Any Episcopalians in the house?

[Abu]

In 1978, R. H. Fuller, one of the chief form critics, wrote in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, “It is ironic that just at the time when the limitations of the historical-critical method are being discovered in Protestantism, Roman Catholic scholars should be bent on pursuing that method so relentlessly.” By 1980, the same R. H. Fuller considered the method they followed so relentlessly to be “bankrupt.” [See Fr William G Most, *Catholic Apologetics Today, TAN, 1986, p 237].

That’s how the method has been exposed in its errors, but the attacks on the reality of Christ’s mandate continue as we have seen and the Church is actually distrusted as the guardian of Christ’s truth.

The Bible is inspired scriptureT
The reason the Bible is considered divinely inspired is because the Catholic Church says so and the Catholic Church has the authority to do so. This is not an argument most people have heard – most people are expecting something along the lines of “The Bible says so” or “I was told so by God”. But this is not the reason. As shown in the article concerning sola scriptura the Bible cannot self-authenticate itself as inspired Scripture; there has to be an external authority which provides not only the canon of the Bible but also accurate interpretation of the Bible and the assurance that it is divinely inspired. This authority is the Catholic Church.

In order to prove the divine inspiration of the Bible to an atheist the Catholic apologist should first show that the Bible is historically accurate, then show that the Catholic Church has authority (based on the existence of God and the accuracy of the Bible) and then explain that the Catholic Church was the authority which put the Bible together and is the only authority which can correctly interpret it and declare it divinely inspired.

Some atheists will call this a circular argument – but this is not the case. It is perhaps best described as a spiral argument. The conclusion is not contained in the premise and an earlier logical step does not depend on a later one; the first point is that the Bible is historically accurate and that means the Catholic Church has authority. The Catholic Church assembled the Bible and then declared it divinely inspired. Because the Church has authority she can declare the Bible to be divinely inspired. Divinely inspired is not the same thing as historically accurate and hence this is not a circular argument.

For a non-Catholic Christian who already accepts the divine inspiration of the Bible the Catholic apologist should ask **“Why do you believe the Bible is divinely inspired?” **Various answers will be offered – but none of them are logically consistent and satisfying except the fact that the authority of the Catholic Church states that it is divinely inspired. The question which should then be put to the non-Catholic is “Don’t you think that, because the Catholic Church was the organization who put the Bible together and the organization who declared it inspired, the Catholic Church has to have authority in order to do this?” This is not actually the correct order for argument – it is arguing the cause from the effect – but it may convince non-Catholics of the essential truth that the Catholic Church has authority. [My emphasis].
catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/1l.htm

 

[Thorolfr]

The Bible is inspired scripture

The reason the Bible is considered divinely inspired is because the Catholic Church says so and the Catholic Church has the authority to do so. This is not an argument most people have heard – most people are expecting something along the lines of “The Bible says so” or “I was told so by God”. But this is not the reason. As shown in the article concerning sola scriptura the Bible cannot self-authenticate itself as inspired Scripture; there has to be an external authority which provides not only the canon of the Bible but also accurate interpretation of the Bible and the assurance that it is divinely inspired. This authority is the Catholic Church.

In order to prove the divine inspiration of the Bible to an atheist the Catholic apologist should first show that the Bible is historically accurate, then show that the Catholic Church has authority (based on the existence of God and the accuracy of the Bible) and then explain that the Catholic Church was the authority which put the Bible together and is the only authority which can correctly interpret it and declare it divinely inspired.

I don’t believe in everything he says, but I do find much of what Bart Ehrman says in his many books to be more convincing than the version above. He writes in his book Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths we Never Knew (Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 1-2:

What could be more diverse than this variegated phenomenon, Christianity in the modern world? In fact, there may be an answer: Christianity in the ancient world. As historians have come to realize, during the first three Christian centuries, the practices and beliefs found among people who called themselves Christian were so varied that the differences between Roman Catholics, Primitive Baptists, and Seventh-Day-Adventists pale by comparison.

Most of these ancient forms of Christianity are unknown to people in the world today, since they eventually came to be reformed or stamped out. As a result, the sacred texts that some ancient Christians used to support their religious perspectives came to be proscribed, destroyed, or forgotten – in one way or another lost. Many of these texts came to be by Jesus’ closest followers. Opponents of these texts claimed that they had been forged….

