Do Protestants have traditions?

Yes, Protestants have traditions. One is their canon of 66 books. As one guy writes:

Furthermore, the Protestant canon itself is an “extra-biblical tradition” in the sense that the 66 books of the Protestant canon are accepted de facto by most Protestants as scripture, trusting that the Reformers were correct in defining the canon as they did.

{from comment 126 here  http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/06/podcast-ep-17-jason-cindy-stewart-recount-their-conversion/

I would see the Bible alone, Faith alone, etc as part of their tradition.

see also this article: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/02/the-tradition-and-the-lexicon/
IN this he discusses

By contrast, Protestants typically do not turn first to the Church Fathers when seeking to understand the meaning of a passage or term in Scripture that is unclear. Protestants generally turn to contemporary lexicons and commentaries written by contemporary biblical scholars whom they trust. Only rarely, and perhaps as a final step, do they turn to the Church Fathers. The common form of the Protestant mind is ready to believe that the Fathers often got Scripture wrong, and to use their own interpretation of Scripture to ‘correct’ or critically evaluate the Fathers

Another example of tradition is given here in comment 211 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/06/podcast-ep-17-jason-cindy-stewart-recount-their-conversion/

 WCF 1:1 is able to pronounce this very well:

“Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church . . . to commit the same wholly unto writing.”

The Bible simply does not say that God’s revelation of himself was committed “wholly unto writing.” This principle is a tradition, not a biblical teaching. And, when compared with Scripture, is found to be wanting.

from a comment here at comment 191 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/02/the-tradition-and-the-lexicon/#comment-159772

Etienne Gilson (A Gilson Reader, essay “Wisdom and Time”)

Since it refused the authority of the Church, which is Christ Himself, interpreting for us His own word, Protestant theology had to take refuge in philology, as though the teaching of our Savior, having died with Him, was reduced to the meaning of certain words pronounced once upon a time and definable with the aid of grammars and dictionaries. The outcome of this undertaking is well known, and the work of the learned Adolf Harnack is its permanent model: beginning with the Gospels, Christianity is thought of as forming a departure from the teaching of Christ, the whole theology of the Fathers is a contamination of that teaching at the hands of the Hellenic spirit, and the Scholasticism of the middle ages is its final corruption. A strange historical method, surely, whose last word is that the history it is recounting is devoid of meaning and strictly without object! . . . . Certain that the word of the Church is the word of the living God, the Catholic theologian knows very well that the unfolding of the divine deposit of faith of which the Church is the guardian will come to an end only when time does, and even then the infinite richness of this deposit will not be exhausted. But the Catholic theologian likewise knows that this work of developing, which does not belong to any one man of whatever holiness or genius, belongs in fact to the Church, of which Christ is the head and he is a member. The teaching voice of the Church is alone the judge of the understanding of faith.

from comment 181 here  http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/11/sola-scriptura-redux-matthew-barrett-tradition-and-authority/#comment-162120

 The problem can be seen as soon as one reflects carefully on the following question: who counts as “the church”? Any heretic can define ‘the church’ according to his own beliefs and interpretations, and in this way affirm everything in the excerpted paragraph above as applying to his own [heretical] community, or to the set of communities he counts as sufficiently with the bounds of ‘orthodoxy’ as defined according to his false position. So all this locating of the Spirit in “the church” is worthless if“the church” is defined in an ad hoc way, because the position then reduces to ‘the Spirit speaks through the community of persons picked out by their sufficient agreement with my interpretation of Scripture.’ And that is even more nefarious than simply stating “the Spirit speaks ultimately through me” because it hides from itself its egoism, masking it under the semantics of community, as Neal Judisch and I have explained elsewhere.

Only the existence of a divinely authorized magisterium allows both ‘heresy’ and ‘schism from the Church’ to be defined in a non ad hoc way. But Allen and Swain do not acknowledge a divinely authorized magisterial authority, and for this reason their position regarding what is “the church” remains ad hoc. (I’ve pointed out this problem before in my reply to Mark Galli and in the last paragraph of comment #89 in the Brad Gregory thread.)

