|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Excommunication
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
If one has come to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church offers the only valid form of Holy Communion, one cannot receive those sacraments by any other means than by joining that church.
If one, prior to taking the above position, had been validly married (entirely outside the RCC) suffered a divorce, remarried and started a family with the new spouse, I understand that the RCC would not be willing to allow that person to receive the Sacraments.
Therefore a person in such a situation would be denied access to the only source (in their view and the view of the RCC) of valid Holy Communion, based on something done in ignorance and in the past which cannot be undone (short of breaking up the new family or murdering the first wife).
Can there be any justification for this?
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
Hmm...I thought that the RCC only got uptight about getting divorced and remarried when it was a Catholic marriage in the first place. The reason they hold the position they do is because they believe that RC Marriage is a sacrament so you can't undo what the sacrament does.
You'd hope for some mercy in this situation but unfortunately I am not sure you'll find any. After all you do have the option to leave the love of your life and live a life of holy celibacy, if you choose to ignore the Church that's not their problem, it's yours. #sarcasm off.
If you are really committed (assuming you're talking about your own situation) maybe you should talk to an RC Priest and investigate the possibility of an annulment for your first marriage?
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
I understand that the RCC would not be willing to allow that person to receive the Sacraments.
Well, maybe in theory, but in 20-plus years of being a mass-going Catholic, I don't think I ever heard of one case where someone was subjected to an examination of their marital history before being allowed to take Holy Communion. In most churches I was in, the priest likely wouldn't even know the names of more than a few parishoners, much less the details of their romantic life.
But yes, in theory, it could be considered a jerky sorta policy. For a lot of people, though, it probably would call into question the idea that the RCC really is all that it makes itself out to be, since how could people claiming to be the annointed of Christ be such petty-minded creeps on this one issue?
In which case, problem solved.
[code]
[ 28. November 2015, 07:25: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
teddybear
Shipmate
# 7842
|
Posted
And too, the Roman Catholic Church believes that the Orthodox Churches and the Old Catholic Churches have valid sacraments.
Posts: 480 | From: Topeka, Kansas USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
I'd be interested to know...
How many people are there who a) have been denied Holy Communion by the RCC for a reason they regard as ridiculous, and b) depsite this supposed demonstration of the Church's irrationality, still maintain the belief that the RCC is the only valid source of the Sacraments?
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
If one has come to the conclusion set out in your first paragraph, one must necessarily accept the consequences set out in your second.
To quote the old song "You (or one) can't have one without the other".
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Hmm...I thought that the RCC only got uptight about getting divorced and remarried when it was a Catholic marriage in the first place.
I thoughts (from a very non-informed position) that a marriage outside the RCC was not, in fact, a marriage at all, and so the worst that you (or your friend) have done is had sex outside marriage.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
If one has come to the conclusion set out in your first paragraph, one must necessarily accept the consequences set out in your second.
To quote the old song "You (or one) can't have one without the other".
If it were a private members' club I would be whole heartedly agree.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
quote:
Therefore a person in such a situation would be denied access to the only source (in their view and the view of the RCC) of valid Holy Communion, based on something done in ignorance and in the past which cannot be undone (short of breaking up the new family or murdering the first wife).
I assume you are writing from a desire to discredit the RCC teaching in this regards, i.e. that you are not at all convinced that the RCC is the only true source of the sacraments (which I'm not sure the RCC believes in any case).
I'm not RCC but their answer is fairly straightforwards, viz that if the ignorance you mention is truly the case, the previous marriage can be annulled. And the presumably new convert with any brains would have checked that up front.
And also, presumably, would respect the process.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I'd be interested to know...
How many people are there who a) have been denied Holy Communion by the RCC for a reason they regard as ridiculous, and b) depsite this supposed demonstration of the Church's irrationality, still maintain the belief that the RCC is the only valid source of the Sacraments?
I don't see the two as being incompatible in any way. It is perfectly possible to view any church organisation (but probably easier with the RCC) as the sole repository of Christian truth on earth; whilst simultaneously believing that the church has come to some outrageously unjust position on something in a way that only humans are capable. In fact there must be many women feel this way about the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I assume you are writing from a desire to discredit the RCC teaching in this regards
I think discredit is too strong a word
quote:
if the ignorance you mention is truly the case, the previous marriage can be annulled.
It is my understanding that a marriage can only be annulled if the marriage was not valid in the sense that either party did not intend the marriage to be permanent and exclusive, or that they were not able to fulfil that. By ignorance, I meant that the person was ignorant of the effect that this marriage would have on future access to salvation.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I'd be interested to know...
