Scola: Four Solutions for the Divorced and Remarried
#21
(09-24-2014, 11:05 AM)Geremia Wrote:
(09-24-2014, 10:19 AM)PrairieMom Wrote:
(09-23-2014, 10:34 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(09-23-2014, 04:51 PM)PrairieMom Wrote: I don't understand the big stink about Communion, really.
"…he that eateth and drinketh unworthily: eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of our Lord." —1 Cor. 11:29
It's not just about scandal.

(By the way: 1 Cor. 11:29, the tail-end of the Institution Narrative, is dropped from the Novus Ordo, even for Corpus Christi, according to Card. Stickler. I wonder why.)

I should clarify ... *I* understand why Communion is important, but why it's important to them remains a mystery to me.
Probably the same reason the sodomites et al. desire it, too; they think it legitimates or rationalizes their sin.
(09-24-2014, 10:19 AM)PrairieMom Wrote: Most people who find themselves in this situation, at least from my experience, don't understand the Real Presence, or doesn't believe in it in the first place. Or don't care, they just want what's duly theirs.
Yes, exactly as St. Paul says; they don't "discern the the body of our Lord."

Good point.

I guess it falls into that "I am Catholic but I don't want to follow  Church teachings so I'm going to change the Church" mentality that seems to be everywhere. I mean, you don't have to be Catholic, you could go be an Anglican and do most of the things you want to do and still get the frilly stuff everyone seems to want to keep.

But maybe there's something deep inside us that recognizes that the Church is right and true. We want to be reconciled with her, but refuse to change so we try to change her to fit us.

Wasn't it Descartes that said, "There is in every being's heart a God-shaped vacuum"? Maybe it's not only God-shaped, but specifically shaped as His Church.
Reply
#22
(09-24-2014, 09:21 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(09-23-2014, 05:11 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote:
(09-23-2014, 04:10 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
Quote:I think one great solution would be for the Church to deny matrimony to certain couples and demand a thorough chatechesis for people that want the sacrament.
But I doubt that will be done, since there's money involved.

I think this is generally what is supposed to be done now anyway (again, I think it probably varies in practice depending on where you live).

Yeah, right.

Most dioceses require you to go through some sort of catechesis before they will marry you.  I also overheard a couple once talking about how they had to demonstrate they each had their own address (ie they weren't cohabitating) before they were allowed to be married--and they faked it because they were cohabitating.  So I guess it does happen, at least to some extent.

Yes, I know couples today have to go through marriage classes and so on. My point is to make them harder, and actually fail the couple if they either don't get it or are rebellious to the Catholic understanding of marriage.
I've never seen this done. Rather I've seen many laodiceans marrying in the Church just because its beautiful and so on. I mean, in my neighborhood parish (a rather modernist parish, but that's just typical) there's a wedding every Saturday. If there are that many faithful Catholics in the city this would be the best city in the world.

Yes, it probably depends, in the end, on the area one lives. But I suspect this is a general problem in the West, given that we don't see much a difference in divorce rates among Catholics compared to other peoples and how much lay “Catholics” support second marriages and SSM, etc.
Reply
#23
(09-23-2014, 01:08 PM)Geremia Wrote: - recourse to the sacrament of reconciliation even without absolution;
To approach that sacrament without the intention of being absolved has got to be sacrilege; it mocks the sacrament just as much as a false confession would!
The CIC specifically regulates that situation, and says that the priest is bound to the seal of confession, even if no absolution can be given. It does not say that the penitent should not go to confession in such a situation, much less that he would commit sacrilege.

When Archbishop Lefebvre was missionary in Africa, he often had to deal with polygamy. He wanted to make those people feel as welcome and included in parish life as he could, but of course could not minister the sacraments to them. I think the situation today is in many cases comparable.
Reply
#24
(09-23-2014, 04:51 PM)PrairieMom Wrote: I don't understand the big stink about Communion, really.

Maybe it's different in other parts of the world, but in my small bubble I know no less than 4 couples who are remarried outside of the Church, and have had no limits to my knowledge placed on them in regards to Sacraments. While there are consequences on paper, there are none in reality - it's like being a pro-abortion politician.

Why are the liberals/modernists making such a big stink out of de facto situation, which apparently has no danger of being modified anytime in the near future?

It is the same reason as with all other teachings of the Church (especially regarding the 6th commandment), which are being completely ignored without consequence today.
People have a conscience. Their conscience tells them something is not right. Perhaps deep down somewhere they even know that the Church is not just any organization. The media tells them everything is A-OK, and the evil Church has it wrong. So the people link their bad conscience to their Catholic upbringing (and call it "Catholic guilt"), and somehow convince themselves that if only the Church changed her teachings, they would feel better.

It's the same reason people cried "crucify him" about Jesus. He preached conversion. If you were sure you don't need conversion, then he's just a nutter and you can laugh him off. But that doesn't work, so perhaps if we silence him, I'll feel better.