Moreover, fatal to the Protestant attempt to embrace tradition as in any sense authoritative is theecclesial deism inherent in Protestantism, according to which necessarily, as shown by the very need for Protestantism in the sixteenth century to the present day, tradition cannot be trusted, and must therefore be subject to one’s own interpretation of Scripture to test its authenticity. But when I submit only when I agree, the one to whom I submit is me. Hence, as I’ve shown in the post at the top of this page, when what gets to count as tradition is only that which conforms to one’s own interpretation of Scripture, one is giving only lip-service to the authority of tradition, while hiding from oneself one’s denial of the authority of tradition. In this way Protestant’s justification for its own existence presupposes that tradition is unreliable, and not authoritative.

Further evidence for this can be found in the confessionalists vs. biblicists debate within the Reformed community, a debate I’ve discussed here. The arguments raised by the Reformed biblicists against the confessionalists apply no less to the ‘catholic’ tradition, given a Protestant ecclesiology. Without a magisterium, there is no principled difference between choosing which Protestant confessions to which to ‘submit’ on the basis of one’s interpretation of Scripture, and choosing which catholic traditions count as ‘catholic tradition’ on the basis of one’s interpretation of Scripture. And if ‘catholic’ tradition is supposed to be more authoritative than the Reformed confessions because the former is not “Reformed,” then this only shows that Reformed theology is not ‘catholic.’

A second reason lies behind the inherent incompatibility of Protestantism and catholic tradition. The formation of a schism from the Church, in the name of standing with the tradition in the Church Fathers, is not itself part of the tradition of the Fathers, but is itself contrary to the tradition. For the Fathers it was better to die than to form or enter a schism from the Church (i.e. the living community). The tradition does not provide a justification for or affirmation of choosing to be excommunicated from the Catholic Church rather than submit to her authentic Magisterium; the tradition is exactly the opposite. So a belief in the acceptability of forming or entering a schism from the Church for the sake of presumed faithfulness to the tradition is itself a departure from the tradition, as is the embrace of excommunication from the Catholic Church, and of remaining in such a state of excommunication without appeal for reconciliation.

Protestants attempt to justify this position in two ways. They either claim that Protestantism is the continuation of the Church, and that the [Roman] Catholic Church departed from her through various errors, or they claim that Protestantism formed a branch within the “church catholic,” and was only cut off from a branch (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church), and is thus not in schism from the “church catholic.” The problem with the latter claim is that Protestantism’s ‘branch ecclesiology’ is itself a departure from the tradition. While “schism from” the Church is actually possible according to the tradition, yet because Protestantism’s invisible church ecclesiology makes “schism from” the Church conceptually impossible (see here), it thus does not allow for a non ad hoc distinction between a “branch within” the Church and a “schism from” the Church.

Likewise, the problem with the former claim is that the ecclesial deism inherent in the claim that the Church Catholic had departed from the faith is itself contrary to the tradition, because according to the tradition, the Church is indefectible. Any heretical group that separates from the Catholic Church can claim to be the continuation of the Church, and can claim that the Catholic Church separated from her. But any such claim can be justified only by way of ad hoc definitions of ‘heresy’ and ‘schism,’ definitions that depart from the respective definitions handed down within the tradition. So both attempted Protestant justifications for separating from the Catholic Church and remaining separated from the Catholic Church run afoul of tradition. And thus again, for these reasons, Protestantism and catholic tradition are inherently incompatible.

divorce and remarriage in the Catholic Church

from EWTN http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_of_divorced_and_remarr.htm

