There are also graces from the other sacraments, especially Penance and Matrimony. I pray that I can have my confession heard by a priest on my deathbed; yes it’s that important to me; otherwise I might not see Christ at all.The opening statement here is one of the saddest I have ever seen. Holy Communion is, or ought to be, the centre of Catholic life. Jesus wanted us to obey Him, and receive the Sacrament worthily.He even warned,that it is vital to receive His Body if we are to live eternally with Him.To say it is not necessary is to receive is to cut oneself off from the rich Graces that come with receiving Communion.To be at Mass,and not be able ,or bothered to receive Communion, is the greatest tragedy.
Lack of faith can hurt marriage, may affect validity, pope says
- I’m unfamiliar with this one. Are you saying lack of faith constitutes a defective consent? Can you recall when or where this was said? We’ve always invited people to stay with the church, even when struggling with sin. But because marital status is by definition public, we still can’t tell them to receive Eucharist. Attend, yes! Receive, no. Hard sell, but faithfulness often is!
VATICAN CITY (CNS) — A lack of faith in God can damage marriage, even to the point of affecting its validity, Pope Benedict XVI said.
“Faith in God, sustained by divine grace, is therefore a very important element for living in mutual dedication and conjugal fidelity,” he said.
The pope said he was not suggesting there was a simple, automatic link “between the lack of faith and the invalidity of marriage.”
Rather, he hoped “to draw attention to how such a lack may, although not necessarily, also hurt the goods of marriage,” given that referring to God’s plan “is inherent in the covenant of marriage.”
Too many young couples get married in the Church, not out of faith, but out of pressure from their parents. After they’re married, they rarely if ever attend Mass.
I agree.Hopefully the Pope will open the Eucharist to divorced and remarried couples, who have a desire to get closer to Jesus.
It makes no sense to use the sacrament as a whipping tool to make people conform.
But that’s just me.
Jim
Wow, take a deep breath. The stoning story is allegorical. The Jews actually didn’t stone people to death during Jesus’ time, the reference was symbolic, I’m sure. Similar to the Scarlet Letter of the Puritans.Posts like yours infuriate me. Where did I ever suggest stoning the woman. I didn’t. You made that up. I said sinners need to be called to repentance, not mollycoddled. If you don’t know the difference, don’t bother responding.
How many Roman Catholics have 100% perfect faith with no doubts whatsoever? It seems to me that faith is an ongoing process and it is only natural to have some doubts or questions along the way. By making doubts in the faith another reason for annulment, the RCC is only making it easier for anyone to get an annulment. It used to be that you could only get an annulment for the most serious of reasons, such as for example, if at the time of the purported marriage, one of the couple was married to someone else and he hid this fact from his partner. Or if he was certifiably impotent. Because these reasons were serious, the number of annual annulments in the USA before 1950, was at most in the hundreds. Whereas now, it is running in the tens of thousands.Lack of faith can hurt marriage, may affect validity, pope says
I see annulments as a healing process. At least it seems to work for many and I believe it’s a good pastoral move on the part of the Church.How many Roman Catholics have 100% perfect faith with no doubts whatsoever? It seems to me that faith is an ongoing process and it is only natural to have some doubts or questions along the way. By making doubts in the faith another reason for annulment, the RCC is only making it easier for anyone to get an annulment. It used to be that you could only get an annulment for the most serious of reasons, such as for example, if at the time of the purported marriage, one of the couple was married to someone else and he hid this fact from his partner. Or if he was certifiably impotent. Because these reasons were serious, the number of annual annulments in the USA before 1950, was at most in the hundreds. Whereas now, it is running in the tens of thousands.
All priests have qualms against co-habitation because any sex outside marriage is objectively a mortal sin. The challenge is to address these particular sinners no more harshly than the rest of the flock, all of which also sin.Why would you push cohabiting couples away? Makes no sense. Even if some priests did have qualms about this, telling them they are unwelcome to come to church is not going to change anything.
If any marriage can be annulled on the basis of it being a healing process, what does that say about the teaching on the indissolubility of marriage, except that it is no longer in effect operationally.I see annulments as a healing process. At least it seems to work for many and I believe it’s a good pastoral move on the part of the Church.
Jim. I don’t understand what exactly are you implying. What do you mean when you say that the Eucharistic should be open to divorced and remarried couples? didn’t Jesus say ““Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.” ?Hopefully the Pope will open the Eucharist to divorced and remarried couples, who have a desire to get closer to Jesus.
