Wife asked why I didn't receive Communion

[tafan2]

Let’s just end all this. You and others have your opinion, and it appears that others opinions are ridiculous unless they agree. I am sticking to my statements; I would never say “none of your business” or even think that. That’s me, and I was just voicing my opinion and not trying to convince anyone otherwise.

I think the underlying issue is not how we would respond if asked, every situation is different. I get that. The underlying issue being debated is:. Is it appropriate to ask? And my answer is an emphatic no. It made sense to me in the second grade, it makes sense to me now.

 

[rondirect]

That’s a ROYAL you - not “you” personally. Shocked that you’d think otherwise.

Pup7: I was under the impression that we had a common bond, but I guess that’s with music only.
OK, thanks for the “sorry,” but how would I know that “you” was common to all; royal, as you say, when you your response was not general, but a direct response to my post? I was just as shocked as you were that you wrote that. Yes, I did take it personally because it was a response to my post and actually still do.

I don’t think any of us would literally say “that’s none of your business” either.

But, they did Pup, and you are speaking for what others would or would not say. You really do not know that. Your friend tafan2 said it 5 days ago: “Perhaps, my response to my spouse would likely be (assuming it is due to sin) “none of your business.”

So one should walk around automatically…years of marriage do indeed matter… because of time.

Pup, really now, you know I never said or implied that. Of course we should not automatically assume anything. And, years of marriage do not matter. People get divorces after 5 to 50 years of marriage due to infidelity or any other reason. I refer back to current affairs (literally). Each of the so many men in the news today have been married for a variety of years; Cosby, 54 years. Time does not necessarily imply a more perfect marriage over the years.

Assume someone isn’t worthy of trust and they won’t be. If you can’t trust your spouse just because news stories say you shouldn’t, maybe you shouldn’t be married in the first place.

To assume what you say makes no sense. How can your assumption of someone’s trust miraculously make someone not trustworthy?
In no way are the news stories saying that you shouldn’t trust your spouse. What are you watching or listening to? They are just reporting on some guys who were unfaithful.

Also, I would say that @tafan2’s “our” is “all of us who agree that it’s personal”

Please, no need to make assumptions about what others said. Since the dialogue has been between the 3 of us lately, I tend to believe the “our” meant you. It doesn’t matter though.

I think the underlying issue is not how we would respond if asked, every situation is different.

Agreed.

The underlying issue being debated is:. Is it appropriate to ask? And my answer is an emphatic no. It made sense to me in the second grade, it makes sense to me now.

To me, it is an emphatic yes, because every situation and relationship is different. My wife and I (again) help each other in all situations and speak openly. Everything about that made sense to me in the second grade, it makes sense to me now.

Pup7 and tafan2: I understand and respect your thoughts and answers on this topic. I sincerely know you respect mine. Time to move on already!

Peace.

 

[pnewton]

Here are more likes

It seems some folks have an infantile view of their spouse.

I want you to know I find this highly offensive. Infantile? Please watch your charity.

Is there some doctrine or teaching to back this up?

I have no problem clarifying what I mean. The Catechism teaches, The woman, “flesh of his flesh,” his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a “helpmate”; she thus represents God from whom comes our help. " So, while we are called to be the instrument of God to all, this takes on a higher form in marriage, a sacramental form, that is, what God established to deliver grace by its very presence.

Now, I also said that this is also a grace for the other party. Why do I believe that? Jesus taught us, “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.” To quote St. Francis:

for it is in giving that one receives,
it is in self-forgetting that one finds,
it is in pardoning that one is pardoned,
it is in dying that one is raised to eternal life.

Finally, you asked if I wasn’t just throwing up some sort of test. It is a valid question. Perhaps. If so, then it might be prudent to stay silent because of some deep issue within the marriage where love is lacking, immature, or damaged. John teaches,"There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love." Our fear is proportional to our imperfection in love. I know we are all imperfect (though “complete” might be a better translation) to some degree. Yet surely our highest love should be within our marriage.

Perhaps earlier I was speaking too much as an ideal. Ideals are good as models for behavior and goals to press toward. Yet I understand prudence may require a different approach. I would suggest some examination to determine if one is action out of prudence or fear.

 

[pnewton]

Please show me this teaching in an official Church document.

Celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that they signify.48 They are efficacious because in them Christ himself is at work:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s1c1a2.htm#1127

 

[pnewton]

I think it’s time to end this thread.

