I'm a single Catholic. My church means the world to me. I'm very active in outreach to the poor in my community and my religion is important to me. My problem is this: Last year I met a guy who was/is ending a marriage... his second. He was married very young (in a Catholic Church) and it failed because he was drinking heavily. While still drinking heavily, he met his second wife. The marriage was outside the church because he did not want to get the first annulled. The marriage produced two kids. He stopped drinking a few years ago and realized that he was married to the wrong person. He is a different person now. There has been no relationship for many years and they are at the separation stage. Friendship turned into something far more between us. In short, I love him dearly but what does it mean for me if we are to be together? No marriage in the church for sure. I feel as if I'm going to be asked to choose between the Catholic Church and the guy I love. I’m aching over this. Do I leave the church? Why bother even getting married outside the church if I still can’t go to communion anyway. I’m hurting right now. Please just don’t tell me to leave him…. I don’t want to. Can I be with him and still remain active in the church without feeling like I not welcome? I’m torn.

-- Anonymous (lc90@hotmail.com), March 25, 2002

Answers

Many people still get something out of Mass without going to Communion.

To me a bigger problem is the drinking...even though he's sober now, doesn't mean he'll be sober in the future....

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), March 25, 2002.

He has been sober for 8 years and has truely changed his life. I wouldn't be with him otherwise.

Thanks for the response.

-- Anonymous (gjciii@hotmail.com), March 26, 2002.

Anonymous,

First of all, has your "fiancee" even spoke to a priest about his former marriages? He may be able to get a Decree of Nullity for both. Since he is Catholic, his second marriage outside the Church may qualify because of "defect of form". My husband was granted nullity for this reason, but it may be different in your diocese. I don't know the details of his first marriage, but you both should go talk to your pastor. If there is a chance you can marry in the Church, shouldn't you at least try?

What are his feelings about being a Catholic? Doesn't he want to participate in the Sacrament's? If you had children, wouldn't you want to worship together as a family? If it does come down to making a choice, aren't you really choosing between your man and The Lord?

I am not an expert on any of this, but I think it would be worthwhile to check out with your Diocese.

God bless you,

-- Marcella (marcellack@yahoo.com), March 26, 2002.

Marcella,

Thank you for the response. As GT stated, one can still worship without receiving communion. No, I do not feel that I am being asked to choose between the Lord and the guy. My love for God and Jesus are unwaivering. That's not the issue. One can still have faith even though the church rules have not been followed. The guy was raised Catholic and attended Catholic schools. He is reluctant to get the first marriage nullified for reasons very personal to him. I do not judge him on his past. I love him for who he is NOW. Yes, he wants to worship with me but feels the church doesn't want him. I'm feeling that if we are to be together, the church probably wouldn't want me either. I followed the rules (for the most part) for 33 years and now I'll be punished for HIS past. Doesn't quite seem fair. I'm just confused.

-- Anonymous (gjciii@hotmail.com), March 26, 2002.

Anonymous,

I don't believe for one moment that the Church doesn't want you or your man. I think the Lord very much wants you to be part of His Mystical Body. I don't think the Church "punishes" anyone as much as we "punish" ourselves. Maybe you should question your fiancee's motives for not wanting to be completely free from his former "wives", so he could be completely free to marry you, in the Church that you love so much, so that you would be able to fully participate in the Sacraments? If he loves you so much, then why would he want to keep you from Her? We all have made mistakes in our past (believe me, I have made plenty myself), but that doesn't mean there are no consequences and that we should not be held accountable for them. That's why we have the Rite of Reconciliation. That's why the Church sometimes grants Decree's of Nullity to those who qualify. If you choose not to accept these "gifts" from her, than is she really "punishing" you, or are you punishing yourself? Please pray about this, Anonymous.

God bless you,

-- Marcella (marcellack@yahoo.com), March 26, 2002.

Anonymous,

I don't believe for one moment that the Church doesn't want you or your man. I think the Lord very much wants you to be part of His Mystical Body. I don't think the Church "punishes" anyone as much as we "punish" ourselves. Maybe you should question your fiancee's motives for not wanting to be completely free from his former "wives", so he could be completely free to marry you, in the Church that you love so much, so that you would be able to fully participate in the Sacraments? If he loves you so much, then why would he want to keep you from Her?

