1. Welcome to Mother of God Forums - A place dedicated to the Mother of God. Please feel free to join us in prayer and sharing. Please Register to start posting.
    Dismiss Notice

Communion to divorce or seperated?

Discussion in 'The Sacraments' started by fallen saint, Oct 26, 2016.

  1. fallen saint

    fallen saint Baby steps :)

    The Pharisees continue to argue the what ifs and the i told you so. Too bad that the what ifs has not come to pass.

    Being the traditionalist that i am. I agree what is bound by God cannot be separated by man.

    But if you want to hear the real issue...the sacrament of marriage by itself does not make it valid in Gods eyes, unless both people acknowledge and trully believe in Our Lord Jesus Christ.

    In my opinion, the couple must

    1. Both people most accept and FULLY BELIEVE....the apostles creed

    I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
    And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit; Born of the Virgin Mary; Suffered under Pontius Pilate; Was crucified, dead and buried; He descended into Hell; The third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven; And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
    I believe in the Holy Spirit; The Holy Christian Church, the Communion of Saints; The Forgiveness of sins; The Resurrection of the body; And the life everlasting. Amen.

    2. Both people must live Christ centered lives...trying to be saints

    Therefore, in my humble opinion most marriages are invalid. Some might be invalid but by the grace of God gradually become saintly unions. But most likely, the unions will fail without the true knowledge of God and faith. Spiritually speaking most marriages in my opinion are not valid.

    Marriage is not a action that should be taken for granted. It is a spiritual agreement between God, a man and a women. What we have lost in the 20th century is that marriage is a spiritual committment to God. Like Holy Orders it is a binding contract that cannot be broken. i see things much different then most of you. I think Our Holy Father understands most marriages are probably not spiritually valid. That is why this conversation is taking place. There should be a process to correct the wrong of invalid marriages but to marry again... the church must make it long and tedious process that is spiritually demanding.

    I think Our Holy Father sees the bigger picture.

    Brother al
  2. Praetorian

    Praetorian Powers

    We belong to a Church FS. The One True Church. You can't make up your own rules for what marriage is. We accept the Church to interpret things for us and we follow along. That is the way God set it up.

    According to these rules you made up most marriages are now and have always been invalid. It would, in fact, be the odd couple that were seeking to become saints who were actually even able to get married. I don't think God makes it that hard.

    It may surprise you to know that I think many marriages today are invalid. People today do not understand (or accept) what marriage is. The problem is no-fault divorce. That is one important point where the marriage crisis stems from.
    Booklady likes this.
  3. fallen saint

    fallen saint Baby steps :)

    Funny, you kinda agree with me. This is a purely a spiritual debate. What makes a valid marriage. That is the real debate...not if the divorced or separated can receive communion. I never made up my own rules for marriage. The church has made those rules. This is a purely spiritual debate. What makes a valid marriage in Gods eyes? That debate comes from Holy Spirit. Even the laws of sin has the great variable...knowledge and consent. Might not be the exact terminology...but even sin has variables. So the law is important but the Holy Spirit is in charge.

    So, the church makes up rules for marriage. I agree...but what makes a valid marriage in eyes of God? The church interprets but so do scholars, theologians as well as laity. As long as it is not against church teaching the spiritual can always be debated.

    As for saints not being able to be married. I totally disagree with you...two people blessed by the Grace of God can work together in holiness. But that is a different thread.

    The problem is no-fault divorce...if you are talking about society, you are correct. But spiritually the problem is lack of true knowledge of God.

    May Gods Will be Done
  4. Dolours

    Dolours Powers

    I'm looking forward to the bigger picture you paint to explain the benefits of blessing of homosexual unions in Catholic churches.

    Keep it up and you could be the new Michelangelo before the end of this papacy.

    Heaven help us.
  5. fallen saint

    fallen saint Baby steps :)

    Oh Dolours,

    Homosexuality is not from God. If we really want to get to the meat of the matter. Homosexuality, as well as adultery is based on pleasure. If it makes me feel good therefore it is good. But nothing good comes from it. It is distorted happiness that offends God. The relationships are based on animalistic pleasure. A bond blessed by the Holy Spirit also has pleasure and joy... but the outcome is procreation of life. That is what God intended...the responsibility that comes with holy matrimony. So again, i am not a liberal or a modernist...i think i am more of a spiritualist.

