Posted on 11/25/2013 6:53:25 PM PST by marshmallow
A German bishop has said that the country’s episcopal conference will move forward with plans to allow Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics, despite clear disapproval from the Vatican.
Bishop Gebhard Fürst of Stuttgart told a lay group, the Central Committee of German Catholics, that the German bishops have already drafted new guidelines for the reception of Communion by divorced/remarried Catholics, and hope to vote their approval to those new rules in March 2014. Bishop Fürst said that the German hierarchy is responding to demands from the faithful. “Expectations are great, and impatience and anger are greater still,” he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicculture.org ...
“With all due respect, why would you want to influence others to sin by your bad counsel?”
I give no one counsel, good or bad... I only said I agree with the church in Germany who IS in a position to give the counsel. Like it or not.
I reckon I’ll take Pope Leo XIII over this guy any old day.
Freegards
“This is incorrect, unless a dispensation was given beforehand from the relevant Catholic ordinary. In this case the Marriage is real but it is non-sacramental.”
Wrong... Not since Second Vatican Council. Even a Baptism outside the Church is Sacramental.
“To enter into the sacrament of matrimony under Catholic Law, one has be baptized Christian. If this is the case for both parties, than there is a valid marriage which cannot be dissolved.
The pre-requisites for a couple to actually validly confer the sacrament on each other is a bit hefty. They have to have been in a state of sound judgment and knowledge of what they are intending when celebrating the rite. They must be entering into marriage in honesty. The rite also has to be presided by a deacon or Priest. It has to be witnessed by another party. They may not be coerced into marriage in any way as well.
However, if a couple fulfilled these requirements than there is an unbreakable bond that is established, it is the Sacramental bond. This is why Annulment cases can be very important and difficult. Despite the hefty requirements, the laws presumption is that a sacrament has happened. So you have to prove in one way why it didn’t, which can get into psychological and or competency issues. It has the potential to be very messy, and takes a long time.”
An annulment doesn’t devolve a marriage, it merely resolves that there was none to begin with. And you don’t have to “prove” anything as long as it doesn’t put the burden on your spouse.
For instance: If you were pressured to get married because your girlfriend was pregnant, only you can answer that. No proof could be available. However, if your reason was that she married you because of pregnancy, they may want to ask her about that.
Your divorce is not the issue, remarriage is the issue, Our Lord expressly forbade it. If we are His people, we must follow Him.
Despite one’s empathy for the proscribed, vacating the tenets vacates the Church by which it’s defined. This is an irrelevant, heretical matter.
As one who is being trained to do RCIA and working with another lay person as well as with my parish deacon, in the training sesson, was told that in regards to marriage issues for those who want to become Catholic, the parish priest has to be called in.
.....Yet Jesus allowed a Samaritan woman who was MARRIED and DIVORCED 5 times to follow Him. Since Jesus was very firm on the issue of divorce and remarriage, this does surprises me.
“Wrong... Not since Second Vatican Council. Even a Baptism outside the Church is Sacramental.”
Okay, lets calm down here. I’m giving you accurate information.
You need to read Canon 1086, of the 1983 code with respect marriages between baptized and non-baptized. Only a local ordinary. Can. 1125 can dispense this.
Also, Can 1055 is one example of the distinction the Law draws between sacramental and non-sacramental marriage. Church teaching does not hold a theologically impossible claim that there is a sacramental bond between a baptized and non-baptized. In such cases it is a real but natural marriage.
—Source A Catholic Priest.
What's a sin is the subsequent remarriage, i.e. having sexual relations with a person you're not married to (in the eyes of God, who does not recognize civil divorce) while your first (and only) spouse is still living. This constitutes not the "one-time" act of civil divorce, but the ongoing sin of bigamy.
This can of course be forgiven, like any sin, but only if you stop doing it. Which would mean living with spouse #2 without sexual relations.
And this second marriage, sexual relations and all, is not a sin if marriage #1 was invalid. Or if spouse #1 dies.
So the alternative are:
The point I wanted you to see, is that civil divorce is not the sin. Civil divorce doesn't even exist in the eyes of God. The sin is sleeping with partner #2 while your spouse (what you'd call your "ex") is still alive.
If you think marriage #1 was null from Day One, you have to take the case to the Tribunal and get a ruling of nullity. Annulment. Because in that case, you've proved that there was no sacramental bond with your Ex from the git-go.
