Five hundred lay people echo priests’ plea to stand firm on Communion for the remarried

[Bookcat]

that the Cardinals will come to the understanding that although a marriage may have existed in the beginning, for some reason, it ceased to exist. This is a reality which can not be denied.

And in the case of consummated sacramental marriages -* such *is not possible.

Right is not a reality that can be denied because such cannot be ever a reality. Except via death of one of the spouses for such is the nature of a valid consummated sacramental marriage - which cannot change.

The only possibility is that such a marriage did not come into existence.

Not that it can cease to exist.

 

[Bookcat]

In the case of a consummated sacramental marriages* it is not possible* for such to no longer
be a such.

Except via the* death* of one of the spouses for such is the nature of a valid consummated sacramental marriage - which cannot change.

The only possibility is that such a marriage did not come into existence.

 

[Brendan_64]

It’s not the only issue in the synod, but a very big part of it, or else we wouldn’t be hearing and debating the subject.

Heck, this thread wouldn’t even exist if that wasn’t a big issue in the synod.

Only in the West. The majority of Catholics in the world are not from the Western world, the majority of Cardinals are not from the Western world. And this issue has been aggressively pushed by certain Western cardinals, so of course this will result in debate, but that does not mean that the Synod has been called because of this issue. I would say that the Synod is being hijacked by those who want to push for this issue. This is the Synod on the Family, not the “Synod on Communion for the divorced and remarried, homosexuals and cohabiting couples”. The synod has been hijacked by those who wish to push these single issues, but it will not work. The synod will look at the family in a holistic fashion rather than focus on certain single-issues of interest to certain western cardinals.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Only in the West. The majority of Catholics in the world are not from the Western world, the majority of Cardinals are not from the Western world. And this issue has been aggressively pushed by certain Western cardinals, so of course this will result in debate, but that does not mean that the Synod has been called because of this issue. I would say that the Synod is being hijacked by those who want to push for this issue. This is the Synod on the Family, not the “Synod on Communion for the divorced and remarried, homosexuals and cohabiting couples”. The synod has been hijacked by those who wish to push these single issues, but it will not work. The synod will look at the family in a holistic fashion rather than focus on certain single-issues of interest to certain western cardinals.

Cardinals from all over the world are making statements concerning the issue of allowing divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion or not.

It’s a major issue that will be discussed in the Synod.

Jim

 

[Brendan]

Also, he didn’t call for the Synod in order to talk about singing in the choir or passing the collection plate. He’s look at how to bring divorced and remarried Catholics to full union with the Church.

I’m sure that very much a concern of Pope Francis, as is every other bishop on the planet.

But, at no point, has he stated ANYTHING about changing Church teaching on the matter of the reception of Holy Communion by those in irregular situations.

And, as an FYI, the purpose of the Synod is to look at the Family (hence the name). If it was the intention of the Pope to focus primarily on the ministry to the divorced and remarried, it would the called the “Synod on the Divorced and Remarried”.

And he probably would NOT have named Cardinal Napier as one of the Presiders either.

 

[Brendan_64]

It’s a major issue that will be discussed in the Synod.

I’m sure it will be discussed, along with a great many other issues.

In the final report for the synod last year, how many paragraphs in the report were about the issue of Communion for the divorced and remarried?

 

[Bookcat]

In the case of a consummated sacramental marriages* it is not possible* for such to no longer
be a such.

Except via the* death* of one of the spouses for such is the nature of a valid consummated sacramental marriage - which cannot change.

The only possibility is that such a marriage did not come into existence.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Brendan

I’m sure that very much a concern of Pope Francis, as is every other bishop on the planet.

Well you have to admit, it’s taking much of the attention of the Cardinals and laity for it’s the major topic in forums like this and others.

But, at no point, has he stated ANYTHING about changing Church teaching on the matter of the reception of Holy Communion by those in irregular situations.

I never said they will.

And, as an FYI, the purpose of the Synod is to look at the Family (hence the name). If it was the intention of the Pope to focus primarily on the ministry to the divorced and remarried, it would the called the “Synod on the Divorced and Remarried”.

He’s looking at all aspects of the families we have today, many of which are divorced couples and families with gay children.

Jim

 

[Brendan]

Well you have to admit, it’s taking much of the attention of the Cardinals and laity for it’s the major topic in forums like this and others.

Actually, no. I haven’t seen that at all. What I have seen is a lot of discussion about the Church offering Holy Communion to those in an irregular state. Which is not exactly the same thing.

