Chicago prelate: Let gay and divorced Catholics take part

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Communion won’t be closed to me if I walk into the Episcopal Church or Evangelical Lutheran Church of America or the United Church of Christ or the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), or others. And my “tone” as you called it, was not necessarily referring to a person receiving in the Catholic Church who does not discern the body and the blood. It’s possible for someone to discern the body and what the Catholic Church believes is going on during the Mass and yet still in your words “dislike” some other things about the Catholic Church or not believe in some other things. I can’t speak for them myself. As I personally don’t regularly attend anymore as I came to the conclusion I don’t want to be somewhere on any kind of a regular basis where I am denied being able to come as I am and approach and receive Jesus. It’s just one of many reasons though in my case why I don’t attend. I even missed last Easter and Christmas. But because they may believe in the Catholic Eucharist might be why they would wish to receive.
 
Communion won’t be closed to me when I walk into the Episcopal Church or Evangelical Lutheran Church of America or the United Church of Christ or the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), or others. And my “tone” as you called it, was not necessarily referring to a person receiving in the Catholic Church who does not discern the body and the blood. It’s possible for someone to discern the body and what the Catholic Church believes is going on during the Mass and yet still in your words “dislike” some other things about the Catholic Church or not believe in some other things. I can’t speak for them myself. As I personally don’t want to be somewhere on any kind of a regular basis where I am denied to approach and receive Jesus as I am. It’s just one of many reasons I don’t bother to regularly attend. I even missed last Easter and Christmas. But because they may believe in the Catholic Eucharist might be why they would wish to receive.
Can I ask you a question so as to understand you ?
Why is it difficult to focus on one wife ,one.husband ,one family in concrete ?
The impression I get is that in sort of pecking here and there in the end we do not eat.
A family can be an open door and have many unexpected guests for dinner. And we are happy at home when our sons bring friends home .Yet they do not come in and out without greeting my husband and me ,nor they open the fridge to help themselves. They have been brought up to understand a home has beds and food and room even if packed ,yet not a hotel.
And from the bottom of my heart , I have no idea if some of them are catholic or not nor we ask. We know them by name and they know us. The best of all is when they return.
 
Until a ‘married’ homosexual couple, or someone advocating for abortion (Catholics for Choice), or someone thinks it’s just symbolic etc claim they are being called to receive, then I think we are all to say they should just stay in their pews.
But whom are “we” to judge who hears the Word and is healed and called at least at and for that very moment? Jesus Himself said He would turn away no one who is called. You don’t think a homosexual couple in a civil marriage or someone personally opposed to abortion but unwilling to force their belief onto everyone and make abortion illegal in every instance, doesn’t already know what the Catholic Church teaches about these matters? I think most are very aware just as those who practice contraception are aware. But do they truly know in their own hearts that these are grave matters? If not, doesn’t one have to have full knowledge to be condemned of mortal sin? I would question if just being aware of a teaching is the same as someone fully knowing if someone does not believe something. Who among us are equipped to know but God?
 
Can I ask you a question so as to understand you ?
Why is it difficult to focus on one wife ,one.husband ,one family in concrete ?
The impression I get is that in sort of pecking here and there in the end we do not eat.
A family can be an open door and have many unexpected guests for dinner. And we are happy at home when our sons bring friends home .Yet they do not come in and out without greeting my husband and me ,nor they open the fridge to help themselves. They have been brought up to understand a home has beds and food and room even if packed ,yet not a hotel.
And from the bottom of my heart , I have no idea if some of them are catholic or not nor we ask. We know them by name and they know us. The best of all is when they return.
Hi Graciew, of course you can ask. I think even he realizes everyone is not going to agree on everything but even Pope Francis seems to want us to dialogue in brotherhood and sisterhood while striving to keep the Golden Rule in mind. As an outsider looking in, it even seems to me that dialogue is part of the synod.

Anyway I’m assuming by your example that in the realm of faith, you mean the Catholic Church as the one. It’s not difficult for me to understand why some believe it to be. Btw though I actually know families whose frig is an open door. 🙂 But I’m gathering from your post that you do allow your sons’ friends to eat at the table with you after they have greeted both you and your husband? And as you said the best of all is when they return! Amen to that. You must be a good cook! 🙂 But isn’t that what one does when they come to Mass? They spend the first part greeting and worshiping. But then are told they are not supposed to eat with you. So some might not come back if they’re hungry but don’t get to taste the food. I hope that sorta helps in some way in understanding me. But I’ll be the first to admit I can be complex. Sometimes frankly I’m not sure I even always understand myself! 😃 But in any case God bless! 👍
 
josh
Until a ‘married’ homosexual couple, or someone advocating for abortion (Catholics for Choice), or someone thinks it’s just symbolic etc claim they are being called to receive, then I think we are all to say they should just stay in their pews.
Who are you to judge who’s in line to receive Holy Communion ?