Or, we could just curtail the insults. I noticed above several times when people were demeaned for their posts. I pointed out the one directed at me, but then, as I read more, I realized the whole tenor of the thread was becoming picking sides.

This is a good topic. Unfortunately, not all marriages are in the same place and we don’t need to treat them the same. I see a lot of value in learning what the Church teaches marriage is supposed to be. Yet we can’t dismiss that this is a learning process, and many people will be in marriages where love is not charity, as it should be.

 

[tafan2]

Time to move on already

At least we have reached a definite agreement on one point. God bless you and yours!!

 

[TheLittleLady]

I want you to know I find this highly offensive. Infantile? Please watch your charity.

I did not direct this at you. Your responses have been thoughtful and well reasoned.

 

[TheLittleLady]

a granted privilege as Christian husband and wife.

Not for the least moment did I intend to state that a Sacrament is not a vehicle of grace.

I was asking the question of documentation of another poster’s claim that knowing each other’s sins is “a granted privilege as Christian husband and wife”.

 

[margaret42]

I would feel the same way as the OP. There are good reasons to not go to mass when you can’t, but it’s still missing mass. I would feel uncomfortable receiving without at least explaining why I didn’t go to Church one week, to the priest.

 

[Pup7]

Yes, I did take it personally because it was a response to my post and actually still do.

And I’ve apologized, I’ve told the truth, and I can’t do much else about that.

But, they did Pup, and you are speaking for what others would or would not say.

No, I’m actually not, and haven’t.

Pup, really now, you know I never said or implied that. Of course we should not automatically assume anything. And, years of marriage do not matter. People get divorces after 5 to 50 years of marriage due to infidelity or any other reason. I refer back to current affairs (literally). Each of the so many men in the news today have been married for a variety of years; Cosby, 54 years. Time does not necessarily imply a more perfect marriage over the years.

No one said it implies a perfect marriage. Holy smokes. I’m not blind and I don’t see the world through rose colored glasses. I quite literally know divorce law in three states because of what my own marriage has been through in the last 18 years - but I can assure you I trust him more now than I did then because I’ve known him longer. What someone else chooses to do for the most part isn’t on me, and I can’t sit around worrying about what he might or might not do - because that’s how you create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

To assume what you say makes no sense. How can your assumption of someone’s trust miraculously make someone not trustworthy?

How can the fact that people married for 40 years get divorces make me not trust the man I’ve known for the last 20 years?

Assume someone isn’t trustworthy and they won’t be. It’s not an assumption. It’s true. If you think the worst, you’ll usually get it. Doesn’t mean my husband won’t cheat tomorrow or drop divorce papers on me next week (though THAT would be out of the blue), but I don’t sit around with a cloud over my head assuming the worst. That’s the spousal equivalent (in my book) of helicopter parenting - or micromanagement (the stereotype would be the woman who’s all “where have you been” and “you’re five minutes late - where did you stop” and “who is that calling you”). It’s the quickest way to drive someone away.

Even when things WERE bad - and believe me, they have been; the infertility rollercoaster is not exactly relationship-building - I didn’t play those games.

Please, no need to make assumptions about what others said. Since the dialogue has been between the 3 of us lately, I tend to believe the “our” meant you. It doesn’t matter though.

You’re seriously overthinking this. That’s not an assumption. That’s what tafan did - straight from the context.

Pup7 and tafan2: I understand and respect your thoughts and answers on this topic. I sincerely know you respect mine. Time to move on already!

We had already. But I get to respond to this because I’m finding it somewhat incredible.

 

[pnewton]

Thank you for clarifying. I understand that the overlapping conversations can be misunderstood.

 

[rondirect]

I did not direct this at you. Your responses have been thoughtful and well reasoned.

Just as pnewton pointed this out, so did I earlier. The point is this is a public forum and speaking for myself the action was responded to, not to whom it was directed.

 

[rondirect]

Please take my response in order of yours. Adding the quotes went over the limit.

