Pope Benedict XVI Resigning as Pope!!

[Skittl1321]

PDilemma- do you have some sources on that? I believe you, but I really thought an annulment was only required when the divorce resulted from a valid marriage, and a civil marriage isn't a valid marriage (though I think any Christian marriage is considered valid.)

[Vagabond]

So it's okay for them to live together but not get married outside the church? I don't see the logic in this.

"This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church."

[Spiralgraph]

And also with who gets to get sacraments. You aren't supposed to take Holy Communion if you aren't Catholic. It's a sacrament just for Catholics. But you can participate in the sacrament of marriage if you aren't Catholic. I'd have to go look it up, but I think you can't really get Last Rites or go to Confession either. I suspect Priests will still let you but it won't count as having had the sacrament if you aren't married. Not all churches work that way. I've been to Christian churches that allow anyone to partake of Communion, for example.


I like Allezfred's answer (even if I was drinking at the time with the expected results ) but for a serious answer, they were talking about this on the news last night and there were a lot of questions like this including what happens with his papal ring. (Usually it gets buried with the dead pope but he's not dead.)

Some Non Catholics may participate and receive Holy Communion in a Catholic church, and Catholics may receive Communion in certain Protestant denominations. When I was in my church choir many years ago we sang songs from the Messiah in a Lutheran church with their choir and some of us received Communion there. Our priest accompanied us (and even celebrated Mass in the Lutheran Church's basement hall) A week or so later their choir traveled up to our church and they received Communion in our church and nobody was excommunicated.

The times are changing in the Catholic church (but I admit at a snail's pace)

[Skittl1321]

Some Non Catholics may participate and receive Holy Communion in a Catholic church, and Catholics may receive Communion in certain Protestant denominations.

What non-catholics are you talking about? I know that non-Catholics may come to the alter during mass for a blessing, but they aren't supposed to take communion, the Catholic communion is closed.

I know many protestant denominations are open to Catholics receiving their communion, but Catholics are not supposed to take it by their own beliefs.

[GarrAarghHrumph]

...his Girlfriend is Catholic, they are living together. Now personally I would like to see them getting married. She is such a great girl... However, I will be put in a position if they get married outside the Church. Because if its outside the Church the marriage is invalid.. And I do believe this in a way. Especially considering the fact if your going to say divorce isn't possible. One could argue a Catholic who is not necessarily practicing their faith, isn't in the right place to make this life decision. I.e she comes back to the faith and then is stuck with this choice before.

If they get married outside the church, they can get their marriage blessed by a priest, which can either be done in quite the formal ceremony inviting everyone, or done in private, takes 20 seconds. So she is in no way "stuck", as you said, with this choice. She is always, always welcome to make it right in the eyes of the church.

But I'm in a position where I could go to the ceremony and not be part of it... Or the church may so no to the marriage because of the living together. (Personally I think if they want to make the relationship right before the Lord, let them make it right). There are some practical problems here.

The church will not say "no" because they are living together. In fact, the church would welcome them, because they'd be putting the situation right. This will not be an issue. Not at all, not in the modern era.

Hopefully they will get married in the Church and/or she just won't ask me to be in the wedding. But I will not like being the position of not being able to be in the wedding because I'm really afraid she'd consider it a rejection of her. And well I want my brother to marry her; she's a sweetheart.

I think you should talk to your priest about this. IMO, your not attending their wedding because you feel your church won't allow you to participate in it might drive your brother further away from the church, and that is not what the church wants. Perhaps talk this over with your priest, telling him all of this, and see what he suggests. I'd just hate for your behavior, although well intended, to drive your brother and his future wife away from the church. Just something to think about.

[Skittl1321]

The church will not say "no" because they are living together. In fact, the church would welcome them, because they'd be putting the situation right. This will not be an issue. Not at all, not in the modern era.

The church actually can deny it because they are not prepared for the sacrament. Most likely, the priest would tell the Catholic of the relationship to make a full penance and for the couple to live apart in preperation of the marriage. Many priests would interpret it like you said "put it right" by them getting married, but not all. It's like the priests who won't give Eucharist to Democrat politicians because they support abortion availability. Even though they didn't GET an abortion, by helping to make them available, the church sees them in state of sin and they are not eligible for a sacrament. Not all priests will interpret it this way, but those who do are supported by the catechism.

[Spiralgraph]

What non-catholics are you talking about? I know that non-Catholics may come to the alter during mass for a blessing, but they aren't supposed to take communion, the Catholic communion is closed.

I know many protestant denominations are open to Catholics receiving their communion, but Catholics are not supposed to take it by their own beliefs.

In my experience, it was Lutherans who received Communion. I think other denominations may be able to receive Communion as well, but offhand I can't think of which ones.

[Southpaw]

'Tis ok, I'll make a killing selling cheap made in China plastic Virgin Maries that I'll queer by painstakingly decorating them with pink glitter.

