Abortion Rights Supporters in Congress to Receive Communion

[elt1956]

In the end, it will be up to the penitent to determine whether or not he is worthy to receive the Lord of Heaven and Earth in Holy Communion. There’s no way he couldn’t know-- if he has gone to confession and has not committed a mortal sin hence, he is in a state of grace and could receive Holy Communion. Otherwise, he is not, and if still he insists on receiving Holy Communion, woe to him!

There is no way for the Holy Father to know beyond any doubt whether or not one is worthy to receive Holy Communion. Besides, even if he has any doubt, charity will compel him to err on the generous side.

Hello Abraham, you are right in saying the Holy Father, the Priests, Bishops etc. cannot say for sure whether a person receiving communion is in a state of Grace, or not. BUT, unless the confesee? makes a firm commitment to amend their his/her life, the Confession does no good. I still say those receiving communion, whose past record on such a big problem as Abortion is so well known, have given Scandal to the Church and to all others, especially to those who do not understand the teachings of the Church on this topic… Peace.

 

[elt1956]

Under the Old Testament Law, no one could be saved because no one could follow the law perfectly.

Jesus came and he condems NO ONE. He saves us from our sins because of his body and blood sacrificed for all.

We all have a choice to accept or reject him and his church. Jesus never turned away sinners who came to him. If Nancy and Rudi and John K and even Teddy come to Jesus he will not turn them away. They are sinners just like we all are. If they are truly sorry for their sins and come to him, Christ will forgive them and invite them to his father’s house.

If they are being frauds by coming forward, then nothing has changed for them. They are people of the law of the old testament and rather than blessings of the Holy Eucharist they eating and drinking even worse punishment upon their own souls in this world and the next because Jesus came to forgive those who believe in him and his father’s mercy; and they don’t believe, but are pretenders by taking communion.

We need not worry about the appearances of this and that. Let all come to Jesus and receive forgivness. When we do this we will be more like Jesus and less like the scribes and Pharisees who likewise condemned people for a career. Please no communion police! We know not the moment when there is a new heart put into a person, and we could be the obstacle of God’s grace and forgiveness for our brothers and sisters.
<"))))>< George

Hi. I have to agree with blessedtoo. Here are a couple of websites regarding giving Scandal that may be informative for you.

Words of St. Alphonsus Ligouri on Scandal www.tanbooks.com/doct/serm_alphonsus.htm

And New Advent website
newadvent.org/summa/3043.htm

Matthew 18:6
“He that shall scandalize one of these little ones, (or cause him to stumble) that believe in Me, …it were better a millstone be hung about his neck and he should be drowned in the depths of the sea”.

Believe me, I am usually one of the most tolerant, to a fault, Catholic, to the point I believe there is hope for Salvation for those Christians who are not Catholic. BUT Abortion is one of the most important issues the Church has had to do battle about possibly since Martin Luther. Do give this some thought. We sin not only through actions, but also through omission of actions, including not standing up for the innocent., by standing by and allowing this very evil horrendous act to continue. Life is high on the list of gifts we can receive…Where would we be without it? Peace

 

[Elzee]

Wow! This document is a treasure and has served to answer all my questions. Thank you, thank you, and bless you!

From the document:

If the lack of right disposition is serious and public, and the person, nevertheless, approaches to receive the Sacrament, then he is to be admonished and denied Holy Communion. In other words, the Church cannot remain silent and indifferent to a public offense against the Body and Blood of Christ.

From the document:
*Perhaps the most recent authoritative commentary on Saint Paul’s teaching regarding unworthiness to receive Holy Communion is found in Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical Letter *Ecclesia de Eucharistia, “On the Eucharist in Its Relationship to the Church,” issued on Holy Thursday, April 17, 2003. In Chapter Four of the Encyclical Letter, “The Eucharist and Ecclesial Communion,” Pope John Paul declared:
*The celebration of the Eucharist, however, cannot be the starting point for communion; it presupposes that communion already exists, a communion which it seeks to consolidate and bring to perfection. The sacrament is an expression of this bond of communion both in its *invisible dimension, which, in Christ and through the working of the Holy Spirit, unites us to the Father and among ourselves, and in its visible dimension, which entails communion in the teaching of the apostles, in the sacraments and in the Church’s hierarchical order [8].
**
Emphasis mine. I have never heard it explained this way. This, in itself, can answer a lot of questions.