1. Pup, I know you did and appreciated that to the point of my saying, “thanks for the sorry.” I know that you would not respond again if you didn’t care or was the person I’ve known all along as an honest and truthful person.
2. I was responding to you saying that no one would literally say “none of you business.” I then pointed out that tafan did. Again you might think that in your mind, but never say that to you husband; neither would I (please excuse the shortness of some of the quotes…I was over the limit!).
3. You’re correct…no implication. It was late, and “perfect marriage” just seemed appropriate. And, my dear Pup, I am sincerely happy for you and your husband’s growing relationship. Over the years, I pray that it continues. There are always bumps in the road, and that is why my wife and I discuss all things for support, even though it goes against some of the poster’s belief that confession is only necessary and that speaking to your spouse is not a good idea. I can only speak for my relationship, but it seemed as if my belief (if belief is the correct word) was wrong and I had to be taught a lesson. I think I know you enough that you would support me in whatever I think is the right way; no canon law, no documents, just plain old differences in opinion what you and your spouse discuss privately. And, you’re right, one cannot sit around worrying.
4. Thinking the worst and it will happen: If you believe that, so be it. I can not nor will not try to convince you otherwise. That’s you and that’s perfect. For me, I do not feel that way. Let me put in a way we both can relate: Some weekends, especially during the summer, I stand before one of my choral groups of only 5 out of 15. I think the worst: this is going to sound terrible. I wish I kept count over the years, but that is the time when someone will tell me the music and choir was great today! LOL!
5. Perhaps so. But, like I said before, I felt pressure that I was wrong, and in no way was tafan or some others ever going to accept my opinion. Yes, he did say that he was happy that my wife and I have that relationship, but it always was followed with a “but.” Some dropped out of this thread…they were the smart ones!
6. “We?” Perhaps you, but I wonder about others. Even though you said you moved on, I appreciate your response anyway. Yes, this dialog is “somewhat incredible,” from all I might add. However, I hope that my responses in this post softens that between you and me. I tried already with my this last quote I thought.

So Pup, what is your music lineup for this weekend? LOL!

Peace.

 

[rondirect]

God bless you and yours!!

Thank you. God bless you and your wife and family as well.

Peace.

 

[Pup7]

Absolutely no hard feelings on my end in the least. Never were. I’m just sorry I inadverdently upset you from the start.

Music lineup…hmmm, I’m refinishing/painting/distressing furniture this weekend in the garage and have been playing a lot of Matt Maher and Audrey Assad lately. (Apple Music is the best investment I ever made, for certain.) I finished the end tables on Monday evening and have two bookshelves, a third end table, a night stand, two chairs, and two barstools to go. Nothing like wine and a little contemporary Christian in the garage.

 

[rondirect]

Absolutely no hard feelings on my end in the least. Never were. I’m just sorry I inadverdently upset you from the start.

And, my friend, right back at ya. Thank you. It’s all in the past.

Never knew you you where such the refinishing furniture type. I envy that. Have a full size 1917 Victrola wind-up phonograph in perfect condition; just needs a good polishing time to time. Prefer HomeGoods, Kirkland’s, Pier 1, and the such. LOL! Actually, just had the whole house painted inside and out, a new roof, new porcelain and wood floors and new 7 1/4 baseboads installed, uh, by contractors! Can you say, spend that money?!! I do the small stuff: I installed a few decorative semi-circle wood carvings over a couple interior doors that were $49 each on clearance for $10 each and now in the process of repainting our outdoor lighting and installing new LED solar garden lights from Costco, fixed the fountain pump…etc. More to do, but in time.

Ah, AUDREY ASSAD! She lived in our diocese and attended Mass at our Cathedral. She was also our Life Teen pianist for a period of time a few years back, before becoming famous. Let’s not forget Angrisano and Stephan. Still using Mass of Renewal (thought your were)? We are.

Good to catch up. Off topic, but whatever.

 

[Pup7]

Ah, AUDREY ASSAD! She lived in our diocese and attended Mass at our Cathedral. She was also our Life Teen pianist for a period of time a few years back, before becoming famous. Let’s not forget Angrisano and Stephan. Still using Mass of Renewal (thought your were)? We are.

Coolest thing I’ve read all day! Yes, we’re still using the same Mass setting. If they ever change that Gloria I’ll lose it right there in the chapel. LOL.

Prefer HomeGoods, Kirkland’s, Pier 1, and the such.

Heresy, plain and simple.

 

[Sursum-Corda]

It is none of your wife’s business .
I am sorry to be so blunt but that is the reality of it.
Receiving Holy Comunion is a personal decision and nobody is required to receive it at mass other than the priest.

If somebody asks why you did not receive the simple and only answer is “I decided not to receive.”
That should be the end of it.

 

[Reuben_J]

It was this type of answer that we went up to 399 posts. Hope not ‘here we go again’. Lol.

 

[pnewton]

LOL!

Again, that answer will not work for everyone. In some cases, it would be incredibly imprudent. I cannot imagine any woman who would take that as fully answered, if she had asked the question in the first place, which many women would not.