Then on page 4, Ehrman writes:

Modern Christianity is not lacking in a diversity of its own, with its wide-ranging theologies, liturgies, practices, interpretations of Scripture, political views, social stands, organizations, institutions, and so on. But virtually all forms of modern Christianity, whether they acknowledge it or not, go back to one form of Christianity that emerged as victorious from the conflicts of the second and third centuries. This one form of Christianity decided what was the “correct” Christian perspective; it determined who could exercise authority over Christian belief and practice; and it determined what forms of Christianity would be marginalized, set aside, destroyed. It also decided which books to canonize into Scripture and which books to set aside as “heretical,” teaching false ideas.

And then, as a coup de grace, this victorious party rewrote the history of the controversy, making it appear that there had not been much of a conflict at all, claiming that its own views had always been those of the majority of Christians at all times, back to the time of Jesus and his apostles, that its perspective, in effect, had always been “orthodox” (i.e. the “right belief”) and that it opponents in the conflict, with their other scriptural texts, had always represented small splinter groups invested into deceiving people into “heresy” (literally meaning “choice”; a heretic is someone who willfully chooses not to believe the right things).

 

[Abu]

Fantasies of conspiracies, and the inability to even have the words which the Gospel writers penned, are a dime a dozen.

As Cardinal Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) stressed:
“Every Catholic must have the courage to believe that his faith (in communion with that of the Church) surpasses every ‘new magisterium’ of the experts, of the intellectuals….The rule of faith, yesterday as today, is not based on the discoveries (be they true or hypothetical) of biblical sources and layers but on the Bible just as it is, as it has been read in the Church since the time of the Fathers until now.” The Ratzinger Report, Vittorio Messori, Ignatius Press, 1985, p 76].

In fact as Vittorio Messori so succinctly identifies “the crisis of confidence in the dogma of the Church is accompanied by the contemporary crisis of confidence in the morality proposed by the Church……Here we shall first relate his [Cardinal Ratzinger’s] observations on another problem area, the *crisis of confidence in Scripture *as it is read by the Church.”
Extracts:
“He states: ‘The bond between Bible and Church has been broken….this separation began at the time of the Enlightenment…and of late has also found entry into some Catholic scholarly circles. The historical-critical interpretation…by its very nature can illumine it only in its historical dimension and not explain it in its present day claim on us. Where it forgets this limit it becomes illogical and therefore unscientific. But then one also forgets that the Bible as present and future can be understood only in a vital association with the Church. The upshot is that one no longer reads it from the tradition of the Church as a point of departure and with the Church, but, instead one starts from the newest method that presents itself as “scientific.” With some scholars this independence has become an outright opposition – so much so that for many the traditional faith of the Church no longer seems justified by critical exegesis but appears only as an obstacle to the authentic “modern” understanding of Christianity.’ ” [p 74].

 

[commenter]

Cathechesis, bookstores and radio programs might be getting more conservative, but it would appear that mainstream Catholics themselves are actually getting less conservative. According to a 2013 Pew Research Center Survey:

pewforum.org/2013/03/13/strong-catholic-identity-at-a-four-decade-low-in-us/

I would assume that all those Catholics who no longer attend Mass regularly are getting less conservative or perhaps they are no longer counted as real Catholics any more. Also, there is this Pew Research Center Survey from 2014:

pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/16/young-u-s-catholics-overwhelmingly-accepting-of-homosexuality/

It looks like young Catholics are getting much more liberal, not more conservative.

Your statistics show that many Catholics tend to resist conversion. Actually, ALL Catholics tend to resist conversion, and always have. Your stats show many Catholics are influenced by secularism. Actually, ALL Catholics are influenced by “the World”, and always have been. So what?

Catholics aren’t always reliable. Catholicism is.

 

[commenter]

I don’t believe in everything he says, but I do find much of what Bart Ehrman says in his many books to be more convincing than the version above. He writes in his book Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths we Never Knew (Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 1-2:

If you follow Ehrman to his logical conclusion, you would either recognize the Magisterium, and become Catholic, or, more likely, reject the traditional New Testament or Christianity as a whole.
He teaches that there were many ancient Christian theologies, and many potential New Testament scriptures. He believes there is no logical reason for identifying these 27 books as any more apostolic or inspired than other books, but that some power structure within the Church must have imposed that canon, and chose one of the theological frameworks, including doctrines like the Trinity; and it rejected other apparently equally good canons, and other apparently apostolic Christian theologies.