We don’t know the state of souls who are in line and my question of “what is this a problem,” had to do with the poster statement about few remain in the pews today. To jump to conclusions on what state the souls in line are in.
It’s only a upsetting I believe if they were there for the wrong reasons, but ‘shame’ is the very last thing that comes to mind with the faithful in Eucharistic Adoration and long confession lines. :confused:
Jesus never said, " I’ve come to make sinners feel shame."
Guilt/Forgiveness isn’t an issue, it’s the fact that people are sinning and have no guilt, nor seek forgiveness.
How do you know people don’t seek forgiveness from God ?
Satan and His lies should never be included in such ‘inclusiveness’, and I believe we all must be on guard here, even a dash of salt can turn the water foul.
So now you’re jumping to the conclusion that people receiving Holy Communion are including Satan’s lies ?
Forgive the sinner, not the sin, be inclusive of the sinner, not the sin.
Where did I say otherwise ?
I don’t know much about pre-Vatican II other than it was all in latin and personally I’m glad it’s in English, however, I know no different.
Pre-Vatican II Catholics pretty much were on auto-pilot when it came to obeying the priests and nuns.

They never question what they were told, but conformed to what the were told, and often, especially from the nuns, it was wrong or not properly explained.

Yes, reading the Bible was not something Catholics did outside of religious and a few lay people.

Getting in and out of Mass with the least amount of time was preferred.

Ever notice how Catholics still sit to the rear of the Church ? This goes way back before Vatican II and had to do with a couple of things. One, guilt. People didn’t want to be seen not going up for Holy Communion. Also, it was the fastest way to exit the church after Mass was over.

We were more of a people of obligation rather than a people worshiping Jesus.

I left the Catholic Church and didn’t return until Jesus came into my life revealing himself as who really is. Ironically, it was a TV Evangelists that help be open my eyes.

Jesus is the reason why we’re Catholic, not the attractiveness of the doctrines or rites.

St Augustine once wrote that there are those who finding themselves Catholic, remain so, for they find the doctrines and rituals attractive. However, they’ve yet to become Christians.

Then there are others, not having been part of the Catholic faith, received faith in Jesus Christ and having received faith, responded to it by becoming Catholic.

In essence he said, these are the pillars of the Catholic Church. The people with a love for Jesus Christ over the doctrines and rites of the religion.

For me, St Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis are the examples of what St Augustine was talking about.

Jim
 
I’m not sure which bishop you’re quoting or responding to. Archbishop Coleridge has also said the the term “indissoluble” is less than helpful because it doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone who hears it. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that you have studied the faith more seriously than most (your screen name is in Latin, for goodness sake!). When you hear indissoluble, it leaves an impression on you that is possitive. But it’s a “negative” word in the sense that it defines what marriage is not - dissoluble. Thus, some people perceive this feature of marriage as less as a gift from God to married couples (which it is) than as an oppressive force at work trapping them to failed marriages. The bishops are looking for new ways of conveying the same truths but in a way that is more relatable.
I was responding to the Archbishop Cupich’s statements and also responding to some of the Bishops at the Synod in general. I think that the word is fine, but that married couples need to be catechized more so that they can understand what indissoluble really means so they don’t see it in a negative light. However, some people will always see it in a negative light because, even if they change the wording to make it more vague (which it probably will be, not to mention the misinterpretation of the media & faithful), people are still being told that they are “stuck” with that person forever and they won’t like that. No matter what, people will perceive teachings of the Church negatively and offensively, so why should we try to please them and compromise the clarity of the teachings in the process?
 
I agree. I would never take Communion in an Orthodox service out of respect. I assume an Orthodox would do the same in a Catholic Church. However, I have more respect than most Catholic or Orthodox to the High Protestant offering of the Eucharist (valid or not from my perspective) to all. Christ died for all, not just the Church - so who is to receive him? And what does it mean. I feel that if Cardinal Marx et al. are going to go around pushing for this group or that group - let anyone participate. It will happen in due course anyway - it is theologically disingenuous to go group by group. Or just leave it as is, which I much prefer. In practice, in many places anyway, everyone takes Communion now, worthy or not. I struggle with the hypocrisy of what is happening in this regard in the parishes with what the hierarchy says here in the Synod. Who knows what God thinks of that - do Catholics even care. Gets to the point of absurdity.
 
I’m not Jon or GKC. But even I can understand where you are coming from.
 
I was responding to the Archbishop Cupich’s statements and also responding to some of the Bishops at the Synod in general. I think that the word is fine, but that married couples need to be catechized more so that they can understand what indissoluble really means so they don’t see it in a negative light. However, some people will always see it in a negative light because, even if they change the wording to make it more vague (which it probably will be, not to mention the misinterpretation of the media & faithful), people are still being told that they are “stuck” with that person forever and they won’t like that. No matter what, people will perceive teachings of the Church negatively and offensively, so why should we try to please them and compromise the clarity of the teachings in the process?
I agree that on-going catechesis is important, but I disagree that we should just keep repeating the same thing over and over when it’s not conveying what we what. Words can illuminate and it doesn’t seem at all a given to me that replacing “indissoluble” with some more positive expression would necessarily be more vague.

