Holy Matrimony

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

i am worried that perhaps under the current christian world climate without belittling the natural union between 1 man and women and the sanctity of a CHRISTIAN marriage that unfortunately perhaps we are making an idol out of marriage and that in fact only Jesus saves and not marriage. That although marriage is good the communion of the spirit and fellowship of the saints is far greater and more likely to save ( Jesus 'this is my body and my blood do this in memory of me, whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood will be saved, wherever any two or more are gathered in my name i shall be there.')

I kind of am leading toward ditch the whole marriage word and embrace the term Holy Matrimony as common tounge, the world has stolen many a word from christianity and corrupted it, like whatever we will invent a new one or use an ancient term that isn't popular anymore.

 

God bless.

[superblue]

http://theadvocate.com/news/12939016-123/married-gay-man-describes-denial

 

“With respect to the specific matter raised, the Catholic Church expects that any individual Catholic who is in a marital situation which is not in conformity with its doctrines will not come forward to receive the body and blood of the Lord at Mass. For Catholics, reception of Holy Communion among other things is an expression of unity with the church’s teachings, including those about marriage,” the diocese wrote in a statement.

Diocese spokeswoman Donna Carville, a Eucharistic minister, said the diocese does not condone denial of communion to Catholics just because they are gay.

“That’s very surprising that he was denied communion. That just doesn’t happen. ... We don’t deny people communion,” she said. “Who are we to judge whether they believe (the church’s teachings on the communion) or not? It’s between you and God.”

Being married outside the church should not be used to deny someone the Eucharist, said the Rev. Roger Keeler, executive coordinator of the Canon Law Society of America.

So a few things going on here, first we have a government telling homosexuals that yes you can be legally married, and now that is transferring over in this situation in an underlying manner, " it is legal, but A priest just denied me communion ".

Then we get a mixed story, a very sad situation and honest story/ but a lot of context is missing, did the priest in question actually know this person is married to another man, and then in turn the debate should be centered around that , but after reading this article i see a lot of conflicting answers and confusion in general. this one quoted section that i did not splice together; the bold is the obvious answer, but it leaves something out, hitting on what a priest should do IF he has knowledge that someone is in a state of sin, or is not in conformity with the doctrines of the Church....  the second line,  well that is a no brainer too, but that was not the issue at hand, the issue was not because this man is homosexual but because he is married. 3rd yes it is surprising and if it happens it usually is not splashed in the media would have been a more accurate response;  ( orange )  really " we " ? A very broad answer for the entire Catholic Church in general and a better answer would have been/ she has never heard of in her diocese of someone being denied communion .  

Last is a misnomer / the answer suggests that homosexual civil union couples should not be denied the Eucharist with in the Church. That is basically what this priest has said, with out specifically saying it.  A political answer i see it as.  The topic of those married outside the Church that is totally separate and even easily fixable when a heterosexual couple outside the Church decides to join the Church and I would suggest that this priest knew exactly that.

 

But this topic comes back to  in part ;if you haven't guessed, the legalization of homosexual civil unions. The idea is to get the masses to get so riled up and aggravated that the stone age system of the Church won't conform to what our enlightened Supreme Court has passed with the blessing of our secular priest obamas' blessing with his wonderful light display on the White House when it was passed.

[Nihil Obstat]

That was such a stupid and misinformed article.

[superblue]

That was such a stupid and misinformed article.

exactly, and this is the croutons time an again that is pumped out to people, but i was more intrigued by those in that diocese response to this.

at least it didn't make it to any major headlines.

[Nihil Obstat]

Fr. Z's coverage was pretty good too.

[little2add]

this is not the first redefinition of marriage that has occurred in America. The redefinition has actually come in three stages:

1. In 1969 the first no-fault divorce law was signed in California. Within 15 years every state in this land had similar laws that made divorce easy. No longer did state laws uphold the principle which the Catechism describes as a partnership of the whole of life. Now marriage was redefined as a contract easily broken by the will of the spouses.
2. The dramatic rise in contraceptive use and the steep drop in birthrates, though not a legal redefinition, amount to a kind of cultural redefinition of marriage as described in the Catechism which sees the procreation and education of offspring as integral to its very nature. Now the American culture saw this aspect as optional at the will of the spouses. Having sown in the wind (where we redefined not only marriage, but sex itself) we are now reaping the whirlwind of deep sexual confusion and a defining of marriage right out of existence.
3. This final blow of legally recognizing so called gay “marriage” completes the redefinition of marriage which the Catechism describes as being a covenant, …which a man and a woman establish between themselves.Now secular American culture is removing even this, calling same-sex relationships “marriage”.

Holy Matrimony refers to that that holy Sacrament wherein a woman enters the state that inaugurates an openness to motherhood. Hence the Biblical and Ecclesial definition of Holy Matrimony as heterosexual and procreative is reaffirmed by the term itself.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

This wasn't meant to be about homosexuals lol. But ok. Good info superblue, thanks. As far as i'm aware the churches teaching is that only a catholic in the state of Grace can recieve communion, the question is what is the churches teachings on what is grace? And i'm unsure what the churches teaching is as to whether it is totaly up to the individual catholic to recieve or not or whether the priest can deny, i'm sure plenty of catholics that are not in a state of Grace recieve due to the lack of knowledge and understanding of what Grace actually is perhaps?

 

1. In 1969 the first no-fault divorce law was signed in California. Within 15 years every state in this land had similar laws that made divorce easy. No longer did state laws uphold the principle which the Catechism describes as a partnership of the whole of life. Now marriage was redefined as a contract easily broken by the will of the spouses.
2. The dramatic rise in contraceptive use and the steep drop in birthrates, though not a legal redefinition, amount to a kind of cultural redefinition of marriage as described in the Catechism which sees the procreation and education of offspring as integral to its very nature. Now the American culture saw this aspect as optional at the will of the spouses. Having sown in the wind (where we redefined not only marriage, but sex itself) we are now reaping the whirlwind of deep sexual confusion and a defining of marriage right out of existence.
3. This final blow of legally recognizing so called gay “marriage” completes the redefinition of marriage which the Catechism describes as being a covenant, …which a man and a woman establish between themselves.Now secular American culture is removing even this, calling same-sex relationships “marriage”.

 

Don't we need to recognise that the catechism defines CHRISTIAN marriage and outsiders are not bound by the CHRISTIAN definition of MARRIAGE?

Surely the whole world is not bound by Gods law because the world is lawless, we have always known this, whats the suprise? We can not force the world to believe the laws we are bound by through truth and our own descision to say yes to God and no to the world.

IDK, not saying i'm correct.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Nihil Obstat]

The whole world is bound by God's law, and error has no rights.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

You will be judged the way you judge.  Of course without being an overly loose pink rabbit liberal

Edited July 21, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye
double typo