OK, give me a couple of those Virgin Marys and a half dozen of those pączki shaped like John Paul II.

[bek]

I think you should talk to your priest about this. IMO, your not attending their wedding because you feel your church won't allow you to participate in it might drive your brother further away from the church, and that is not what the church wants. Perhaps talk this over with your priest, telling him all of this, and see what he suggests. I'd just hate for your behavior, although well intended, to drive your brother and his future wife away from the church. Just something to think about.

Whoa! I would never not attend the wedding. I just couldn't particpate. I would attend but I couldn't sing or be a part of the wedding. There are some Catholics who want perhaps not attend. But not me. I will go but not participate.

[allezfred]

I grew up Protestant, and when I choose to become Catholic

Now I understand. Nothing like the zealousness of a convert.

Because if its outside the Church the marriage is invalid..

I'll think you'll find it's not.

[PDilemma]

PDilemma- do you have some sources on that? I believe you, but I really thought an annulment was only required when the divorce resulted from a valid marriage, and a civil marriage isn't a valid marriage (though I think any Christian marriage is considered valid.)

Any wedding of two baptized persons is considered valid, the exception being if one party is Catholic and the marriage is outside the church and no dispensation has been given. (That can be rectified by the marriage being blessed by a priest as someone already explained) Baptism in the name of father-son-holy spirit is valid for Catholicism regardless of how, where and by who it is done. Converts properly baptized in any other denomination that baptizes in the name of the trinity are not re-baptized in order to convert; they are merely confirmed. My RCIA group (conversion class) had 13 people converting and only two of us had to be baptized. Any marriage is presumed valid until proven invalid in the annulment process simply because they don't take your word for it. If two never before married non-Catholic baptized people marry in a civil ceremony or other religious ceremony and later convert to Catholicism, it is a valid Catholic marriage. If a unbaptized non-Catholic marries in any kind of ceremony, later divorces and wants to remarry a Catholic, the first marriage would be deemed invalid. But it would have to be proven in the annulment process.

I got all of this in RCIA because on the night we went over the sacraments of marriage and holy orders one of the engaged women who was converting asked endless questions about what constitutes a valid marriage and what the easiest grounds for annulment are. She also took copious notes on the answers. We all wondered what her intentions for her marriage really were and if we'd be called to provide information for her annulment case in the future. It was very strange.

[Skittl1321]

PDilemma- isn't the exception that you mentioned exactly why I said that the marriage wouldn't be valid? One of the participants (the girlfriend) is Catholic, and dispensation has not been requested. So if the marriage is invalid, I don't think the church cares if there is a divorce, because to them, there is no marriage.

[PDilemma]

PDilemma- isn't the exception that you mentioned exactly why I said that the marriage wouldn't be valid? One of the participants (the girlfriend) is Catholic, and dispensation has not been requested. So if the marriage is invalid, I don't think the church cares if there is a divorce, because to them, there is no marriage.

The only reason the church would care is if the person wanted to remarry in the church. Then there would have to be an annulment process to ensure that the marriage was invalid as opposed to a priest merely taking the person's word. My friend who wanted to marry someone who was never baptized and divorced was told that the annulment process would be quick and simple--a matter of a month or so to be checked and processed, but her now-husband refused to do it. On the other hand, a friend who was married to a Catholic in a Catholic ceremony is trying to get an annulment and the process is about three years in and not done yet.

[MacMadame]

Some Non Catholics may participate and receive Holy Communion in a Catholic church

No they can't. It's against the rules. Except for some carefully delineated exceptions:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_you_ta...dult_Christian

ETA okay I noticed you said "some". It depends on what you mean by "some". You have to believe in transfiguration for one thing -- that the Eucharist has literally been transformed into the blood and body of Christ. And it is supposed to be an extraordinary circumstance as well.

[Skittl1321]

You have to believe in transfiguration for one thing -- that the Eucharist has literally been transformed into the blood and body of Christ.

transubstantiation

I don't think Harry Potter does communion.



It is my understanding some Lutheran's believe in consubstantiation, which isn't the same thing. I think there may be some Orthodox churches that can take Roman Catholic communion, but no Protestants, at least, they shouldn't.

[nlloyd]

I grew up Protestant, and when I choose to become Catholic it wasn't because I was unhappy with my personal relationship with God. That was fine, but I became Catholic because of an experience I had with God. I.e I feel God showed me why the Catholic system is the system He wants. Why because the Protestant way of Sola Scriptura leads to all kinds of multiple denominations and it also obscures truth. I had a Professor in seminary who use to say all the time well Scripture isn't clear, so you just choose for yourself. Now there are some areas we are never going to have a clear understanding. But there are other areas that are pretty serious. Areas that are leading to Christians dividing. Scripture talks about Christians coming into agreement, and so no I don't think the Holy Spirit is leading folks to all kinds of multiple conclusions. So in my own relationship with the Lord, He convinced me that if your not sure about a meaning in Scripture, than yes you should look at what the early church said, what the Holy Spirit has said to the Church throughout time. Because we received the faith from them. He also showed me is if there's still disputes, why the bishops plus the pope decide. What it came down was my decision it was not just about me, or what I thought.... Its about the Church speaking with one message.