 

[DustinsDad]

…Matthew 18:6
“He that shall scandalize one of these little ones, (or cause him to stumble) that believe in Me, …it were better a millstone be hung about his neck and he should be drowned in the depths of the sea”…

For all those who support giving Communion to pro-abortion politicians, here are some millstones to choose from:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

http://www.jessica-hoffman.us/images/millstone.JPG

http://www.millstones.com/store/images/38004.jpg





DD

 

[blessedtoo]

From the document:

If the lack of right disposition is serious and public, and the person, nevertheless, approaches to receive the Sacrament, then he is to be admonished and denied Holy Communion. In other words, the Church cannot remain silent and indifferent to a public offense against the Body and Blood of Christ.

From the document:

*Perhaps the most recent authoritative commentary on Saint Paul’s teaching regarding unworthiness to receive Holy Communion is found in Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical Letter **Ecclesia de Eucharistia, “On the Eucharist in Its Relationship to the Church,” issued on Holy Thursday, April 17, 2003. In Chapter Four of the Encyclical Letter, “The Eucharist and Ecclesial Communion,” Pope John Paul declared:*The celebration of the Eucharist, however, cannot be the starting point for communion; it presupposes that communion already exists, a communion which it seeks to consolidate and bring to perfection. The sacrament is an expression of this bond of communion both in its *invisible dimension, which, in Christ and through the working of the Holy Spirit, unites us to the Father and among ourselves, and in its *visible dimension, which entails communion in the teaching of the apostles, in the sacraments and in the Church’s hierarchical order [8].

Emphasis mine. I have never heard it explained this way. This, in itself, can answer a lot of questions.

Yes, indeed. Even more succinct and resolute is this:

In early June 2004, in order to assist the Bishops, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent a memorandum, entitled “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick who was exercising leadership in the Conference of Bishops regarding matters of domestic policy. The memorandum sets forth six “general principles” regarding worthiness to receive Holy Communion.
The fourth principle distinguishes between the judgment which the individual must make about his worthiness and the discretion which the minister of Holy Communion must employ regarding those who present themselves to receive the Sacrament. The principle calls to mind that <<the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin>>. [56]

The fifth principle provides instruction for the pastor regarding the handling of a case of obstinate persistence in public serious sin. It refers explicitly to the case of Catholic politicians:

Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist. [57]

 

[elt1956]

From the document:

If the lack of right disposition is serious and public, and the person, nevertheless, approaches to receive the Sacrament, then he is to be admonished and denied Holy Communion. In other words, the Church cannot remain silent and indifferent to a public offense against the Body and Blood of Christ.

From the document:
*Perhaps the most recent authoritative commentary on Saint Paul’s teaching regarding unworthiness to receive Holy Communion is found in Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical Letter *Ecclesia de Eucharistia, “On the Eucharist in Its Relationship to the Church,” issued on Holy Thursday, April 17, 2003. In Chapter Four of the Encyclical Letter, “The Eucharist and Ecclesial Communion,” Pope John Paul declared:
The celebration of the Eucharist, however, cannot be the starting point for communion; it presupposes that communion already exists, a communion which it seeks to consolidate and bring to perfection. The sacrament is an expression of this bond of communion both in its invisible dimension, which, in Christ and through the working of the Holy Spirit, unites us to the Father and among ourselves, and in its visible dimension, which entails communion in the teaching of the apostles, in the sacraments and in the Church’s hierarchical order [8].
**
Emphasis mine. I have never heard it explained this way. This, in itself, can answer a lot of questions.

Not to beat a “dead” horse, but I am. So why were they allowed to receive Communion??? This REALLY is irritating me. Peace.

 

[bobzills]

Not to beat a “dead” horse, but I am. So why were they allowed to receive Communion??? This REALLY is irritating me. Peace.

