I note no answer as to why the OP is interested in what other people are doing in regards to receiving communion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The better term is to “receive” communion. “Take” seems to be British/Anglican vocabulary, and is not ordinarily used in the Roman Church.

We receive in the Anglican Church. Please do not speak of things in which you are not informed.

Well, the Anglican Church is a “big tent,” so who knows what the place down the street is doing.

In any event “take” implies a Protestant, not Catholic, Eucharistic theology.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the many reasons I stopped believing. So someone who escapes an abusive husband can't ever get communion again? That doesn't seem very God like. I've found religious people to be the most intolerant and judgy people I've ever met.

You don't sound very smart. The Catholic Church has no issues with you leaving an abusive husband.

As seems to be more often the case than not when it comes to this subject, you don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

A married woman is free to act in self defense by separating from and, if necessary, civilly divorcing an abusive husband.

Given that one of the grounds for a declaration of nullity is that, at the time the putative marriage occurred, the spouse was incapable (because of psychological defect, immaturity, etc.) to validly consent to an exclusive, lifelong union open to children), the fact that a man was so abusive that divorce was required would be strongly indicative of a nullity ab initio.

Lol, what? I literally said there are no issues leaving an abusive husband. Is everyone here illiterate?

Sorry — quite literate but clicked on the wrong post. Meant to reply to the same one you did.

Anonymous wrote:The better term is to “receive” communion. “Take” seems to be British/Anglican vocabulary, and is not ordinarily used in the Roman Church.

We receive in the Anglican Church. Please do not speak of things in which you are not informed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the many reasons I stopped believing. So someone who escapes an abusive husband can't ever get communion again? That doesn't seem very God like. I've found religious people to be the most intolerant and judgy people I've ever met.

You don't sound very smart. The Catholic Church has no issues with you leaving an abusive husband.

As seems to be more often the case than not when it comes to this subject, you don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

A married woman is free to act in self defense by separating from and, if necessary, civilly divorcing an abusive husband.

Given that one of the grounds for a declaration of nullity is that, at the time the putative marriage occurred, the spouse was incapable (because of psychological defect, immaturity, etc.) to validly consent to an exclusive, lifelong union open to children), the fact that a man was so abusive that divorce was required would be strongly indicative of a nullity ab initio.

Lol, what? I literally said there are no issues leaving an abusive husband. Is everyone here illiterate?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the many reasons I stopped believing. So someone who escapes an abusive husband can't ever get communion again? That doesn't seem very God like. I've found religious people to be the most intolerant and judgy people I've ever met.

You don't sound very smart. The Catholic Church has no issues with you leaving an abusive husband.

As seems to be more often the case than not when it comes to this subject, you don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

A married woman is free to act in self defense by separating from and, if necessary, civilly divorcing an abusive husband.

Given that one of the grounds for a declaration of nullity is that, at the time the putative marriage occurred, the spouse was incapable (because of psychological defect, immaturity, etc.) to validly consent to an exclusive, lifelong union open to children), the fact that a man was so abusive that divorce was required would be strongly indicative of a nullity ab initio.

The better term is to “receive” communion. “Take” seems to be British/Anglican vocabulary, and is not ordinarily used in the Roman Church.

Persons who are divorced but who have not received a Declaration of Nullity (commonly called an “annulment” despite nothing being annulled; what is declared is that the putative marriage was “null” and never existed sacramentally in the first place) are free to receive communion if they are in a state of grace. That would mean that they are not having sexual relations and that if they are cohabitating it is as “brother and sister.” Otherwise they should not approach communion.

There are priests and theologians who will make arguments and give advice along the lines that the nullity of the prior bond can be discerned in “the internal forum” without a declaration. This is not entirely unfounded in every case but persons follow such advice at their peril.

Pope Francis suggested that depending on the circumstances some persons “living in sin” might be admitted to communion while being “accompanied” along the way to getting their affairs in order.

These approaches notwithstanding persons who have been putatively married, divorced, and then putatively remarried, and who are having sexual relations with the new spouse, ordinarily are not properly disposed to receive the Eucharist.

That said, the interior moral affairs of people typically are not something other people should be passing judgement on, particularly without all the facts.

Anonymous wrote:One of the many reasons I stopped believing. So someone who escapes an abusive husband can't ever get communion again? That doesn't seem very God like. I've found religious people to be the most intolerant and judgy people I've ever met.

You don't sound very smart. The Catholic Church has no issues with you leaving an abusive husband.

One of the many reasons I stopped believing. So someone who escapes an abusive husband can't ever get communion again? That doesn't seem very God like. I've found religious people to be the most intolerant and judgy people I've ever met.

Anonymous wrote:If they’ve had an annulment in the Church, they can receive communion.

I had an older, very devout relative who went years without receiving communion because she had married a divorced man. A kind priest asked her about it and was able to help the couple to get an annulment of the first marriage. The husband had only been married for a few months as a 19/20 year old, no kids, so the annulment was actually very easy.

My relative simply didn’t know that this was a possibility. She was so happy that she could receive communion again after this very nice priest helped them.

So you really may not know the situations and backgrounds of the people you see receiving communion.

Are annulments really that common? I find it a little hard to believe all the divorcees who come to Mass got annulments. All the non-annulment divorcees just quit coming?

This makes no sense

If they’ve had an annulment in the Church, they can receive communion.

I had an older, very devout relative who went years without receiving communion because she had married a divorced man. A kind priest asked her about it and was able to help the couple to get an annulment of the first marriage. The husband had only been married for a few months as a 19/20 year old, no kids, so the annulment was actually very easy.

My relative simply didn’t know that this was a possibility. She was so happy that she could receive communion again after this very nice priest helped them.

So you really may not know the situations and backgrounds of the people you see receiving communion.

My ex annulled our marriage for this reason. And to get remarried.

I leave that kind of question between an individual and God.

I only ask because divorce is somewhat common and I literally never see any middle aged or older people at Mass but not taking communion. Do divorcees and people who remarry just ignore that?