If it was, there would be a lot of attention being given, by the Cardinals and the laity, on how to assist them in exiting their irregular state so they COULD receive Holy Communion. But I have seen precious little discussion on that.

He’s looking at all aspects of the families we have today, many of which are divorced couples and families with gay children.

Jim

At the pastoral responses to those we can find in Familaris Consortio. The question then becomes, how to enact those pastoral solutions.

 

[OraLabora]

Then how do we know that this even applies to Catholic parishes. He said “Christian communities”, so if I interpreted his comments to refer to Westboro Baptist, but not in regards to any normative Catholic practices, would that indicative of an agenda?

Come on you’re playing games here, it’s either disingenuous or naive to say that being made to feel unwelcome doesn’t apply to Catholic Christian communities; it happens to all Christian communities at some time or another. I’ve witnessed it at Mass; it was not pretty because the person involved, who was transgendered, interrupted Mass and made a big scene about us all being a bunch of hypocrites.

The pope himself spoke about the issue he had with his clergy refusing to baptize the babies of single mothers, while he was archbishop of Buenos Aires. Clearly he feels the issue is important enough to talk about it, and more than once. And then we have this story:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12892353&postcount=1

He is speaking in general terms about those at the margins of the Church. It’s not an “agenda” to read into his statements that we as Catholics, both lay and clergy, need to do a better job helping those in distress who are asking for help from the Church. Clearly he senses a problem.

What would be an agenda is trying to read the tea leaves to predict that he’s going to achieve it in our own pet way and then trying to argue why this is so… OR trying to read the tea leaves and predict that he won’t make changes that will upset our own view of what’s changeable or not in the Church and then trying to argue why. There is no shortage of agenda posting on this very thread from all sides of the debate.

Meanwhile there is great distrust in the promise Jesus made to Peter, on which this whole Edifice (figuratively and literally speaking) was built.

Why can’t we just clearly accept that the Holy Father has singled out a problem, that he has mentioned several specific groups to which this problem applies, that one of those groups is the divorced and remarried, and that he has asked the Synod to look into this and other issues. And that maybe, just maybe, some novel ideas may come out of the Synod about disciplinary changes that may perhaps be applied, without changing doctrine. We all agree that doctrine cannot be changed. We appear to disagree on what constitutes doctrine vs discipline, but while we can argue away on that, ultimately the Holy Father will seek the advice of theologians and bishops he trusts, and will rule on it; and those discussions will be way above our pay grades as amateur forum theologians. And whichever way he does, I doubt I’ll lose any sleep over it, or have my trust in the Promise shattered.

We all more or less have agendas. It would be far better if we openly admit it instead of using disingenuous tactics to either try to put words in the Holy Father’s mouth, or in this case, trying to analyze those words in such a granular and inflexible manner that we make a mockery of him even saying them.

So here’s mine: it would please me if the Church could find a disciplinary way to admit some divorced and remarried that meet some specific criteria, to the Eucharist, and failing that, that she take a hard look at the annulment process. Again though, if neither of these happen I won’t lose sleep over it, instead I’ll just say a prayer of sympathy for those in that situation. But if she does change the discipline in this manner, Brendan, do you honestly think the sky will fall???

( and yes, I am well familiar with Quebecois phrasing, my wife is from Drummondville )

That’s not so far from here, and not so far from the monastery I’m an oblate of. If you love Gregorian chant, you should drop by the abbey the next time you come up to visit family!

 

[Brendan]

Come on you’re playing games here, it’s either disingenuous or naive to say that being made to feel unwelcome doesn’t apply to Catholic Christian communities; it happens to all Christian communities at some time or another.

I never said that it could not apply to a select few Catholic communities, but the Pope has not hesitated to refer to the Catholic Church as such, or simply as ‘the Church’ when he was speaking to us. But he chose not to address the Church in this statement. Given that, it would be erroneous to assume that the Catholic Church was even foremost in his thoughts.

And certainly NOT to the extent to assume it is in regards to any practices common to the Universal Church, such as the denial of Holy Communion to those in irregular marital circumstances.

I’ve witnessed it at Mass; it was not pretty because the person involved, who was transgendered, interrupted Mass and made a big scene about us all being a bunch of hypocrites.

I agree, outreach SHOULD happen, but not at the expense of any teachings of the Church. They are, by definition, welcoming and pastoral.

So here’s mine: it would please me if the Church could find a disciplinary way to admit some divorced and remarried that meet some specific criteria, to the Eucharist, and failing that, that she take a hard look at the annulment process.