How many people are there who a) have been denied Holy Communion by the RCC for a reason they regard as ridiculous, and b) depsite this supposed demonstration of the Church's irrationality, still maintain the belief that the RCC is the only valid source of the Sacraments?
This is probably easy for me to say as a non-Catholic, but ISTM that if Protestants are told not to do something by their church, they have two responses:
1.) My conscience sees nothing wrong with this, the church is wrong and I'm going to carry on doing it; or:
2.) I don't understand why the church has a problem with this, but I submit to its superior wisdom and duly constituted authority, and will stop doing it.
Whereas Catholics seem to have a third response, which is:
3.) I'm not going to stop doing it, but I'm going to voluntarily excommunicate myself, and feel both guilty and bitter about it, and write angry letters to the Tablet, and look with envy at how much more understanding the Anglicans are about these things without ever considering becoming Anglican myself.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I know a lady who was the innocent party in a divorce, and yet she was refused holy communion. She says that the priest told her to hope that her ex would die so that she could come back to the table. It turned her off of the church for the rest of her life, although she still believes in God. This was around 30 years ago.
I think it presumptuous to stand in the way of someone receiving holy communion. After all, it is surely for God to decide who will be blessed and who won't be blessed by receiving it, not a priest.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What a crock of shit. I mean really. How DARE we befoul something so sacred.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
quote:
It is my understanding that a marriage can only be annulled if the marriage was not valid in the sense that either party did not intend the marriage to be permanent and exclusive, or that they were not able to fulfil that. By ignorance, I meant that the person was ignorant of the effect that this marriage would have on future access to salvation.
I agree you have chosen the scenario that is most difficult for the RCC, and their view is one that I don't get.
But I don't think it's all that powerful as a polemic. Probably they'll sort it out somehow, and the idea that a marriage can permanently screw your hopes of salvation is a tad risible.
But in the end, I suppose I shouldn't meddle with people trying to dig at the RCC, not being RC myself.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Raptor Eye wrote: quote:
I know a lady who was the innocent party in a divorce, and yet she was refused holy communion. She says that the priest told her to hope that her ex would die so that she could come back to the table. It turned her off of the church for the rest of her life, although she still believes in God. This was around 30 years ago.
Being divorced is not an impediment to receiving the sacrament. Did she perhaps divorce her former husband? That might have been the reason. Or if she remarried of course.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Being divorced is not an impediment to receiving the sacrament. Did she perhaps divorce her former husband? That might have been the reason. Or if she remarried of course.
What she said was that her husband went off with someone else, and so they were divorced. She may have instigated the divorce. Would she have been able to continue to receive holy communion as long as she had waited for him to do so?
In that scenario, are you saying that if she had remained unmarried after he divorced her, she would be able to continue to come to the table only if she never married again?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
O for the day when the RCC stops thinking it's bigger than the God whose mercy, love, and everything else is just so much...... bigger than the biggest thing ever produced by the Biggest-of-Everything Factory in Bigtown......
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
Where's me coat...?
* sigh *
I.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
before we get totally far and away--is the OP a hypothetical or a real case? bit rich to slam the church for something it hasn't actually done....
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
Lamb Chopped has a good point. As I understand it, the issue is very complex such that a single "rule" is difficult to articulate. There is a great need for specific details.
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
If one, prior to taking the above position, had been validly married (entirely outside the RCC)...
Let's start here. What is meant by "validly married"? Are we talking just a civil marriage (non-sacramental) or a religious marriage between two baptized non-Catholics (potentially sacramental)?
There is a discussion HERE on the implications and differences. In answering the question "If a civilly married couple, never married in church, divorce and one or both eventually want to get married in the Church with a different partner, will they be allowed to?" the answer is
quote:
we can say that if a Catholic had entered into an invalid civil wedding, and later divorced, in principle he or she could marry someone else in the Church.
On the other hand, if the prior wedding was potentially sacramental between two baptized non-Catholics:
quote:
It is possible that the same rule would apply in the second situation mentioned, but each case would have to be examined on its own merits to determine the sacramental validity of the previous Christian marriage. In general the law presumes the validity of such a marriage until the contrary is proven (Canon 1060).