Communion of Divorced and Remarried Divorce. By itself civil divorce is not an obstacle to Communion. As a civil action all it does is settle the civil legal effects of marriage (distribution of property, custody of children etc.). However, understood as a moral action, the willful breakup of a marriage or abandonment of one's spouse is indeed seriously wrong. The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes clear, following on Scripture, that God hates such divorce. 2382 The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble. He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law. Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death." 2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law. If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense. 2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery: If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery; and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another's husband to herself. 2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society. Thus, those who are actually responsible for the breakup of the marriage and the failure to be reconciled when possible are indeed guilty of sin and have an obligation to repent and confess their sin before receiving Communion, as would any grave sinner. On the other hand, of the innocent party in a divorce the Catechism says, 2386  It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage. Thus, the innocent spouse in a marital break-up has the same possibility to receive Communion as other Catholics, with the usual conditions (being free from mortal sin in other areas of life, going to Confession if not, Eucharistic fast and so on). Remarriage. As noted above in the citation from the Catechism 2382, a ratified and consummated Christian marriage is indissoluble. This is a marriage where the vows are exchanged by two baptized persons, with the proper intention, and consummated by sexual intercourse. No power on earth can declare such a marriage null and the parties free to remarry. However, a marriage tribunal of the Catholic Church is empowered to judge whether a marriage actually did occur and to issue a Decree of Nullity (popularly, but wrongly, called an annulment) when it judges it did not. (See: Annulment/Decree of Nullity) A person who receives a Decree of Nullity is free to marry in the Church since the first marriage was defective from its beginning (i.e. no marriage). A person who remarries in the Church after an annulment is free to receive the sacraments under the usual conditions (as noted above). However, often times individuals or couples who have remarried but without a Decree of Nullity want to come into the Church, or if already Catholic approach the sacraments of Penance and Eucharist. Sometimes they are even told they can judge these matters in their own conscience without going to a Marriage Tribunal (sometimes called "the internal forum solution"). In "Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by Divorced-and-Remarried Members of the Faithful" the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a letter to the world's bishops on October 14, 1994 said, 7. The mistaken conviction of a divorced-and-remarried person that he may receive holy communion normally presupposes that personal conscience is considered in the final analysis to be able, on the basis of one's own convictions, to come to a decision about the existence or absence of a previous marriage and the value of the new union. However, such a position is inadmissible. Marriage, in fact, both because it is the image of the spousal relationship between Christ and his church as well as the fundamental core and an important factor in the life of civil society, is  essentially a public reality. [/library/curia/cdfdivor.txt] By this document the Holy See affirmed the continuous theology and discipline of the Catholic Church that those who are divorced and remarried without a Decree of Nullity for the first marriage (whether that marriage was made within or outside the Catholic Church) are in an objectively adulterous union that prevents them from honestly repenting, receiving absolution for their their sins, and receiving Holy Communion. Until the marital irregularity is resolved by a Marriage Tribunal, or other procedures which apply to marriages of the non-baptized, they may not approach Penance or Holy Communion. As Pope John Paul II pointed out in Reconciliation and Penance, the Church desires such couples to participate in the Church's life to the extent possible (and this participation in Mass, Eucharistic adoration, devotions and so on is a great spiritual help to them), as they work toward full sacramental participation. A Unique Case. One final situation is that of those who have repented of their illicit union, but remain together for a serious reason, such as for the sake of their children. Catholic pastoral practice allows that IF their pastor judges that scandal can be avoided (meaning most people are unaware of their remarriage and consider them a married couple), then they may live together as "brother and sister" (without any sexual relations), and be admitted to the sacraments. If scandal can not be avoided, then they must either  separate or refrain from the sacraments. from http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/guidelines-letting-divorced-and-remarried-catholics-receive-eucharist-must [note Muller is  the Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, (CDF}: Müller corrected this, saying that the Catholic teaching on the nature of marriage “reaffirms” the practice “of not admitting divorced persons who have remarried” to the Eucharist. Not only would admitting such persons to Communion contradict Catholic teaching, Müller added, it would “cause confusion among the faithful about the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage” and must thus be avoided for “pastoral” reasons. The Catholic Church does not admit the existence of divorce, holding the literal understanding of the Gospel of Matthew in which Christ said it was only because of human “hardness of heart” that the Mosaic Law had allowed divorce. The Church teaches that a person who has civilly divorced and remarried, therefore, cannot be admitted to any of the Sacraments because he is in a state of grave or “mortal” sin as an adulterer. ................. Müller cited the document Familiaris Consortio by John Paul II, that said, “The respect due to the sacrament of Matrimony, to the couples themselves and their families, and also to the community of the faithful, forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry.” “They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist,” the document continues. from Familiaaris Consortio found quoted http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/03/exclusive-for-il-foglio-kaspers.html However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage. Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they "take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples." (Familiaris Consortio, 84) and Catechism of the Catholic Church (n. 1650).  Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" (Mk 10:11-12) the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence. see also  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm There is a section on  3. The Dogmatic Basis and Practical Application of The Complete Dissolubility of Consummated Marriage within the Catholic Church [here is a part]:(b) Tradition and the Historical Development in Doctrine and Practice — The doctrine of Scripture about the illicitness of divorce is fully confirmed by the constant tradition of theChurch. The testimonies of the Fathers and the councils leave us no room for doubt. In numerous places they lay down the teaching that not even in the case of adultery can the marriage bond be dissolved or the innocent party proceed to a new marriage. They insist rather that the innocent party must remain unmarried after the dismissal of the guilty one, and can only enter upon new marriage in case death intervenes.