I think about Theology of the Body and how John Paul II did so much to explain the truth of human sexuality and really make it attractive to young people. He wasn’t teaching anything new - sex in marriage has always been good and holy, but I think the faithful of JPII’s generation have a better appreciation for the holiness and joyfulness of sex because they had it articulated in that way and not just explained in terms of being “not sinful” or of the “marital debt”, etc. We speak a different language now than fifty years ago. So maybe we need to start explaining the marital bond in terms of what it is - permanent, enduring, whatever - rather than what it is not.
 
Not all were on auto-pilot, but most followed what the priests told them, without question or understanding.

I recall mothers who called the rectory to see if they could still serve a meal made with meat, after they forgot it was Friday.

They were often told no it would be a mortal sin.

Really ?

Thank God for Vatican II.

Jim
 
Not all were on auto-pilot, but most followed what the priests told them, without question or understanding.

I recall mothers who called the rectory to see if they could still serve a meal made with meat, after they forgot it was Friday.

They were often told no it would be a mortal sin.

Really ?

Thank God for Vatican II.

Jim
Let’s turn this around. Some time after Vatican II the Friday abstinence from meat discipline was changed. Catholics were told that they could substitute some other penance instead of abstaining from meat. How many Catholics now as a matter of regular Friday practice impose some other penance on themselves?
 
I recall mothers who called the rectory to see if they could still serve a meal made with meat, after they forgot it was Friday.

They were often told no it would be a mortal sin.

Really ?

Thank God for Vatican II.

Jim
Well, that would still be the case if it were Lent…
 
I agree that on-going catechesis is important, but I disagree that we should just keep repeating the same thing over and over when it’s not conveying what we what. Words can illuminate and it doesn’t seem at all a given to me that replacing “indissoluble” with some more positive expression would necessarily be more vague.

I think about Theology of the Body and how John Paul II did so much to explain the truth of human sexuality and really make it attractive to young people. He wasn’t teaching anything new - sex in marriage has always been good and holy, but I think the faithful of JPII’s generation have a better appreciation for the holiness and joyfulness of sex because they had it articulated in that way and not just explained in terms of being “not sinful” or of the “marital debt”, etc. We speak a different language now than fifty years ago. So maybe we need to start explaining the marital bond in terms of what it is - permanent, enduring, whatever - rather than what it is not.
The way I see it, people are upset with the denotation, not the connotation, of the word “indissoluble”. Changing the word is either going to confuse people (changing the wording makes people think you are changing the doctrine, just the discussion of Holy Communion for remarried adulterers made the faithful think they could receive Communion, even priests allowed it) or still have people upset because it is still saying that Holy Matrimony is a permanent bond. If people are upset that the bond they have with their spouse is unbreakable, there is something wrong with them and not the Church. The word “indissoluble” is even in the Roman Catechism, I am sure people were upset with it since then so I don’t see why it should change now.
 
Not all were on auto-pilot, but most followed what the priests told them, without question or understanding.

I recall mothers who called the rectory to see if they could still serve a meal made with meat, after they forgot it was Friday.

They were often told no it would be a mortal sin.

Really ?

Thank God for Vatican II.

Jim
It would have been a mortal sin to serve meat to Catholics and to eat it yourself on a Friday, it still is today (in the law of the Universal Church it is every Friday, for the US it is Lenten Fridays). Vatican II didn’t change that.
 
Let’s turn this around. Some time after Vatican II the Friday abstinence from meat discipline was changed. Catholics were told that they could substitute some other penance instead of abstaining from meat. How many Catholics now as a matter of regular Friday practice impose some other penance on themselves?
Penance must always be done because a person desires to out of love for God, not because they’re forced to, out of fear they’ll commit a mortal sin and burn in hell for all eternity if they don’t make it to confession before they die.

I wonder how many Catholics are burning in hell for eating meat on Friday, but post-Vatican II Catholics will not be held accountable by God for doing the same ? 😉

Jim
 
Well, that would still be the case if it were Lent…
No a priest would not tell a mother she must throw out a meal because it was made with meat and she forgot it was Friday during Lent.

Jim
 
It would have been a mortal sin to serve meat to Catholics and to eat it yourself on a Friday, it still is today (in the law of the Universal Church it is every Friday, for the US it is Lenten Fridays). Vatican II didn’t change that.
For a sin to be mortal, it must be grave.

Forgetting that its a Friday in Lent and you accidentally ordered a dish with meat at a restaurant but chose to eat it would not be a mortal sin.

Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top