Such a way exists already, Pope Saint John Paul II outlined that in Familaris Consortio #84

Together with the Synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life. They should be encouraged to listen to the word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts in favor of justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God’s grace. Let the Church pray for them, encourage them and show herself a merciful mother, and thus sustain them in faith and hope.

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
/QUOTE]

But if she does change the discipline in this manner, Brendan, do you honestly think the sky will fall???

Discipline no, but changes in Doctrine cannot happen. The statements from F.C I listed above are doctrinal in nature, not disciplinary. As long as those are not contradicted, I will have no objection.

That’s not so far from here, and not so far from the monastery I’m an oblate of. If you love Gregorian chant, you should drop by the abbey the next time you come up to visit family!

We’d LOVE to!! I must confess, I very rarely accompany my wife on trips home. Not because I don’t enjoy P.Q. or my in-laws. I spend most of my vacation time on an ongoing mission project in Tanzania. But if I let my wife know that she can get both Poutine AND great chant, she’d be there in a heartbeat

 

[OraLabora]

I never said that it could not apply to a select few Catholic communities, but the Pope has not hesitated to refer to the Catholic Church as such, or simply as ‘the Church’ when he was speaking to us. But he chose not to address the Church in this statement. Given that, it would be erroneous to assume that the Catholic Church was even foremost in his thoughts.

And certainly NOT to the extent to assume it is in regards to any practices common to the Universal Church, such as the denial of Holy Communion to those in irregular marital circumstances.

I agree, outreach SHOULD happen, but not at the expense of any teachings of the Church. They are, by definition, welcoming and pastoral.

Such a way exists already, Pope Saint John Paul II outlined that in Familaris Consortio #84

Together with the Synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life. They should be encouraged to listen to the word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts in favor of justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God’s grace. Let the Church pray for them, encourage them and show herself a merciful mother, and thus sustain them in faith and hope.

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

Discipline no, but changes in Doctrine cannot happen. The statements from F.C I listed above are doctrinal in nature, not disciplinary. As long as those are not contradicted, I will have no objection.

We’d LOVE to!! I must confess, I very rarely accompany my wife on trips home. Not because I don’t enjoy P.Q. or my in-laws. I spend most of my vacation time on an ongoing mission project in Tanzania. But if I let my wife know that she can get both Poutine AND great chant, she’d be there in a heartbeat

Yes I know, I’ve read it. But the Holy Father at one point seemed to encourage thinking out of the box, musing aloud about the Orthodox way to handle the issue. His theologians and bishops may advise him it’s impossible. I can’t reliably read the tea leaves on that as its way above my pay grade, other than to say he clearly wanted it discussed if he brought it up, and had it put on the agenda at the preparatory synod.

He also later mused about relaxing other non-sacramental interdictions on the divorced and remarried, such as being godparents. The Holy Father does seem to like to think out loud, and in plain language, which I find refreshing but admittedly some find it unsettling. To those I can only say “have faith”!

 

[McCall1981]

From Cardinal Sarah, I highly recommend reading this:

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351022?eng=y

A NEW FORM OF HERESY

According to my experience, in particular after twenty-three years as archbishop of Conakry and nine years as secretary of the congregation for the evangelization of peoples, the question of divorced or civilly remarried believers is not an urgent challenge for the Churches of Africa and Asia. On the contrary, this is an obsession of certain Western Churches that want to impose solutions that are called “theologically responsible and pastorally appropriate,” which radically contradict the teachings of Jesus and the magisterium of the Church. …]

In the face of the moral crisis, in particular that of marriage and the family, the Church can contribute to the search for just and constructive solutions, but it has no other possibility than to participate in it by making reference in a very vigorous way to the distinctive and unique contribution of faith in Jesus Christ to the human enterprise. In this sense it is not possible to imagine any sort of rupture between magisterium and pastoral care. The idea that would consist in putting the magisterium in a pretty box, separating it from pastoral practice, which could evolve according to circumstances, fashions, and passions, is a form of heresy, a dangerous schizophrenic pathology.

I therefore solemnly affirm that the Church of Africa will firmly oppose any rebellion against the teaching of Jesus and of the magisterium. …]

How could a synod review the constant, unanimous, and extensive teaching of Blessed Paul VI, Saint John Paul II, and Benedict XVI? I place my trust in the fidelity of Francis.
THE TRUE SCANDAL, IN THE AGE OF MARTYRS

The martyrs are the sign that God is alive and still present among us. …] In the cruel death of so many Christians who are shot, crucified, decapitated, tortured, and burned alive is fulfilled “the overturning of God against himself” for the solace and salvation of the world. …]

[But] while Christians are dying for their faith and for their fidelity to Jesus, in the West there are churchmen who are seeking to reduce the demands of the Gospel to a minimum.