We all have made mistakes in our past (believe me, I have made plenty myself), but that doesn't mean there are no consequences and that we should not be held accountable for them. That's why we have the Rite of Reconciliation. That's why the Church grants Decree's of Nullity to those who qualify. If you choose not to accept these "gifts" from her, than is she really punishing you, or are you punishing yourself? Please pray about this, Anonymous.

God bless you,

-- Marcella (marcellack@yahoo.com), March 26, 2002.

Marcella,

I can't force him into something that will cause him pain. He doesn't want to open old wounds with his ex. I hope that he can see it will hurt me dearly. I just have to be prepared in the event that he can't bring himself to do it. I actually had thoughts of leaving the church but I just can't bring myself to do it. I would be lost. And you are correct, we do punish ourselves quite a bit.

-- Anonymous (gjciii@hotmail.com), March 26, 2002.

Anonymous,

Sometimes the only way to heal "old wounds" for good is to open them back up, face them, and then close them once and for all. If he isn't willing to do this for you, I would think twice about marrying him. I know you love him, but love isn't always enough. Love is just the starting point. You may not realize this now, but over time you could grow to resent him for keeping you from full Communion with Jesus. I would urge you again to speak with a priest you trust, and pray without ceasing, lest you make a mistake you will regret forever. I will pray for you as well.

God bless you,

-- Marcella (marcellack@yahoo.com), March 26, 2002.

I hope that this post offers peace and comfort in my sharing it.

The Catholic Church does not promulgate the position of not wanting someone in Her embrace. The Catholic Church does not act in a fashion of not welcoming fallen-away Catholics who wish to return to full practice and communion. If She did, the beautiful Sacrament of Reconcilliation would not be so valuable...and available. We all sin. We all have the love of Christ is spite of our sins. We all are received by Christ when we turn back to Him. There is no judgement...just love. I remind you of the story of the lost lamb...the story of the prodigal son...the story of the adulterous woman. Only love, not reproach.

-- Melissa (holy_rhodes@earthlink.net), March 27, 2002.

Melissa,

Thank you for the reply. This is a tough situation for me to deal with. At times my thoughts get scattered and I don't know what to do. My hope is that we can still be part of the church even if we cannot go to communion and that others around us will not judge us. I pray about this daily.

-- Ananymous (gjciii@hotmail.com), March 27, 2002.

Marcella and Melissa,
I just admire you so much for your gentle, wise, and 100% truthful advice to Anonymous. I could not have done half as well as you, and you are especially convincing, talking woman-to-woman.

Dear Anonymous, I wish that I were a close friend of the man in your life. I would keep after him to seek the Decree of Nullity, day after day, until he either gave in or kicked me out of his life. It is absolutely essential that he seek this Decree, for the good of his soul, yours, and the souls of your children. The pain he will feel from reopening his past will soon go away, while the pain of separation from Holy Communion for years and years will be much more intense and will not depart from you. (Being away from Reconciliation and Communion has already hurt him -- I can tell.) Surely you do not want to enter into an adulterous relationship. You love Jesus too much to wound him in that way.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 27, 2002.

John,

Thank you for the reply. Are you saying my soul and the souls of my children will not be welcomed into the kingdom of heaven because we can't receive Holy Communion? Perhaps I'm reading too much into your post? Anyway, after the conversation I had with him last night, I've come to realize he is more bitter towards the church than I thought. I have tough decisions to make.

-- Anonymous (gjciii@hotmail.com), March 28, 2002.

Jmj

Hello, Anonymous.
You asked, "Are you saying my soul and the souls of my children will not be welcomed into the kingdom of heaven because we can't receive Holy Communion?"

Perhaps it has slipped your mind, but I am sure that you have heard the 6th chapter of the Gospel of St. John read at Mass several times in your life. Here are two key verses, and then I am going to give you a link to the whole chapter, which I urge you to reread, to be reminded of the importance of Holy Communion:
53: So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
54: he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Now here is the whole chapter. I hope that you will read it.

The Church teaches that a person who is not aware of what Jesus said in John 6 (or a person who is aware of it, but misunderstands it) can be saved without receiving Holy Communion, but it is much more difficult. This Blessed Sacrament and that of Penance/Reconciliation are tremendous helps that you and your children really need -- not to mention your male friend. Keep in mind that, other than the ancient Eastern churchs (e.g., the Orthodox), no other Christian religious body (i.e., the Protestants) have the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist and none of them has the sacrament of Penance.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 30, 2002.