He rejects the (Protestant) idea that Christian communities and scholars prayerfully discerned the best 27 books on their own, in a natural process, with no Magisterium.

So either:

1. that Magisterium was (and is) guided by God; or
2. that Magisterium was and is merely a political power structure, and Christians should reject its 27 book canon, and its whole theological framework, including the Trinity.

The most liberal Protestant denominations are starting to introduce some new gospels, and, I think, will later drop some of the Magisterium’s canon’s most unpopular books, especially some of Paul’s letters. Ehrman and similar scholars don’t intend to support Catholicism, but their conclusions undermine Protestantism and Sola Scriptura. Ehrman will make you a Catholic or, more likely, an agnostic.

 

[Peter_J]

How would you feel if I cited an anti-Catholic or even a stridently liberal website to “prove” that the Catholic Church is in deep trouble?

What, you mean you don’t?

Kidding, kidding. I’m sure you don’t, but I’m also sure if I went to the Protestant Answers Forums, or what have you, I’d find plenty of Protestants who do.

 

[Contarini]

What, you mean you don’t?

Kidding, kidding. I’m sure you don’t, but I’m also sure if I went to the Protestant Answers Forums, or what have you, I’d find plenty of Protestants who do.

Of course.

And are they acting justly or fairly? We all know they aren’t.

So why are Catholics doing the same thing?

Edwin

 

[Peter_J]

I think the answer to your why is the formula: human nature + Internet.

 

[Peter_J]

Beautifully narrated:thumbsup:

I remembered those wandering years too though I never jumped ship.

I share your sentiments. (This may be a bit tangential to the post you were responding to, but one thing that annoys me is when, during conversations with Eastern Orthodox, people seem to assume that I’m ex-Orthodox.)

 

[Peter_J]

Resistance is futile?

Easy there Locutus.

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net...ision/latest?cb=20130214005126&path-prefix=en

But really, if you’re going to quote “Resistance is futile” with respect to Roman Catholicism, then you should finish the quote “We will add your distinctiveness to our own.”

 

[lloydbirdman]

Greetings,
I thought I would relate my own experience. Hopefully it may add something to the discussion.
I am an adult convert to the Roman Catholic Church. I love the Catholic Church. Unlike many that I have noticed in the church, I believe and embrace all of its teachings. By this I am saying that I embrace the papacy, tradition, dogmas, beliefs, etc. I have no problem with celibate priests, no artificial contraception, no divorce, male clergy, pro life, stances on homosexuality, and all of the other usual points of contention that my fellow Catholics of my generation express. I expected to be Roman Catholic until the day I die.
Without going into much detail, after 18 years of a verbally/ emotionally abusive, and adulterous marriage I divorced my wife. This is not something that I expected to do. I expected to absorb the abuse for the rest of my life and return unconditional love much like some of the saints that I read about. I went to mass 3-4 times a week and went to adoration just to get the strength to last as long as I did. It worked for a long time. When I reached the end of my human endurance and realized that I just could not go on any longer, I divorced my wife.
I expected to try for an annulment and then see what God had planned for me. Even though I realized that I was allowed to continue receiving the Eucharist, I felt so guilty I just went up for a blessing. Before my divorce was even final, I started a relationship with an incredible woman. After my divorce was final, I married this person before a civil judge.
I intended to maybe be that person who continues to go to Mass to worship but just never gets the Eucharist. After about 9 months of not being able to to take the Eucharist, I stopped going to mass unless my kids were with me. I felt like I was a trespasser and that I was completely detached from what was going on. In confession they cannot absolve me because I am in a state of mortal sin that I have no intention of changing (by leaving my wife). Sooooo, unlike a murderer or rapist who can instantly repair their relationship with the church through confession, I am stuck indefinitely. I cannot express the pain that I feel because of this.
Out of desperation, I began attending an Episcopal Church. I disagree intellectually with much of what they believe. But they embraced me into their community. I cannot (from a theological standpoint) be 100% sure that I am truly receiving the body and blood of Christ there. However, I know 100% where I am not allowed to receive it.
I am not sure whether I even want to pursue an annulment at this point. Although I miss the Catholic Church, I am beginning to feel at home with all of the other refugees (former Catholics, etc.) I find myself with in the Episcopal Church. This church family and my wife were what kept me going through the most difficult time of my life. I find myself humbled and in a situation that I never expected; amongst the divorcees, homosexuals, etc. that I used to feel were in a separate group than I was.
I am in my situation because of choices I made and I take responsibility for them. But I am just a human being who is weaker than I used to think I was. I am also finding that there may be life with Christ after being barred from getting the Sacraments in the Catholic church.
Unlike 99% of people who have left the Church, I did not go because I wanted to use a condom or felt that it was past time for a female priest. I just could not live up to the standards through my own human weakness.
I invite anyone to say anything about this post that they want, even if it is to tell me that I am going to hell for leaving the Church. Regardless of your stance, I would ask that you pray for me and all of the others that have left or are considering it. I hope that the original poster (or anyone) feels a little less alone by reading my experience.

