What is actually causing confusion is the fact that you think I am saying it is alright for the divorced and remarried to receive Holy Communion. I am not saying this at all. I am agreeing with Benedict who wrote "None of us has a ready-made formula, also because situations always differ. I would say that those who were married in the Church for the sake of tradition but were not truly believers, and who later find themselves in a new and invalid marriage and subsequently convert, discover faith and feel excluded from the Sacrament, are in a particularly painful situation. This really is a cause of great suffering and when I was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I invited various Bishops' Conferences and experts to study this problem: a sacrament celebrated without faith. Whether, in fact, a moment of invalidity could be discovered here because the Sacrament was found to be lacking a fundamental dimension, I do not dare to say. I personally thought so, but from the discussions we had I realized that it is a highly-complex problem and ought to be studied further. But given these people's painful plight, it must be studied further." (CLERGY OF AOSTA July 2005) After the death of St. Pope John Paul II He personally thought that if a certain something was missing then the marriage was invalid. Now if the person in this situation cannot get an annulment from the external forum then they could approach a good traditional priest, who will help them discover if the marriage is truly valid... or not. Those that find their first union is valid will not be able to receive Holy Communion. They will be accompanied however to integrate into the life of the Church. Even the fact that Benedict admitted it needed further study should be telling you that it is not going against the Commandment. Because some believed it was opening a door they wouldn't even consider studying it further.... but the external forum itself is wide open to abuse. I can testify to this.
"I am flabbergasted! You are twisting and turning your words around, Janet." "You said the following when I put forth that you were being deceitful in posting para 3 of the CDF document, (which you took out of context) as proof for your argument:" Then when I asked why you didn't simply admit to making the mistake, you reply with this: So, did you or did you not make a mistake? You also claimed that I called you names: But when I denied doing that, your response was: How can that be construed as name calling? And then this statement of yours: What does that even mean? What are you saying I should have posted? Sg you missed out my words in this post. I've just copied this. Am I imagining that my words haven't been posted or am I going mad haha? It has to be an error of some sort.
