CONCERNING OBJECTIONS TO CHURCH'S TEACHING ON RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION BY DIVORCED AND REMARRIED

Good conversation, and would like to add what I received as a personal revelation during an apparition that was a huge warning to me. My husband had just left and I was young and contemplating my options when this happened to me. Jesus told me ALOT about the covenant of Marriage, and how it is the only covenant He himself actually "signs" along with the husband and wife. I was thinking of applying for an annulment and He told me He would not honor it if I did and the gates of hell would be open to me. I "argued" with Him and said "everyone is doing it, and do You not stand by Your Church on these matters?" He said He DOES honor the Church's judgement, but that He judges EACH INDIVIDUAL SOUL. He already knew my desire for an annulment was to "legally" commit adultery and start over with another man. As long as you are not mentally impaired or forced when you take your marriage vows, you are married until death. If your spouse leaves you, the Lord stays with you but your spouse has just left both you AND the Lord. The Lord will care for you in all ways if you stay faithful to Him and your spouse, no matter WHAT your spouse does. You will not be judged on your spouse's actions but only on how faithful you are. You MUST repent of any adultery and remedy what you can before ever approaching the Eucharist. No matter what any human on earth says, Pope or Priest, or Social Media, or family, save yourselves! Only those who persevere to the end will be saved. At the time Jesus told me so many things that seemed outlandish about the Demons attack on Marriage, and all those things are here! You all know in your heart what the commandments are and what sin is, and do not let anyone take that away. Save all you can by your example and your prayers. Have compassion and mercy but tell the truth of the Gospel always.

 

Carmel - thank you for your testimony to the authenticity of sacramental marriage.

It is God who is the author of marriage and Jesus established it as a sacrament, a permanent bond because the two become one in Christ.

Your testimony will save souls.

 

I think this it true. Sometimes I thought of the gentleman who carried out the tortures and the auto de fe's for the Spanish Inquistion and were told by very high Church offiicials that burning people to death and torturing was for the good of their souls and the Church. Stil lthey would have had to answer to God for these things.

There is a very,very good part in the film the mission. The Cardinal sent from Rome tells the Jesuit missionaries they must abandon their mission , their new Chrisitans to slavery and death. Each reacts in their own ways. One of two take up the sword, one stays and prays with them.

How would God judge thes emen who were disobedient to a great evil order issued by the Church? I don't know how God would judge but I imagine knowing my temper I would have taken up the sword myself.

Only God will judge of course; but I have never believed we need be obedient to evil

I think actually the film, 'The Mission', is based on a true story.

 

My dad just loved that movie! I do think it is based on a true story. When I was worried about all this going on and was praying, Jesus gave me this great advise " No one can ever force you to sin. It may become "lawful" to sin everywhere, but you yourself must not sin"
It's all pretty simple: Jesus never forced anyone to become His disciple. If anyone turned and repented, He showed abundant mercy. But one cannot repent if one does not know something is a sin. To tell the Truth IS a mercy. In this world, many truly do no longer know what sin is. If they are told the Truth, they can reject it, or accept it using their free will. If they reject it, God in His great mercy give them time and suffering to understand their ways. If they accept it, they repent and start over, and start on the journey we must all take to perfection. We fall, but we repent and start over again and again if necessary. We must not be too surprised if all of the prophecies about the Church come true, but we must pray and fast for all of our church leaders especially the Pope and for all world leaders also at this time.

 

Wow, Carmel, I'm usually very sceptical of accounts of apparitions or personal revelations but not in this case. Can you give us a little more detail of the apparition. I'm not asking for personal details - just general information about what Jesus looked like, whether there were actual spoken, audible words, etc. You say you were considering your options, but were you praying when you had the actual apparition?

 

padraig, Robert De Niro crying, the repentance scene.



These three well known actors, I wonder what they think about this scene, of the entire movie. It must
stay with them.