We even go so far as to utilize the mercy of God, stifling justice and truth, to “welcome” - in the words of the ‘Relatio post disceptationem’ of the October 2014 synod on the family - “the gifts and qualities that homosexual persons have to offer to the Christian community.” This document went on to say that “the question of homosexuality leads to a serious reflection on how to elaborate realistic paths of affective growth and human and evangelical maturity integrating the sexual dimension.” In reality, the true scandal is not the existence of sinners, since mercy and forgiveness always exist for them, but rather the confusion between good and evil that is made by Catholic pastors. If men consecrated to God are no longer capable of understanding the radical nature of the Gospel, seeking to anesthetize it, we will lose our way. Because then comes the true absence of mercy.

While hundreds of thousands of Christians live every day in bodily fear, some want to prevent suffering for the divorced and remarried, who are said to feel discriminated against in being excluded from sacramental communion. In spite of a state of permanent adultery, in spite of a state of life that bears witness to a refusal to adhere to the Word that elevates those who are sacramentally married to being the sign revelatory of the paschal mystery of Christ, certain theologians want to give access to Eucharistic communion to the divorced and remarried. The suppression of this ban on sacramental communion for the divorced and remarried, who have authorized themselves to go beyond the Word of Christ - “Let man not divide what God has joined” - would clearly signify the negation of the indissolubility of sacramental marriage. …]

There exists today an opposition and a rebellion against God, an organized battle against Christ and his Church. How can it be understood that Catholic pastors should submit to a vote the doctrine, the law of God and the teaching of the Church on homosexuality, on divorce and remarriage, as if the Word of God and the magisterium must now be endorsed, approved by the vote of the majority?

The men who build and structure strategies for killing God, demolishing the age-old doctrine and teaching of the Church, will themselves be swallowed up, plunged by their victory into the eternal Gehenna.

 

[Brendan]

Yes I know, I’ve read it. But the Holy Father at one point seemed to encourage thinking out of the box, musing aloud about the Orthodox way to handle the issue. His theologians and bishops may advise him it’s impossible. I can’t reliably read the tea leaves on that as its way above my pay grade, other than to say he clearly wanted it discussed if he brought it up, and had it put on the agenda at the preparatory synod.

He asked for different ways to minister, but not that any of these be changed.

The question is, how do we explain the teachings of the Church in ways that show their true beauty, and not the false beauty of worldly solutions.

 

[ProVobis]

He asked for different ways to minister, but not that any of these be changed.

The question is, how do we explain the teachings of the Church in ways that show their true beauty, and not the false beauty of worldly solutions.

I’m afraid that as we learn more and more psychology behind sex, marriage, etc., we may have nothing but worldly solutions to go with. At one point, as I was studying psychology myself in college, I actually started questioning whether man had a free will at all. All we are doing is reacting to stimuli. Bad thinking, I know.

 

[graciew]

He asked for different ways to minister,

The question is, how do we explain the teachings of the Church in ways that show their true beauty, .

We may do things without realizing they hurt.
Mostly in little details.
Like each Parrish is different but involuntarily,sometimes cause we participate actively,we feel the owners,and we do not realize we all belong.
I had to learn to be less authoritative,for example. Since I am organized,I cannot not hide it when things were not done as I had expected. And it does happen at home too.
Even if my intention had been good,the beauty of it would not show,but the harsh.
That does not mean we celebrate a mess,but one is a facilitator,not the owner.
And my agenda is the Church as a home,there is no hidden agenda.help people cross the door home to Jesus.
Mea culpa. Room for improvement.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith:

A question of conscience

A cardinal has suggested that someone could be admitted to Communion after remarrying, if they were to avow that their first marriage was null - but marriage is a public act, not a private one

Here is something you may have missed. Tucked away in the current print edition of the Tablet, dated April 11 2015, on page 28, is a brief report of certain remarks made in a television interview by Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn of Vienna about the Synod on the family.

The Cardinal said, and I transcribe:

I expect a clear word on the responsibility of the conscience. For me that is the decisive message. The responsibility of the individual conscience – a mature conscience that is respected by the Church. The first question when a relationship broke down was not what the Church did but what the people concerned did. God’s mercy first of all consists in looking at the concrete situation and I first pass the ball to the individual conscience. I will never question a person’s decision of conscience even if he or she has remarried.

It would be very interesting to track down the television interview and find out what exactly the Cardinal said in the original German. His interview might have been a long one. But this snippet is interesting.