.......and

(d) Dogmatic Decision on the Indissolubility of Marriage — The Council of Trent was the first to make a dogmatic decision on this question. This took place in Session XXIV, canon v: "If anyone shall say that the bond of matrimony can be dissolved for the cause of heresy, or of injury due to cohabitation, or of wilful desertion; let him be anathema", and in canon vii: "If anyone shall say that the Church has erred in having taught, and in teaching that, according to the teaching of the Gospel and the Apostles, the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved, and that neither party — not even the innocent, who has given no cause by adultery — can contract another marriage while the other lives, and that he, or she, commitsadultery who puts away an adulterous wife, or husband, and marries another; let him be anathema." The decree defines directly the infallibility of the church doctrine in regard to indissolubility of marriage, even in the case of adultery, but indirectly the decree defines the indissolubility of marriage.Doubts have been expressed here and there about the dogmatic character of this definition (cf. Sasse, "De Sacramentis", II, 426). But Leo XIII, in his Encyclical"Arcanum", 10 February, 1880; calls the doctrine on divorce condemned by the Council of Trent "the baneful heresy" (hoeresim deterrimam). The acceptance of this indissolubility of marriage as an article of faith defined by the Council of Trent is demanded in the creed by which Orientals must make their profession of faith when reunited to the Roman Church. The formula prescribed by Urban VIII contains the following section: "Also, that the bond of the Sacrament of Matrimony is indissoluble; and that, although a separation tori et cohabitationis can be made between the parties, for adultery,heresy, or other causes, yet it is not lawful for them to contract another marriage." Exactly the same declaration in regard to marriage was made in the short profession of faith aproved by the Holy Office in the year 1890 (Collectanea S. Congr. de Prop. Fide, Rome, 1893, pp. 639, 640). The milder indirect form in which the Council of Trent pronounced its anathema was chosen expressly out of regard for the Greeks of that period, who would have been very much offended, according to the testimony of the Venetian ambassadors, if the anathema had been directed against them, whereas they would find it easier to accept the decree that the Roman Church was not guilty oferror in her stricter interpretation of the law (Pallavicini, "Hist. Conc. Trid.", XXII, iv).

In his apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio (n. 84) Pope John Paul II, while acknowledging the many reasons why people divorce and remarry and encouraging pastoral solicitude toward those in such a situation, wrote: “However, the church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon sacred Scripture, of not admitting to eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of  life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the church, which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.” http://www.thecatholictelegraph.com/question-of-faith%E2%80%88how-can-a-twice-divorced-person-be-admitted-to-full-communion/12762

and here http://catholicexchange.com/divorced-catholics-and-the-eucharist

Q:  What does canon law really say about divorced people receiving Holy Communion?  –Sean

A: The issue of who may, and who may not, receive the Eucharist lawfully is a canonical question with deep theological roots. Consequently, the Church has spoken on this matter not merely in the Code of Canon Law, but also in the Catechism and in other theological contexts. As always, canon law follows theology, and the two are consistent, for they can never contradict each other.

The code states that Catholics are not to be allowed to receive Holy Communion if they are under the penalty of excommunication or interdict, or obstinately persist in manifest grave sin (c. 915). Canon 916 notes that as a rule, anyone who is conscious of grave sin may not celebrate Mass (in the case of a priest) or receive the Eucharist without previously having been to sacramental confession. This is entirely in keeping with the Catechism’s teaching that “anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to Communion” (1385).