 

I was praying. I was away from the Church for many years already when it happened. I posted it here several years ago and here is the link to the page. http://motheofgod.com/conversations/my-apparation-find-it-difficult-to-share.2207/

 

That link won't open for me. It's saying there's an error. Never mind, I'll see if I can find the thread. Thank you, Carmel, and may you continue to grow in God's love.

 

[QUOTE="Carmel333, post: Have compassion and mercy but tell the truth of the Gospel always.[/QUOTE]

Carmel well said! thats what has to be done by all or suffer the consequences. Thats why it is so important to stick with the true Roman Catholic religion and it's teachings, especially the Holy Mass. The Mass is celebrated in Latin, the official language of the Roman Catholic Church, used as a liturgical language in the West since as early as the first century and the unchanging nature of the Latin language has preserved the orthodox doctrine of the Mass,as handed down from the the Apostles, and early church fathers. The missals, contain the Latin text accompanied by its vernacular (the language or dialect spoken by the ordinary people in a particular country or region) translation; here is an example below:

latin / english vernacular




latin / french vernacular


they were published in Spanish, German, Italian, Chinese, ect... in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Catholic Church, Mother of all churches. Remember that the devil hates Latin and the sacred ancient Latin Sacraments, Rites and prayers of the roman Catholic Church.

So you can see that it was precisely when Latin was being removed, (1965-69- vatican II ), that all hell broke loose, ecclesiastical Latin is a sacred language that was reserved only for the divine service of the Church of God, in prayer and in the Sacraments and why it is used in Exorcisms and has power over the devil. When the popes removed Latin from the Roman Catholic Church, and suppressed the Tridentine Mass, that is what allowed all hell to break out on earth. We need to return to the Latin Mass and other Latin Rites and prayers to fight the devil!


QUO PRIMUM: THE INFALLIBLE BULL OF POPE ST. PIUS V

“Quo Primum is no 'merely ecclesiastical law' (can. 11) that can be revoked, but has been enacted into law and declared Ex Cathedra to be irreformable, and is therefore a solemnly defined moral doctrine which is also of itself infallible and irreformable (DB 1819). Quo Primum has been infallibly declared to be irreformable because the rite of Mass codified (canonized) in the Tridentine Missal is the 'received and approved rite' (the rite of Sacred Tradition) [Iniunctum nobis] of the Roman Church that has been 'handed down by the Holy Roman Church' (a sacrosancta Romana Ecclesia ... tradita) [Quo Primum]. The statutes of Quo Primum, therefore, pertain to Divine Law insofar as they constitute a particular application of the divine law that has been expressed in its general formulation in the Tridentine Profession of Faith [Iniunctum nobis].” Fr. Paul L. Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.B., M.Div., A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism (Nazareth, India: Apostle Publications, [1997]).

MAINTAINING THE COMPLETELY UNCHANGED LATIN ROMAN CATHOLIC MASS DECREE QUO PRIMUM, ST. PIUS V, JULY 19, 1570
"By this our decree, to be valid IN PERPETUITY, we determine and order that NEVER shall anything be added to, omitted from, or changed in this Missal. . .At no time in the future can a priest, whether secular or order priest, ever be forced to use any other way of saying Mass. And so as to preclude once and for all any scruples of conscience and fear of ecclesiastical penalties and censures, we herewith declare that it is in virtue of our Apostolic Authority that we decree and determine that this our present order and decree is to last in PERPETUITY and can never be legally revoked or amended at a future date. . . And if anyone would nevertheless ever dare to attempt any action contrary to this order of ours, given for all times, let him know that he has incurred the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

"If anyone says that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the VERNACULAR only, ... let him be anathema (cursed).