If you can explain that to a reasonable person --- and the Marriage Tribunal judges are reasonable persons --- why wouldn't you get an annulment?
If you think Communion is just "between God and you," I'm afraid you don't understand Communion. Communion is union with Christ, and with the whole Body of Christ, which is the Church, everywhere around the world and back through the ages. It means you are "in Communion with" all the saints, all the members of the Catholic Church, including the pope, your pastor, the person next to you in the pew.
If you receive Communion invalidly, this is what the Apostle Paul says:
I Corinthians 11:27-29
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves.
I sympathize with your situation. Were you turned down for an annulment?
(You needn't discuss private things on this forum, and actually I have no business asking you such a question. You can Private Message me if you wish. I'm just trying to explain things for other FReepers who may be reading this.)
Your situation may be remediable. I certainly hope so. God bless you.
Then he saith to his servants: The marriage indeed is ready; but they that were invited were not worthy. Go ye therefore into the highways; and as many as you shall find, call to the marriage. And his servants going forth into the ways, gathered together all that they found, both bad and good: and the marriage was filled with guests. And the king went in to see the guests: and he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment. And he saith to him: Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? But he was silent. Then the king said to the waiters: Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen.
The Catholic Church (in Germany) has no authority to countermand the Word of God. This would not be the first schism in German history.
This is an integral part of receiving absolution in the confessional - "Go and sin no more" - a firm purpose of amendment.
This is second only in difficulty to having a sincere sorrow for your sins.
As with any healing it will take time and we will all fall but we cannot get up without picking up our cross.
Everyone has their own cross to bear, created just for us.
St. John the Baptist lost his head because of his preaching against Herod's continued actions so it must be serious.
There is no difference between the Church in Germany and the Church anywhere else in the world. Moral laws are universally valid.
The Church makes every attempt to discover whether the marriage was genuine in the first place, and tries to do as much as possible to help the couple. However, the wholesale presumption in favor of divorce is not something the Church can adopt.
One could argue that one of the crises of our American society is the prevalence of divorce and the resulting tenuousness of the marriage bond in most people’s minds. In fact, this ends in the rejection of the concept of marriage itself, something we are seeing throughout our society with its hugely high rate of “single mothers.”
Likewise, the acceptance of routine contraception and abortion has led to the devaluing of sexual relationships, the reduction of the family, and in fact a serious population decline in developed countries.
So these things are not merely abstract “sins” but things with a genuine impact on the lives of every person and of society and its attitudes as a whole. The German bishops are dangerously wrong.
Is it any different here? Rudy Giuliani received communion from the Pope when he was in New York in 2008 and I’m not aware of anyone who has denied Newt Gingrich communion. It doesn’t seem to be enforced as a matter of policy in the U.S.
Incorrect. They are not in the position, nor do they have the freedom to counsel against the Magisterial teaching of Holy Mother Church. We shall soon see them back off their schismatic leanings.
Divorced and Remarried Catholics cannot receive any of the sacraments, never mind the Holy Eucharist. They cannot even go to confession and receive absolution. I find much of this very disturbing. Although I’ve been told that they are not excommunicated, you might as well say they are.
It is because of the nature of our God, one of total unconditional love, that the Church needs to revisit the annulment process.
“In the end we could only counsel them to “live as Catholic as they could,” be active with the parish, frequently seek spiritual Communion with Our Lord, be patient, trust God, wait. Very difficult.”
I’m sorry, but the Church CAN do something about this. Is this the ONLY UNFORGIVABLE sin? Is there NO ROOM for sanctifying grace here?
The Church can and should revisit this. I’ve always been told what the Church binds and looses is law. Well, time to loose. I know many couples in this situation who have been told NO by draconian tribunals. I walk away from some of these situations, the clergyman responsible to provide support and comfort and advice, working through a very painful process, with a very downtrodden heart, knowing well that the couples original marriages were never valid.
Also, the regulations and laws encompassing what is “lewd” or “unlawful” are all human interpretations which over time have changed and either become more charitable or more stringent. The Church, in all charity, needs to revisit all of this.
“The Church makes every attempt to discover whether the marriage was genuine in the first place”
My dear friend livius, I wish you were right. But I know the people on four different tribunals in the North East and this is not always the case.
Newt’s previous marriages have been canonically resolved, Rudy’s previous marriage has not been. Rudy was probably married sacramentally, Newt was not until Callista. Different people, different circumstances.
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.