John,

I don't agree but thank you anyway.

-- Ananymous (gjciii@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

John,

I am confused, why do you say that "no other Christian religious body (i.e., the Protestants) have the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist...?" Could you elaborate on this please.

Thank You and God Bless You,

-- Kathy (Curious@aol.com), April 01, 2002.

It is in the fact that we as Catholics believe in the Transubstansiation. In other words the real presence, the real body and blood of Christ. In the form of bread and wine.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 01, 2002.

Gothcha, thanks Fred.

God bless,

-- Kathy (Curious@aol.com), April 01, 2002.

Kathy,

To elaborate on Fred's answer a bit, Catholics believe that at mass when the host is consecrated it is REALLY changed into the substance of Jesus' body and blood, although to our senses it still appears as bread and wine. The lack of this sacrament in Protestant churches really does (IMO) in a very real way separate them from the body of Christ.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 02, 2002.

Frank,

Do Lutherans celebrate Holy Communion? How does this fit into this discussion?

-- Anonymous (gciii@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.

Hi Frank,

Thank you for the further explanation. I looked it up in the catechism after Fred's response, so I fully understand the difference now. However, IMHO I do not feel seperated from the body of Christ, but I also understand and respect our differences.

God Bless You Frank,

-- Kathy (Curious@aol.com), April 02, 2002.

BTW Frank,

I also found the Thread "The Real Presence", which also gives more detail to my question. I apologize for not having read that first before asking the question. It would have saved me the trip to the on-line catechism....oh well lol.

-- Kathy (Curious@aol.com), April 02, 2002.

Kathy

My wife recieved the Boy and Blood of Christ this past Easter Vigil. She can tell you how it feels as the wait made it even more real in her mind that she DID indeed recieve the him fully in the Body and Blood (With water added). She realized finally was able to say that he was indeed there and felt the real presence of Christ. We also had our marriage convalidated in the Church last night too. Now we are complete, and Catholic with Christ in his Sacraments too. May God's Angels be with you .

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 02, 2002.

CONGRATS Fred! To both you and your wife. I am sure this past Easter will always be a memorable one for you and Carolyn.

"Be completely humble and gentile; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace." EPHESIANS 4:2-3

"Love one another deeply, from the heart." 1 PETER 1:22

God Bless,

-- Kathy (Curious@aol.com), April 02, 2002.

Anonymous,

Yes, Lutherans do celebrate communion, but, well, you'll have to find out from God how right they are. As I understand it, around a.d. 1000 a guy named Berengarius said that rather than there being a *change* of substance of the bread, there was the *addition* of the substance of Christ to the substance of bread, though the accidents of the bread were the only thing we could discern in either case. This came to be known as "consubstantiation" as opposed to the official Catholic position of "transubstantiation", and the heretical form was picked up by Luther and passed down to Lutherans. BTW, part of being Catholic is believing that some things are True, and so for me there isn't much debate on the matter.

Kathy,

No need to apologize! Heck, the point of this forum is to spread information and faith. Unfortunately, people (including myself) get defensive and sharp with others due to the large number of mockers/bigots that show up, but everyone here is happy to try and help when asked.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 03, 2002.

Thanks Frank, you are very kind.

God Bless You,

-- (Curious@aol.com), April 03, 2002.

oopps.....forget to sign my name....

-- Kathy (Curious@aol.com), April 03, 2002.

As my Grandmother used to say, there are plenty of fish in the sea. :)

-- John R (me@withheld.com), April 03, 2002.

Hi, Anonymous.
Back on March 28, you asked me to follow up on what I had stated previously. Specifically you asked about your soul and the souls of your children if you did not receive Communion.
On March 30, I replied, quoting from John 6 and urging you to read the whole chapter. I also mentioned that the Real Presence of Jesus and the sacrament of Penance cannot be found within Protestantism (and cannot be received within Catholicism by someone in an irregular marital "union").

Your reply was just this short sentence:
"John, I don't agree but thank you anyway."

Although I appreciate the politeness of your reply, I was left feeling very empty by it. I am wondering if I can persuade you, in return for the two messages I took the time to prepare for you, to respond more fully?

You said you "don't agree," but I can't tell with what you disagree. And I can't understand how it is that there could be anything with which you "don't agree."

