R
rcwitness
Guest
Yet the Church places alot of significance on it. Do you realize this? Shall i show you?
- Status
P
phil19034
Guest
Yes. I know it goes against conventional thought, but right now we all know of people who receive communion who should not be. Having a 3 hour fast would give them “cover.”phil19034:
So implement something that knowingly will cause more Catholics to refrain from Communion?rcwitness:
ahhhh… you could do that, but it would totally go against the point I was making.
I’m saying if we go back to a 3 hour fast, more people would refrain from communion, which would allow the people who cannot receive from feeling singled out.
Real life example:
- teen age boy (or college aged son) watches porn with his friends on Saturday night.
- they live 15 minutes by car from church and had breakfast as a family an hour before they left.
- with today’s 1 hour fast, communion time comes and the son is afraid to stay in the pew because he knows mom & dad will start asking him what he did that prevented him from receiving communion.
My point, I think the 3 hour fast would do a lot of good, because the people who should not be receiving can feel more comfortable sitting in their pew knowing that people will assume they are refraining from communion due to breaking the fast, not because of mortal sin.
I personally feel the 1 hour fast has had the negative side effect of people receiving who should not be because they are afraid of what people will think of them.
God bless
Last edited:
G
glorybe
Guest
Yes, I guess you’ll have to show me, because I’ve told you what significance the Church places on divorce/remarriage, so I don’t know what you’re talking about, really.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Here is one thing, from the USCCB of the US:
If a marriage is declared null, does it mean that the marriage never existed?
No. It means that a marriage that was thought to be valid civilly and canonically was in fact not valid according to Church law. A declaration of nullity does not deny that a relationship existed. It simply states that the relationship was missing something that the Church requires for a valid marriage.
If a marriage is declared null, does it mean that the marriage never existed?
No. It means that a marriage that was thought to be valid civilly and canonically was in fact not valid according to Church law. A declaration of nullity does not deny that a relationship existed. It simply states that the relationship was missing something that the Church requires for a valid marriage.
U
unitive_mystic
Guest
This grandma wasn’t allowed to attend any ceremonies or even go near the church after her divorce.
Last edited:
G
glorybe
Guest
Interesting. That’s not the way it has been explained to me in all the years I was parish secretary filing hundreds of annulment papers for the diocese. Once a marriage has been found invalid by the Tribunal, it never existed. That’s the whole purpose of annulments. Well, I’m retired now so it doesn’t matter to me any more.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Yes, and that’s the way the Catechism Teaches. The “no” doesn’t even fit with the rest of the answer.
Last edited:
R
rcwitness
Guest
Plus there’s the significance they place on demanding a civil marriage be divorced when one is seeking whether their Sacrament is invalid.
Instead of assuming the Marriage is valid, it assumes the Marriage is not.
Instead of assuming the Marriage is valid, it assumes the Marriage is not.
J
JulianN
Guest
You’re right. A relationship existed, just not a valid marriage.
Last edited:
R
rcwitness
Guest
Then the answer should be “yes”.
H
halogirl
Guest
Makes sense as they had Irish ancestry and he was just pure English
P
phil19034
Guest
by whom? The priest or some members of the parish? As we all very well know, there are busy bodies in all churches and there are priests who do not live up to the teachings of the church.
All we can say is that was wrong and never something that the church taught or semantically did. But it doesn’t mean that some rogue priest or parishioner didn’t shun people.
J
joeybaggz
Guest
What TG said.
Being in my “advanced” years, I can assure you that there were priests back when your grandmother was in her 20s,30s or 40s or maybe later, who were in their 70’s and 80’s themselves and were so old school, having been educated in seminary in a time when the faith was taught and held more stringently. I encountered a number of them in my 20’s and 30s (not to mention teenage years) who were all fire and brimstone and all about “the rules.” In the 50s and 60s (and earlier) divorce was actually considered a serious sin by so many of the older hidebound priests who today would be about 120 to 130 years old. The church has moved to a much more merciful position vis a vis divorce that back when your grandmother was younger.
1
1ke
Guest
In grandma’s day divorce was a scandal in a family— and not just a Catholic family. Society in general had norms that frowned on divorce and divorcees and yes people did shun divorced people. Some, not all, and certainly not limited to Catholics. This is less about a church practice (nowhere did the Church teach to “shun” divorced people) and more about cultural norms.
1
1ke
Guest
We likely don’t have the full story. Such as grandma married someone else without a decree of nullity. Or some other major fact that has been left out of the story. Or the story is just a story.
X
xwingz2
Guest
Thank you for your incisive response and honest inquiry. “The Difficulty” arises from the Church’s own stance on divorce. From that, loyal and devote parishioners create…what is a natural “holier than thou” because you, as a divorced person are anathema in the eyes of the Church…as we…as non-Divorced are not. Those are harsh sentences…but, there is little time to be PC about this, it seems to me. A cousin is a Deacon who “specializes” in the annulment process…and from experience I know it is arduous. My cousins, for decades, have side-eyed me…and yes, a goodly portion of that is my personal guilt of a failed marriage. At one point I actually wrote to Papa Francis…who kindly responded through a Nuncio, who urged me to visit a local priest who advised me I would never be able to participate in Holy Communion ion…but…I could “observe” the Host and that was the same thing. Whew—> must “forgiveness of failure” be all this difficult and painful? Divorced persons have a darned rough road…at one time I was denied employment. There are many things in our Church and belief system that may require re-thinking…and the harsh stance on divorce may be on this list.
R
rcwitness
Guest
It must be that you are not merely civilly divorced (which may or may not be just) but that you are re-married? It would be fair if you recognize this as breaking the Commandment of God, instead of criticizing the Church for upholding it.
As for observing His Eucharist being the same thing as receiving… did the Vatican letter truly say that? I have no idea why it would. Maybe that’s a misunderstanding?
Last edited:
G
gcshapero
Guest
As a divorcée, it can be hard to assimilate into a parish life, and some individuals may look down on you or question you for what happened (that certainly happened with me).
However, either some of what you said is factually false unless you left out some important detail.
For instance;
While the Church does NOT support no-fault divorce, it DOES support divorce in certain cases (abuse, infidelity, etc.)
Catholics who are divorced can still be in good standing and receive communion. However, civililly divorces and re-married Catholics may not, though are still welcome to come to Mass.
When a Catholics goes through the annulment process, he must first be divorced fully. It would be odd if the Church believes divorce itself is sinful but requires it for a healing process.
The ideal has always been for a couple to remain faithful and loving and lasting to each other in marriage. It’s tragic when it falls through. Though it is not in itself a sin if it happens, nor does the Church teach this.
However, either some of what you said is factually false unless you left out some important detail.
For instance;
While the Church does NOT support no-fault divorce, it DOES support divorce in certain cases (abuse, infidelity, etc.)
Catholics who are divorced can still be in good standing and receive communion. However, civililly divorces and re-married Catholics may not, though are still welcome to come to Mass.
When a Catholics goes through the annulment process, he must first be divorced fully. It would be odd if the Church believes divorce itself is sinful but requires it for a healing process.
The ideal has always been for a couple to remain faithful and loving and lasting to each other in marriage. It’s tragic when it falls through. Though it is not in itself a sin if it happens, nor does the Church teach this.
L
Lea101
Guest
My parish, from my perspective, hardly shuns others because there’s no community to begin with. We don’t know each other’s names. I guess I just found an advantage!
- Status