    There is more to God then the law of the Church...eventhough God is the law.

    Your friend Brother al
  6. BrianK

    BrianK Resident Kook, Crank, Curmudgeon - & Mod Staff Member

  7. BrianK

    BrianK Resident Kook, Crank, Curmudgeon - & Mod Staff Member


    The New Pharisees: Who Today is Putting up Obstacles to Evangelization?
    “Woe unto You, Scribes and Pharisees” – James Tissot, 19th Century

    Internet veterans are familiar with “Godwin’s Law.” Formally stated, the adage proposes that “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches.” No matter the argument, if it goes on long enough, someone will evoke the modern epitome of evil – Nazism – to condemn his opponents.

    If a Catholic version of this adage were formulated, it would state, “As an online Catholic discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Pharisees approaches.” But in the Catholic world, this comparison is inevitably used against those who defend any traditional Church teaching or practice. Is this association of defenders of orthodoxy and tradition with the Pharisees fair? Or could this accusation have it exactly backwards? Perhaps it is those who have jettisoned traditional Catholic teachings and practices, and who have embraced the “traditions” of the past generation, who are the New Pharisees today.

    To make a determination we should first see why it was that Jesus condemned the Pharisees so often during his public ministry. Was it simply because they followed rules and traditions? No. In essence, Our Lord denounced the Pharisees because they created barriers to God’s grace by imposing man-made traditions that kept people from that grace. This was especially egregious because the Pharisees wielded religious authority over others and thus were particularly positioned to block them from drawing closer to God and His grace. Jesus explains this clearly in Matthew 15:1-9:

    Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” He answered them, “And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die.’ But you say, ‘If any one tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God, he need not honor his father.’ So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:

    ‘This people honors me with their lips,
    but their heart is far from me;
    in vain do they worship me,
    teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’”

    The problem is not rules or traditions themselves. After all, Jesus himself said, “ I have come not to abolish [the law and the prophets] but to fulfil them” (Matthew 5:17). In addition, he told his followers, “Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:19). And St. Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, “Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

    Although it is common in today’s antinomian world to condemn anyone who supports a tradition or rule as “Pharisaical,” this clearly was not the point of Christ’s warning. Instead, he condemned only those who support traditions that lead people away from a relationship with God, i.e., those who “make void the word of God.”

    So who today is advocating man-made traditions that deny people access to God’s grace? Who teaches as doctrine the precepts of men? Imagine the following scenarios, and see if any of them seem all-too-familiar:

    • A parish offers the Sacrament of Confession for only a half-hour each Saturday, at an inconvenient time, and makes no announcements promoting Reconciliation. The defense is that “no one goes anymore” and the priests are too busy.
    • Requests for more traditional hymns to be sung during Mass are turned down with the response that “the songs we sing now are the songs our parishioners have always enjoyed the most.”
    • Communion is advocated for the divorced and remarried, with the argument that to withhold it would be to violate the Church’s great tradition of “welcoming.”
    • When an effort is made to institute a new marriage preparation program that includes substantial Church teaching, the existing volunteers resist on the grounds that the current program is “how we have always done it.”
    • A priest who decides to withhold the Eucharist from a publicly same-sex couple is quickly removed and told that his actions show a “lack of pastoral sensitivity” and make the Church appear judgmental.
    • A parishioner suggests to the pastor a door-to-door campaign to try to bring people into the Church, but is turned down on the grounds that “Catholics don’t do that.” Additionally he is told that “proselytization” isn’t in keeping with ecumenism.
    In each case, people are being directed away from the truth found in Christ and His Church, away from healing and reconciliation, away from a lasting relationship with Christ – and the reasons given amount to no more than “that’s how we do it now.” In other words, these are our “traditions.” The New Pharisees of today downplay Catholic doctrine, minimize the importance of the Sacraments, ridicule traditional Catholic devotions, scoff at Catholic moral teachings, and diminish the uniqueness of the Catholic Church. The man-made traditions they’ve instituted over the last 40 years have become encrusted in the life of the average Catholic parish, even though, as I wrote recently, there is no evidence that any of these programs or practices actually draw people into Christ’s Church. The evidence, in fact, is overwhelming that it draws people away from Christ and his Church. In other words, “For the sake of their tradition, they have made void the word of God!”

