Papa Francis Considering Allowing Remarried People To Receive Communio

[blazeingstar]

Irony abounds. You, the person who thinks that playing pretend with a small child literally constitutes lying (despite Aquinas' clear and sound argument to the contrary), are going to accuse the scary chimeric 'traditionalists" as being too black and white and rigid?

And then, you are going to characterize those who attend the traditional Mass as practicing a "pre 1960 faith"? That is both silly and makes no sense. Number one, why 1960? Nothing happened in 1960. We still used the traditional missal, and the Council was not yet opened. Number two, are you actually going to go down this road, of separating a pre-conciliar and a post-conciliar faith? Because that line of reasoning will leave you in a place you do not want to go.

 

Wow, yes, I believe that decieving a child is wrong.  Deception is different than tact.

 

I don't know one person who attend the EF who dons't headcover.  Perhaps "pre-1970" would of been more accurate.  Still there are practices of that model of Mass that are no longer relevant in OF, yet are regularly ignored as mandates.

 

To those who believe that EF does let people practice personal choice offered by Vatican II I'd dare you to be a woman and NOT wear a veil during Mass.

[havok579257]

Wow, yes, I believe that decieving a child is wrong.  Deception is different than tact.

 

I don't know one person who attend the EF who dons't headcover.  Perhaps "pre-1970" would of been more accurate.  Still there are practices of that model of Mass that are no longer relevant in OF, yet are regularly ignored as mandates.

 

To those who believe that EF does let people practice personal choice offered by Vatican II I'd dare you to be a woman and NOT wear a veil during Mass.

 

 

well i know people who don't head cover.  i have been to the ef mass before and seen women without head coverings.  when my wife went with me to an ef mass she did not cover her head.   although i guess its only what you see.

[CrossCuT]

My post is redundant. 

Edited April 25, 2014 by CrossCuT

[KnightofChrist]

I don't know one person who attend the EF who dons't headcover.  Perhaps "pre-1970" would of been more accurate.  Still there are practices of that model of Mass that are no longer relevant in OF, yet are regularly ignored as mandates.
 
To those who believe that EF does let people practice personal choice offered by Vatican II I'd dare you to be a woman and NOT wear a veil during Mass.

Whatta 'bout a triple dog dare? I know of many ladies, most themselves are pre-1970 and yeah pre-1960 who attend the EF without head coverings. Even the one Mass I attended that was offered by the SSPX (I did not receive) had 2 or 3, SHOCK STEREOTYPE DOES NOT COMPUT WITH REALITY!!!!

[CrossCuT]

Whatta 'bout a triple dog dare? I know of many ladies, most themselves are pre-1970 and yeah pre-1960 who attend the EF without head coverings. Even the one Mass I attended that was offered by the SSPX (I did not receive) had 2 or 3, SHOCK STEREOTYPE DOES NOT COMPUT WITH REALITY!!!!

 

I challenge thee to a duel

[Nihil Obstat]

About half of the women who attend the Fraternity-celebrated Mass in my city do not veil, and nobody makes any kind of deal out of it.
And even if they all veiled, what business is it of yours? It was the more or less universal custom of women in the Church through most of history. If you choose not to, then go ahead. But your absolute contempt for people who think differently does not go unnoticed.

[blazeingstar]

well i know people who don't head cover.  i have been to the ef mass before and seen women without head coverings.  when my wife went with me to an ef mass she did not cover her head.   although i guess its only what you see.

 

And I went to an EF mass and my headcovering slipped off.  I was told that if I didn't want to wear one I should find another Mass.

[chrysostom]

And I went to an EF mass and my headcovering slipped off.  I was told that if I didn't want to wear one I should find another Mass.

 

:( :( :( :( :( :(

 

uggggh

 

auggghhh

Edited April 25, 2014 by chrysostom

[BigJon16]

Even if it were possible to separate the Catholic laws that structure the annulment process, from the application or process of those laws, I would still object to it being called pharisaical. The process does needs improvement but calling it pharisaical goes way too far.


