| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Cohabitees receiving Communion | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Friday, 2. January 2009, 13:47 (871 Views) | |
| Clare | Saturday, 3. January 2009, 16:46 Post #61 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
This is about what is known. |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Saturday, 3. January 2009, 17:18 Post #62 |
|
So the people who are the subject of gossip are the sinners rather than those doing the gossiping? |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Saturday, 3. January 2009, 17:40 Post #63 |
|
Go back and read my original post, Clare, I specifically said only that the priest knows the couple are living together, nothing about him knowing anything about their sexual activity. Clare, I don't know what sort of people you mix with - and this may be an English v Irish thing - but I know very few people who are married or in an ongoing relationship who talk openly about their sex lives. My point wasn't about "submitting to sex" - a turn of phrase that I find most peculiar, by the way - it was about living together; I gave one example where sex is actually involved but no Mortal Sin involved; I can readily think of several reasons why people might live together without having sex - see my earlier reply to Rose for just one example. You again chose to ignore the point that you don't know - nor does the priest - whether they are actually having sex, you are jumping to conclusions. For what it's worth, I agree that you are probably correct i the majority of cases; the point, however, is that you don't know if you are correct in any individual case and you should therefore not be making judgements about individuals. I wouldn't like to think that a priest would make decisions about people receiving Holy Communion on some probability calculation! And I've asked you for a source or reference for that which you still haven't given. |
![]() |
|
| pete | Saturday, 3. January 2009, 17:41 Post #64 |
|
1. Judge not one another. 2. Anyone who receives the Lord’s Supper unworthily brings judgement upon him/herself. In other words, it’s the responsibility of the communicant if he or she receives the Body of Christ, nothing to do with anyone else. Those of you without sin cast the first stone. God bless Pete |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Saturday, 3. January 2009, 17:44 Post #65 |
|
Note that He didn't condemn Her and her situation didn't stop Him from choosing her as the first person outside his immediate circe of disciples to whom He would reveal His divinity . |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Saturday, 3. January 2009, 17:47 Post #66 |
|
Very wise words, Pete. It's too easy to forget how we can go back to the words of Jesus Himself and find very simple answers to apparently complex questions. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Saturday, 3. January 2009, 18:00 Post #67 |
|
Deleted User
|
Yes mairtin but don't forget Our Lord was speaking without the guidance of the Synod of Whitby or the Council of Trent so can we rely on him on this one? John |
|
|
| Rose of York | Saturday, 3. January 2009, 18:31 Post #68 |
![]()
Administrator
|
That, Pete, is one of the most common sense postings I have ever read on any forum. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Saturday, 3. January 2009, 19:14 Post #69 |
|
|
![]() |
|
| PJD | Saturday, 3. January 2009, 23:43 Post #70 |
|
"Deliberate non-avoidance of unnecessary occasions of sin is itself sinful. " I would give way somewhat to you Clare on this. Let's compromise - judged on a case-for-case basic. PJD |
![]() |
|
| Emee | Sunday, 4. January 2009, 00:02 Post #71 |
|
Clare Your double negative is doing my head in this time of the evening. Although I (think I) take your point. Easier said than done though. And it might not always be the best course of action either. An example; when I was a student I went to a male student's room for a cup of tea believing him to be respectable. While there he asked if he could have sex with me. Now taking the deliberate avoidance route, I should have dropped my mug and run there and then, but instead I chose to stay, ie the deliberate non-avoidance route, to explain why, as a Christian, I would NOT be having sex with him although I was more than happy to be his friend. And we did stay friends afterwards. Whether in hindsight I was taking a huge risk in staying who knows? All I can say is, he fully accepted my explanation, while, I expect, not understanding me. I think, if I remember rightly, he may even have recalled a time when he was much younger and had been part of a Christian community. I just hope it did him some good. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Sunday, 4. January 2009, 00:57 Post #72 |
|
Deleted User
|
Well Emee that is easily the most exciting post we have had on here for many a long day. I am going to go and lie down now. John |
|
|
| Rose of York | Sunday, 4. January 2009, 01:12 Post #73 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Ooh, Clare, pray tell me, what are the necessary occasions of sin? Are they non-sinful? Does the Church have an approved list? I can't wait to find out what I've been missing.
|
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Paduan | Sunday, 4. January 2009, 14:18 Post #74 |
|
I have been of the understanding that a priests have to treat pretty much every communicant as having had possibility of receiving absolution prior to Mass, and that he should not withhold communion because he can't be sure that the communicant is still in a state of mortal sin. Unless the communicant says to the priest at the head of the line for communion "I'm in a state of mortal sin at the moment" how is he to know otherwise? Additionally, surely we have to be careful about what we are 'scandalised' about? Making assumptions about the state of someone else's soul is arrogance. We cannot be judges when we are not in possession of full and complete knowledge and only God possesses that knowledge. If we think badly of someone because of our flawed understanding of them, if we are not charitable towards them as a result, are we not sinning ourselves? "Judge not, lest ye be judged" is a terribly serious commandment: our perceived 'scandal' could have so much more serious repercussions upon ourselves. Charity and open-heartedness is called for or we will suffer for it. |
| Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis. | |
![]() |
|
| Powerofone | Sunday, 4. January 2009, 15:26 Post #75 |
|
I'll second that. Where are my smelling salts? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic » |





9:20 AM Jul 11