook.
What will damn a person to hell, however, is knowing, deliberate, and unrepented mortal sin.
Adultery is one of the biggies. Right there in the Decalogue. Adulterers do not enter the Kingdom of God. Right there in the Epistles of St. Paul. And people who divorce and remarry are committing adultery. Right there in the Gospels, the very words of the Word of God, four times. And the word He used was adultery, *moicheia*.
Please jot that down, too. We may come back to it.
The most astonishing this is the assumption, in your final paragraph, that people only get married for sex. Sometimes people get involved in a second “marriage” after divorce, because they want to create a new father-mother family for the sake of the kids.
In such a case, the Catholic Church says, by way of accommodation, that, as a sort of legal fiction, they may maintain the second invalid civil marriage to strengthen the stability of their new household for the sake of the kids. But they must abstain from sex because sex with somebody other than your vowed first-and-only spouse is adultery.
Adultery is still defined as having sex with somebody other than the spouse to whom you joined yourself til death, by vow, with God as your witness.
At least, that’s how Jesus defines it.
Good morning, metmom. It’s always good to have you in the discussion.
I welcome you to express your own convictions, but I would caution you against proclaiming, with such confidence, about matters for which your knowledge and experience have not equipped you -— as when you write erroneously about Catholic doctrines.
First, you imply, slyly, that a Catholic annulment is the same as divorce. It is not. It involves an inquiry as to whether there were binding sacramental marriage bonds to begin with. Ab initio. If there were, then the bonds are held to continue til death. That’s true even if the disappointed petitioner is a powerful and wealthy man who wants a new woman, e.g. a certain 16th century king of England.
Second, you announce that Catholic doctrine states that Holy Communion is necessary for salvation. This false, unheard-of, and I can’t imagine where you’ve gotten this. It can’t gave come with your degree.
Never having received Communion, abstaining from Communion, or even being barred from Communion, does not damn anybody to hell. Please jot that down in your Catholicism notebook.
What will damn a person to hell, however, is knowing, deliberate, and unrepented mortal sin.
Adultery is one of the biggies. Right there in the Decalogue. Adulterers do not enter the Kingdom of God. Right there in the Epistles of St. Paul. And people who divorce and remarry are committing adultery. Right there in the Gospels, the very words of the Word of God, four times. And the word He used was adultery, *moicheia*.
Please jot that down, too. We may come back to it.
The most astonishing this is the assumption, in your final paragraph, that people only get married for sex. Sometimes people get involved in a second “marriage” after divorce, because they want to create a new father-mother family for the sake of the kids.
In such a case, the Catholic Church says, by way of accommodation, that, as a sort of legal fiction, they may maintain the second invalid civil marriage to strengthen the stability of their new household for the sake of the kids. But they must abstain from sex because sex with somebody other than your vowed first-and-only spouse is adultery.
Adultery is still defined as having sex with somebody other than the spouse to whom you joined yourself til death, by vow, with God as your witness.
At least, that’s how Jesus defines it.
Sorry for the triplicates. Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy. O:o)
I’m using my Kindle Fire while sitting here in a sleeping patient’s room. The Kindle sometimes repeats repeats stuff, plus it gives me unexpected SpellCheck “corrections”.
At least none of them *as yet* have turned into off-color jokes ;-)
‘
‘
‘
Ain't nothing like the real thing, baby.
That's what this controversy is about.
Where does the Catholic Church teach that it is virtuous or appropriate to follow perpetual continence in marriage (because that is what this is implying)?
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.