    Sadly, all too often it is exactly these New Pharisees who hold positions of authority in many Catholic parishes today. But, in keeping with Our Lord’s example, we must confront and resist their efforts. We must continue to call sin “sin” and call on people to avoid it at all costs – even sin that is now culturally acceptable – knowing that these actions can lead to the destruction of the human person and his soul. In conjunction with a renewed emphasis on sin, we must emphasize the Sacrament of Confession, so that those in need can be forgiven and reconciled to God. We must also embrace a more reverent Mass, in order to better worship God. Further, in an age of rampant sexual immorality, we must clearly explain Catholic teaching on sexuality and marriage, and urge married couples to live out the fullness of the Church’s teachings in these areas. And we must call every person to conversion to the Catholic Church, so that everyone can receive her abundant graces.

    We must invite – even beg – people to return to Christ in the sacraments and the Church and to receive God’s grace, and to reject beliefs and practices that keep them from that grace. Ultimately, there is one purpose behind all these actions: to draw people into a deeper relationship with the Word of God, Jesus Christ. With this as our mission, we can hold onto the traditions that deepen that relationship, and abandon those which, in teaching as doctrine the precepts of man, lead people away from that saving relationship.

    The New Pharisees fall back on the failed man-made traditions of the past generation; let us abandon these futile traditions and instead hold on to the true Catholic traditions which have stood the test of time.

    Originally published on March 5, 2015.
  8. fallen saint

    fallen saint Baby steps :)

    What would life be like without Brian's little comments "ad hominim" "moving the goal posts". All my years in the seminary...i debated many guys like you. Its actually quite easy to get you to crawl out of your hole. My argument is valid and i am not changing the subject. It is spiritually sound and theologically correct.

    That is what upsets you.

  9. fallen saint

    fallen saint Baby steps :)

    You do the same thing but call others modernist if they don't follow your logic.


  10. garabandal

    garabandal Powers

    Here is what the Church teaches: the parties to the marriage covenant are a baptised man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent.

    It is actually really easy to understand. When you say Yes in front of witnesses and God the sacrament is conferred by the consenting parties, which God honours through His grace. Very simple really.

    Jesus said let your Yes be Yes and your No be No.

    The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; "to be free" means:

    - not being under constraint;

    - not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law.

    1626 The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element that "makes the marriage."127 If consent is lacking there is no marriage.

    1627 The consent consists in a "human act by which the partners mutually give themselves to each other": "I take you to be my wife" - "I take you to be my husband."128 This consent that binds the spouses to each other finds its fulfillment in the two "becoming one flesh."129

    1628 The consent must be an act of the will of each of the contracting parties, free of coercion or grave external fear.130 No human power can substitute for this consent.131 If this freedom is lacking the marriage is invalid.

    1629 For this reason (or for other reasons that render the marriage null and void) the Church, after an examination of the situation by the competent ecclesiastical tribunal, can declare the nullity of a marriage, i.e., that the marriage never existed.132 In this case the contracting parties are free to marry, provided the natural obligations of a previous union are discharged.133

    1630 The priest (or deacon) who assists at the celebration of a marriage receives the consent of the spouses in the name of the Church and gives the blessing of the Church. The presence of the Church's minister (and also of the witnesses) visibly expresses the fact that marriage is an ecclesial reality.
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2016
    Dolours likes this.
  11. BrianK

    BrianK Resident Kook, Crank, Curmudgeon - & Mod Staff Member

    A year or two ago your side was insisting that the pope would NEVER allow or support Communion for divorced or remarried.

    Now that it obvious he has all along, as we said, you change your story and claim it's all about "mercy" and guided by "the Holy Spirit."

    I think that's known as changing the goalposts, but I could be wrong. I'll let the reader decide.
  12. Dolours

    Dolours Powers

    Hang on to your paint brushes. In this new make-it-up-as-you-go-along Church, homosexual unions are good, common law marriages confer grace, and it's only the majority of Catholic Church marriages that are invalid. You might need to get some more supplies because I have a feeling you will need to paint quite a few new pictures over the coming years.
  13. fallen saint

    fallen saint Baby steps :)

    Funny there is no my side...in reality, i am falling off the slippery slope. I am like the dog that runs back to his vomit. But, at least i have (in my good days) scratched the spiritual. And all i really know is...we are all sinners, especially those that are so easy to condemn everyone especially the Pope. The arrogance leaves a bad smell of sulfur in the air.