 

[Mystophilus]

I cannot (from a theological standpoint) be 100% sure that I am truly receiving the body and blood of Christ there. However, I know 100% where I am not allowed to receive it.

It sounds like the Episcopalians are doing a good job of providing the hospital for sinners, rather than the museum for saints.

I invite anyone to say anything about this post that they want, even if it is to tell me that I am going to hell for leaving the Church.

I’d go with trusting God on that one: a God who loves us isn’t going to condemn us to perpetual torment because we mess up.

 

[fasolislithuan]

Greetings,
I thought I would relate my own experience. Hopefully it may add something to the discussion.
I am an adult convert to the Roman Catholic Church. I love the Catholic Church. Unlike many that I have noticed in the church, I believe and embrace all of its teachings. By this I am saying that I embrace the papacy, tradition, dogmas, beliefs, etc. I have no problem with celibate priests, no artificial contraception, no divorce, male clergy, pro life, stances on homosexuality, and all of the other usual points of contention that my fellow Catholics of my generation express. I expected to be Roman Catholic until the day I die.
Without going into much detail, after 18 years of a verbally/ emotionally abusive, and adulterous marriage I divorced my wife. This is not something that I expected to do. I expected to absorb the abuse for the rest of my life and return unconditional love much like some of the saints that I read about. I went to mass 3-4 times a week and went to adoration just to get the strength to last as long as I did. It worked for a long time. When I reached the end of my human endurance and realized that I just could not go on any longer, I divorced my wife.
I expected to try for an annulment and then see what God had planned for me. Even though I realized that I was allowed to continue receiving the Eucharist, I felt so guilty I just went up for a blessing. Before my divorce was even final, I started a relationship with an incredible woman. After my divorce was final, I married this person before a civil judge.
I intended to maybe be that person who continues to go to Mass to worship but just never gets the Eucharist. After about 9 months of not being able to to take the Eucharist, I stopped going to mass unless my kids were with me. I felt like I was a trespasser and that I was completely detached from what was going on. In confession they cannot absolve me because I am in a state of mortal sin that I have no intention of changing (by leaving my wife). Sooooo, unlike a murderer or rapist who can instantly repair their relationship with the church through confession, I am stuck indefinitely. I cannot express the pain that I feel because of this.
Out of desperation, I began attending an Episcopal Church. I disagree intellectually with much of what they believe. But they embraced me into their community. I cannot (from a theological standpoint) be 100% sure that I am truly receiving the body and blood of Christ there. However, I know 100% where I am not allowed to receive it.
I am not sure whether I even want to pursue an annulment at this point. Although I miss the Catholic Church, I am beginning to feel at home with all of the other refugees (former Catholics, etc.) I find myself with in the Episcopal Church. This church family and my wife were what kept me going through the most difficult time of my life. I find myself humbled and in a situation that I never expected; amongst the divorcees, homosexuals, etc. that I used to feel were in a separate group than I was.
I am in my situation because of choices I made and I take responsibility for them. But I am just a human being who is weaker than I used to think I was. I am also finding that there may be life with Christ after being barred from getting the Sacraments in the Catholic church.
Unlike 99% of people who have left the Church, I did not go because I wanted to use a condom or felt that it was past time for a female priest. I just could not live up to the standards through my own human weakness.