Notice that nobody gets worked up in the same way about the Jehova's Witness's teachings on blood transfusions, even though it actually can cost people's lives. People don't have a bad conscience about giving or receiving blood, and people are sure that the Watchtower organization is not God's true Church, thus it doesn't bother them.
Reply
#25
(09-24-2014, 02:53 PM)Freudentaumel Wrote:
(09-23-2014, 01:08 PM)Geremia Wrote: - recourse to the sacrament of reconciliation even without absolution;
To approach that sacrament without the intention of being absolved has got to be sacrilege; it mocks the sacrament just as much as a false confession would!
The CIC specifically regulates that situation, and says that the priest is bound to the seal of confession, even if no absolution can be given. It does not say that the penitent should not go to confession in such a situation, much less that he would commit sacrilege.
¿Why would it say that when it already said this:
Can.  959 Wrote:In the sacrament of penance the faithful who confess their sins to a legitimate minister, are sorry for them, and intend to reform themselves obtain from God through the absolution imparted by the same minister forgiveness for the sins they have committed after baptism and, at the same, time are reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by sinning.
Reply
#26
(09-24-2014, 05:36 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(09-24-2014, 02:53 PM)Freudentaumel Wrote:
(09-23-2014, 01:08 PM)Geremia Wrote: - recourse to the sacrament of reconciliation even without absolution;
To approach that sacrament without the intention of being absolved has got to be sacrilege; it mocks the sacrament just as much as a false confession would!
The CIC specifically regulates that situation, and says that the priest is bound to the seal of confession, even if no absolution can be given. It does not say that the penitent should not go to confession in such a situation, much less that he would commit sacrilege.
¿Why would it say that when it already said this:
Can.  959 Wrote:In the sacrament of penance the faithful who confess their sins to a legitimate minister, are sorry for them, and intend to reform themselves obtain from God through the absolution imparted by the same minister forgiveness for the sins they have committed after baptism and, at the same, time are reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by sinning.
What does that have to do with what I said? You quote the preconditions for absolution, when I explicitly said "if no absolution can be given". The part that you quoted does not say what happens then.
Reply
#27
(09-25-2014, 02:24 AM)Freudentaumel Wrote:
(09-24-2014, 05:36 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(09-24-2014, 02:53 PM)Freudentaumel Wrote:
(09-23-2014, 01:08 PM)Geremia Wrote: - recourse to the sacrament of reconciliation even without absolution;
To approach that sacrament without the intention of being absolved has got to be sacrilege; it mocks the sacrament just as much as a false confession would!
The CIC specifically regulates that situation, and says that the priest is bound to the seal of confession, even if no absolution can be given. It does not say that the penitent should not go to confession in such a situation, much less that he would commit sacrilege.
¿Why would it say that when it already said this:
Can.  959 Wrote:In the sacrament of penance the faithful who confess their sins to a legitimate minister, are sorry for them, and intend to reform themselves obtain from God through the absolution imparted by the same minister forgiveness for the sins they have committed after baptism and, at the same, time are reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by sinning.
What does that have to do with what I said? You quote the preconditions for absolution, when I explicitly said "if no absolution can be given". The part that you quoted does not say what happens then.
How is saying
"Go to confession even if you won't be absolved."
not saying
"Do penance but keep sinning."
?
Reply
#28
PrairieMom Wrote:I guess it falls into that "I am Catholic but I don't want to follow  Church teachings so I'm going to change the Church" mentality that seems to be everywhere. I mean, you don't have to be Catholic, you could go be an Anglican and do most of the things you want to do and still get the frilly stuff everyone seems to want to keep.

But maybe there's something deep inside us that recognizes that the Church is right and true. We want to be reconciled with her, but refuse to change so we try to change her to fit us.

Yes, that sounds right. Also, many older cradle Catholics (50 and up) consider themselves Catholic no matter what. The Church is like a “family” that you don’t ever leave or disown. This is the religion they were born into – this is the religion they will die in. I know Catholics who still eat fish on Fridays but don’t follow any other rules. They are the typical cafeteria crowd. But they would never consider turning Anglican or Lutheran. I remember in my fallen away days there was no way I’d go to another church. I was content to be a fallen away Catholic. 

On the other hand, there is a new breed of Catholics born in the last 40 or so years I’d say, who would have no qualms about joining another church if they can’t get their way in the Catholic Church. OR they just don’t care what religion has to say…Period. I don’t know if you’ve seen the latest Pew Research statistics on marriage and annulments, how drastically they’ve gone down, down, down in the last 40 years. People aren’t seeking marriage in the Catholic Church as much as they used to, and if the marriage fails they aren’t going to bother seeking an annulment either.

I could be totally wrong, but for me this does not seem the right time for the Church to be digging in its heels and puffing out its chest. Doctrine might not be able to change, but all the rules and regulations on how to apply doctrine certainly can.

On the other hand again (I’m running out of hands! lol) I don’t know why the clergy are making such a big issue of divorced and remarried receiving Communion when a huge number of them obviously don’t care. They might receive at a relative’s wedding or funeral and feel insulted when the priest makes the announcement that “only practicing Catholics in a state of grace can approach the communion rail.” They get huffy and then forget about it until the next time they darken the doorway of a church, which is the next wedding or funeral.
Reply
#29
(09-25-2014, 10:46 PM)Geremia Wrote: How is saying
"Go to confession even if you won't be absolved."
not saying
"Do penance but keep sinning."
?
It is exactly the opposite. A good confessor will give good advice and spiritual counsel to the person, even if he cannot give him absolution. Counsel that may influence the person's heart and conscience.
"Keep sinning" is bad advice.
Reply
#30
(09-26-2014, 02:23 PM)Freudentaumel Wrote:
(09-25-2014, 10:46 PM)Geremia Wrote: How is saying
"Go to confession even if you won't be absolved."
not saying
"Do penance but keep sinning."
?
It is exactly the opposite. A good confessor will give good advice and spiritual counsel to the person, even if he cannot give him absolution. Counsel that may influence the person's heart and conscience.
"Keep sinning" is bad advice.
Why call confession council? It's the fallacy of calling a whole by its part. It reminds me of the socialists' goals to make psychologists the new "priests".
Why not say: "Encourage adulterers to seek council from their priests"?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)