ECCUMENICAL COUNCIL OF TRENT

 

From Robert Royal, editor-in-chief of The Catholic Thing, and president of the Faith & Reason Institute in Washington, DC:

"A Bizarre Papal Move
So now we know. We knew before, really, but didn’t have explicit confirmation. The long, agonizing slog, however, is finally over: from Pope Francis’ invitation to Cardinal Kasper to address the bishops in Rome in February of 2014 to the pope’s letter last week to some Argentinean bishops affirming guidelines they had developed in a joint document that, in “exceptional cases,” people divorced and remarried (living in an “adulterous” relationship as we believed for 2000 years in Western Christianity), may receive Holy Communion. This whole affair is bizarre. No other word will do.

As I wrote on this page many times before the two Synods on the Family, daily during those events, and subsequently, it was clear – at least to me – that the pope wanted his brother bishops to approve some form of what came to be known as the Kasper Proposal. That he did not get such approval – indeed, that he got significant pushback from bishops from various parts of the globe – visibly angered him, and even led him into a bit of snark at the close of the second Synod, that some opinions had “at times” been expressed there, “unfortunately, not in entirely well-meaning ways.”

Well, one man’s not entirely well-meaning ways, is another’s conviction about remaining faithful to the words of Jesus. And since then and even after the publication of Amoris laetitia, Catholics – indeed, the whole world – have been embroiled in tumultuous and fruitless speculation on whether things had changed or not. Even the notorious footnote 351 of Amoris laetitia, for all the worries it caused traditional Catholics, did not really come out and say what the pope evidently thought.

The puzzlement was understandable. Has a pope ever changed something of such significance via confused footnotes and, now, a private letter to a small group of regional bishops? In that obscure context, he’s quite categorical: “The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations.” [Emphasis added.]

I say again: bizarre – both in process and substance. It took several days before it was even certain that the letter to the Argentinean bishops – leaked, only later confirmed by the Vatican – was authentic. Pope Francis has no trouble making bald public statements such as “who am I to judge,” and “if you don’t recycle go to Confession.” He rails, often rightly, against careerism and gossip and division within the Curia, but suddenly becomes gun-shy when it comes to marriage and family? As Hungarian Cardinal Peter Erdö said frankly during the Synods, it all just comes down to a choice: either you give a certain group of people Communion or you don’t.

Even now that Francis has said yes, we keep hearing that there are qualifications and nuances and limits. The pope has several times refused to comment on the change in order, as he’s said, to avoid giving “a simplistic answer.” But quite apart from the fact that he’s done so on many other matters, he at least appears to believe that it will be possible in practice to finesse this process, through accompaniment, discernment, all those words that have no clear limits. The Argentine bishops themselves have warned that the change applies only to exceptional cases: “it’s necessary to avoid understanding this possibility as an unrestricted access to the sacraments, or as though any situation might justify it.”

But while they’ve recognized the danger, they haven’t avoided it. In the world today, everyone thinks he’s a special case, and pity the poor parish priest or local bishop in the future who seems “too rigid” by not granting enough people special status.

A Catholic has a right to a little discernment of his own about what the Church teaches – which principles define that “exceptional status.” To take a case that will not long remain hypothetical, what about the gay couple who are committed to one another and experienced same-sex attraction their whole lives, through no fault of their own? When the first Synod started down that path, it was regarded as extremist and quickly abandoned by the small number of bishops who wanted to push it. But without some clear principles to distinguish such cases from others, why not?

In the Church’s 2000-year history – a history of apostles, martyrs, confessors, great saints, brilliant doctors, profound mystics – none thought the new teaching Catholic. Some even died to defend the indissolubility of marriage. For a pope to criticize those who remain faithful to that tradition, and characterize them as somehow unmerciful and aligning themselves with hard-hearted Pharisees against the merciful Jesus is bizarre.

I’ve lived long enough in Washington and spent sufficient time in Rome not to trust what a journalist says some leader – secular or religious – told him in private. But I’m convinced that when Eugenio Scalfari – the eccentric editor of La Reppublica, the socialist paper in Rome Francis reads daily – said that Francis told him he would allow all who come to receive Communion, he may not have gotten the words exactly right. But he caught the drift.