But even if the first marriage, "done in ignorance" as the OP states, is somehow deemed sacramental (I am having trouble with the idea of a sacrament done in ignorance, but let's pretend), the situation is admittedly more troubling but the belief that there is a permanent forever bar to communion is incorrect. As stated in Sacramentum Caritatis:
[Footnotes Omitted]
quote:
The Church's pastors, out of love for the truth, are obliged to discern different situations carefully, in order to be able to offer appropriate spiritual guidance to the faithful involved.
Also:
quote:
When legitimate doubts exist about the validity of the prior sacramental marriage, the necessary investigation must be carried out to establish if these are well-founded.
But if the prior sacramental marriage (but non-Catholic) cannot be deemed a nullity, there is still a path to receiving communion short of destroying the new marriage or committing murder (which the RCC also has silly rules against), albeit it is a tough one:
quote:
Finally, where the nullity of the marriage bond is not declared and objective circumstances make it impossible to cease cohabitation, the Church encourages these members of the faithful to commit themselves to living their relationship in fidelity to the demands of God's law, as friends, as brother and sister; in this way they will be able to return to the table of the Eucharist, taking care to observe the Church's established and approved practice in this regard. This path, if it is to be possible and fruitful, must be supported by pastors and by adequate ecclesial initiatives, nor can it ever involve the blessing of these relations, lest confusion arise among the faithful concerning the value of marriage.
And, frankly, it is harsh to suggest that the RCC does not understand the issue and is not deeply troubled by it. Pope Francis struggle with the question when recenlty asked at a visit to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Rome, acknowledging that, while there are "explanations and interpretations" on the subject by theologians, "[l]ife is greater than explanations and interpretations."
And with that, I think I will take my cue from Pope Francis and stop, because I am way out of my theological depth here!
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The rigidity of RC is nothing like the experience here in the sparsely populated Canadian west. Lots more kindness and ministering to people where they are. Seeing as marriage follows living together and frequently birth of children among sizable portions of the population. Perhaps these awful stories are rare and most priest are kinder than the few we hear of? Not suggesting not condemning ill treatment.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
There is one Lord, Jesus Christ, and all else is a dispute over trifles.
I.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
There is one Lord, Jesus Christ, and all else is a dispute over trifles.
--Q.E. I, if I'm not mistaken.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye, and she weren't wrong.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Seeing as marriage follows living together and frequently birth of children among sizable portions of the population.
But that's a completely different case. Unmarried couples can "fix" their problem by getting married. In Humble Servant's OP, that option isn't available because one of the couple is (in the eyes of the RCC) married to someone else. If that former marriage was sacramentally valid, and there are no grounds for declaring it null, there's nothing that the new couple can do to fix the situation. They can't be married, because one of them is married to someone else, and the RCC does not admit the possibility that a valid sacramental marriage can be dissolved.
Their only option is, as Hedgehog suggests, to live together and raise their children "as brother and sister". Which is probably about as popular as expecting celibacy of gay people.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Mousethief and Martin60 - yes indeed, QE1 it is. Sensible lady......
I.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Being divorced is not an impediment to receiving the sacrament. Did she perhaps divorce her former husband? That might have been the reason. Or if she remarried of course.
What she said was that her husband went off with someone else, and so they were divorced. She may have instigated the divorce. Would she have been able to continue to receive holy communion as long as she had waited for him to do so?
In that scenario, are you saying that if she had remained unmarried after he divorced her, she would be able to continue to come to the table only if she never married again?
AIUI, Rome's position is that there is no sin involved in being divorced, and a divorced person may receive communion with no problem. The difficulties arise when a divorced person remarries - unless a choice is made that the new marriage will be entirely celibate, the partners are committing adultery and without proper remorse. Indeed, they show every sign of wilfully continuing their sin. They cannot therefore expect absolution and thus admission to the table.
Not an argument which would find sympathy amongst many these days.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Being divorced is not an impediment to receiving the sacrament. Did she perhaps divorce her former husband? That might have been the reason. Or if she remarried of course.
What she said was that her husband went off with someone else, and so they were divorced. She may have instigated the divorce. Would she have been able to continue to receive holy communion as long as she had waited for him to do so?
A few thoughts.
1. In many cases, who files for the divorce is part of the negotiation. One example: the man moves out, tells the wife if she files he won't contest her keeping the kids but if she refuses to file he'll fight for full custody and for her to pay him child support. Not wanting to risk losing the kids and not having the money to pay for a lawyer to fight, She files; he proclaims himself the innocent party, claiming the paperwork proves the divorce was her idea; he gets sympathy on the dating scene.