I don;t know for sure, but I have been hearing about a new policy of open communion as it went into effect unofficially in several churches since Vatican II. If you check and see, you will find out that they have changed the wording of the Consecration of the wine from what it used to be so that now the wording is that the Blood has been shed for all instead of what it was for two thousand years previously, that the Blood was shed for many. Questions have been raised concerning this change in wording as to whether or not it was done for giving some support to the policy of open communion and to the doctrine of the apokastasis.

 

[blessedtoo]

Not to beat a “dead” horse, but I am. So why were they allowed to receive Communion??? This REALLY is irritating me. Peace.

I understand. But considering the document DustinsDad provided, it would seem that it is still not allowed. This leads me to a few conclusions - all of which are pure speculation on my part. But I wouldn’t doubt that you would hear similar responses from the apologists on CAF, and probably your local Catholic radio station.

Predicted responses:

1. Priests administering Communion did not know who the politicians were.
2. Pelosi, et al, may have been to Confession prior to the Mass and we just didn’t hear about it.
3. The Holy Father was not aware that these politicians would be at that Mass (even though they were invited and the Pope met with Pelosi the day before).
4. The Bishop of the diocese was not aware that these folks would be at the Mass (even though the media knew about it and printed stories in advance).
5. The politicians are entitled to a warning before they are refused the Eucharist and perhaps they had not yet received their private consultation (even though we know that Kerry, at least, had been spoken to in 2004).

Have I missed anything?

It seems to me that we will likely not get a satisfactory answer about what happened in DC unless someone in authority addresses the issue directly.

 

[elt1956]

I don;t know for sure, but I have been hearing about a new policy of open communion as it went into effect unofficially in several churches since Vatican II. If you check and see, you will find out that they have changed the wording of the Consecration of the wine from what it used to be so that now the wording is that the Blood has been shed for all instead of what it was for two thousand years previously, that the Blood was shed for many. Questions have been raised concerning this change in wording as to whether or not it was done for giving some support to the policy of open communion and to the doctrine of the apokastasis.

Was this done in the Spirit of Ecumenism? I had just read something about that. Sure seems strange in a way to me. But whatever I read also said the recipient must believe the same doctrine of the Catholic Church regarding Christ’s physical presence in the Eucharist.

Also ,being picky, picky, picky, if the above is so about belief, wouldn’t that also include being free of Mortal Sin? Just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Thanks. Peace.

 

[bellesjoy]

1. Pelosi, et al, may have been to Confession prior to the Mass and we just didn’t hear about it.
2. The Bishop of the diocese was not aware that these folks would be at the Mass (even though the media knew about it and printed stories in advance).

Re: 2, puplic rejection of the faith requires a public act of contrition or at least a reversal of their anti-life positions, this is to counter the scandal that they cause.

Re: 4, and I have some swamp land in Forida to sell you.

 

[bobzills]

Also ,being picky, picky, picky, if the above is so about belief, wouldn’t that also include being free of Mortal Sin?

The change of one word can make a big difference. When you change the wording from the Blood was shed for many, to the new wording that the Blood was shed for all, you change a lot. For two thousand years, Popes, cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priests, theologians and catechism teachers have taught that the Blood was shed for many. Now with this new wording, you have given a boost to those advocates of open communion.

 

[Ender]

Have I missed anything?

It seems to me that we will likely not get a satisfactory answer about what happened in DC unless someone in authority addresses the issue directly.

We had an adult ed class last week presented by someone who works for the USCCB and this was the first question she was asked after her talk. Her response was that the bishops considered not prohibiting communion to be the more “pastoral” approach. Basically what she was saying is that the bishops didn’t consider canon 915 binding in this situation. That is, they consider the choice of whether or not to receive communion to be a decision that is solely the responsibility of the communicant.

Inasmuch as the mass was held in DC, which is Archbishop Wuerl’s diocese where he has already said he would give communion to the people under question, it’s not clear what the controlling protocol was. The pope is a bishop, the first among equals; he is not a king capable of ordering around the lesser dukes. Assuming he had the authority to make that decision he may have decided that that was not the time or place to make what would have been an obvious rebuke to Wuerl.

On the other hand … I wish someone would.

