Posted on 11/04/2014 10:45:38 AM PST by sitetest
The day my soul became Catholic was the day I found out that as a divorced and remarried woman I could not receive Communion. Tears of sorrow and joy flowed. Sorrow because I had by then grasped the truth of transubstantiation, only to find I couldn’t consume, and joy because at last we found the ground of real authority—his Church, the one he founded, the one tasked to keep all he taught her Apostles.
I came to Catholicism from Calvinism. That’s a tough row to hoe if there ever was one. It was that prescient and beautiful encyclical Humanae Vitae which softened my heart to the Catholic Church. After that, I couldn’t get enough. I wanted to hear what the Church believed in her own words. And so I kept reading—Theology of the Body, Familiaris Consortio, Mulieris Dignitatem, and Church documents significant to those of us coming from the Reformed tradition.
Because I had been divorced, and because another family member recently left his marriage after forty-three years, our children had many doubts and questions about marriage. One day around the dinner table one of the kids voiced their anxiety, stating in our presence that “you never know” if both mom and dad will be there for you as you grow up.
(Excerpt) Read more at firstthings.com ...
If they've repented and been absolved of their sins, "Yes". Subject, of course, to reasonable security arrangements deemed necessary by the place of confinement.
Does anyone see anything wrong with that?
Not me.
The church, as it developed in the Book of Acts, was always in peoples homes.
P>Plus it's who you know........
My dad was raised a devout Catholic in Detroit, alter boy....etc....
My parents were married in 1949 when he graduated from MSU and divorced sometime around 1954 for reasons unknown to me. He never returned to the church because of that RULE that forbade him from getting divorced.
And on the other hand, there was a gal I worked with who got divorced back in the late 80's and whose mother was the secretary to the priest of their Catholic church. He was able to obtain a signed annulment of her marriage (or whatever it is that the Vatican issues) from the then Pope......
He'll be O.K. of course, it just shows that Catholics have a conscience and accept responsibility for their behavior....
He’ll be O.K. of course, it just shows that Catholics have a conscience and accept responsibility for their behavior....
It is a form of works based religion, the exact opposite of Christianity.
Who absolved them of their sins?
Only God can do that
doesn't work that way for Catholics...a condition of absulution from the priest would be to go to the authorities and get yourself straight with the state and have sincere contrition for your sin....with a protestant, however...they'd say, oh well, Jesus died for all my sins so I have no responsibility at all....see the difference??
Okay, let me restate this. It is indeed a tragedy of epic proportion that she could not hear the true message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the real message of salvation by grace, through faith, that is not earned/worked for/produced by men, but is the free gift given to undeserving sinners, lest anyone boast of creating it. Instead of being one whom God permitted the scales to drop from her eyes, was instead one who sought more self-created righteousness through the cult called the Roman Catholic Church.
It is utterly tragic, but entirely directed by God (Rom. 9) because it, "...does not depend upon the man who wills (chooses) or the man who runs (acts), but on God who has mercy...so then He has mercy on whom He desires and He hardens whom He desires."
Of course, "You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?' On the contrary, who do you think you are, O man, who answers back to God?" She is in His hands and we absolutely hope that He has mercy on her, yet. But, her current statements indicate the scales are still there, never having fallen when she claims to have listened to some of what Calvin said. Evidently, God did not permit her to hear.
sure you are...maybe not a good one, but a Catholic nevertheless..
Expecting people to refrain from adultery is ..... absurd?
What other standards of behavior do you consider to be ...... absurd?
Nope, you missed the cathedral clause in Appendix A.6. Remember, Jesus was all about the hierarchy. ;^)
I was baptizes into the Catholic Church about Eighty Years ago and I have 12 years of Catholic Education,Both from the wonderful Nuns and the wonderful Irish christian Brothers.
I cannot see why a good Catholic in the state of grace and making a sincere “Act of Contrition” can be prohibited from receiving the Sacraments. Over the last 14 years or so we have been subjected to the knowledge of thousands of Active priests Following Homosexual Lives while serving at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. At the same time these Homosexual Priests abusing Children were protected by Prelates of the Catholic Church.,up to and including Many Cardinals.
Your Faith is between You , Your Heart, Your Soul and your
Belief in God, who is all Knowing and All Forgiving.
I’d say , Put your trust In God.
Through the priest, acting in persona Christi.
‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’" (John 20:21–23).
-— I cannot see why a good Catholic in the state of grace and making a sincere “Act of Contrition” can be prohibited from receiving the Sacraments -—
If they’re living as brother and sister, yes. If not, no. Jesus was clear about remarriage. And the Church has the Authority, given it by Christ (”If he will not listen to the church...” “He who hears you hears me”) to determine the legitimacy of a marriage. There is no further court of last resort.
I know how difficult this is, knowing many such cases. Looking at the issue negatively, there is no better alternative.
Just as a point of clarification : abortion is never “ok”. What you May be thinking of are cases like ectopic pregnancies where surgical intervention is performed with the express purpose of saving the life of the mother.
That an unfortunate side effect of such procedures is the sad loss of the baby is just that: an unintended consequence. In other words it’s never the intent in procedures that treat cases like ectopic pregnancies to kill the baby. That’s not the intent of the procedure. The intent is to save the mother.
In this way we can then see consistency in the pro life position. Because it will never be acceptable to kill an unborn baby no matter how much it may “pain” the mother (in other words “emotional distress” and similar “ethical” trickery can never be used to justify a procedure who’s primary intent is to kill the baby)
This doesn’t just apply to ectopic pregnancies. Any procedure done with the intent to treat the mother, to help her, and not done with any intent to kill the baby is morally acceptable. Of course there’s a certain level of intellectual honesty reauired here (the participants can’t just *say* they are only helping the mother when in actuality there is intent to kill the baby). Such people will have to answer to God.
“I cannot see why a good Catholic in the state of grace and making a sincere ‘Act of Contrition’ can be prohibited from receiving the Sacraments.”
Of course a good Catholic in a state of grace can receive the sacraments.
The question is, who is in a state of grace? Who is really contrite?
When I look at the definition for “contrition,” I see that a synonym is “repentance.” Repentance includes the intention to try to avoid the sin in the future.
Thus, in the case of the remarried couple, one must ask, what is the sin? The sin is adultery - having sexual relations with someone who is not legitimately your spouse. Why is this person not legitimately your spouse? Because you already have a spouse, the person you divorced. Until that person dies (or you obtain a declaration of nullity), THAT is your spouse. If you have sex with anyone else, you are committing adultery.
Therefore, if, while you're emitting the behavior of contrition, you are planning to continue to have sex with your new partner, then it's very difficult to argue that you're sincere in your contrition, since it doesn't seem that you're actually repenting of - turning away from - your on-going sin.
“Put your trust In God.”
I'd say that that is precisely what the author of the original article is doing.
sitetest
-— Why would a church exclude someone when Jesus Himself loved all -—
What does love mean?
Desiring the highest and best for another. That excludes confirming them in their sin.
no, unforgiveness is absurd. Kicking repentant people out of church activities is absurd. And very very UN JESUS like.
Take your false choices bullshit question about “standards” elsewhere, I see through them instantly and destroy them just as quick. Bet you sin 1000x a day.
you people have to construct false choices to back up your pharisaical spirit. NO ONE HERE is saying confirm anyone in their sin. The example given was clearly a repentant person.
How did I miss that????
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.