Let us consider the fundamental question that is raised by admitting anyone who is divorced and remarried to Holy Communion – the question of the first marriage – as raised in an interview by the great theologian Cardinal Caffarra:

Those who suggest this hypothetical situation have so far not answered one very simple question: what about the first ratified and consummated marriage? If the Church admits [such people] to the Eucharist, she must however render a judgment about the legitimacy of the second union. That is only logical. But then — as I asked — what about the first marriage? … The popes have always taught that … the Pope has no authority over [ie. cannot dispense from] a ratified and consummated marriage. The proposed solution leads one to think that the first marriage remains, but there is also a second form of life together that the Church legitimises. Therefore there is such a thing as extramarital human sexuality that the Church considers legitimate. But that negates the central pillar of the Church’s teaching on sexuality. At that point someone might wonder: then why not approve cohabitation? Or relations between homosexuals? The fundamental question is therefore simple: what about the first marriage? But no one answers it. John Paul II said in 2000 in an address to the Roman Rota that ‘It is quite clear then that the non-extension of the Roman Pontiff’s power to ratified and consummated sacramental marriages is taught by the Church’s Magisterium as a doctrine to be held definitively, even if it has not been solemnly declared by a defining act.’ This is a technical formula… meaning that on this subject discussion among theologians and doubt among the faithful are no longer permissible….

It seems to me that Schoenborn is offering a solution to the question raised by Caffarra. In effect, someone could be admitted to Holy Communion after getting divorced and remarried, if they were to avow that they in conscience believed that their first marriage was in fact null, and their second union a true marriage, despite the lack of any canonical process.

Before jumping to conclusions, remember this. The canonical process recognises a marriage as never having taken place, as null; it does not ‘create’ nullity, it discovers it and declares it. In certain circumstances, it is impossible to embark on a canonical process for technical reasons (usually the non-co-operation of the other party) but such marriages may in fact be null. In such circumstances, if one were in conscience convinced that one’s first marriage were null (and would be found so by a tribunal if that were possible) and that one’s second marriage were a true marriage, despite its lack of canonical form, which cannot be provided because the first marriage cannot be declared null, would one not be able in conscience to go to Holy Communion?

I know critics will say that this effectively internalises the annulment process, and gives each man and woman the right to do his or her own annulment. Others will say that this is the old “internal forum” argument advanced by the German bishops some years ago, and rejected back then. The key thing to remember is that Cardinal Schoenborn is talking of an informed conscience acting, presumably after deliberation and prayer, which is not the same as a free for all.

The difficulty this runs into, of course, is that marriage is a public act, not a private one. It is something that belongs in the public forum, not the internal one. Still, a question remains: what are we going to do about all those who could perhaps have grounds for annulment, but who cannot approach the tribunal? There are such cases. I have come across them.

catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2015/04/14/a-question-of-conscience/

 

[Tigg]

Card Muller, who is certainly in a better position to “interpret” Francis than any of us are, said:

“Francis would like that people in difficult situations were not abandoned, but accompanied and accepted in the community, without however eliminating parts of the Church’s doctrine”, says Mueller, talking on the synodal theme of communion with remarried divorcees."

vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/mueller-mueller-mueller-40052/

(Also, we also know for certain that Card Muller A) considers communion for the remarried to be a doctrinal issue, and B) is staunchly opposed to admitting remarried people to communion, so there is no confusion in what he is saying here)

Despite the oft repeated and prosaic comment that has been made 1,000 times “the church needs to be more welcoming,” NO ONE has ever answered “in what way?” ** When has the church ever turned REPENTENT sinners away?** A: NEVER! The problem is that the “unwelcomed” seem to want to ignore the prerequisite that full communion can only mean repentance and a turning away from sin otherwise we enter dangerous territory that threatens sacramental theology. I hope everyone who continues to debate this, will re-read Crdl Mueller’s point.

 

[Bookcat]

I am not saying this “fits” any particular person here or any particular post but we do well - all of us to bear in mind the words of the Holy Father on this matter:

Pope Francis on the family synod: ‘We need prayers, not gossip’

catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-on-the-family-synod-we-need-prayers-not-gossip-17804/

 

[graciew]

I am not saying this “fits” any particular person here or any particular post but we do well - all of us to bear in mind the words of the Holy Father on this matter:

Pope Francis on the family synod: ‘We need prayers, not gossip’

catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-on-the-family-synod-we-need-prayers-not-gossip-17804/

Thanks ! Reminder always welcome!