Archbishop Burke's instruction to EMHC and pro-abort politicians

[rpp]

An EMHC isn’t in an authoritative position to determine if a person is in a state of mortal sin, Bishops and Priest are. Deacons?

Well, being they’re not allowed to hear confessions, I don’t believe they would be either.

Jim

No one, not even the Pope himself, can determine the state of another person’s soul. That is not the point here. The point is regarding those who obstinately commit manifest (public) grave sin, such as politicians who support abortion or gay “marriage”.

They have been told by their priest and bishop to not receive Holy Communion until they publicly recant. That communication may take place in public or private. Yet these people present themselves for communion against the expressed instructions from a bishop.

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

 

[rpp]

The problem is that you are trying to make the decision of whether someone receives communion or not lay in the hands of the EMHC, a person that has received a maximum of about 2 days training.

No, you claim that I am saying that but I am not.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

**They have been told by their priest and bishop **to not receive Holy Communion until they publicly recant. That communication may take place in public or private. Yet these people present themselves for communion against the expressed instructions from a bishop.
QUOTE]

In bold is part of the conversation you missed. I’m talking about people who have not been told by a priest or Bishop, and EMHC, is not in an authoritative position, to withhold communion.

Jim

 

[rpp]

rpp;2829780:

**They have been told by their priest and bishop **

to not receive Holy Communion until they publicly recant. That communication may take place in public or private. Yet these people present themselves for communion against the expressed instructions from a bishop.
QUOTE]

In bold is part of the conversation you missed. I’m talking about people who have not been told by a priest or Bishop, and EMHC, is not in an authoritative position, to withhold communion.
Jim

The bold part is the only part is the only part that Archbishop Burke’s essay covered. It is also the only thing I have been talking about, despite attempts by several to broaden what the Archbishop, I and others on this thread, have said and apply to situations he and we clearly did not intend.

As I have said repeatedly but you all have refused to listen or even achonowledge.

[sign]No on is asking anyone who is distributing Holy Communion to judge the soul of another person.
[/sign]

Neither the bishop nor priest need to communicate with those who distribute Holy Communion, be they ordinary or extraordinary ministers. They only need to communicate with the person engaging in grave public sin. In the case of Pro-Abortion politicians, this has been done because it has been done publicly. Therefore, all ministers of communion, ordinary and extraordinary, in Archbishop Burke’s archdiocese (St. Louis) are required to deny Holy Communion to politicians they know support abortion until they hear that they have publicly recanted.

 

[Jerome42]

Seems we are spending a great deal of time defending the rights of EMHC’s to offer the Holy Eucharist to those who present themselves at Mass even though they are unworthy. We are overlooking the fact that these people are in fact commiting a sacrilege.

As stated recently by the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy:

“Greater scandal is given when bishops, priests, and deacons do not protect the sanctity and dignity of the Most Blessed Sacrament by allowing public persons notoriously known for their positions which directly violate the Divine and Moral Laws.”

Full article: catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=10591

**Sad to say, this is the result of our inaction: **

americansfortruth.com/news/more-san-francisco-nuttiness-catholic-archbishop-gives-communion-to-sisters-of-perpetual-indulgence.html

 

[irenaeus1]

See the problem is that you are trying to take a discussion out of context.

No, I’m not taking the discussion out of context. I was responding to your statement “Nobody knows the state of sin of the person except the person and/or his confessor,” to which I responded that this is not true. The state of the individual person’s soul is immaterial.

 

[irenaeus1]

It is not my role as a Christian to pass judgment on the conscience of another.

That is not necessarily true. While we cannot pass judgement on the state of a person’s soul, we most certainly can, and often have the duty to, pass judgement on a person’s behavior (and conscience; e.g., I can determine if someone has an uninformed or ill-formed conscience based on the objective judgement of the person’s actions). Scripture often asks us to make such judgements as believers.

 

[irenaeus1]

An EMHC isn’t in an authoritative position to determine if a person is in a state of mortal sin, Bishops and Priest are. Deacons?

This is amazing… 172 Posts later and you still believe that we are talking about mortal sin.

 

[KathleenElsie]

The problem is that you are trying to make the decision of whether someone receives communion or not lay in the hands of the EMHC, a person that has received a maximum of about 2 days training. The Bishop and/or pastor decide whether someone is able to receive communion or not, not the EMHC. The EMHC just does as they are told, if the bishop in that diocese says politician so and so doesn’t receive, then the EMHC obeys. If the pastor says that so and so doesn’t receive then the EMHC obeys. If the bishop says that so a so does receive, unless the Pope says differently, then EMHC either allows that person to receive or steps down from the EMHC position.

It isn’t up to the EMHC on there own to decide who does and does not receive. They do not have all the facts. They do not have the years of training. They are not aware of any behind the scenes communications that have gone on between the bishop and the politician. They do not know exactly what degree of voting pro-abortion makes a person going against church teaching. Does an EMHC know what the exact litmus test is?

It’s funny many of the same people that think we shouldn’t have EMHCs at all are trying to allow them the ultimate decision as to who receives and who doesn’t.

Well in my case this is just one more reason not to have EMHCs. If they are not allowed to protect the Eucharist then they should not be able to give it.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

This is amazing… 172 Posts later and you still believe that we are talking about mortal sin.