(Probably happens both ways, she forces him to be the one to file so she looks innocent; but among my friends the man has usually has more bargaining power because he has higher income and has moved in with a new woman, so he tells the judge he offers a comfortable 2-parent household for the kids while the mom offers only a lower income one parent home.)
Who actually filed does not tell us which partner was the more eager to end the marriage so I hope no church is judging "fault" or "intention" by that exterior circumstance.
2. Isn't hoping someone will die so "I" can gain a benefit a spiritual variation of murder? Strange advice from a spiritual leader!
3. A RCC friend who takes theology seriously told me a marriage that did not take place in a Catholic church is not a spiritually recognized marriage, just like non RCC baptism is not recognized, so divorcing that partner doesn't affect ability to be accepted in the RCC or remarry in the RCC. (Is he right or wrong?)
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
3. A RCC friend who takes theology seriously told me a marriage that did not take place in a Catholic church is not a spiritually recognized marriage, just like non RCC baptism is not recognized, so divorcing that partner doesn't affect ability to be accepted in the RCC or remarry in the RCC. (Is he right or wrong?)
I'm pretty sure that baptism when done according to the Trinitrian formula by a recognized mainstream church is recognized by the Catholic Church? But maybe that's not orthodoxy. Just the practice accepted locally.
[code]
[ 28. November 2015, 21:16: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I just hope it won't take ten thousand years for this insane shit to die out.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I'm pretty sure that baptism when done according to the Trinitrian formula by a recognized mainstream church is recognized by the Catholic Church? But maybe that's not orthodoxy. Just the practice accepted locally.
No, I'm sure you are correct. AIUI, the RCC defines as Catholic anyone who has been baptized Catholic or, having been baptized in some other church with water and the triune name, been formally admitted to the RCC; such a person having not subsequently formally renounced their Catholic faith.
According to the RCC, like most other denominations, any Christian may baptize someone in extremis.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
teddybear
Shipmate
# 7842
|
Posted
According to Catholic theology, you don't have to be a Christian, even an atheist can do it as long as he/she uses natural water, the correct form and has the intent to do what the church intends.
--------------------
My cooking blog: http://inthekitchenwithdon.blogspot.com/
Posts: 480 | From: Topeka, Kansas USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
One way for this problem to be resolved is simply for local RC priests to be quietly permitted to disregard the official teachings of their church and to administer Communion to (remarried) divorcees, if that's what their context requires.
Almost all denominations, including the RCC, allow for a certain leeway on some matters, without changing the official policy. Some would call it hypocrisy, but it's inevitable.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
3. A RCC friend who takes theology seriously told me a marriage that did not take place in a Catholic church is not a spiritually recognized marriage, just like non RCC baptism is not recognized, so divorcing that partner doesn't affect ability to be accepted in the RCC or remarry in the RCC. (Is he right or wrong?)
I'm pretty sure that baptism when done according to the Trinitrian formula by a recognized mainstream church is recognized by the Catholic Church? But maybe that's not orthodoxy. Just the practice accepted locally.
[code]
Belle Ringer's friend is out to lunch on this. Not only is a proper-form baptism (in the name of the Holy Trinity, with water) kosher outside the RCC, but it can even be done by the unbaptized, provided they do so with the intention to do what the church does at baptism. Moreover, by natural law, any marriage where the man and woman make a commitment to a life-long union is a marriage in canon law-- they need not be RC nor even Christian for the marriage to be valid (there is an out if a convert's spouse does not convert with them and Pauline Privilege comes into play, but that's another thread).
[ 29. November 2015, 12:51: Message edited by: Augustine the Aleut ]
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I think it presumptuous to stand in the way of someone receiving holy communion. After all, it is surely for God to decide who will be blessed and who won't be blessed by receiving it, not a priest.
Exactly. It's Jesus' body and blood on the table, and not for any human, ordained or not, to say who may or may not receive it. If there's a problem, God can handle it. Which may or may not entail consequences for the recipient, but that's his/her choice and risk.
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
I'm an Anglican, have never confessed via a priest. Sometimes at the rail, I think... should I receive? Thinking of my state of life, should I? On those occasions, I repeat the Jesus prayer. 'Have mercy on me, a sinner.' And hope.
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Sounds good to me, argona. It's the intention of the heart that matters, anyway.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Anyone who is baptised according to the Trinitarian formula with the proper intention in the mind of the person baptising,is,in a sense, a member of the Catholic church.
The Catholic church,in the sense that these words are usually understood,does not necessarily claim all the baptised as members,since many baptised Christians do not wish to be considered as members of the Catholic church (in the sense that these words are normally understood.
