Dr. Peters

Thank you all, so far, for your advice, prayers and most importantly.....friendship, old and new.

Something foreign to this blog from days past is cordial discussion. So thank you for that especially. I will continue to seek out the Lord in prayer, do my best to remain humble, and maintain a degree of patience.

Anywho, someone in my previous post stated that I should contact Dr. Edward Peters. Well I did, and he quickly replied back to me, which I thank him for. He seems to be busy man. Though his answers were quite brief, he shed some new light on things. Speaking of Dr. Edwards, here is his bio:

"Dr. Edward Peters, is an American lay canon lawyer. Dr. Peters teaches, writes, speaks, and consults on a wide variety of canonical issues impacting the Church in the United States and around the world. He currently holds the Edmund Cdl. Szoka Chair at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, MI."

He has an extensive resume. Here is his webpage and blog.

I will post my entire email to him as well as his comments. His comments are in blue.


HI. PERMIT BRIEF REPLIES, AS I GET MORE OF THESE THAN I CAN ANSWER.
From: John Manzi [mailto:entermymind79@yahoo.com]Sent: Sat 5/24/2008 12:51 PMTo: Peters, Dr. EdwardSubject: Dr. Peters
Good Morning,

Your name was referred to me to by someone who said you could probably answer my question. I hope you have a minute......or two to assist me. IT WILL TAKE MORE A MINUTE OR TWO.

This is the latest post on my blog( I provided a link to him) and the dialog from others concerning my issue. I'LL SKIP THIS AS I DON'T HAVE TIME TO FOLLOW MANY BLOGS. WE'LL JUST DO YOUR QUESTIONS.

My wife and I were both born and raised Roman Catholic. OK.
We "walked away" from our faith in our teenage years. UNDERSTOOD.
We got married in a Methodist Church a few years ago SOUNDS INVALID. LACK OF FORM. C. 1108.
(at the time we were both Christians...or Catholics in name only) OK

I have since returned to the RCC, GOOD.
my wife is still anti-Rome. SORRY.

I was told by folks at EWTN and my local parish priest that I have to abstain from the Eucharist for its a mortal sin (2 Catholics getting married outside the Church) RIGHT.

Now for something to be a mortal sin it has to fit the "3 criteria" which it does not because I did not know church law. THAT'S NOT HOW CULPBALITY IS DETERMINED, IT'S NOT SIMPLY CHURCH LAW.

I had NO idea what I was doing was wrong. OK, WELL, EVEN IF THEN, YOU DO NOW, RIGHT?

The priest recommended we convalidate our marriage GOOD ADVICE to which my wife said no. OK, THAT'S HER RIGHT, AS IT WERE.

If I confessed my past mistakes in confession, why am I not forgiven? BECAUSE, IT SEEMS YOU ARE STILL ENJOYING THE FRUIT OF YOUR SINFUL ACTION.

Why am I to withhold from the Eucharist for a repented sin? IT'S LIKE, IF YOU STEAL A CAR, AND THEN REPENT OF STEALING IT, YOU CAN GO ON DRIVING IT, RIGHT?

I can not answer for my wife. RIGHT.

It takes 2 of us. RIGHT, BUT YOU ARE STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS.

Yet, I am bound, it appears, by her lack of return. WELL, SORT OF, BUT ACTUALLY, YOU ARE BOUND NOT TO "USE" THE MARRIAGE (IE, HAVE SEX) THAT YOU ENTERED AND NOW KNOW WAS WRONG TO DO AS YOU DID.

I want to be loyal to the Church but something seems wrong here. YES, YOU ARE MISUNDERSTANDING THINGS. Could you assist? DUNNO. DID I?

Arguments like this (below) make me "question" my decision but again I truly believe in the Catholic Church. WELL, OK.

"You have repented of any past sin EVIDENCE? you may have committed and you are fit to receive the Eucharist...period. WELL, IF ACCURATE, CLOSE ENOUGH ON THESE FACTS.
The Lord's Supper was instituted by Christ; not Rome. STRAW MAN. LIKE, AMERICA WAS FOUNDED BY CONGRESS, NOT WASHINGTON DC. SO WHAT?