As for the topic itself allowing couples whose validity of marriage cannot be confirmed, to receive communion until that validity can be confirmed is wrong. Even if most would have their new marriages validated and their old 'marriages' annulled it would still be wrong. Because at best it would be a sin against prudence and at worse profaning the Body and Blood of Christ. Christ teaches that those who marry again while the prior spouse still lives is an adulterer. Saint Paul teaches we must prove ourselves worthy to receive the Body and Blood or risk profaning the Body and Blood. It was the Pharisees that taught you could have one spouse while the prior spouse was still alive and still be in their good graces.

 

So if someone makes a mistake there is absolutely no way of solving the problem?

 

"Well, they should then simply get the annulment but break up the new marriage, since it can't be validated. Then they can go to confession without returning to sin."

 

But what about the children? Shouldn't they be brought up in a family with a father and a mother? Why should they suffer for the sins of the parents?

 

(Not putting words in your mouth because this is not what you are saying--I know. Simply demonstrating how I see the dichotomy.) 

 

 

Perhaps you are misunderstanding what I had meant about "pharisaic." Saying something is pharisaic is not necessarily saying that it is what the Pharisees taught, but rather making a comment about the Pharisaic approach to the Law as "practicing or advocating strict observance of external forms and ceremonies of religion or conduct without regard to the spirit" (Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary - via Google). 

 

​The point is, if X Church procedure is not efficiently doing its job to the point of fixing a problem and instead trapping someone in sin, without any care to the persons soul but only to the strictest letter of the law, it's operating in much the same character as the Pharisees did in the Gospels when they would purposefully ignore the application of wisdom and prudence to the law and follow the law even though it meant trapping someone into sin and condemning them. We must use rational thought when it comes to how we treat God's people. (Not saying we don't do that already, cause in many cases we do--even when that means being blunt with someone and telling them that they can't receive communion.) If we on one hand tell someone that they can't receive communion because they are sinning, and yet can't do anything to get out of that sin or repent, then whats the point? 

 

To clarify, I am not saying the Tribunal process is Jewish, not saying its hypocritical, not saying it's wrong, not saying the Church is wrong, not saying that "I Love Jesus, Hate Religion", not saying we should desecrate the Eucharist by receiving it while outside the state of Grace, not saying that Canon Law is wrong.

 

Im not really saying a whole lot of anything, actually... Just simply commenting on our approach towards the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. 

 

 

This has been an interesting conversation, but for the sake of the Open Mic, we should just let it go. :) 

[havok579257]

And I went to an EF mass and my headcovering slipped off.  I was told that if I didn't want to wear one I should find another Mass.

 

by the priest?

[blazeingstar]

by the priest?

 

Deacon or head alter server...one the non-priests dressed up.

 

At another church the priest-appointed "bouncer" wouldn't let me in because I was wearing blue jeans.  I didn't go to Mass that week.  Fortunately, the dioceses shut that parish down in the town-wide church closings, but they're doing the same thing, just at a different building...but they lave less control....much to their horror.

[KnightofChrist]

So if someone makes a mistake there is absolutely no way of solving the problem?
 
"Well, they should then simply get the annulment but break up the new marriage, since it can't be validated. Then they can go to confession without returning to sin."
 
But what about the children? Shouldn't they be brought up in a family with a father and a mother? Why should they suffer for the sins of the parents?
 
(Not putting words in your mouth because this is not what you are saying--I know. Simply demonstrating how I see the dichotomy.) 
 
 
Perhaps you are misunderstanding what I had meant about "pharisaic." Saying something is pharisaic is not necessarily saying that it is what the Pharisees taught, but rather making a comment about the Pharisaic approach to the Law as "practicing or advocating strict observance of external forms and ceremonies of religion or conduct without regard to the spirit" (Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary - via Google). 
 
​The point is, if X Church procedure is not efficiently doing its job to the point of fixing a problem and instead trapping someone in sin, without any care to the persons soul but only to the strictest letter of the law, it's operating in much the same character as the Pharisees did in the Gospels when they would purposefully ignore the application of wisdom and prudence to the law and follow the law even though it meant trapping someone into sin and condemning them. We must use rational thought when it comes to how we treat God's people. (Not saying we don't do that already, cause in many cases we do--even when that means being blunt with someone and telling them that they can't receive communion.) If we on one hand tell someone that they can't receive communion because they are sinning, and yet can't do anything to get out of that sin or repent, then whats the point? 
 