It is important to note that at issue here is not only a Catholic’s own personal, internalspiritual state, which might very well be known to him alone; but also his external, visible status in the Church, that may be known by other members of the faithful as well. The Church is therefore concerned simultaneously with three different, although interrelated issues: (a) an individual Catholic’s personal spiritual wellbeing; (b) the need to maintain reverence toward the Most Holy Eucharist; and (c) the need to avoid public scandal.

With regard to divorced Catholics, let’s try as best we can to examine these issues separately, beginning with a divorced person’s spiritual state. Theologically, we Catholics know that we should not receive the Eucharist when we are in a state of grave sin. Does the fact that a Catholic is divorced, in and of itself, constitute a mortal sin?

The answer, of course, is no. The Catechism of the Catholic Church does, it is true, give us a general theological norm about divorce in general, noting rightly that “Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law…. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign” (2384). Yet while the Catholic Church teaches that marriage is, by its very nature, intended to last until death, it acknowledges that being divorced is not necessarily sinful.  If, for example, one spouse is divorced by the other, it is obviously possible for a Catholic to find himself divorced entirely against his will! The Catechism makes a very clear and necessary distinction:

It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage (2386).

Therefore one can and certainly does encounter sincerely devout, practicing Catholics who happen to be divorced. Such persons are hardly excluded from the sacraments simply because their spouses chose to divorce them.

There are other situations in which a Catholic spouse might very well find that divorce is, unfortunately, the best way to resolve a difficult situation. To cite the Catechism again, “if civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense” (2383). In circumstances involving abuse and violence, for example, the Church certainly understands that a divorce may be legally necessary. A battered wife, or a spouse seeking to protect children from an abusive situation by taking the means required under civil law to keep the abuser away, can hardly be considered morally culpable for obtaining a divorce for reasons of physical safety. Similarly, a divorce may be civilly necessary if one spouse is bankrupting the family with compulsive gambling. In such a case a Catholic might need to obtain a divorce in order to safeguard the financial wellbeing of the rest of the family.

So we can see that it is entirely possible for a good Catholic to be divorced! Since this is the case, why is it that we hear the Church teaching that divorced Catholics cannot receive the Eucharist?

The fact is, the Church does not teach that Catholics are forbidden to receive Holy Communion if they are divorced. Rather, it teaches that a Catholic who has been divorced and remarried, without having first obtained an annulment of the first marriage, is not permitted to receive the Eucharist.

For those of us who believe what the Catholic Church teaches about the sacraments, the logic of this position is actually quite straightforward. A Christian marriage lasts until the death of one of the spouses—unless a Catholic marriage tribunal has ruled that the marriage was null from the beginning (see the July 26, 2007 column, among many others, for further discussion of Catholic marriage annulments). If a Catholic obtains a civil divorce, but does not have a declaration from the Church that his marriage was null, he is still married in the eyes of the Church—even if civil law asserts that his marriage has ended. A person in this situation cannot remarry in the Catholic Church; he is impeded from doing so because he is already married to someone else (c. 1085).

Consequently, if a Catholic does remarry under these circumstances, he necessarily does so outside the Catholic Church, either in a non-Catholic religious ceremony, or in a civil proceeding (before a justice of the peace, for example). The Catholic Church naturally does not accept that this second marriage is valid! Instead, the Catechism teaches that the remarried Catholic is living in a state of sin with the new spouse:

Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ—“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery”—the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. (1650).

In other words, society reasonably presumes that a husband and wife are engaging in sexual relations. Consequently, the Church regards the relationship between a Catholic and a second spouse as adulterous, if the first spouse is still living. And since adultery constitutes a grave moral evil, a Catholic who is living in this situation is not permitted to receive the Eucharist. To quote the Catechism yet again, “The sexual act must take place exclusively within marriage. Outside of marriage it always constitutes a grave sin and excludes one from sacramental communion” (2390).