    I don't think i said anything wrong. I even started my own thread but the attacks continue. What i have written is spiritually sound. Theologians might not agree but they can't deny either.

    Continue your path and i hope to change mine.

  14. fallen saint

    fallen saint Baby steps :)

    What if you don't believe? Not so simple.

    But its great you can google your responses. Keep up the good work.


  15. BrianK

    BrianK Resident Kook, Crank, Curmudgeon - & Mod Staff Member


    Every time someone tries to defend communion for the divorced and remarried, the reform they are proposing sounds more and more like heresy. John F. Crosby’s response to me is no exception. To the question of how the reform could possibly be compatible with Catholic teaching, Crosby replies with a story of doubtful relevance (or accuracy). As for my argument that, in practice, it would undo the Church’s sacramental discipline, his response confirms it.

    Crosby claims that opening communion to some remarried Catholics would be no great disruption, because “the discipline of the Church” has already undergone a “huge change” courtesy of St. John Paul II: “In his 1983 reform of the Canon Law of the Church, he lifted the excommunication that had for centuries been automatically imposed on persons who remarry without having their first marriage annulled.” The same story has been told by Crosby’s colleague Rocco Buttiglione. It happens to be inaccurate: The Pope who lifted the excommunication was Paul VI, in November 1977. And the excommunication only dated from 1884, when it was enacted in one country, the United States—hardly a “discipline of the Church” that had existed “for centuries.”

    But never mind the details—the story is irrelevant anyway. The Church’s communion discipline, unlike its laws on excommunication, has been taught as an unchangeable practice (John Paul II, 1981), as founded on Scripture (Benedict XVI, 2007), and as a “constant and universal … teaching” which “cannot be modified because of different situations” (CDF, 1994). These statements do no more than confirm a doctrine that has been consistent since the Early Church. Crosby does not once allude to this body of teaching.

    Crosby’s second point, too, keeps Catholic doctrine at arm’s length. The distinction he invokes—between committing a grave sin and being in a condition of mortal sin—is familiar. (The same last-ditch defence has been suggested by Jeff Mirus and Fr Paul Keller.) But does it apply to communion for the remarried?

    The answer, according to theologians who have studied the topic, is no. Josef Seifert says the claim is based on “a logical fallacy.” True, one needs to have “full knowledge” of a sin for it to be mortal. But Catholics believe that the moral law is written in everyone’s heart. “Therefore,” Seifert writes, “we cannot assume an inculpable ignorance of the evil of murder or adultery.”

    Perhaps someone might still lack “full consent” (the other condition)? The theologian Brian Harrison has offered an exhaustive treatment of this question. He concludes that, according to the definitions of orthodox Catholic theologians from St. Thomas Aquinas onwards, they cannot. Adults who commit themselves to a long-term sinful situation are consenting to it—however difficult their circumstances.

    Seifert and Harrison may be wrong, but their criticisms require an answer of equal theological rigor. And even if one could be provided, there would still be the question of how this reform would work in practice. I have already made this objection to Rocco Buttiglione’s scheme; Crosby’s is even more impractical.

    Crosby gives two examples of people who are “in a sinful condition without being exactly … mortal sinner,” who could “perhaps” take communion: Dostoevsky’s Sonia, who works as a prostitute to help her impoverished family; and a Catholic divorcee who rediscovers her faith while in a new long-term relationship. The divorcee’s partner says he’ll leave, and take the kids, unless she carries on having sex with him. The next sentence deserves a paragraph of its own:

    “Is she perhaps as different from a common adulteress as Sonia is from a common prostitute?”

    This question isn’t just dehumanizing; it reveals why Crosby’s reform would never work. Under current practice, priests are guided by two principles. The first is that, before taking communion, one must confess grave sin with a firm purpose of amendment. The second is that everyone, whoever they are, should be offered love and mercy and friendship and solidarity. They should be offered the beautiful teaching of the Church—that, no matter how much of a mess you are in, with God’s grace you can always get out of it. But if Crosby’s reform were enacted, priests would have to judge the souls of their flock. The remarried would be divided into those whose lives have a Dostoevskian tragic resonance, and those who are merely “common adulteresses.”