Ender

 

[elt1956]

We had an adult ed class last week presented by someone who works for the USCCB and this was the first question she was asked after her talk. Her response was that the bishops considered not prohibiting communion to be the more “pastoral” approach. Basically what she was saying is that the bishops didn’t consider canon 915 binding in this situation. That is, they consider the choice of whether or not to receive communion to be a decision that is solely the responsibility of the communicant.

Inasmuch as the mass was held in DC, which is Archbishop Wuerl’s diocese where he has already said he would give communion to the people under question, it’s not clear what the controlling protocol was. The pope is a bishop, the first among equals; he is not a king capable of ordering around the lesser dukes. Assuming he had the authority to make that decision he may have decided that that was not the time or place to make what would have been an obvious rebuke to Wuerl.

On the other hand … I wish someone would.

Ender

Hi, does anybody know who was in charge in NY? Did the fab. 4 (Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy and Guiliani) receive in DC or NY? I thought it was NY. Thanks. Peace

 

[elt1956]

We had an adult ed class last week presented by someone who works for the USCCB and this was the first question she was asked after her talk. Her response was that the bishops considered not prohibiting communion to be the more “pastoral” approach. Basically what she was saying is that the bishops didn’t consider canon 915 binding in this situation. That is, they consider the choice of whether or not to receive communion to be a decision that is solely the responsibility of the communicant.

Inasmuch as the mass was held in DC, which is Archbishop Wuerl’s diocese where he has already said he would give communion to the people under question, it’s not clear what the controlling protocol was. The pope is a bishop, the first among equals; he is not a king capable of ordering around the lesser dukes. Assuming he had the authority to make that decision he may have decided that that was not the time or place to make what would have been an obvious rebuke to Wuerl.

On the other hand … I wish someone would.

Ender

Hi, does anybody know who was in charge in NY? Did the fab. 4 (Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy and Guiliani) receive in DC or NY? I thought it was NY. And when did Wuert become head of the Church?? His mother should take a switch to the back of his legs. Thanks. Peace

 

[Ender]

Hi, does anybody know who was in charge in NY? Did the fab. 4 (Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy and Guiliani) receive in DC or NY? I thought it was NY. Thanks. Peace

I was referring to the DC mass; clearly the archbishop of NY City is someone other than Wuerl. I think it’s Cardinal Egan. Pelosi and Kerry received in DC; Kennedy attended the mass but did not publicly receive. I believe that Guiliani attended the NYC mass.

Ender

 

[elt1956]

I was referring to the DC mass; clearly the archbishop of NY City is someone other than Wuerl. I think it’s Cardinal Egan. Pelosi and Kerry received in DC; Kennedy attended the mass but did not publicly receive. I believe that Guiliani attended the NYC mass.

Ender

“SOME” are saying the BIG K. did receive in NY. I didn’t see it. If he did his Mama is gonna get him. Peace.

 

[blessedtoo]

We had an adult ed class last week presented by someone who works for the USCCB and this was the first question she was asked after her talk. Her response was that the bishops considered not prohibiting communion to be the more “pastoral” approach. Basically what she was saying is that the bishops didn’t consider canon 915 binding in this situation. That is, they consider the choice of whether or not to receive communion to be a decision that is solely the responsibility of the communicant.

Inasmuch as the mass was held in DC, which is Archbishop Wuerl’s diocese where he has already said he would give communion to the people under question, it’s not clear what the controlling protocol was. The pope is a bishop, the first among equals; he is not a king capable of ordering around the lesser dukes. Assuming he had the authority to make that decision he may have decided that that was not the time or place to make what would have been an obvious rebuke to Wuerl.

On the other hand … I wish someone would.

Ender

Yes, this comes as no surprise. I am pleased to hear that someone asked the question as I think we should ALL be asking the question of our Bishops. They should be made aware that there is now much confusion among the faithful.

I think the response is typical but it still refuses to address the canon law regarding this issue. Based on the answer given, the Bishops have decided that canon 915 is no longer binding and they have rewritten the “law” to fit their new “pastoral” approach.

So again, my question would be for the Holy Father. Regardless of whether he has the authority to “order” the Bishops to comply with the canon law, the larger question for me is whether he is aware that this change has occurred. Is this new approach the new norm?

Very frustrating.