Indeed, Catholics have a new teaching now, not only on divorce and remarriage. We have a new vision of the Eucharist. It’s worth recalling that in January the pope, coyly, not ruling it out, suggested to a group of Lutherans in Rome that they, too, might “talk with the Lord” and “go forward.” Indeed, they later took Communion at Mass in the Vatican. In a way, that was even more significant. A Catholic couple, divorced and remarried, are sinners, but – at least in principle – still Catholic. Has intercommunion with non-Catholic Christians also been decided now without any consultation – almost as if such a momentous step in understanding the Sacrament of Unity hardly matters?

I’m sorry to have to say this, but I’m afraid that the rest of this papacy is now going to be rent by groups of dissenters, charges of papal heresy, threats of – and perhaps outright –schism. Lord, have mercy."
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/09/14/a-bizarre-papal-move/


Not even members of this forum could accuse Robert Royal of being a hate-filled protestant pharisee or "The Catholic Thing" of being ultra-traditionalist or an anti-Francis copy'n'paste rag. Robert Royal isn't the first person to raise the prospect of this innovation by Pope Francis being extended to couples with same sex attraction. I wouldn't be surprised to see some kind of inter-Communion arrangement with the Lutherans after the Reformation celebrations. That would mean the Catholic Church recognising that communion from women or married homosexual Lutheran priests is a valid eucharist.

The Orthodox Churches have Apostolic Succession and haven't strayed as far from the faith as the Protestants. I know that the Orthodox allow divorce but at least they're honest about it and they don't seem to be caving in to the LGBT agenda at the same rate as some Catholic bishops and many priests. They also have a reputation for being very protective of the Eucharist and it really bothers me that the Blessed Eucharist is being treated with ever decreasing reverence in our own Church. If there's going to be little or no difference between Catholicism and Lutheranism, I'm beginning to wonder whether the Orthodox would be a better fit for me because this Pope Francis Catholic stuff isn't the faith I was raised in.

 

Robert Royal is the editor of the 'Catholic Thing' website, a site I was unfamiliar with. My 'test' of basic attitudes and policy on religious websites that I know nothing about is to do a search for 'Medjugorje' on the site.

Doing this on the 'Catholic Thing' website produces a fascinating collection of articles/news items: https://www.thecatholicthing.org/?s=medjugorje

All these articles are written from a firmly negative standpoint. So the above anti Francis article comes as absolutely no surprise but will no doubt provide comfort and encouragement for the critics of Pope Francis brigade.

 

Well, negative about Medjugorje is a positive for me. I'm sure I don't need to remind you that no Catholic is obliged to believe in private revelations, especially apparitions that the Church has not declared to be worthy of belief. Do you have a reasoned response to the points he makes rather suggesting that they are worthless because the website doesn't endorse your favourite alleged seers.

 

No, Dolours, I have no interest in listening to more anti Francis views from someone who cannot even discern the authenticity of 35 years of apparitions of Our Lady in Medjugorje. Those anti-Francis views have been well responded to on this forum and elsewhere.

 

This is actually an old thread which seems to have been 'resurrected' so I will post the latest item on the topic which I have posted elsewhere:

Pope Francis on the correct interpretation of the “Amoris Laetitia”

The bishops of Buenos Aires have sent their priests a document on integrating remarried divorcees (with admission to the sacraments on a case-by-case basis). Francis has written them a letter praising them for their work: the text is “very good” and “fully captures the meaning of chapter VIII” of the exhortation"



12/09/2016
ANDREA TORNIELLI
VATICAN CITY

The “text is very good and fully captures the meaning of chapter VIII of the‘Amoris Laetitia’. There are no other interpretations”. For the first time, Pope Francis puts his opinion on the correct interpretation of the post-synodal exhortation on the family, in writing, in a letter sent to the bishops of Argentina. As is known, the document in the eighth chapter is about the integration of “wounded” and irregular families and calls for a process of discernment which could lead to readmission to the sacraments depending on each individual case, without venturing into the realm of casuistry or hammering rules into people. The papal document has been subject to a variety of interpretations. Some commentators were quick to claim that previous norms essentially remained unchanged.

