Synod fathers discuss Holy Communion for the remarried [CC]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catholic_Press

Guest
Participants in the Synod of Bishops have turned their attention to the question of Holy Communion for those persons who have divorced and remarried outside the Church, according to the …

More…
 
What about communion for divorced and remarried gay couples?
 
Father Manuel Dorantes of the Holy See Press Office “recounted the powerful story told by one Synod Father about a very unusual first Communion,” Vatican Insider reported.
“When a young boy went up to the altar to receive the Host, he spontaneously broke it in half and gave half to his father, who was a remarried divorcé and could therefore not receive it directly.”

But that’s sacrilege, isn’t it? Why is it being recounted?
 
Technically, there could be. A homosexual man could enter into marriage with a homosexual woman.

Just sayin’ 🙂
 
PaulinVA said:
Father Manuel Dorantes of the Holy See Press Office “recounted the powerful story told by one Synod Father about a very unusual first Communion,” Vatican Insider reported.
“When a young boy went up to the altar to receive the Host, he spontaneously broke it in half and gave half to his father, who was a remarried divorcé and could therefore not receive it directly.”

But that’s sacrilege, isn’t it? Why is it being recounted?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. And what does “directly” have anything to do with it? He was not disposed to receive Communion - directly or indirectly.
 
Corki said:
Yes, it is. And what does “directly” have anything to do with it? He was not disposed to receive Communion - directly or indirectly.
Click to expand...
And the boy probably wasn’t a trained extraordinary minister, either!
 
PaulinVA said:
Father Manuel Dorantes of the Holy See Press Office “recounted the powerful story told by one Synod Father about a very unusual first Communion,” Vatican Insider reported.
“When a young boy went up to the altar to receive the Host, he spontaneously broke it in half and gave half to his father, who was a remarried divorcé and could therefore not receive it directly.”

But that’s sacrilege, isn’t it? Why is it being recounted?
Click to expand...
In my years it always seems that these “spontaneous” public demonstrations usually aren’t.

That’s a powerful story, but not for the reason the Father seems to think so.
 
Corki said:
If he knew he wasn’t supposed to go up and receive Communion directly, he would know he wasn’t supposed to receive it from the child.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know. The question was how would another person know it and thus conclude the act was sacrilege?
 
Stephen_says said:
And the boy probably wasn’t a trained extraordinary minister, either!
Click to expand...
I’m sure the boy had good intentions, but it is absolutely forbidden for a lay person to break the Host and distribute to others…an abuse that cannot be applauded.
 
Thomas_White said:
Yes, I know. The question was how would another person know it and thus conclude the act was sacrilege?
Click to expand...
It’s sacrilege for any Communicant to break and share the host. That’s objectively wrong.

As for the other, sacrilege doesn’t require outside observers or for anyone to make a conclusion. The disposition of the Communicant doesn’t change based on who is handing him the host. If it was wrong to receive from a priest, it’s still wrong to receive from someone else.
 
Corki said:
It’s sacrilege for any Communicant to break and share the host. That’s objectively wrong.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know.
Corki said:
As for the other, sacrilege doesn’t require outside observers or for anyone to make a conclusion. The disposition of the Communicant doesn’t change based on who is handing him the host. If it was wrong to receive from a priest, it’s still wrong to receive from someone else.
Click to expand...
That issue aside, the question was how would another person know the disposition of the Communicant and thus conclude the person was not disposed to receive communion, i.e., directly.
 
twf said:
I’m sure the boy had good intentions, but it is absolutely forbidden for a lay person to break the Host and distribute to others…an abuse that cannot be applauded.
Click to expand...
Well, apparently some people will applaud any abuse if it fits their overall goal. The ends justifying the means and all that.

One wonders if one applauding that considers the Host to actually be the Body of Christ or just some bread.
 
ARSpade said:
It must have been known, or the “powerful story” wouldn’t exist.
Click to expand...
Maybe. I won’t belabor the point but will try to explain in context to the issue before the synod. Whether or not a person is disposed to receive holy communion (that is, is in the state of grave sin) cannot be known by only the objective fact that the person is divorced and has remarried without an annullment. This is a presumption. It is to ask the question of whether it is right for us to make moral judgments of others, particulaly when Church teaching provides an exception to this rule in certain instances (that is, when the person is not committing adultery).
 
PaulinVA said:
But that’s sacrilege, isn’t it? Why is it being recounted?
Click to expand...
Since we do not have the context, we do not know why Father Manuel Dorantes told this story. That is the problem of trying to figure out what is going on from the sidelines. Also, since a rumor is gaining momentum, there is nothing in the article about anyone applauding.
 
Cardinal Pell says that the Synod will vote on final report paragraph by paragraph
 
If the father in the story had not previously come forward for communion, he must have known that he was not properly disposed to receive it because of his divorce and remarriage. If he knew this, he should not have accepted communion from the boy, nor should anyone have prompted the boy to become an impromptu EMHC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top