It makes no sense to use the sacrament as a whipping tool to make people conform.
But that’s just me.
Jim
And don’t forget the Apostolic Pardon.There are also graces from the other sacraments, especially Penance and Matrimony. I pray that I can have my confession heard by a priest on my deathbed; yes it’s that important to me; otherwise I might not see Christ at all.
Point of correction, Jews did in fact stone people to death during Jesus day.Wow, take a deep breath. The stoning story is allegorical. The Jews actually didn’t stone people to death during Jesus’ time, the reference was symbolic, I’m sure. Similar to the Scarlet Letter of the Puritans.
What Jesus said concerning divorce has to be understood in the context of what was taking place. Those who presented the question to Jesus were not interested in a correct answer, but try to trap him. Also, he stated, “what God has joined together, let no man separate.” But this means that the marriage was ordained and blessed by God. In other words, a valid, holy marriage, not just a legal marriage.Jim. I don’t understand what exactly are you implying. What do you mean when you say that the Eucharistic should be open to divorced and remarried couples? didn’t Jesus say ““Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.” ?
i’m not judging or anything like that… i’m a sinner just like everybody else… when i sin, i do not receive communion without having confessed my sins first.
God bless you.
That was illegal. The Jews had no right to do so. Only the Roman governors were legally allowed to impose capital punishment in Jesus time.Point of correction, Jews did in fact stone people to death during Jesus day.
St Stephen was stoned to death and the Church has never considered the story of the woman caught in adultery, to be allegorical.
Jim
Jews could impose capital punishment on certain crimes and adultery was one, because the accusation came from the husband, who had full property rights over his wife. Romans too would allow a husband to beat his wife to death. Remember, in Jesus time, adultery was when a woman had sex with a man other than her husband. It wasn’t considered adultery for a man to cheat on his wife and it was commonly accepted.That was illegal. The Jews had no right to do so. Only the Roman governors were legally allowed to impose capital punishment in Jesus time.
“If a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them shall die—the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall put away the evil from Israel. “If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you." (Deuteronomy 22:22-
This plenary indulgence is interesting. So you go directly to heaven after gaining this, and thereby bypass purgatory completely?And don’t forget the Apostolic Pardon.
The Apostolic Pardon (or blessing) is an indulgence given in situations of danger of death, usually after the absolution of the sacrament of penance. The focus is on the remission of temporal punishment due to sin. The words of the prayer explain the meaning of the act: “Through the holy mysteries of our redemption may almighty God release you from all punishments in this life and in the life to come. May he open to you the gates of paradise and welcome you to everlasting joy.” Or “By the authority which the Apostolic See has given me, I grant you a full pardon and the remission of all your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
The Handbook of Indulgences #28 states: "Priests who minister the sacraments to the Christian faithful who are in a life-and-death situation should not neglect to impart to them the apostolic blessing, with its attached indulgence. But if a priest cannot be present, holy mother Church lovingly grants such persons who are rightly disposed a plenary indulgence to be obtained in articulo mortis, at the approach of death, provided they regularly prayed in some way during their lifetime. The use of a crucifix or a cross is recommended in obtaining this plenary indulgence. In such a situation the three usual conditions required in order to gain a plenary indulgence are substituted for by the condition ‘provided they regularly prayed in some way.’
ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=520698
I have never heard of an annulment granted on the basis of its being a healing process. It may or may not be applicable, and both parties may not see it the same way. In fact, one party may be heavily slighted from the process, especially if the “ex-spouse” seizes on the opportunity and cohabits or marries someone else. I don’t think that was your point but I do somewhat agree with you.If any marriage can be annulled on the basis of it being a healing process, what does that say about the teaching on the indissolubility of marriage, except that it is no longer in effect operationally.
That is true. However, the priest must contend himself with the possible scandal shown by couples who are quite open about their relationship and present themselves for communion.All priests have qualms against co-habitation because any sex outside marriage is objectively a mortal sin. The challenge is to address these particular sinners no more harshly than the rest of the flock, all of which also sin.
FWIW, several centuries past, most didn’t receive communion at all, just Mass. That’s why they made it a requirement to receive at least once a year.Ok they can goto Mass, but they cannot fully participate in Holy Communion, and how will they ever since their situation is not reversible.