Papa Francis Considering Allowing Remarried People To Receive Communio

[CatholicCid]

That does seem a bit Pharisaical, by definition. If the annulment process is onerous (and it is) and the Church does nothing to alleviate this, then they are merely tying up heavy burdens, difficult to carry, and not lifting a finger to help the faithful to live in grace.

How and why is the annulment process onerous?

[fides' Jack]

I find this idea extremely troubling.  There are certain things the pope does not have the authority to do, and, if this is true, then this pope is treading quite close to that line. This would, even if he didn't cross it, indicate that something is very seriously wrong.  This is something we all already know to be the case.

 

I believe I am more aware of most on this forum of the need for mercy to shown to sinners (because I am very much one myself), but I also know that mercy can never replace moral truth.  

 

Eternal Father, have mercy on us!  We beg you in the name of Jesus Christ, Your Son, to send the Holy Spirit to guide our earthly pontiff in this very delicate matter.  Mary, Mother of God, pray for us!

[An Historian]

I think part of the problem with the Catholic Church is that we either have the "that 70's crowd" that practically mocks the rules of the church, we have the Charismatics who mix feelings and rules, and we have the traditionalists who seem to allow no understanding even in the most dire of circumstances...like understanding head-covering is a private devotion or reassuring a grieving mother her infant is in heaven.

 

For me, personally, one of the single most damaging things to my faith has been super-traddies....and I've never done anything that "really" sets them off.  If they wouldn't accept me becuase I wanted to attend Mass in jeans, I shutter to think what they would do to a woman who was on her second civil marriage.

 

From the First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians, chapter 11, verses 1-5: "Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ.  Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.  But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.  Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraceth his head.  But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered, disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven."  That comes across a little stronger than a private devotion, to me at least.

 

And you are now guilty of the same sin you accuse Charismatics of: mixing feelings and rules.  You say that "super-traddies" are horrible because they'll say that unbaptised babies cannot attain unto eternal life.  You wish to reassure her, despite what doctrine has said for centuries.  You've thrown out 2000 years of history, on the mere whims of sentimentality.  It is foolish to believe that comforting a grieving mother necessitates compromising doctrinal and dogmatic truths.

[BigJon16]

 
 
That it sounds pharisaical, seems a bit Protestant. It's the classical Protestant argument to compare Catholic Doctrine, dogma, discipline, rules etc to the Law of the Pharisees, and that these rules keep the faithful away from grace.

 

 

Mind you, arfink was specifically commenting about the annulment process, not criticizing the Church's Doctrine, dogma, disciplines, rules etc. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Tab, you are wrong. There are in fact cases in which the minister of Holy Communion *must* deny a communicant. Refer to Canon 915.
Arf, I think we must be careful not to confuse somewhat difficult obligations with Pharasaism. That sounds suspiciously like antinomianism. The truth is rather the opposite. Since the subject is so critically important, the rules surrounding it are important to be observed.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Thanks nihil, if i am wrong i am wrong on this point of refusal of communion. What are these cases Nihil Obstat for the benefit of myself and others whom either don't own or fully understand how to read the catechism fully? Are there particulars or is this a catechlismic grey that only the priest knows the ins and outs of, if at all. Sorry i don't own a catechism at present i gave mine away and haven't read the whole lot of it anyway. I need a church catechist lawyer to discern some of the catechism for me. :) Most is clear enough though from what i have read.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[KnightofChrist]

Mind you, arfink was specifically commenting about the annulment process, not criticizing the Church's Doctrine, dogma, disciplines, rules etc.

Even if it were possible to separate the Catholic laws that structure the annulment process, from the application or process of those laws, I would still object to it being called pharisaical. The process does needs improvement but calling it pharisaical goes way too far.


As for the topic itself allowing couples whose validity of marriage cannot be confirmed, to receive communion until that validity can be confirmed is wrong. Even if most would have their new marriages validated and their old 'marriages' annulled it would still be wrong. Because at best it would be a sin against prudence and at worse profaning the Body and Blood of Christ. Christ teaches that those who marry again while the prior spouse still lives is an adulterer. Saint Paul teaches we must prove ourselves worthy to receive the Body and Blood or risk profaning the Body and Blood. It was the Pharisees that taught you could have one spouse while the prior spouse was still alive and still be in their good graces.

[Nihil Obstat]

Thanks nihil, if i am wrong i am wrong on this point of refusal of communion. What are these cases Nihil Obstat for the benefit of myself and others whom either don't own or fully understand how to read the catechism fully? Are there particulars or is this a catechlismic grey that only the priest knows the ins and outs of, if at all. Sorry i don't own a catechism at present i gave mine away and haven't read the whole lot of it anyway. I need a church catechist lawyer to discern some of the catechism for me. :) Most is clear enough though from what i have read.

Start with Canon 915. I would link it, but I am on my phone.

[Norseman82]

I wonder what St. Thomas More's reaction to this would be?

[truthfinder]

Thanks nihil, if i am wrong i am wrong on this point of refusal of communion. What are these cases Nihil Obstat for the benefit of myself and others whom either don't own or fully understand how to read the catechism fully? Are there particulars or is this a catechlismic grey that only the priest knows the ins and outs of, if at all. Sorry i don't own a catechism at present i gave mine away and haven't read the whole lot of it anyway. I need a church catechist lawyer to discern some of the catechism for me. :) Most is clear enough though from what i have read.