If a divorced and remarried Catholic wishes to receive Holy Communion, what can he do? Catholic sacramental theology is unequivocal on this point, and so it doesn’t give him a lot of options. This is where the reverence due to the Most Blessed Sacrament fits directly into the picture. In order to safeguard the dignity of the sacrament, the Church will never, ever condone the reception of the Eucharist by a Catholic who persists in an adulterous union. Therefore, if a divorced and remarried Catholic wishes to receive the Eucharist, he must first repent of his adultery, and receive sacramental absolution. But in order to be truly sorry for his sins, a Catholic must have the resolution to avoid them in future. Thus the adultery has to end—it’s as simple as that.

This is why paragraph 1650 of the Catechism, noted above, concludes as follows: “Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.” A remarried Catholic must resolve that he will no longer engage in sexual relations with his second spouse—ever. This means that he must either separate from the second spouse altogether; or they must henceforth live together as brother and sister, rather than as husband and wife.

The number of married couples who would willingly agree to the latter arrangement, in order to receive the Eucharist, is presumably slim—and yet it is a fact that they do indeed exist. There definitely are Catholics among us who remarried outside the Church, but subsequently wished to rectify their situation for spiritual reasons.  They have made a good confession, firmly resolving to sin no more. With their spouses in agreement with their decision, these remarried Catholics are still living with their second spouses, but in total continence. (In many cases, the presence of minor children in the house has led the couple to decide to continue living together, for the good of the children.) Catholics like these are, spiritually speaking, once again entitled to receive the Eucharist.

The relative rarity of this situation, however, leads us to yet another issue: the possibility of public scandal. If the Catholic faithful see a divorced and remarried Catholic receiving Holy Communion, what will they think? Will they immediately assume that the Catholic has agreed with his second spouse to abstain permanently from all sexual relations? Or will they instead be more likely to conclude that the remarried Catholic is living in sin with his second spouse, and nevertheless is being permitted to receive Holy Communion?

Canon 915, already cited above, notes that a Catholic cannot receive the Eucharist if he persists in manifest grave sin. The point is, if the Catholic faithful see that a priest gives the Eucharist to someone whom they know is living in a gravely sinful manner, they might naturally—and wrongly—conclude that such a sinful lifestyle must be morally acceptable. In such a situation, the need to avoid public scandal is crucial!

There is tremendous need for tact and diplomacy in situations like these, on the part of both the remarried Catholic and his pastor. It might, depending on the circumstances, be preferable for these Catholics to refrain from receiving Holy Communion at large Masses, where their action can easily be seen and totally misunderstood by others in the congregation. An understanding parish priest can make an effort to ensure that these parishioners can receive the Eucharist in a more discreet way.

In other cases, some remarried Catholics have been known to speak rather openly about their now-continent relationship with their second spouses. This certainly should clarify their fellow parishioners’ potential confusion; but such public frankness about this very private matter is understandably not something which all remarried Catholics are obliged to embrace! We Catholics have no right to know the internal spiritual status of our fellow Catholics—but at the same time we should not be given reason to believe, rightly or wrongly, that the sacraments are being abused, by our fellow parishioners and with the apparent consent of the parish priest.

We can see that the Catholic Church tries her best to balance multiple concerns simultaneously. The right of Catholics to receive the sacraments must be assessed in light of the very real need for reverence toward the Most Blessed Sacrament. The need to uphold publicly the dignity of Christian marriage, and the Church’s consequent opposition to divorce in principle, must be weighed against the legitimate spiritual needs of the Catholic faithful, who may very well be divorced—and even remarried!—and yet entitled to receive the Eucharist.

Good article here: http://nvjournal.net/files/essays-front-page/recent-proposals-a-theological-assessment.pdf

brothers of Christ?

The "Brothers" of Jesus: A Fresh Look at the Evidence from Catholic Productions on Vimeo.
from comment 95 & 96 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/04/ancient-marian-devotion/#comment-84187

 In Galatians Paul goes up to Jerusalem to see the Lord’s brother and Apostle James. There were two among the 12 called James, the brother of John, son of Zebedee and the other, or Lesser James, the son of Alphaeus. Josephus tells us James was the first the Bishop of Jerusalem and that the Apostle Simeon was his kinsman,brother and successor in that see. He says they were Levites. We do know Mary had Levite kin ( Zachary and Elizabeth ) So that explains two of the Lord’s Brothers.

