No, you could have answered my question from the start. This is not what he said. He was talkung about divorced and remarried persons. "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." He said divorced person who have remarried. Honestly, it can't get much clearer than that. Ironic that those who would accuse others of being Pharisees are trying to twist words and situations to fit their own ideas and agendas. If you can't admit something so simple, basic, and clear.. People can see through your charade. May God forgave you for helping deceive people who come across your arguments that go against Church Teaching. This is a public forum, may no one unwittingly accept you position as a Catholic one in regards to divorce/remarriage/communion. It would be a mortal danger to one's soul.
Conscience does not permit those who are divorced/remarried without an annulment to the Holy Eucharist. Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by Divorced-and-Remarried Members of the Faithful The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith October 14, 1994 said, 7. The mistaken conviction of a divorced-and-remarried person that he may receive holy communion normally presupposes that personal conscience is considered in the final analysis to be able, on the basis of one's own convictions, to come to a decision about the existence or absence of a previous marriage and the value of the new union. However, such a position is inadmissible. Marriage, in fact, both because it is the image of the spousal relationship between Christ and his church as well as the fundamental core and an important factor in the life of civil society, is essentially a public reality. Church teachings is very, very clear. Stop leading others into confusion.
However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. Frodo, in an attempt to deal with this particular point that you keep bringing up, can I just point out that the above sentence is referring to people who were validly married before re-marrying. Unless I am misunderstanding her, Janet is merely pointing out that you can't be divorced if your were never validly married in the first place. The above sentence pre-supposes a validly married couple who then divorce.
No, that is not quite a correct summation. Janet's view is that this can be decided in the internal forum, but this is not a possibility at all. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/r...vorced-and-remarried-members-of-the-faithful/ "The mistaken conviction of a divorced and remarried person that he may receive Holy Communion normally presupposes that personal conscience is considered in the final analysis to be able, on the basis of one's own convictions(15), to come to a decision about the existence or absence of a previous marriage and the value of the new union. However, such a position is inadmissable(16). Marriage, in fact, because it is both the image of the spousal relationship between Christ and his Church as well as the fundamental core and an important factor in the life of civil society, is essentially a public reality. 8. It is certainly true that a judgment about one's own dispositions for the reception of Holy Communion must be made by a properly formed moral conscience. But it is equally true that the consent that is the foundation of marriage is not simply a private decision since it creates a specifically ecclesial and social situation for the spouses, both individually and as a couple. Thus the judgment of conscience of one's own marital situation does not regard only the immediate relationship between man and God, as if one could prescind from the Church's mediation, that also includes canonical laws binding in conscience. Not to recognise this essential aspect would mean in fact to deny that marriage is a reality of the Church, that is to say, a sacrament." Simply put, one must receive an annulment before approach the Blessed sacrament. To assert otherwise goes against Church Teaching and Tradition.
The Argentinian bishops interpretation of Amoris Laetitia supports Janet's view. It is this part of the Pope's exhortation which marks one of the 'new possibilities' to which Pope Francis referred when asked about the document.
They made a promise - they made a vow. Do oaths made in a court when you are asked to swear on a Bible be invalidated if you don't really believe in law and order? No!! Those who break this oath are guilty of perjury. How much more accountable then are all who take an oath and promise in the name of God in the house of God?
Well we agree on one thing at least! Unfortunately this view is not in line with the doctrine and practice of the Church. This has already been decided, (see my previous post - did you bother to read it David?) Janet's view goes directly against St. John Paul II and the tradition of the Church, it is crystal clear. This is exactly why a clarification to AL is needed. Souls are at stake.
This has to be my last post this evening. The exhortation certainly marks a development in the practice of the Church but does not conflict with Church doctrine. I looked at your link which was Cardinal Ratzinger's summary of Church practice when he led the CDF. Janet has already posted words from Pope Benedict that indicated his desire to look further into these questions.
Pope Francis has granted some couples in “irregular situations” the admission to the sacraments, a move considered already before by Cardinal Ratzinger. (But several very serious reasons, formulated by Ratzinger himself and by the Holy Pope Johannes Paul II, prompted his Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith, and then as Pope Benedict XVI, to retract this proposal, which he had made as Archbishop of Munich. Also for Benedict XVI's statement that is ‘a difficult and complex pastoral problem’ - he reinforced the ‘practice of the Church, grounded in Sacred Scripture (cf. MK 10, 2-12) to disallow to divorced remarried faithful to receive the sacraments’, but at the same time, Pope Benedict implores priests ‘to pay special attention to those affected’ with the desire that they, as far as possible, live a Christian life-style through the participation to the Holy Mass, although without reception of communion, through listening to the word of God, Eucharistic adoration, prayer, participation in community life, the conversation with a priest or spiritual companion of their confidence, works of charity and penance as well as through fulfilling the task of bringing up children, maintain a Christian lifestyle”
You are correct. Pope Benedict as well maintained the tradition to disallow divorced remarried faithful to receive the Eucharist. Benedict asked priests ‘to pay special attention to those affected’ with the desire that they, as far as possible, live a Christian life-style through the participation to the Holy Mass, although without reception of communion.