Go where people recognize that the Eucharist is Christ's gift to the faithful, not one that is given only after enough brownie points are earned through proper submission to "The Church." " I SEE THIS ALOT. I JUST LAUGH. RIDICULE OF CHURCH TEACHING IS BEST MET BY LAUGHTER. OTO, IF PEOPLE WANT TO ASK QUESTIONS, I TRY TO ANSWER.

Thank you Dr. Peters, OK. BEST WISHES, EDP.

He did make some valid points like the example of the stolen car. However, it seems to boil down to this: I am an unrepentant because I am still "married" (at least civilly) to my wife and enjoy the fruits of said marriage. Well, I guess it does not get any more black and white then that. By the way Adam, as you see, I quoted you in my email to him, hope you don't mind.

Feel free to discuss his response to me. I know he does not have the time, but I wish he could have further elaborated on some of his comments.

Folks, the Catholic Church is my family. There will be times I will scratch my head, stamp my foot and walk around in confusion. However, I love Her. I missed Her and believe in Her. I also know the Church has my best interests in heart.

P.S. Concerning my wife. I love and respect her. I also completely understand her not wanting to come with me to the RCC. I am the one who pushed her away. I do not push her now, I maintain my distance and do not get into any deep thological discussions with her. For now, we do not see eye to eye and that is Ok. She respects my decision and I respect hers.

A comment made by bullet in my previous post got me thinking a little bit deeper concerning my situation of not being able to receive the Eucharist.

This is what he said:

"1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: 'Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.'"

"1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin."

"1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense...

"I guess only you know if you are "guilty" of these things.I was always a big fan of "intent." If you're trying to repent and your wife isn't, what are you supposed to do, divorce her? Jeezy Creezy!

I was advised 2 years ago by my local parish priest that due to the fact that my wife and I, whom are both Catholic and got married outside the Church, we must refrain from the Eucharist. (Mind you, at the time I was a nominal Christian......at best) He stated it was a mortal sin. I fully submit to the authority of the Church on this issue but need a bit more of a deeper understanding on it. A mortal sin must meet the criteria listed above from the Catechism. In my case it was not, so the issue itself, originally, I believe, was not a mortal sin. You can say that since I am now fully aware of the Church rule or canon law on the issue, that I must "remedy" the situation. However, I am unable to. My wife is unwilling to have our marriage convalidated. Where does that leave me? If the situation now is a mortal sin then why can I not confess it? It feels like an unforgivable sin. I want to experience the Eucharist again for the first time in 15 years but was advised not to and be patient praying that my wife will return home to the Faith. Anyone familiar with Cannon Law have any insight on this? I was reading about radical sanation (sp?) but do not know exactly what that is and how it would affect things if my wife were to return to the Church. Plus, I hear it's rare. Again, I will remain in spiritual communion but would like some help (and prayers!) on the how's and why's. I feel a bit stuck here. Again, I want to do what is right and I want to be loyal to the Church and her teaching.

Order of the Mass

I have a question and some thoughts on my recent attendance at Mass. This is the first time at Mass in a couple years and the first time at this parish. I have lots of good memories from my early days in the Catholic Church, specifically, as an altar boy. I noticed a few things during the Mass that made me feel, I don't know, is uneasy the right word? Maybe that is too strong. It was something I was not used to. This question can probably be best answered by "seasoned" Catholics but any advice would be welcomed. I do not know if my feelings are right or I am off-base. First things first, the Mass was quite short, it ended in approx 40-45 min including a 15 min homily on tithing and the soon to be retirement of the Msgr. Here are a few things that I noticed that made me scratch my head.

1. When the priest came to the podium to speak (He was not officiating the Mass) he went right to the podium and did not genuflect at the altar. When his homily was over, he walked off. Again, not bowing before the altar.

2. The tabernacle was off to the side. I am used to seeing it in the center behind the altar. With it off to the side, it seemed to not play as an important "role" during Mass.