To clarify, I am not saying the Tribunal process is Jewish, not saying its hypocritical, not saying it's wrong, not saying the Church is wrong, not saying that "I Love Jesus, Hate Religion", not saying we should desecrate the Eucharist by receiving it while outside the state of Grace, not saying that Canon Law is wrong.
 
Im not really saying a whole lot of anything, actually... Just simply commenting on our approach towards the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. 
 
 
This has been an interesting conversation, but for the sake of the Open Mic, we should just let it go. :)

I still object. The word means hypocritical self-righteousness. I understand, now, you may not have meant to use it in that manner but that's what the word means. I do see need for improvement, and yes it is flawed, it's human. However it was created and set up for a good and holy cause, for good and holy reasons, and the people that run do so out of care for souls. The process could no doubt be improved, and those who work hard at the process could probably somehow do a better job than now. But on it's worse day I don't believe 'pharisaic' should be applied to it. I'm all for fixing the problems, but I'm against causing more problems. The idea, (which I don't argue anyone here has made) that we should give communion to those who may have second, third, etc 'marriages' while the prior spouse(s) still lives, without first having an annulment would do greater harm.

[AugustineA]

Wow, yes, I believe that decieving a child is wrong.  Deception is different than tact.

 

I don't know one person who attend the EF who dons't headcover.  Perhaps "pre-1970" would of been more accurate.  Still there are practices of that model of Mass that are no longer relevant in OF, yet are regularly ignored as mandates.

 

To those who believe that EF does let people practice personal choice offered by Vatican II I'd dare you to be a woman and NOT wear a veil during Mass.

 

 

...... 

 

Okay, sure. If you are in Vancouver or anyone from Phatmass, I invite you to come to Holy Family Parish. You may be pleasantly surprised and we can dispel this idea. And if once you've been warmly welcomed and see the other what.. 40% of women not wearing veils you decide you want to, we have a basket of veils in the foyer for personal use. They're quite elegant to, not cheap.

 

Believe it or not, most people that go to the TLM are big warm families and single young people that simply take their faith seriously and love the extraordinary form.

 

No one there cares about expressing your personal choice. We're going to church. I've never even heard of bouncers or anything like what you're saying. I have to work on Sundays often, and take the skytrain, so I wear dark jeans to church usually with some sort of button down, and no one bats an eye. Though I'm going to get something a bit nicer than jeans soon.. Just hate shopping. <.< 

 

How did this topic even come up? I leave the thread for one day lol... 

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Not all sin is grave.  That was one of Luther's errors.

 

Yes, all sin is displeasing to God.  But not all sin destroys sanctifying grace in our souls.

 

 

All sin is grave in the manner of being displeasing to GOD, yes. And in the manner of reducing our capacity to be truly charitable to others and not focus on our own self indulgences. What do you mean not all sin destroys sanctifying grace, does it only frey it perhaps, which leads me to thinking as i have thought before that habitual venial over time actually does the same thing as 1 mortal. And i'm not scrupulous i do believe venial is absolved by the holy eucharist perhaps with the same conditions as confession, no? i don't know. 

 

Jesus is LORD.

Edited April 26, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[mortify ii]

I think what the question boils down to is: can we, as a Church, simply abrogate our laws concerning who can or cannot, should or should not present themselves for and receive the Eucharist?

If those who are divorced and remarried are allowed to receive communion, then we are saying that there are at least some people who live in "public and objective grave sin", who can receive the Eucharist. So who else? Why not a gay couple then? Or a non-Catholic? Or an abortionist? Are there fundamental differences between any of these groups that qualify some and disqualify others? To use Cardinal Kasper's language, can we "tolerate but not accept" other sorts of serious sin?

The relevant canons are widely disregarded, but they have moral force.

 

The Church will not change in this matter.

 

Nihil, might it be that this is the intention? First let the divorced step in line to communion and then the homosexuals et al will follow?