I invite anyone to say anything about this post that they want, even if it is to tell me that I am going to hell for leaving the Church. Regardless of your stance, I would ask that you pray for me and all of the others that have left or are considering it. I hope that the original poster (or anyone) feels a little less alone by reading my experience.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Greetings,
I thought I would relate my own experience. Hopefully it may add something to the discussion.
I am an adult convert to the Roman Catholic Church. I love the Catholic Church. Unlike many that I have noticed in the church, I believe and embrace all of its teachings. By this I am saying that I embrace the papacy, tradition, dogmas, beliefs, etc. I have no problem with celibate priests, no artificial contraception, no divorce, male clergy, pro life, stances on homosexuality, and all of the other usual points of contention that my fellow Catholics of my generation express. I expected to be Roman Catholic until the day I die.
Without going into much detail, after 18 years of a verbally/ emotionally abusive, and adulterous marriage I divorced my wife. This is not something that I expected to do. I expected to absorb the abuse for the rest of my life and return unconditional love much like some of the saints that I read about. I went to mass 3-4 times a week and went to adoration just to get the strength to last as long as I did. It worked for a long time. When I reached the end of my human endurance and realized that I just could not go on any longer, I divorced my wife.
I expected to try for an annulment and then see what God had planned for me. Even though I realized that I was allowed to continue receiving the Eucharist, I felt so guilty I just went up for a blessing. Before my divorce was even final, I started a relationship with an incredible woman. After my divorce was final, I married this person before a civil judge.
I intended to maybe be that person who continues to go to Mass to worship but just never gets the Eucharist. After about 9 months of not being able to to take the Eucharist, I stopped going to mass unless my kids were with me. I felt like I was a trespasser and that I was completely detached from what was going on. In confession they cannot absolve me because I am in a state of mortal sin that I have no intention of changing (by leaving my wife). Sooooo, unlike a murderer or rapist who can instantly repair their relationship with the church through confession, I am stuck indefinitely. I cannot express the pain that I feel because of this.
Out of desperation, I began attending an Episcopal Church. I disagree intellectually with much of what they believe. But they embraced me into their community. I cannot (from a theological standpoint) be 100% sure that I am truly receiving the body and blood of Christ there. However, I know 100% where I am not allowed to receive it.
I am not sure whether I even want to pursue an annulment at this point. Although I miss the Catholic Church, I am beginning to feel at home with all of the other refugees (former Catholics, etc.) I find myself with in the Episcopal Church. This church family and my wife were what kept me going through the most difficult time of my life. I find myself humbled and in a situation that I never expected; amongst the divorcees, homosexuals, etc. that I used to feel were in a separate group than I was.
I am in my situation because of choices I made and I take responsibility for them. But I am just a human being who is weaker than I used to think I was. I am also finding that there may be life with Christ after being barred from getting the Sacraments in the Catholic church.
Unlike 99% of people who have left the Church, I did not go because I wanted to use a condom or felt that it was past time for a female priest. I just could not live up to the standards through my own human weakness.
I invite anyone to say anything about this post that they want, even if it is to tell me that I am going to hell for leaving the Church. Regardless of your stance, I would ask that you pray for me and all of the others that have left or are considering it. I hope that the original poster (or anyone) feels a little less alone by reading my experience.