While I don't agree with the theological positions you espouse Bek (official Catholic teaching), it is interesting to read your perspective because it represents that of a portion of Catholics I don't often encounter. I guess what those of us engaged in this discussion are talking about is different sources of authority for our beliefs (or lack of belief). Wesley's quadrilateral is quite useful here -- scripture, tradition, reason, and experience -- although there are also other possibilities. You, like many conservative Catholics, emphasize tradition with a particular focus on the Pope and other church leaders.

If I was still a Christian, I would emphasize "imago dei," the leading of the Holy Spirit, the church as a hermeneutical community, and the bible as an account of peoples' not-always-successful attempt to discern God's way. I would see Christians as forging responses to contemporary social and ethical challenges - and these are only going to get more complex - using the reason, compassion, and creativity God has given them (their "made-in-the-image-of-Godness"), the guiding of the Holy Spirit who lives within them, reading the bible in the light mentioned above, and coming to conclusions together with other Christians in the churches to which they belong. The diversity of churches would not worry me too much because churches do make mistakes and when they recognise that, it is always good to see the different paths that others have taken.

I respect the reasons that inform your decisions, but I also feel quite sad that the relationship with God that you value so highly, was removed from me and others because the cost of conforming to the Church's official teachings was too high.

[Moto Guzzi]

transubstantiation

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...ail&FORM=VIRE1 "Two, four, six, eight, time to transubstantiate!"

My main memory of preparing for my first communion was the big fight with my older sister about wearing her first communion dress. My mother made her dress--it was white dotted swiss--and wanted me to wear it but my sister flatly refused and put up such a fuss about it my mother ended up making a new one for me. I was very happy to have something that wasn't a hand-me-down for a change. It was white organdy with layers of ruffles for the skirt, and I thought it was the most beautiful dress of all. I was so proud of my mother for making me a dress instead of ordering one like most of the mothers did. At the time I didn't know that my parents couldn't afford to buy a frilly dress for me. I was lucky my mother knew how to sew and how to make a little girl feel beautiful and special.

[MacMadame]

[QUOTE=Skittl1321;3838677]transubstantiation [/quote
Transfiguration is more interesting. [Or at least autocorrect thinks so. ]

tIt is my understanding some Lutheran's believe in consubstantiation, which isn't the same thing. I think there may be some Orthodox churches that can take Roman Catholic communion, but no Protestants, at least, they shouldn't.

Orthodox practitioners who live too far away from their own church to get Communion there are one of the few exceptions to the "no Catholics allowed" rule. But usually, if there are exceptions, it's not just supposed to be some Priest deciding on his own to do it but a diocesan bishop is actually supposed to be making a decision based on the circumstances.

I suspect, like many things in the Catholic Faith, that different Priest and different areas, do things differently and some ignore this rule while others are very strict about it.

[Angelskates]

I respect the reasons that inform your decisions, but I also feel quite sad that the relationship with God that you value so highly, was removed from me and others because the cost of conforming to the Church's official teachings was too high.

This is one of my major issues with Catholicism. There's people in between you and God, making the rules. What if God tells you something different to the Pope?

From bek:

So in my own relationship with the Lord, He convinced me that if your not sure about a meaning in Scripture, than yes you should look at what the early church said, what the Holy Spirit has said to the Church throughout time. Because we received the faith from them. He also showed me is if there's still disputes, why the bishops plus the pope decide.

And this is where we differ. I think if you're not sure about Scripture, you should look at what God, the Holy Spirit, says to YOU, NOW, not what He said to the Early Church throughout time (interpreted by humans, who are imperfect, compared to the perfect Holy Spirit). We didn't receive faith from the church, we received faith from GOD. What if God tells you something different to the Pope? Would you consider it wrong (or you instead of God), just because it differs from what the Pope says?

What will you do when there is no Pope? He's resigning, and there will be a time in between Popes. What if something comes up?

[bek]

This is one of my major issues with Catholicism. There's people in between you and God, making the rules. What if God tells you something different to the Pope?

From bek:

And this is where we differ. I think if you're not sure about Scripture, you should look at what God, the Holy Spirit, says to YOU, NOW, not what He said to the Early Church throughout time (interpreted by humans, who are imperfect, compared to the perfect Holy Spirit). We didn't receive faith from the church, we received faith from GOD. What if God tells you something different to the Pope? Would you consider it wrong (or you instead of God), just because it differs from what the Pope says?