    Anna can receive communion, because her partner will take the kids away if she stops having sex with him. (Dostoevskian; merely sinful condition.) But Barbara can’t receive communion, because her partner would leave, but he wouldn't take the kids. (Common adulteress; mortal sinner.) Chris can receive communion, because he thinks that if he stopped having sex with his partner their relationship would go downhill. (Dostoevskian; merely sinful condition.) But David is barred from communion, because their relationship would probably be OK. (Common adulterer; mortal sinner.)

    This cruel charade would collapse before it began, which in turn would lead to what is already happening in some places: the abandonment of the Church’s discipline.

    If you introduce an absurdity into a train of reasoning, you will often end up with great evils. Pro-choicers say they don’t want abortions to happen; they just believe in a woman’s right to choose. Because that “right” is incoherent, pro-choicers end up justifying mass slaughter. Defenders of communion for the remarried say they don’t want an “anything goes” situation; they just don’t think everyone is a common adulteress. Because the distinction of “common” and “uncommon” is incoherent, they will end up justifying the mass desecration of the Eucharist.

    Dan Hitchens is deputy editor of The Catholic Herald.
  16. fallen saint

    fallen saint Baby steps :)

    I guess you are like the media taking things out of context...never said homosexual unions are good (LIE)

    But if intellectually thats the best you can do. Then i accept your nonsense. You guys must really worry about my third grade responses. Maybe because the truth is easily understood. Funny, brian has to google for articles to refute my personal spirituality. I am actually humbled that my years of training and praying has helped me to see the issues much more clearer. In response to Brian...blah blah blah.

    And please don't say i am being uncharitable. You guys are like the piranha circling its prey. But thats OK im just giving david a little break from your nonsense. It sad but the real theologians have left this forum because of your guys constant attacks. It does get boring.

    Brother al

    Last edited: Oct 26, 2016
  17. Clare A

    Clare A Archangels

    The Catechism is quite plain about this:

    1665 The remarriage of persons divorced from a living, lawful spouse contravenes the plan and law of God as taught by Christ. They are not separated from the Church, but they cannot receive Eucharistic communion. They will lead Christian lives especially by educating their children in the faith.

    One can get around this by claiming that most marriages are not valid. Another way of course would be to revise the entire Catechism with Kasper overseeing the process. Either way, it looks as if for now the emphasis on mercy and the primacy of the internal forum trump everything.
  18. fallen saint

    fallen saint Baby steps :)

    In my personal opinion most marriages are invalid. You don't have to agree. But if we look at how many people actually follow the laws of the church...it would seem to me to be few and far between. I would bet a majority of Catholics are looking for God. A small group of Catholics actually believe God is real and try to follow His laws. Its the sign of the times. Even on this Catholic Forum...how could anyone vote for Hillary. If you vote republican abortions are stopped at 24 weeks. If you vote democrat abortion can be performed at any time. Even one day before birth. So my comments have nothing to do with mercy. I believe the lack of faith...no that statement is wrong. The lack of belief in God...creates invalid marriages.

    davidtlig likes this.
  19. Carmel333

    Carmel333 Archangels

    Fallen Saint: Do you know anyone who stood in a ceremony, had no impediments like had already been married or being forced there by a gun or threats, was not insane, and made an official vow to marry someone who also met the criteria above? In other words, do you know persons or have you ever attended a wedding that everyone there was satisfied this wedding was actually true and happening, and the man and woman involved actually uttered the vows in front of witnesses? That a person who by civil law had the authority to pronounce this marriage legal and binding? I really think that you have. Rest assured, God also sees these weddings, hears these vows, and holds the persons vows binding, whether they believe in Him or not. They ARE validly married. If they commit adultery, they open themselves up to Hell. If they REPENT and AMEND, they are forgiven their sin, as in all the commandments. We need to understand this for the sake of our own soul, and proclaim this (as Jesus Himself did) for the sake of our brothers and sisters souls. Period.
  20. garabandal

    garabandal Powers

    You quoted your own opinion on what makes a marriage valid.

    I quoted from the Catechism on what makes the sacrament of marriage valid.

    You are entitled to your opinion.

    But you have added 'conditions' to the sacrament of marriage that are not in the Catechism or official teaching of the Church.
    Booklady likes this.

Share This Page