The only grounds for a person being prevented from receiving is mortal sin. In this case, its the mortal sin of publicly supporting abortion.

Jim

 

[rpp]

{snip}

** It’s funny many of the same people that think we shouldn’t have EMHCs at all are trying to allow them the ultimate decision as to who receives and who doesn’t.**

Nothing “funny” about it. It in fact demonstrates logical consistancy in trying to protect the Sacred Body and Blood of our Lord from being desecrated. This issue gives us just one of many good reasons why EMoHC should not be used except in rare (extraordinary) situations. This is also why I ceased being an EMoHC.

 

[Nordar]

Yeah… what he said.

Yeah what they both said!

 

[Nordar]

No one, not even the Pope himself, can determine the state of another person’s soul. That is not the point here. The point is regarding those who obstinately commit manifest (public) grave sin, such as politicians who support abortion or gay “marriage”.

They have been told by their priest and bishop to not receive Holy Communion until they publicly recant. That communication may take place in public or private. Yet these people present themselves for communion against the expressed instructions from a bishop.

http://www.danaroc.com/blog/wp-content/themes/danaroc/uploads/broken_record.jpg

LOL nothing like beating your head against a brick wall:banghead:

 

[Nordar]

The problem is that you are trying to make the decision of whether someone receives communion or not lay in the hands of the EMHC, a person that has received a maximum of about 2 days training.

Can you explain to me how that is what he/she is saying? Because I don’t see how you can come up with that conclusion

 

[rpp]

Can you explain to me how that is what he/she is saying? Because I don’t see how you can come up with that conclusion

I am, by the way, a HE!

 

[Nordar]

I am, by the way, a HE!

Ok Gotcha!

 

[DebChris]

The problem is that you are trying to make the decision of whether someone receives communion or not lay in the hands of the EMHC, a person that has received a maximum of about 2 days training. The Bishop and/or pastor decide whether someone is able to receive communion or not, not the EMHC. The EMHC just does as they are told, if the bishop in that diocese says politician so and so doesn’t receive, then the EMHC obeys. If the pastor says that so and so doesn’t receive then the EMHC obeys. If the bishop says that so a so does receive, unless the Pope says differently, then EMHC either allows that person to receive or steps down from the EMHC position.

It isn’t up to the EMHC on there own to decide who does and does not receive. They do not have all the facts. They do not have the years of training. They are not aware of any behind the scenes communications that have gone on between the bishop and the politician. They do not know exactly what degree of voting pro-abortion makes a person going against church teaching. Does an EMHC know what the exact litmus test is?

It’s funny many of the same people that think we shouldn’t have EMHCs at all are trying to allow them the ultimate decision as to who receives and who doesn’t.

I continue on my own to write to politicians seeking a constitutional amendment in which “every reasonable effort shall be made to protect the life and dignity of the individual from the moment of conception.” Triage and hostage situations are less than black and white circumstances that demand immediate professional decisions. I would have been standing in the LifeChain on Sunday had a migraine not prevented my participation. In other words, I seek to change matters at a political level, not at the altar rail.
What has been forgotten in this discussion is the reality that Jesus came to save sinners like you and I. Jesus came for the salvation of all men. We are not expected to be perfect as we approach the altar rail. Indeed venial sins are forgiven as we receive the Sacrament. It is not my job to deny this healing grace unless specifically instructed to do so. I do not have the gift of reading another’s heart. I do not know who has rejected God, and who has not unless I am given a very obvious rebellious sign such as the wearing of the rainbow sash. Like the cashier in the store, I need the list of names of whose check is no good—who by the Bishop’s decision has been excommunicated and is not allowed to receive. Obtaining an abortion and helping a woman obtain an abortion are both offenses that can result in excommunication. Many women return to the Church by virtue of Project Rachel. An individual can recant their past and can return to the Community we call Church. Am I really to see him/her any other way than as a repentent sinner like myself?
“In [the Eucharist] Christ has given us himself as food and drink, as a source of saving power. He has left us himself that we might have life and have it in abundance (John 10:10): the life which is in him and which he has shared with us by the gift of the Spirit in rising from the dead on the third day.” (John Paul II) Welcoming the New Millenium.

 

[fix]

I continue to be nonplussed when I read about reading another’s heart. Denying communion to a manifest sinner has nothing to do with knowing their heart, or conscience, or soul. It has to do with scandal.

 

[rpp]

I continue to be nonplussed when I read about reading another’s heart. Denying communion to a manifest sinner has nothing to do with knowing their heart, or conscience, or soul. It has to do with scandal.

Yup! And, if I may add, sacrilege and profaning the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[Jerome42]

This thread is approaching this entire matter from the wrong viewpoint.

We should be more concerned that there are many Catholics (politicians included) presenting themselves to receive the Holy Eucharist in a state of sin. **This is sacrilege! ** **The penalty is ****eternal damnation! ** Why are we so concerned with offending these unworty Communicants or placing undue pressure on the EMHC’s? If we truly love our fellow man we should be willing to do whatever we can to prevent them from going to Hell.

Remember, the Holy Eucharist is a gift from God. It is not meant to be a way to show off one’s Catholic fervor.