The Pope had already given a verbal response to this on the return flight from the Greek island of Lesbos last April. He was asked whether there were any real new possibilities for access to the sacraments that did not exist prior to the publication of the “Amoris Laetitia” encyclical. “I could say “yes” and leave it at that”, Francis had replied. “But that would be too brief a response. I recommend that all of you read the presentation made by Cardinal Schönborn, a great theologian.”

The document which the bishops of Buenos Aires sent to members of the clergy at the start of September was a letter outlining a set of criteria based on the eighth chapter of the exhortation and in particular on the possibility for divorcees who enter a second union to gain access to the sacraments. First of all, it states that it is not proper to “speak about ‘permission’ for accessing the sacraments but rather about a process of discernment under the guidance of a pastor. Along this path, “the pastor should accentuate the fundamental announcement, the kerygma, that stimulates or revives a personal encounter with Christ”. This “pastoral accompaniment” requires the priest to show “the maternal face of the Church”, accepting the honest intention of the penitent and his sincere intention to live his life according to the Gospel and practice charity”. This path “does not necessarily lead to the sacraments but can lead to other forms of greater integration in the life of the Church: a stronger presence of community, participation in prayer or reflection groups, a commitment to different areas of service within the Church.”


In the fifth point made in their document, the bishops of Buenos Aires explain: “Commitment to continence could be considered as an option when the concrete circumstances of a couple allow it, especially when the two are Christians following a path of faith,” leaving “open the possibility of accessing the sacrament of reconciliation in such cases”. This possibility is already present in the teachings of John Paul II. In the following paragraph they explain that in the case “of other more complex circumstances and when it is not possible to obtain a declaration of annulment, the abovementioned option (continence, Ed.) may not be viable. Despite this, a path of discernment is still possible. When there is acknowledgement, in a concrete case, of the existence of limitations that diminish the degree of responsibility and culpability – particularly when a person believes they would commit another mistake that could harm any children born into the new union - ‘Amoris Laetitia’ introduces the possibility of access to the sacraments of reconciliation and the Eucharist.”

“These in turn allow the person to continue to mature and grow through the strength of grace,” the document goes on to say. It is important, however, to ensure that this window is not seen as providing unrestricted access to the sacraments or as if any situation could justify it. What is being proposed is a discernment that adequately distinguishes between cases. Some cases require special attention, for instance, situations where a new union is forged shortly after a divorce or where a person repeatedly falls short of their commitments towards the family. Or in cases where a person defends or brags about their own situation as if it formed part of the Christian ideal.” People need to be guided in placing themselves and “their conscience before God,” especially “when it comes to their behaviour towards their children or towards the abandoned spouse. When there are injustices that remain unresolved, access to the sacraments is particularly controversial.”

Finally, bishops observe that “should access to the sacraments be granted in some cases, it could make sense for this to be kept confidential, especially when conflict is foreseen”. At the same time, however, “the community needs to be given guidance so that it can grow in a spirit of understanding and openness”.

The Pope’s response came on 5 September, praising them for their work, “a true example of the accompaniment of priests”. The key phrase of his letter followed: the document issued by the bishops of Buenos Aires “is very good and fully captures the meaning of chapter VIII of the ‘Amoris Laetitia’. There are no other interpretations. I am sure it will do much good”. Regarding the “path of welcome, accompaniment, discernment and integration,” he said: “We know it is tiring, this is ‘hand-to-hand’ pastoral care, where programmatic, organisational and legal mediation is not enough, albeit necessary”.

http://www.lastampa.it/2016/09/12/v...s-laetitia-3BCM11NC8042x26J6mQfeP/pagina.html

 

How do you know that his negative opinion on Medjugorje isn't in line with the Pope's opinion that Our Lady isn't a postman?