There has to be also, for those who are able to understand , a recognition of and belief in , as far as is possible , the teachings of the Catholic church and a 'communicatio in sacris' with the local Catholic bishop.
Humble Servant start the Excommunication rant by saying that the first marriage could have been contracted in ignorance of the Catholic chureh's teaching on marriage. Should that be the case there is no problem as a sin can only be committed,if understood and wilfully undertaken with knowledge of the possible consequences.
Yes, the Catholic church teaches that valid sacramental marriages can be contracted ouwtith the Church, but if the contracting parties do not understand and do not fully agree with the Catholic church's position then there should not be a great difficulty in undertaking a Catholic marriage at some other time.
Being a Christian, being a Catholic can sometimes demand heroism on the part of the adherent. If one truly believes that God is calling one to enter the Catholic church, then one will realise that the good Lord will give us grace sufficient to follow through as far as we can.
Again Humble Servant should beware of using the word Excommunication and attempting to link it with Catholicism. In a Catholic sense it is only used for those who have been formally excommunicated.Yes, those who are conscious of serious sin should not approach the Holy Table
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Sorry,cut off.
Those who are conscious of serious sin should not approach the Holy Table without expressing their regret at their imperfections and attempting to express a purpose of amendment of life. The people are not excommunicated.
It may seem unjust to deny the reception of Holy Communion to some people.From a Catholic point of view,the bishop has the duty to explain who can receive and who needs to prepare themselves by regret for past sins and firm purpose of amendment in the future.
Many of the mainstream Christian communities restrict reception of Communion to baptised members or at the very least to those who profess themselves to be Christians.
I see nothing wrong in the Catholic church stating
that one should be a Christian in good standing ,i.e. be in a state of grace,having acknowledged one's imperfections (if one has any !) and stating that one is ready to try to do better.
I see no point in offering the Sacrament of Holy Communion to those who are not Christians, nor to those who have no intention of trying to improve.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
The RC Diocese of Harrisburg PA has a page describing 12 Myths About Marriage Annulments in the Catholic Church, of which myths 1 and 3 seem to be pertinent to the discussion here:
quote:
MYTH NUMBER ONE:
A Divorced Person is Automatically Excommunicated from the Catholic Church
The truth is that divorce itself does not affect or alter a person’s status in the Catholic Church. Divorce is a function of the civil law and secular courts. Although it has been a widespread misconception for many years, it is a myth that a divorced Catholic is “excommunicated,” this is, not able to receive the sacraments within the Church.
MYTH NUMBER THREE:
Only Catholic Marriages Need to be Annulled
The truth is that every marriage is considered a promise for life, a promise until death. It makes no difference whether that promise was made in a Catholic ceremony or not. No one, no matter what their religious affiliation or membership, is considered free to contract another marriage if they were married previously. Every prior marriage must be investigated and annulled before a person can enter a new marriage. It is a myth that no annulment is required if a person wasn’t married in a Catholic ceremony.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
Thank you for all the responses. I apologise that my OP clearly came over as a rant, a dig at the RCC and an attempt to discredit its teachings. I did not intend any of these things. I do not wish to argue with the teachings of the church. I started this thread in the hope that some input from shipmates may help me to get some new perspectives. It has certainly been most useful so far, and I am grateful for your assistance.
I am (as you assumed) currently in the position I describe and have discussed the situation with the priest of my parish. I understand from him that I would be excluded from communion (the Pope recently used the word “excommunicated” in this sense, which is what prompted the thread title) unless a nullity were granted. He explained to me in some detail the process of obtaining a nullity and that there is no guarantee of success. It would require me to visit some issues from the past which I thought I had put behind me many years ago; I fear it could be a destructive, or at best traumatic process.
As a convert I am required to undergo some instruction and some ceremonies before I can receive the Holy Sacraments. I am quite happy to wait until I have been through that process. However it is extremely disheartening to think that I may never be allowed to receive at all.
I clearly have some options:
1. To accept that I am not invited to receive Christ in the Eucharist, and seek Him in the other parts of church life. There is always the possibility that the Church might change its teaching at some time, or that a future priest may take a different line as Svitlana has suggested, but I may never see that day.
2. I could visit another parish where my past is unknown and receive Communion on the sly. The deception of this troubles me.
3. I could abandon my quest to become Catholic and accept a Protestant Communion, where I am already welcome. I will not go into my objections to this here, but I currently see this as 2nd best, and would not to feel I was receiving a consolation prize. I understand that may sound petulant or incomprehensible to many, but it’s where I find myself today.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
1.[..]or that a future priest may take a different line as Svitlana has suggested, but I may never see that day.