From the same document you posted..... 3. Aware however that authentic understanding and genuine mercy are never separated from the truth(4), pastors have the duty to remind these faithful of the Church's doctrine concerning the celebration of the sacraments, in particular, the reception of the Holy Communion. In recent years, in various regions, different pastoral solutions in this area have been suggested according to which, to be sure, a general admission of divorced and remarried to Eucharistic communion would not be possible, but the divorced and remarried members of the faithful could approach Holy Communion in specific cases when they consider themselves authorised according to a judgement of conscience to do so. This would be the case, for example, when they had been abandoned completely unjustly, although they sincerely tried to save the previous marriage, or when they are convinced of the nullity of their previous marriage, although unable to demonstrate it in the external forum or when they have gone through a long period of reflexion and penance, or also when for morally valid reasons they cannot satisfy the obligation to separate.
Janet I really want to be able to read and follow your posts, so can I just say that it becomes very hard to follow the conversation when the poster replys within the quote of the person they are replying to, [ as in your post number 51]. Because the reader has to expand the quote and then try to figure out, who said what, and often times that means going back to the original quote to see it in its original state. etc. I know that sometimes gremlins seem to be in the system and for no apparent reason this computer program twists and turns, so I'm sorry if that is what is happening here to you. If it is happening to you and others, it would be much clearer for all readers, if we state at the beginning of our post........ In answer to X's question [and then place their question] my reply is........... and put the reply in a different font, colour, size or somthing. But then again that may be confusing too.
Exactly! The divorced person admits they did wrong. Not taking the oath seriously was very wrong..and so makes the marriage invalid.
Sorry for causing confusion Josephite...The quotes I'm answering I usually put in italics. That doesn't help?
This paragraph is taken out of context. The above was sited as an example of so called 'new pastoral practise' --- but Pope Benedict issued the pastoral letter in 1994 to correct the 'new pastoral' innovation of allowing conscience to dictate against clear church teaching. With respect to the aforementioned new pastoral proposals, this Congregation deems itself obliged therefore to recall the doctrine and discipline of the Church in this matter. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ(5), the Church affirms that a new union cannot be recognised as valid if the preceding marriage was valid. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists(6).
one thing to consider here, remember the last few popes, including Francis, have been trying to reconcile with the eastern churches, the largest one being Russian Orthodox, I think. The orthodox require a period of penance after a divorce with no sacraments, but then the person is allowed back to the sacraments. This is the same if the person is remarried. It is possible Pope Francis wants to facilitate eventual reunion with this policy. Just a thought. The other thing is, if you look at Francis as someone who believes we have a very short time left to convert people, lots of what he does seems to fit. Remember his comment about how the world is a battlefield right now and you don't ask someone bleeding to death on the battle field, how is your cholesterol? You stop the bleeding first, then attend to other issues.
You misunderstand the point. A promise is a promise. The promise creates a covenant bond. Those who freely express consent are married according to the Church. CCC 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 So someone forced to marry (e.g. arranged marriage against the spouses wishes) or someone who is not legally free to marry (e.g. a bigamist) invalidates the oath.
When someone posts a quote and then there seems to be no reply, a lot of people would not open the quote as they are unaware that........ there is an answer to the quote...... inside the quote.---------------- riddle me that As in your post number 51. Maybe it would help those that you are replying to, who may be unaware that you have already replied to their question in their quote, that you quoted but seemed not to reply to! reading that back........it all sounds like gobbledegook but I can assure it does make sense
What I am trying to get across here is that there are some cases where a 'marriage' was never valid. I won't go into all of the reasons here. The person would try to get an annulment based on their situation. If however they are unable to bring forward witnesses then they are unable to go ahead with the marriage tribunal. What they are left with then is the internal forum. Thoroughly convinced that their first union was invalid they speak to a priest. He has them search their consciences. Explains the indissolubility of marriage. This can all be a very lengthy process. The priest should be guiding them... helping them form their conscience in light of the teachings of the Church. The priest will be aware if there was something missing that was essential to it being a valid marriage. Finally they would reach a conclusion that would be in keeping with the gospel truths. The conclusion could either be that there was never a valid marriage.. or it could be that the remarried person has now been made aware that the first union was indeed valid.