Robert Royal isn't alone in expressing negative views on both the alleged apparitions at Medjugorje and the Pope's innovation on Communion for people living in adulterous unions. He makes very valid points that have not been well responded to either on this forum or anywhere else. It wouldn't be the first time in Church history that Catholics like Robert Royal have defended the Deposit of Faith when bishops couldn't or wouldn't do their duty. When communion for people living in all sorts of irregular unions are commonplace in your local Church, and when inclusion means serving on parish councils, extraordinary ministers of the eucharist, youth ministry, etc., you will realise that he was right. I hope it won't be too late to avoid a major schism before this error is corrected but fear that it will.

 

Because I'm maybe more 'in tune' with Pope Francis than your good self, Dolours

The only specific information I can point to which indicates the Pope's positivity to Medjugorje is at:
http://crownofstars.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/pope-invites-medjugorje-promoter-to.html

His comments about Our Lady not being a 'postmistress' were directed, I believe, at some South American messages that are often posted on the forum and which I do not believe to be authentic. I do not believe the Pope will allow any action against Medjugorje and don't forget that Cardinal Schonborn to whom the Pope is close, is overwhelmingly positive about Medjugorje.

 

According to that blogspot, the man's meeting with the Pope was arranged because he had been the victim of a hoax by some Italian TV programme that phoned him and pretended to be the Pope. There's nothing to indicate that the Pope believes in the alleged apparitions of Medjugorje. The people in South America could equally believe that his postmistress comments were directed at Medjugorje and they could be just as "in tune" with Pope Francis as you. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Cardinal Schonborn were positive about Medjugorje. He also believes that a person can be fully Catholic and a Freemason. He's the same Cardinal who blessed homosexual couples in the Cathedral in Vienna on St. Valentine's day, has been admitting remarried divorcees to Communion long before there was any Synod on the Family despite Pope John Paul's ruling against it, and over-ruled a priest who removed a married homosexual from the parish council. Yep, Medjugorje and Cardinal Schonborn seem like a good fit to me. Don't bet the house on Pope Francis declaring it worthy of belief.

 

This is not meant to be insulting but have you ever been a politician, Dolours? Your ability to 'spin' a situation seems effortless

As for your negativity to Cardinal Schonborn, thank you for again giving us your often expressed views. Fortunately, Pope Francis has very different views which were shared both by Pope Benedict and St John Paul II.

 

I didn't spin anything David and I don't often express my view of Cardinal Schonborn - once or twice in the past maybe, but not often. Cardinal Schonborn reinstating the married gay man on the parish council or his statement about being a freemason being compatible with being a Catholic is no secret. He would make an excellent politician but I wouldn't be surprised to see him replace Cardinal Muller on the CDF......the Pope's slip of the tongue could have a little prophesy. With his pedigree, a senior position in the Church was almost guaranteed. If he gets to be Pope, I will have serious doubts about whether the Holy Spirit has any influence on the Conclave.

I wish you well, David, but remember this conversation when the "irregular" couples are calling the shots in your parish. There's little point in discussing the matter further with you since you have dismissed Cardinals, Bishops, theologians and other far more learned people than me. Many a person who claimed before the Synod that nothing would change regarding remarried divorcees being admitted to Holy Communion is now doing contortions trying to reconcile the change with 2000 years of Church teaching. Some are still saying that nothing has changed even though the Pope actually said that there were changes. The same people will adopt the same stance when the changes apply to the other "irregular situations", and they will still be twisting themselves in knots when the Church is blessing homosexual unions - it will only be a blessing after all and not marriage because that would mean a change in Doctrine. This change is the death knell for the Church's defence of traditional marriage and Catholic family values, no matter how many pious sermons the Pope preaches to the choir.