Your account suggests that you have a strong case for annulment.
Getting an annulment would enable you to sacramentialize your marriage.
That would enable you to receive the Eucharist.

But you don’t want to do these things?

Why not?

 

[SyroMalankara]

Greetings,
I thought I would relate my own experience. Hopefully it may add something to the discussion.
I am an adult convert to the Roman Catholic Church. I love the Catholic Church. Unlike many that I have noticed in the church, I believe and embrace all of its teachings. By this I am saying that I embrace the papacy, tradition, dogmas, beliefs, etc. I have no problem with celibate priests, no artificial contraception, no divorce, male clergy, pro life, stances on homosexuality, and all of the other usual points of contention that my fellow Catholics of my generation express. I expected to be Roman Catholic until the day I die.
Without going into much detail, after 18 years of a verbally/ emotionally abusive, and adulterous marriage I divorced my wife. This is not something that I expected to do. I expected to absorb the abuse for the rest of my life and return unconditional love much like some of the saints that I read about. I went to mass 3-4 times a week and went to adoration just to get the strength to last as long as I did. It worked for a long time. When I reached the end of my human endurance and realized that I just could not go on any longer, I divorced my wife.
I expected to try for an annulment and then see what God had planned for me. Even though I realized that I was allowed to continue receiving the Eucharist, I felt so guilty I just went up for a blessing. Before my divorce was even final, I started a relationship with an incredible woman. After my divorce was final, I married this person before a civil judge.
I intended to maybe be that person who continues to go to Mass to worship but just never gets the Eucharist. After about 9 months of not being able to to take the Eucharist, I stopped going to mass unless my kids were with me. I felt like I was a trespasser and that I was completely detached from what was going on. In confession they cannot absolve me because I am in a state of mortal sin that I have no intention of changing (by leaving my wife). Sooooo, unlike a murderer or rapist who can instantly repair their relationship with the church through confession, I am stuck indefinitely. I cannot express the pain that I feel because of this.
Out of desperation, I began attending an Episcopal Church. I disagree intellectually with much of what they believe. But they embraced me into their community. I cannot (from a theological standpoint) be 100% sure that I am truly receiving the body and blood of Christ there. However, I know 100% where I am not allowed to receive it.
I am not sure whether I even want to pursue an annulment at this point. Although I miss the Catholic Church, I am beginning to feel at home with all of the other refugees (former Catholics, etc.) I find myself with in the Episcopal Church. This church family and my wife were what kept me going through the most difficult time of my life. I find myself humbled and in a situation that I never expected; amongst the divorcees, homosexuals, etc. that I used to feel were in a separate group than I was.
I am in my situation because of choices I made and I take responsibility for them. But I am just a human being who is weaker than I used to think I was. I am also finding that there may be life with Christ after being barred from getting the Sacraments in the Catholic church.
Unlike 99% of people who have left the Church, I did not go because I wanted to use a condom or felt that it was past time for a female priest. I just could not live up to the standards through my own human weakness.
I invite anyone to say anything about this post that they want, even if it is to tell me that I am going to hell for leaving the Church. Regardless of your stance, I would ask that you pray for me and all of the others that have left or are considering it. I hope that the original poster (or anyone) feels a little less alone by reading my experience.

All Catholics are failed Catholics, even the Saints. I see no reason in your post why you should stop being Catholic. Even your marriage irregularity can be rectified. You weren’t “barred from the Sacraments” in the Catholic Church, you chose at some point to exclude yourself. The Church is still welcoming you with open arms.

 

[Thorolfr]

All Catholics are failed Catholics, even the Saints. I see no reason in your post why you should stop being Catholic. Even your marriage irregularity can be rectified. You weren’t “barred from the Sacraments” in the Catholic Church, you chose at some point to exclude yourself. The Church is still welcoming you with open arms.

How can someone who is prohibited from participating in the Eucharist consider that they are welcome with open arms? If the first marriage cannot be annulled, wouldn’t this prohibition be permanent?

 

[SyroMalankara]

How can someone who is prohibited from participating in the Eucharist consider that they are welcome with open arms? If the first marriage cannot be annulled, wouldn’t this prohibition be permanent?

Participating in the Eucharist doesn’t mean always receiving Communion. There are legitimate reasons for abstaining. And no, the “prohibition” is based on the actions of the person “prohibiting” themselves.

 

[Randy_Carson]

How can someone who is prohibited from participating in the Eucharist consider that they are welcome with open arms? If the first marriage cannot be annulled, wouldn’t this prohibition be permanent?

Yep.

But first things, first. Begin the process and see what comes of it.

Now, about welcoming folks…are there NO absolutes for the Church, Thorolfr?

If a man came to your church and openly admitted to being a pedophile, would you welcome him with open arms? Even if he said that he would NEVER give up raping young boys and that he had made arrangements to have a permanent supply of young boys to sodomize?

Would you welcome THAT person with open arms?

Obviously, I’m using an extreme example to illustrate a point and I’m not equating pedophilia with the civil marriage under discussion. However, I am taking issue with your apparent disagreement with the Catholic Church’s guidance that those who are in a civil marriage without having a first marriage annulled should refrain from reception of the Eucharist. Surely the Church should have some standards that we adhere to?

 

[Thorolfr]

Participating in the Eucharist doesn’t mean always receiving Communion. There are legitimate reasons for abstaining. And no, the “prohibition” is based on the actions of the person “prohibiting” themselves.

So how does a person who has divorced and remarried stop prohibiting themselves and start taking communion again? Should they divorce their second wife?

 

[Randy_Carson]

So how does a person who has divorced and remarried stop prohibiting themselves and start taking communion again? Should they divorce their second wife?

They should live as brother and sister until the Church has determined whether a previous marriage existed.