You see, what I have told you is pure Catholic teaching, with no opinion and no errors mixed in. You started this thread by saying, "My [Catholic] church means the world to me" and "my religion is important to me." As I read the situation, the facts don't fit together logically. You see, if you are a genuine Catholic, then you believe all that the Church teaches, including all the things that I stated. How then can you tell me that you "don't agree" with me? It just doesn't mesh. Can you help me to understand this?

Is it possible that Catholicism "means the world to" you culturally but not doctrinally? Does it perhaps make you feel good to be Catholic, but you actually reject some of the Church's teachings (even though they came to us from Jesus and cannot possibly be wrong)? I would like to get you doing some very deep thinking about all this, so that, in the end, you will say that you do agree with me (and Jesus's Church), rather than that you "don't agree."

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 05, 2002.

John,
You see here the great mystery of iniquity at work in the world. No matter how a man or woman may wish they had faith, or believe they've been in the faith; faith itself is selective. Everybody doesn't have it. The Gospel is plain and rather obvious. But some don't have the capacity to know what the Gospel demands of them. They resist the Gospel, without realising what they've done. You can see this in ''anonymous'' -- who would have learned much from you, and should have. Only she didn't. God has to give the faith; and He hasn't granted it to her yet. Let's pray for her. Only God knows why she answered, ''John, I don't agree but thank you anyway."

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 06, 2002.

OK, Gene. I'll join you in praying for her. Thanks. JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 07, 2002.

This is a very old thread, but I have a question re: the Eucharist.

When Jesus performed the ceremony of The Last Supper for the first time He was standing there, alive, in the presence of the 12 Apostles. He held out the wine and the bread and spoke the words of that these were his body and blood. The Apostles were not expected to believe that the wine & bread were physically Jesus, he was standing there in front of them... but a symbolic Remembrance of him. That's all he asked.

-- Betty Wilduin (domer@email.com), June 24, 2004.

If you read what Jesus told the apostles, it was pretty clear ... This IS My Body; this IS my Blood". If He had intended them to believe that it was a symbolic gesture, He would have said so. However, if He HAD told them "this represents My Body", the apostles would have been terribly confused, for they had previously heard Him preach repeatedly, "My flesh is REAL FOOD; my blood is REAL DRINK". (John 6:55) They knew that "real" is the precise opposite of "symbolic". So if Jesus had previously told them that His flesh was REAL food, and now told them it was only SYMBOLIC food, they really would not have known what to believe.

It was the consistency of Jesus' teaching that made it possible for them to accept His true meaning without doubt. Every time Jesus spoke of the Eucharist, He made it completely clear that He was not speaking symbolically. This is why the Apostle Paul later wrote that anyone who receives the Eucharist unworthly "is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord". (1 Cor 11:27) Pretty strong language if he was writing about a mere symbolic gesture. This is also why many of His own disciples, upon hearing Him preach, responded by saying "This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?" (John 6:60) Now why do you suppose they would have had such tremendous difficulty over a mere symbolic gesture? Obviously they would not have. The took Him literally because He preached in such a way as to make sure they understood Him literally. And this is why, when Jesus would not back off and say that He was speaking figuratively, many of His disciples abandoned Him, and followed Him no more. (John 6:66) - the only occasion in all of scripture where followers rejected Him over purely doctrinal concerns. Tell me - if these disciples were walking away from eternal life over a simple misunderstanding - because they thought He was speaking literally when He wasn't - why did Jesus just sit there and watch them walk away? Why didn't He just correct the confusion, so that they would understand Him as He meant to be understood? The answer is obvious. They DID understand Him precisely as He meant to be understood, and now it was a matter of their level of faith, to accept what He said on the authority of the One Who was saying it - or to walk away.

Jesus asks you today what He asked those earlier men of little faith ... "Does this cause you to stumble? What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. But there are some of you who do not believe. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe" (John 6:61-64)

What is your response? Will you accept the true meaning of Jesus' words, as all Christians did for 1,500 years after His death and Resurrection? Or will you cling to the novel traditions and heresies of the past few hundred years? Ask for the faith to believe His Divine Word, and He will grant it to you.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 24, 2004.

Dear Betty,

Please see this thread: John 6:63 - Does Jesus' Flesh Profit Nothing? (Refuting the Protestant argument against the Eucharist). In it I addressed the notion that Christ's body and blood are assumed to be only metaphorically present.

Also, these resources on the Eucharist may be helpful to you: Catholic Outlook - The Eucharist.

God bless,

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), June 24, 2004.