3. The normal response I am used to hearing is "Lord, hear our prayer". Here, our response was "Lord, graciously hear us".

4. Those leading in song, the speakers, and those who read scripture were all women. Not so much a big deal but I noticed the lack of male especially during the Eucharist when it was all women (except the priest) who distributed it. They were wearing normal/casual street clothes. No robes...nothing.

5. During the "Our Father", a majority lifted their hands in the air or held hands with the folks next to them in the air.

6. The "Gloria" was not said or sung.

7. One of the alter boys was.....eh....an altar girl.

I maybe making mountains out of mole hills but the "issues" above are foreign to what I know and have experienced in the early years of my Catholic faith. Is the above "Ok"? I felt like a stranger here. Is this parish in line with the rite of the Mass?

Taking it down a notch..

On the lighter side, this looks good. Real good.

Do you have room for one more?

This man impresses me. I may not agree with all his objectives, but who does? He has a strong pro-life stance which is an important issues for me. An issue that is lacking by the candidates in the two major parties. I normally vote my conscience, I have in the past. However, as close as this race will be, I understand that a vote for Bob Barr is taking away a vote for McCain. I wish we did not have the two party stranglehold. Will that ever change?

Why not Protestant?

In my own private search for truth, I often questioned myself "Since you are so unsatisfied, why not find a high liturgical protestant church"? Well, it boils down to such a highly debatable issue which, for me, is a no brainer. I have always struggled with the issue of sola scriptura. Since Sacred Scripture does not interpret itself, it either boils down to an authority, either the Church or me. How can I as a fallible sinful creature interpret correctly? How would I know if I am even remotely correct? There are way too many denominations claiming Truth. Yet, they contradict each other on pivotal doctrines such as baptism, the Eucharist and justification. Who is right? How can they know with any ounce of certainty? How can they all claim their held beliefs are Holy Spirit led?

The Catholic Church teaches "Tradition and scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the word of God, which is entrusted to the church" (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, 10)

It's more plausible to trust the interpretations of the Church, which gave us scripture, then you and I. Sola Scriptura plays a mighty role in the dis-unity you see in Christendom. God's Word comes to us through words spoken AND written by human beings. Sacred Scriptures is the utterance of God put down in writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Sacred Tradition is the handing on of God's Word by the successors of the apostles. They never contradict or stand in opposition of one another.

The bible itself never makes the claim that scripture is the SOLE authority for the faith. (See 2 Peter 1:20)

Without providing full examples, when one reads the words of the early church fathers (without cutting and pasting) they never taught or advocated sola scriptura. ( Irenaeus, Cyprian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa,John Chrysostom, etc) Scripture does not stand above the Church.

This is just one of many reason why I came back in full communion with the Church.


Be blessed.

Bullet and Adam G.

How's that?


You put it in my head and I could not get over it. So I changed it to something a bit more fitting.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of conversion stories of one's journey to the Catholic Faith that you can view on-line. I do not have a conversion story. I have always been a Catholic. Due to immaturity, lack of knowledge, lack of faith and suffering from the disease of individualism, I walked away. Bishop Sheen was talking about me when he stated:

"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church"

Why am I Catholic? Because I strongly believe in the Catholic Faith. It's Home. It is where I believe the totality of God's Truth is found. Sometimes in life we go through spiritual confusion. We scratch our heads, we get frustrated, we get angry and sometimes we give up. I see now, looking back that I never was truly lost, once a Catholic, always a Catholic. I was not an outsider looking in. For a while I was on the wrong path. All I was concerned about, was pleasing me. Supermarket shopping the Christian faith, choosing the doctrines and morals that suited me. Looking for a church that was entertaining to me, that played my kind of music. It was in that frame of mind where I lost myself. The Papal visit to the US recently was the straw that finally broke the camels back. Do not take this the wrong way, but I saw Jesus through this man. I saw in this man, the visual unity of the Church universal. His humble and gentle spirit drew me Home. What a great earthly leader we have in the Bishop of Rome.

It is good, bittersweet, to be at Home again.

Thank you Father.