Posted on 02/15/2018 9:40:06 AM PST by ebb tide
The Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon, Manuel Clemente, has published an official statement in which he endorses giving Holy Communion to those who are divorced and invalidly remarried in some circumstances.
The statement, posted on the patriarchate’s website, is called “Note regarding the reception of chapter VIII of the apostolic exhortation ‘Amoris Laetitia.’” According to the cardinal, the note’s purpose is to implement the teaching of Amoris Laetitia in light of two other documents: “the correspondence between the bishops of the Pastoral Region of Buenos Aires and the guidelines given to the priests of the Diocese of the Pope (Rome) by its cardinal-vicar.”
Cardinal Clemente offers numerous quotations of the three documents to justify giving Holy Communion to those in adulterous remarriages, including the letter of the bishops of the Pastoral Region of Buenos Aires, which has been placed into the Acts of the Apostolic See by the pope. Clemente quotes the letter’s claim that the option of living in celibacy “may not, in fact, be feasible” and that “there are limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), particularly when a person judges that he would fall into a subsequent fault by damaging the children of the new union.”
The cardinal concludes that under “exceptional circumstances” there is the “sacramental possibility” (that is, the possibility of receiving Holy Communion) “in conformity with the apostolic exhortation [Amoris Laetitia] and the above-cited documents.” He adds that “discernment” should be continued “always adjusting practice more in accordance with the Christian matrimonial ideal, and better sacramental coherence.”
Pope Francis’ novel doctrine permitting Holy Communion for those in adulterous second marriage has been questioned and denounced widely by Catholic clergy and laity, particularly theologians and canon lawyers. The Church’s law continues to require that those who are conscious of mortal sin not present themselves for Holy Communion, and that priests refuse communion to those who publicly known to be living in habitual mortal sin.
The bishops of Kazakhstan have released a ringing rejection of Francis’ doctrine, and have reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s “two thousand-year-old sacramental discipline,” which prohibits giving Holy Communion to people in a public state of mortal sin. Other bishops and also cardinals have joined their names to their declaration
Clemente’s statement comes in the wake of comments the cardinal made to the press in December, when he told Agencia Ecclesia that divorced and remarried Catholics who want to begin receiving the sacraments will have to follow a “very long” process which isn’t a “quick, immediate, simple” decision. However, the cardinal added that “in some cases, with discretion and with the consent of the bishop, they can return to the sacramental life,” citing the authority of Pope Francis.
Already in Portugal the Archdiocese of Braga has followed Clemente’s lead, announcing late last year that it will give “access to the sacraments” to “divorced and remarried Christians,” without any reference to the need to give up the sexual act, affirming that “the Archdiocese of Braga will establish a group for accompanying Christians who are divorced and remarried, which will make access to the sacraments possible, in accordance with a process of individual discernment.”
The archdiocese’s embrace of the practice of giving Holy Communion to adulterers was condemned in January by eminent canon lawyer Edward Peters, who wrote: “It doesn’t matter what reasons might be offered by the storied Archdiocese of Braga for its plan to authorize the administering of holy Communion to basic divorced-and-remarried Catholics. If that is . . . their plan, they are wrong,” continues Peters. “Patently and gravely wrong. Just like the Maltese. Just like the Germans. And just like a few others if only in terms of the wiggle room they allow themselves in these cases, as do, say, the Argentinians.”
I’ve often wondered how many Roman Catholics get drunk, go to confession, and then are back the next week to confess again?
Not as same as about some Protestant whoremonger after committing adultery on his third wife saying the sinner’s prayer then scouting the bars for his next conquest.
David and Bathsheba predated Jesus and His definition of marriage by a considerable amount of time.
And his concubines?
Oh? Genesis? One man, one woman
Really? This is your new schtick? LOL! Sad, but LOL! Keep trying, ebb. You may get a handle on internet debate one day. But today isn’t it and tomorrow isn’t looking any better. But keep trying.
Grow up.
God let Absalom take care of David’s concubine as a sign of force/rebellion concerning the son of David’s ambition.
And your bigotry is noted.
Your denomination chooses who gets to remarry after divorce so it is not an absolute requirement, and the rich and famous get to flaunt it.
It wasn't a fact the first time you said it and repeating it doesn't change it. Kennedy got divorced. His marriage was not annulled. He remarried and his marriage was not recognized by the church. He chose to live in adultery. Where is that hypocrisy on the part of the Church?
I know Catholics who had a divorce they did not want or ask for who were victimized by their spouse then victimized again by their church when they were not allowed to participate fully because they found someone to share their life with.
The Church also does not recognize same sex marriage. Are we being hypocritical if we do not allow the same sex couple to participate fully - or remain employed in some cases - because they found someone to share their life with? Nobody said being a Roman Catholic is easy. Following the teachings of Jesus Christ often is hard. We all make choices, and some of our choices are sins in the eye of the Church. But the solution is not to change the Lord's teachings and decide a sin is no longer a sin.
But Christ also said if a spouse is unbelieving let them go. (Divorce)
And earlier in 1 Corinthians 7 Paul said, "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." Paul may have specified only the wife, but Jesus made it clear in Mark and in Matthew that should a man and woman be divorced then they should not remarry for to do so would be committing adultery.
And let me make it clear, a man or woman can obtain a civil divorce and still remain in good standing with the Church. They just cannot remarry while the former spouse is alive or unless the marriage is annulled.
And again everyone sins even Catholics.
Never said they didn't, myself included.
And I’ll bet some of you even repeat sin after you present yourselves to the altar.
I would not take that bet.
But be that as it may - if your teaching is remarriage is adulterous then it is across the board, not just for those who can convince a priest to grant an annulment. Anything else is hypocrisy.
Our teaching? Try the teachings of Jesus Christ. Mark 10: 6-12:
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."
I don't recall where Genesis defined marriage. But Jesus did.
I don't recall where Genesis defined marriage. But Jesus did.
23The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” 24For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. Genesis 2:23-25 NASB
16To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.” 17Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. 18“Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field; 19By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return.” 20Now the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living. 21The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them. Genesis 3:16-21 NASB
Jesus was quoting from Genesis in Mark 10:6-9.
6“But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. 7“FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, 8AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9“What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” Mark 10:6-9 NASB
Marriage between man and woman has been around way longer than the Roman Catholic church.
You've taken this passage out of context.
There are no scriptures without the church that put the books, etc. together and officially codified them.
This church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, founded on earth by Our Lord, King, and God, in the person of Jesus Christ.
No offense, but this is just historical fact.
Genesis 3:4 “Then the snake said to the woman, ‘No! You will not die!”
Even Alexa knows ... ;)
https://youtu.be/JN3z2kHlowk
Francis is destroying the church that he was entrusted with.
We could argue all day whether Genesis is defining marriage, but we do agree that Jesus defined marriage as a lifelong joining of one man and one woman. Not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Not a union between one man and one woman until something better comes along. But if you want to take the Genesis passage as defining marriage then David and Bathsheba were wrong, and Solomon went way over the line himself.
Not sure what you’re talking about. The King James Bible is generally considered an authentic and accurate translation of Scripture.
No we can't. Because marriage was defined in Genesis by God....one man...one woman.
If that isn't clear then I have to question anything else you say.
Noah was married to one wife.
18“But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife, and your sons’ wives with you. Gen 6:18 NASB
Abram (Abraham) was also married to one wife.
5Abram took Sarai his wife and Lot his nephew, and all their possessions which they had accumulated, and the persons which they had acquired in Haran, and they set out for the land of Canaan; thus they came to the land of Canaan. Gen 12:5 NASB
The institution of marriage has been around from the earliest beginning of mankind.
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.