What will you do when there is no Pope? He's resigning, and there will be a time in between Popes. What if something comes up?

Yes, they are fallible human beings. But I also am a fallible human being. And how can I not be sure that I'm not reading my own preconceptions, biases, wants and desires into Scripture?

In terms of God, well it seems to me there quite a lot of Christians quite a bit convinced that the Holy Spirit is telling them one thing, and others convinced the Holy Spirit is telling them the exact opposite... The Holy Spirit doesn't contradict Himself. And one could argue maybe the Holy Spirit is just saying something different to each individual and that's fine. But what about the Church as a whole? Surely there are things that the Church as a whole is going to have to come to agreement on. And who decides on these issues? And who is going to decide on some of the essential questions about the Gospel?

For example amongst Protestants there's some big issues about well can people lose their salvation-I because I know for a fact that Protestants don't agree on said subject. Do people have free will? You may think these are minor things but you know what people might live their lives differently based on the answers to these questions.

Or things like Baptism? What is to be done with children of believers? Can they be baptized just like Jewish boys were circumcized? If children must be of a certain accountability than what is said age? Because Scripture after all does not tell us. You may say this baptism issue is nothing but I can tell you that in my undergraduate. There was a Christian group that was going around and the Pastor would preach on and on about how people who were baptized as babies, weren't really baptized. I was part of an interdenominational Methodist group at the time (even though I was Pentecostal) and he'd specifically get in on it when the folks in the Methodist group would come to watch their friends get baptized.

And you know what, I can tell you said Pastor's words created quite a lot of hurt. And quite a lot of division too. Now one can argue is it really a big deal and I can see that point. But I can argue it is a big deal if Christians are not able to recognize each other's baptism.. Its a very big deal especially when Scripture says "there is one faith, and one baptism" So yes there's a big problem here.

And for all of these issues I heard people get into their little Scripture wars for years. And I know people who I respected who I knew really loved Jesus have some disagreements.. And it was never that I didn't have my own opinion about the subject but rather a matter of how I can be sure my opinion is so right when someone over here is so wrong, when its the Holy Spirit who is guiding each of us????

We Catholics take the early Church's beliefs in account so highly because they were closer to Christ's teachings and the apostles than you and are. We are 2,000 years away from Christ? But a lot of the early churches were much closer to the time period. Also there's the fact that Scripture didn't come to us in a neat package all bundled up. Jesus never handed us the Bible and said "there you go the Word of God".

For the first couple of centuries there was actually some real discussion about what books belonged in Scripture and what books didn't? Do you think maybe now you can go and decided the book of James doesn't belong like Luther questioned because you don't like some of the words it says? And what about some of the books that were left out-why not add some back in? Or do you think that we take the Early Church decision on these books because we figure they were closer to the time period than we were. Closer to Christ closer to the Apostles and so maybe very well should by proximity they might have a better idea of which books of the Gospels were authentic and which ones aren't.

So we Catholics would ask if you take them seriously on Scripture, than why do so many Protestants ignore their teachings/on other things. I .e argue they are completely wrong on everything else. Wrong on the decisions that were eventually made about baptism, wrong on the subject of Communion being Christ's Body? To me if these people are near unanimous about something, they by proximity to Christ should be heavily taken into account.

I decided if I was clear on something, that I should look at what the early church said and I was mainly thinking of Communion because personally, I don't want to go with what I "want Communion to be" I want to go on what Christ wants communion to be. I don't want Baptism to be what I "want Baptism to be" I want to go with what Christ wants baptism to be.

And even if Christ is say choose, I personally think these issues need to be resolved. Christ said I pray they may be one so the World will believe my Message' that's pretty serious stuff. Christians were commanded to be in agreement.

In terms of my own personal life I believe God's going to tell me not the Priest what job I should take, who I should marry etc. But I don't think He's necessarily going to let me decide if priests should be married, how people are to be baptized etc.

The Pope/bishops are there basically because if there's disputes there has to be means of resolving them. Period. And I think God wants this, us having a means to resolve are issues rather than fighting back and forth and dividing Christ's body. Because that's what I feel very strongly, its not really about ME.. Its about Christ's body as a whole.

As for what will we do without the Pope. As I said before the pope doesn't really get into my Personal relationship with. When I have to make my day to day decisions that's between me and God. If the Church has a major issue well, the Church normally doesn't make a decision right away, rather a lot of prayer/study comes involved. Church councils can at times take a very long time. Somehow I suspect during that time the Cardinals can find a moment to elect a new Pope.

The Church has managed for 2,000 years popes dying. I think we can handle one man resigning. And in fact that's one thing I like about what Pope Benedict is doing. He's illustrating the Papacy is an office- an office central to Church. But its not one man or about one personality.. He is not indispensible. No one is.