 

Tab, 

from the Vatican Website, Canon 915 can be found on this page: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P39.HTM

 

Actually, in this case canon 916 would also be relevant.

Edited April 24, 2014 by truthfinder

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Gracious thanks truth finder, 915 is about the ex communicated and with 916 i said " if they confess" i think there should be no problem with them receiving communion if the relevant priest chooses to absolve them, even time and time again in the hope they stop and the hope of the eternal salvation of there soul, though i consent to papal authority and the magesterium of the church on this matter, whatever that is. Perhaps what is lacking in the confession from priests is saying that what the person is doing is sinful and endangers my soul and life in general but that Jesus can forgive them. I have never had a priest tell me in the confession that what i am doing is sinful and endangering my soul and life in general and puts my soul in grave danger, ever.

 

All glory to GOD.

Edited April 25, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

P.s all sin is grave.

 

Jesus " If you break one commandment you break them all."

 

Don't be like the pharisee saying thank God i'm not like that tax collector in the parable of the tax collector, one is on there knees looking at GOD and there own condition, the other is looking pretty much at others sinfulness and forgetting there own, no matter how small those infringements may be. Not saying this is what your doing though, just a note.

Edited April 25, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[chrysostom]

P.s all sin is grave.

 

Not all sin is grave.  That was one of Luther's errors.

 

Yes, all sin is displeasing to God.  But not all sin destroys sanctifying grace in our souls.

[blazeingstar]

From the First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians, chapter 11, verses 1-5: "Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ.  Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.  But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.  Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraceth his head.  But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered, disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven."  That comes across a little stronger than a private devotion, to me at least.

 

Well fortunately for me, the church, in it's wisdom has declared that headcovering is optional  The Bible also says to "pray always"  and that one cannot eat shellfish.  Regardless of how you feel about what the Bible sais,

 

 

And you are now guilty of the same sin you accuse Charismatics of: mixing feelings and rules.  You say that "super-traddies" are horrible because they'll say that unbaptised babies cannot attain unto eternal life.  You wish to reassure her, despite what doctrine has said for centuries.  You've thrown out 2000 years of history, on the mere whims of sentimentality.  It is foolish to believe that comforting a grieving mother necessitates compromising doctrinal and dogmatic truths.

 

 

The point was that the tone and statements which one puts this statement across can have a HUGE affect on one's faith.  There is a difference between stating "no one make it to heaven without Baptism, so sorry lady" and stating that neither God, nor the Church, has said it is impossible, and that God has a special devotion to little ones.   My problem is the black-and-white attitude that is horrifically damaging.  The thought you'd say that to someone...that "doctrinally and dogmatically" her child was not in Heaven (rather than being a comfort and assuring her of God's mercy) is repulsive.  It's exactly why I don't go to parish that practices pre 1960 faith.

 

In a case where a mother (non-catholic) has a child with a Catholic man, has a baby, they all attend Mass but don't get the child baptized, the man and child die in an accident, those following the rules would say that the man would be in hell for not baptizing his baby, and the baby would be...somewhere.  I do not think it is at all necessary to tell the woman that, as she'd probably never believe again.  Again, God is merciful, and although Jesus spoke that it was better for Judas never to be born the Catholic church as NEVER declared that they know a person is in Hell.

[Nihil Obstat]

Well fortunately for me, the church, in it's wisdom has declared that headcovering is optional  The Bible also says to "pray always"  and that one cannot eat shellfish.  Regardless of how you feel about what the Bible sais,

 

 

The point was that the tone and statements which one puts this statement across can have a HUGE affect on one's faith.  There is a difference between stating "no one make it to heaven without Baptism, so sorry lady" and stating that neither God, nor the Church, has said it is impossible, and that God has a special devotion to little ones.   My problem is the black-and-white attitude that is horrifically damaging.  The thought you'd say that to someone...that "doctrinally and dogmatically" her child was not in Heaven (rather than being a comfort and assuring her of God's mercy) is repulsive.  It's exactly why I don't go to parish that practices pre 1960 faith.

 

In a case where a mother (non-catholic) has a child with a Catholic man, has a baby, they all attend Mass but don't get the child baptized, the man and child die in an accident, those following the rules would say that the man would be in hell for not baptizing his baby, and the baby would be...somewhere.  I do not think it is at all necessary to tell the woman that, as she'd probably never believe again.  Again, God is merciful, and although Jesus spoke that it was better for Judas never to be born the Catholic church as NEVER declared that they know a person is in Hell.

Irony abounds. You, the person who thinks that playing pretend with a small child literally constitutes lying (despite Aquinas' clear and sound argument to the contrary), are going to accuse the scary chimeric 'traditionalists" as being too black and white and rigid?

And then, you are going to characterize those who attend the traditional Mass as practicing a "pre 1960 faith"? That is both silly and makes no sense. Number one, why 1960? Nothing happened in 1960. We still used the traditional missal, and the Council was not yet opened. Number two, are you actually going to go down this road, of separating a pre-conciliar and a post-conciliar faith? Because that line of reasoning will leave you in a place you do not want to go.