 

[elt1956]

Yes, this comes as no surprise. I am pleased to hear that someone asked the question as I think we should ALL be asking the question of our Bishops. They should be made aware that there is now much confusion among the faithful.

I think the response is typical but it still refuses to address the canon law regarding this issue. Based on the answer given, the Bishops have decided that canon 915 is no longer binding and they have rewritten the “law” to fit their new “pastoral” approach.

So again, my question would be for the Holy Father. Regardless of whether he has the authority to “order” the Bishops to comply with the canon law, the larger question for me is whether he is aware that this change has occurred. Is this new approach the new norm?

Very frustrating.

Hi yes. This is a frustrating development, especially when we do not know the true facts behind it. I don’t understand the Canon law that enabled the clergy to give communion to those we see as unworthy , but it is there someplace. I did copy the following from:

The Catholic News Agency website.
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12393
Pope Benedict himself addressed the topic in his March 2007 apostolic exhortation “Sacramentum Caritatis,” warning Catholics in general and Catholic politicians in particular not to receive Holy Communion unworthily. In the letter, he wrote that politicians must adhere to “non-negotiable” values, such as “respect for human life” and “its defense from conception to natural death.” Such politicians “must feel particularly bound” to “introduce and support laws inspired by values grounded in human nature.”

I guess the Fab. Four Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry and Giuliani and others who did as they feel they are “worthy”. That’s what happens when fantasy takes the place of reality. Peace.

 

[kbharbert]

Wouldn’t it be dandy if the pro abortion politicians were pulled aside before mass started and told to refrane from coming forward?

What message will this send to the faithful when they see these politicians receive communion and basically tell the world that there is no visible consequence for outright dissention? Why is it so hard to confront these politicians with the TRUTH and hand down the consequence?

i’ve said the very same thing!!
how hard is it for the priest (or deacan or whomever) to get someone off to the side before mass begins and say, very simply, ‘we both know your views on abortion{or whatever}. please do not ask to receive as you will be refused. we hope you will not choose to embarrass either of us today.’
if the person approached anyway, the priest should, without missing a beat, bestow the same blessing he would give to anyone else not in position to receive and move right on to the next person in line.
i just cannot IMAGINE my priest having a problem doing that with ME or anyone else of ‘humble’ being.
why on EARTH are politicians and famous people being treated differently???
–kelly beth

 

[Sham7]

The war in Iraq is seriously wrong(mortal sin). If I only factored that into my “choice” as to voting for a candidate consistent with my Catholic views, I feel I am justified in voting for a candidate who wants to end the war. What does this have to do with “ProLife”? simple, “those who choose force admit that they have lost the argument”
What does this have to do with abortion? Well, some choose to murder the innocent which is a war on the innocent and for that, I too believe it is wrong. Should it be legal? Ideally, no, but the system in the US believes that it should and, so, we must keep trying to change it, but not necessarily by voting a certain party as that does not seem to be the solution. The solution is a divine one-prayer!

Yes, I am anti war or “ProLife”! The Church does not condone of support the Iraq war.

I have heard self righteous interpretations as to the Catholic view and, yet, I stand strong intellectually and conscientiously in good stead with the Catholic view.

I do not and will not support an abortion, but that will not keep me from choosing a politician to represent our country who will end the war in Iraq.

If you want to change the views of those who do not want abortion to be legal, then you have to help them change from within. Luther did not choose to change the Church from within, but chose his own way.

Recall, the Church has not said that it condemns or excommunicates anyone who votes for a “Pro Choice” candidate.

I simply believe that there are more human lives lost due to the ways of the so called “ProLife” candidates than the “Prochoice” ones. The rheteroric is confusing and some fall for it.

I have developed a Catholic conscience since I was a cradle catholic and kept it in shape over the years, so, please don’t imply that you know better thatn I. That is what is called condescending.

I am “ProChoice”, but do not accept abortion as a solution to having an unwanted pregnancy. These two things can coexist and for many they do.

If you read this, I beseech you to just accept my view as mine and let it go, ok? tks

Respect life and each other,
sham7

PS BTW, I contribute my time and talent to end abortion and teach women other options for an unwanted pregnancy