Next, we can look at Jude’s identification with James in his (Jude’s) epistle where they have a brother/brother bond ( no mention of the more famous Jesus being a brother!) and Luke twice saying Jude and James have a father/son bond proving brother =kinsman and not necessarily brother =brother..

That leaves only Joses in the famous list of James, Joses, Simon and Jude being the “Lord’s Brothers”. To settle that, check out chapters 15 of Mark where another Mary is said to be Mother of Joses and James the Lesser, ( only in the 12 Apostles do we find 2 and only 2 men named James ). She is also called the “mother of James” and the mother of “Joses” alternatively in chapter 15 and 16 proving that all sons need not be named in every listing.
This jives with the 3 listings of the 12 Apostles we have. They appear to be grouped according to blood ties ( Andrew and Peter, John and James of Zebedee, James, Simon and Jude ).
One last point; Simon is called the Canaanite in one list of the 12. Mary and Jesus were at the wedding of Cana and seem to have more prominence than ordinary guests as the order the servants about. Perhaps they had kin there.

An interesting little morsel from tradition says that the reason Judas was to kiss Jesus in the Garden of Olives was an agreed upon signal to the Jewish soldiers so they wouldn’t accidentally seize James by mistake as they looked alike. From the 4 Gospel accounts it is unclear if all 12 were present or just Peter, John and James of Zebedee ( not Alphaeus/Cleophas ) so I won’t say for sure. Let the reader decide.

&

I should mention that at Calvary, the mother of James and John of Zebedee ( Salome ) was present. So was the mother of James the lesser and Joses. She is called Mary and is the sister of the Virgin Mary. Two uterine sisters with the same name? It is possible ( I live in Portugal where most women have Maria incorporated into their names, Maria do Carmo, Maria de Concecao, Maria de Lourdes, Maria Fatima, etc. However, they usually go by their 2nd name, Carmo, Concecao or Lourdes or Fatima ) but not likely they would both be called the same name.

So, sister =kinswoman and not necessarily sister.
Since John’s own mother was present it is strange that Jesus gave her son ( John ) to the Virgin Mary. And since the mother of kinsmen James and Joses was also present, it is equally as strange that Jesus gave His own Mother to a non kinsman. Something much more than a son making last minute provision for a widowed mom is going on here!

comment 207

Catholic arguments that Mary had no other children are readily available online. If you are interested in those arguments, then here’s a couple of links:

1. This link explains what the Gospel writers meant when they referred to Jesus’s “brothers” or “brethren”. For instance, in the case of James and Joseph, (brothers of our Lord), the Gospels say explicitly that these brothers did not share the same parents as Jesus. Rather, the parents of James and Joseph are Clopas, and Mary, the wife of Clopas.

2. This link shows quotations from the Early Church Fathers indicating their belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

look at the comments here ---they too discuss the meaning of brothers  http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/12/augustine-on-the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary-in-scripture/

for instance comment 23:

The named brothers belong to to Mary the wife of Clopas, identified in John’s Gospel as the Virgin Mary’s sister. This becomes apparent when the Gospel accounts are compared:

“Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us?” (Matt.13:55, 56).

“There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among whom were Mary Mag′dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zeb′edee” (Matt. 27:55, 56).

Immediately it may be seen from Matthew 27 that James and Joseph are actually the sons of another Mary. This means your conclusion that “When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother then it does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters” is incorrect.

Clearly James and Joseph are not siblings of Jesus, even though they are called “brothers” and that in a context closely connected with Mary as mother of Jesus in Matthew 13.

Similarly the crucifixion accounts give us insight into the matter:

“There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Mag′dalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salo′me, who, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered to him; and also many other women who came up with him to Jerusalem” (Mark 15:40,41).

“So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag′dalene” (John 19:25).

These parallel accounts indicate that the mother of James and Joseph is not Mary the mother of Jesus, but Mary the wife of Clopas, the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary.

comment 26

Martin Luther:

I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

(Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 [1539] )

John Calvin:

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.

(Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 [Geneva, 1562], vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, translated by William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, 215; on Matthew 13:55)

Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.

