Ah, I missed that bit of the return flight interview.
Yeah, I definitely agree.
Wouldnt treating the Eucharist in the way you’ve described not only be depriving faithful Catholics of receiving Christ, but also be changing the way we view the Eucharist, as being a spiritual sustenance and way of receiving strength and grace? Wouldn’t this make for less graced, spiritually weakened Catholics, all because we don’t want to hurt the feelings of those who are obstinate in their decisions?
I didn’t mean for this to always be the case. I’m asking if it is licit for a particular priest on a particular day during a particular liturgy to not open up communion to the faithful, or if every public Mass must include reception by the faithful. This question arose as personal curiosity and wasn’t intended to serve as a resolution to the issues of divorced and remarried persons receiving the Eucharist. As I said, this question was only tangentially related to the thread, and in hindsight it probably was inappropriate for me to ask it here.
Welcome to the Twenty-first Century. This age of Twitter and Instagram presents new challenges. Just how much should the Church and her leaders concern themselves with those that bold, snip and paraphrase to suit their own agenda? I do not know. I do think if the Church gives too much concern to spin, she will be unable to accomplish anything and stagnate into motionless lest any move be misunderstood.
I am unclear on a couple things. How is it that if one does not marry in a civil ceremony but still lives with their “partner” they can recieve communion. Provided they are not living with as brother and sister. And two, It seems as if your sister has had to choose between Jesus and a boyfriend.My sister is divorced and wants to remarry but her annulment was not granted after a lengthy process. She speaks about not marrying her present common law partner in a civil ceremony because she would not be allowed communion. She says that not being able to marry in the church is one thing that hurts her deeply and she deeply respects the sacrament of marriage. Not being able to receive communion would be a great punishment and she said she would feel rejected by the church. She has a strong faith and attends Church often twice a week. I sure hope for her sake that some changes are made to the details surrounding the sacraments of Marriage and the Eucharist to allow her to feel a greater love from her faith rather than that of rejection.
Seems like a pretty simple choice to me. IF the Church says she is still married, then she is still married. Because that is how Jesus set it up. In fact Jesus was quite clear on his views on the subject. How can the Church “change” the basic tenants of the faith. 1) That marriage is indissoluble, and 2) that one must be in a state of grace to receive Jesus. If the Church were to change those things I would not feel that the Church is the infallible one True Church I believe it is. If the Church changed, I would have to lose my faith. Because either way, if the Eucharist really is the Eucharist (God) and one need not be in a state of grace to receive, or if marriage really is not as Jesus made it, then the Church will be shown to be false. That is why I am quite sure this is much ado about nothing. Because, an entire break happened just because the Church did not allow what some seek with a former king of England. If the Church was going to break, it would have been then. That being said, I really hope I am not shopping around for a new faith in a month…That’s just it. It’s not a punishment nor should be seen as one. It’s unfortunate if that’s all people look to in the way of their faith. Attend a Spanish Mass and see that half don’t approach for communion and they still are very devotional. God loves all the same, whether they serve as EMHC or they choose to sit in the pews and recite a spiritual communion.
Not being able to receive communion is not a punishment - it is a** consequence **of her own actions and choice.My sister is divorced and wants to remarry but her annulment was not granted after a lengthy process. She speaks about not marrying her present common law partner in a civil ceremony because she would not be allowed communion. She says that not being able to marry in the church is one thing that hurts her deeply and she deeply respects the sacrament of marriage. **Not being able to receive communion would be a great punishment and she said she would feel rejected by the church. **She has a strong faith and attends Church often twice a week. I sure hope for her sake that some changes are made to the details surrounding the sacraments of Marriage and the Eucharist to allow her to feel a greater love from her faith rather than that of rejection.
I’ve been bracing myself for this very thing, but wouldn’t look at it as losing my faith, nor would i be shopping for a new faith. There always has been One Church and that can never change. But Jesus’ promise to never abandon His Church should not be seen as a guarantee that His Church may not at some point abandon Him. In the present case, it may come to a decision of loyalty to the True teachings of the One Church and loyalty to the hierarchy, including the Pope. If nothing else we always have Natural Law, that which existed from the beginning. (e.g. Adam & Eve were really validly married, with no clergy or state to sanction it.) And, by the way, Matrimony is one of two Sacraments that do not need a priest or bishop, Baptism being the other. A lay Church, with no priests, could still have those two Sacraments.
God sanctioned their marriage. They were in direct communication with Him.
Sorry, but there is nothing that has not been attacked. There are those who are attempting to redefine even natural law such as the Creighton professors who introduced a textbook which turns the teaching on its head. So far, the USCCB has issued a statement of warning against this book and one report said that AB Lucas condemned it, but you know they’ll keep trying.
Sounds like Burke might not be there as of this story today. We’ll see.According to the list of Synod attendees, Müller, Burke, and Caffarra will be present at the Synod, too. I’m guessing that since the other two are both “emeritus”, they are probably retired. Though Kasper is retired, too, and he’ll still be there.
It does look like it should be a good book, though!
This is a truly disturbing development! Doing a quick google search of his name brings story after story of him being “demoted” and “exiled.” From the get go I’ve been uneasy about this synod. And this story only makes this uneasiness worse. Something’s just not right here.
The Church cannot abandon Christ. Martin Luther said that she did and he was just as wrong. The error in making the teaching of the Church over the Church is that it makes the same basic error of all who teach each should interpret the Bible for themselves, namely, that it is not the Church teaching that one makes a priority, but rather one’s own opinion of what Church doctrine is. This error of elevating one’s opinion of doctrine over the authority in the Church can lead to a schismatic mindset, based on one’s personal interpretation.