2. I could visit another parish where my past is unknown and receive Communion on the sly. The deception of this troubles me.
The deception here (and I'd probably include Svitlana's priest who's prepared to fudge the rules in that heading) should trouble you. Approaching the Holy Table on the sly, intending to receive Christ whilst your church thinks you unfit to do so seems like a really bad idea.
quote:
3. I could abandon my quest to become Catholic and accept a Protestant Communion, where I am already welcome. I will not go into my objections to this here, but I currently see this as 2nd best
If, as it seems, you are worried about the sacraments in the post-reformation Churches, is it worth considering the Plot(tm)? The Orthodox have, I understand, a more charitable approach to a marriage that turns out to be a mistake than the RCs, and AFAIK, nobody denies that they have real priests and real Jesus.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I see no point in offering the Sacrament of Holy Communion to those who are not Christians, nor to those who have no intention of trying to improve.
I fail to see how having Christ within oneself could be a bad thing, whether one is a Christian or not.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Approaching the Holy Table on the sly, intending to receive Christ whilst your church thinks you unfit to do so seems like a really bad idea.
Is this based on 1 Corinthians 27-29? The church is doing me a favour by ensuring I do not eat and drink judgement (or even "damnation" in the KJV)? You are suggesting that the church is better placed to make that decision than the individual?
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
Again, sorry, that sounds sarcastic. Those are meant as straight questions. Is this where the teaching comes from.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
Is this based on 1 Corinthians 27-29? The church is doing me a favour by ensuring I do not eat and drink judgement (or even "damnation" in the KJV)?
I'm not RC, but I understand that the Catholic Church does consider it wrong and dangerous to take communion if you are guilty of mortal sin (which has not been dealt with by repentance and confession).
From an RC point of view, that is a real possibility in your case. Assuming you and your ex both married knowing that you were making promises for life, you are still married (according to Catholic doctrine). And if you then have a sexual relationship with someone else, again, knowing what you are doing and with the full consent of your will, you would be committing a mortal sin. You are NOT simply a person who made a bad relationship decision in the distant past - but someone making a continuing decision to carry on doing something in the here-and-now which the RCC counts as adultery.
I stress that this is not my view, but it is the view of the Church that you want to join. It is not seeking to punish you for past (and repented) mistakes - it has a problem with the way that you are living now. By not welcoming you to communion it would indeed be (in it's eyes) "doing you a favour" by calling you to repent of a serious sin, which might otherwise damn you, and by guarding you against the spiritual harm that would result by taking the sacrament when in a state of sin.
Not my view. But I find it a little curious that you are eager to join a Church whose (tolerably well known) teachings you either don't understand (the OP reads like a deep misunderstanding of Catholicism) or that you seriously disagree with.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
You are suggesting that the church is better placed to make that decision than the individual?
Nobody is suggesting any such thing. In fact, there is no decision-making to be done; whoever makes the sacrament available to communicants is responsible to offer it in the way they truly believe Jesus wants it done. If you were doing this, you would doubtless handle matters in the way you truly believe Jesus wants you to. The RC church (and all churches) are doing exactly the same thing. You may (and clearly do) disagree with their understanding of what Jesus wants; but believing as they do, they can make no other decision about whom they admit to the table. It has nothing to do with disrespecting you or anybody else as a person.
In fact, the RC church would certainly exclude me also, as a Lutheran and a heretic (though they may have softened their wording at some point). I think they're wrong, obviously, but I can't take it personally, because they are bound to follow their consciences. As I am to follow mine.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'm not RC, but I understand that the Catholic Church does consider it wrong and dangerous to take communion if you are guilty of mortal sin (which has not been dealt with by repentance and confession). ...
That is not an RC peculiarity. Although the language 'mortal sin', 'state of grace' etc is specifically RC, I think all ecclesial communities understand 1 Cor 11:27-29 in much the same way. If one receives the sacrament unworthily, carelessly etc one endangers one's mortal soul by eating and drinking judgement on oneself.
Like Eliab, I am not RC. I don't agree with the RC approach to this widespread pastoral issue. It seems to me that it does not fully appreciate what Incarnation is about. But I suspect Eliab's explanation of the RC is a fairly good and fair summary.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
Again, sorry, that sounds sarcastic. Those are meant as straight questions. Is this where the teaching comes from.
Have you considered asking a priest?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