(Pringle, ibid., vol. I, 283 / Commentary on John, [7:3] )

Ulrich Zwingli:

I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.

(Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)

comment 27 An alternative to the “brothers are cousins” argument is the ancient tradition that Jesus’ brothers are actually Joseph’s children from a previous marriage.

comment 30Keeping in mind that Joseph would have been a widower in that context, not a divorced-and-remarried man…,

One of the powerful pieces of information that Jesus’ “brothers” are older than he is, not younger, is the fact that these “brothers” (whether they were cousins or sons of Joseph-the-widower by his deceased wife) acted AS ELDERS: Notice that in Mark 3:21 and in John 7, these “brothers” not only don’t believe in Him but are apt to give him pushy instructions like “Go to Judea” or even to go “take charge of Him” because “He is out of His senses.”

Now even in our own society in most families we might think it a bit cheeky for a younger sibling to deal with his eldest brother in this way. But we’re talking about a Semitic society: A society in which the firstborn gets great respect. Before the Mosaic covenant, the heads-of-households were priests for their households (e.g. Abraham, Job) and the eldest brother was responsible for undertaking that priestly/head-of-household calling for the clan once the father died. There was a very strong “primogeniture” kind of tradition and attitude.

Thus Jesus’ “brothers,” if they were His younger brothers by Mary and Joseph, would not have acted in this way. They would have said, “He is our older brother and head of our family; our father Joseph is dead; what can we do about it?” and they would have only said something like that in private, IF they had been so shockingly blunt about it as to admit that they thought Jesus was doing anything inappropriate, even in private. For even that would have been viewed as a nasty act of disrespect for one’s elders.

There is also the matter of Jesus giving the care of His mother, Mary, over to His disciple John, from the cross.

What a horrendous act of disrespect for His younger brothers by Mary that would be! …if there WERE any sons of Mary around to undertake the traditional role of caring for their widowed mother after the death of both her husband and of her firstborn son. Jesus instructing John to care for her would be (in that society) a sin against His younger siblings who were also sons of Mary …IF any existed.

BUT,

It makes perfect sense that Jesus’ cousins (not sons of Mary), who were older (in human lifespan terms) than He, would “take charge” of their “little cousin” who was “going a little off the rails.”

And of course they’d want to bring along His mother on the trip as additional emotional leverage over Him. (Granted, the lady in question wasn’t saying much and certainly wasn’t helping them to “talk down” her Son, but it couldn’t hurt to haul her along.)

Now THAT explanation of the story fits with Semitic society: The elder cousins are expected to rein in the excesses of the younger cousins, and typically would have no scruples about hauling along a widowed female relative without bothering to ask her opinion of the matter. (Even relatively good men in that society might have chuckled a bit at the notion of bothering about a female relative’s opinions.)

And likewise, if Jesus had no younger siblings who were also sons of His mother, it would be perfectly normal to entrust Her to a faithful close friend (John). This would be expected, under such circumstances. But if Mary had any sons of adult age other than Jesus, it would be a horrendous breach of protocol for Jesus to commit her to the care of John.

The Bible thus tells us firmly that:

1. If Jesus did have any younger siblings by Mary, they must have all been dead by the time of the crucifixion…yet the Gospels do not record them getting killed or even dying;

2. The “brothers” of Jesus who came to “take charge of Him” were older than He was;

3. Yet, Jesus was the “firstborn” of Mary, meaning that He “opened the womb” in the Old Testament phrasing;

4. Therefore, the “brothers” of Jesus who came to “take charge of Him” were either sons of Joseph but not of Mary (stepbrothers, sons of Joseph’s deceased first wife), or they were elder cousins.

That’s what the Bible says.

But you have to read it like a first-century Jew, to know that.

from comment 218 here 

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/06/podcast-ep-17-jason-cindy-stewart-recount-their-conversion/  :

The Septuagint follows Hebrew usage and uses adelphos to designate blood relatives further removed than siblings. Imitating the Hebrew text, it tells us Lot was Abraham’s adelphos (Gn. 14:16). Other examples can be given of this broader usage. It is reasonable to assume that this custom carried over into the Gospels, especially if Matthew wrote his Gospel in his native tongue which was then translated into Greek.