Posted on 03/01/2014 7:58:06 AM PST by ebb tide
Several times since the Council, the enemies of truth and dogma have tried to force the issue of communion for "remarried" divorcees, a magnificent coup for, in the name of a false notion of "mercy", destroying the theology of two of the most fundamental Sacraments, Matrimony and Penance, and cheapen the highest Sacrament, the Most Holy Eucharist.
They do not care that the matter has been firmly established throughout the History of the Church. They do not care that the Pope they now praise as "Santo, Santo" explained thoroughly why it could not happen, following a Synod, in Familiaris Consortio:
(Excerpt) Read more at rorate-caeli.blogspot.com ...
I just read this at rorate and it’s left my head spinning. If they pull this off it’ll be a disaster.
The Church is not going to change its doctrine on marriage, divorce and the sacraments. There is so much disinformation out there by the liberals who have always a attacked the Church.
It appears the leader of those liberals, whom you speak about, is Pope Francis.
The Catholic Church in many places is doing an abysmal job of teaching its youth the tenants of the faith.
How many of these divorced and remarried couples really believe that the holy eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ. My hunch is that the desire to consume our Lord for some of these couples comes more from defiance and rebellion( remind you of anyone) than from a true desire to be unified with Christ.
The other question I would have for these priests would be how do you feel about permitting those in a state of grave sin to consume the body of Christ? Are you complicit in endangering their souls?
Fr. Z has a pretty interesting post about this. http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/03/theres-marriage-and-then-theres-marriage/
What I don't understand is why all the sudden emphasis on the divorced being able to take the Eucharist, when Catholic politicians who actively support and even vote on the record for abortion are allowed to partake.
Where is the Church on that topic? Crickets. Loud Crickets, so to speak.
I completely agree and my statement is applicable in that situation as well. The answer however is not to further degrade consumption of the Eucharist by destroying the concept of sin. Two wrongs would not make a right.
“In the last page, Prof. Roberto de Mattei, recalling that Fr. Lombardi, the Holy See spokesman, said on the day of the lecture that the Pope’s words and Cardinal Kasper’s are “in grande sintonia” (in great harmony)”.
Diabolical disorientation has apparently enveloped the throne of Peter, if Pope Francis and Cardinal Kasper are in great harmony.
Thank-you. I really get a kick of that “superb theologian, Kasper, stating we can “tolerate, but not accept” second marriages.
I just got off the phone with a priest friend who is wondering how he’s supposed to defend against gay “marriage” under the coming circumstances. He also pointed out that we get to enjoy all this nonsense until November before we find out if saner heads prevail. hooray.
I asked him what the point of Confession for any sin would be under a “tolerated but not accepted” theology, he didn’t have an answer.
As long as second marriages will be “tolerated but not accepted,” and the parties to such adulterous unions will be admitted to the Eucharist, can my mistress be “tolerated but not accepted,” and I can keep going to communion?
Now, all I need is a mistress...
Multitudinous bishops’ statements aside, is Nancy not still allowed to partake (and thus scandalize those observing her evil advocacy for the Culture of Death)? Talk is cheap.
If saner heads don't prevail, the Church's credibility will be effectively destroyed.
First let me say that I have only been married once and still am to the same woman. Then let me say that the internal forum solution works without the brother-sister solution, for the same reason annulments work. Annulments are merely the recognition of a fact. The fact exists before the annulment.
Are you saying your marriage may not be valid if you wife suddenly up and decides it never existed?
I sincerely question whether members in the hierarchy even believe it is the Body of Our Lord. They sure don’t act like they do.
The Pope spoke the other day about "casuistry" in relation to the Pharisees' question to Jesus about whether it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife. Seeing as the subject was divorce and considering the timing with respect to the Synod, this would have been a perfect opportunity to address the whole question of divorce but the Pope was either unable or unwilling to give the entire teaching of Jesus on this matter.
He chose, instead, to concentrate on Christ's Bridegroom relationship to His Bride the Church and once again delivered a lecture about the evils of practicing modern day "casuistry" against those whose love has "failed". He warned us not to "condemn". Presumably, that was why he could not bring himself to utter the words ....."Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery", since that could possibly be considered as "condemnation". If that isn't relevant to the Synod, what is?
It's clear that these are moments of great historical importance through which we are living.
Are you Catholic?
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.