Archbishop Flynn: But WAIT, there's more!

[Anna_Elizabeth]

OriginalJS:

I actually read Bishop Flynn’s message, “Eucharist: A sourch of healing and unity, not political judgments.” He says, “I do not believe that it is my responsibility . . . to pass judgment on Catholics as the proceed to the Communion table.” Maybe someone can point out exactly what is heretical about Archbishop Flynn’s article - and not simply whine that they don’t agree with it.

Most (un) happy to do just that if you will retract the word “heretical” that someone else, but not I, may have used…Agreed?

OK. You say that you read the article, but unfortunately you have chosen to quote only the exerpt chosen by the editors to highlight the article.!!!

Now then, Let’s look at paragraph 6, that begins, “Eucharist,” (no longer “the Eucharist” as in earlier paragraphs…just an oversight no doubt, not an effort to join those members of the clergy to whom dropping the article is a mark of political/theological correctness).

So, here is the Archbishop on the meaning of the Eucharist:

1. "(It) extends our participation as baptized Catholics and invites us to discipleship.
2. We are invited to the table “(I’ve highlighted this interesting choice of words in an earlier post),
   " to join with the community
   to give thanks,
   to be nourished,
   to be challenged in our discipleship and then to be sent
   forth to be disciples.”

Now, after thoroughly eliminating any mention of the Eucharist as the incredible sacrifice of Our Lord represented before us, he says, “This discipleship requires that we constantly develop a more profound grasp of our faith, that we be attentive to the direction of the church (no upper-case), and that we play a part in providing leadership in the world.”

I repeat from my original post: How? What are we to say if the faith we are to grasp is not taught (see above), the Church to whose direction we are to be attentive is not followed even by our own bishop, and that same bishop notoriously refuses to lead? :banghead:

I cannot suggest strongly enough that you read and ponder the Cathechism of the Catholic Church on the subject of the Eucharist. That this most amazing event can be watered down to a pep meeting is mind boggling.

I also suggest you read in Gaudium et Spes, the small paragraph (#16) from which the archbishop took his reference to “conscience.” By reading the whole paragraph you will get a more honest picture.

it is the duty of Catholics under Archbishop Flynn’s jurisdiction to accept and obey what he says. There is no higher spiritual authority than one’s own bishop. So, I respectfully suggest that the laity stop complaining an obey the leader. Of course, the alternative is to move someplace else where the local ordinary has different opinions

This, of course, is my Big Question. Obviously, many American Catholics are giving both their loyalty and their support to bishops who see things more in keeping with our Chief Bishop, the Magisterium and the Tradition regardless of where they live. I equally respectfully request that you provide me with the source of you definitive statement, at which time I shall be pleased to consider it.

Meanwhile, I would also remind you (as somewhere another poster has mentioned quite correctly): Arius was a bishop.



Anna

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

Deacon Ed:

Let me offer a few thoughts on the content of the posts in this thread.

I will do my best to phrase my responses in the guise of questions, since that is how you have requested them. (Actually, I believe you told us, rather than requested, but that would have been arrogant of you wouldn’t it?)

Any Catholic has a *right *

to the sacraments according to Canon Law. No bishop, priest or deacon can restrict that without due process. Again, according to Canon Law, anyone who presents for a sacrament and is properly disposed is to be given the sacrament. Since this issue normally comes up only in cases of the Anointing of the Sick and Communion, I’ll restrict my comments to that. Unless there has been a canonical judgement that is made public, a minister may not refuse communion to one who comes *unless *that person is a notorious sinner *and *the bishop has ordered the sacraments not to be given.

Question: How does this apply to the present nationwide confusion?

*]
It is not the function of any of us to judge the soul of another. We may judge actions, but that leaves us only in the realm of objective morality. That is, we can say that such and such an action is morally wrong. However, we cannot know if a person performing a morally wrong action has sinned. Remember, that requires knowledge and freedom for both venial and mortal sin. For mortal sin it must also be “grave matter.” Only a priest in confession can make a determination of sin has occurred if, indeed, the penitent is doubtful.

Question: Wasn’t this in the Baltimore Catechism right after, “Why did God make you?”

*]
A comment was raised about the use of the term “table.” It’s too bad that the Church has not done a better job of catechizing. The top of the altar is called, in Latin, a *mensa. *

This term translates to, you guessed it, “table.” The Archbishop is correct in his terminology.

Question: How can I thank you for pointing out that “table” was indeed the correct word for the archbishop to use, since what he was describing was a community supper and not at all an earth -shaking sacrifice on an altar?

There seems to be a collection of people who think they know more than bishops or the Church with regard to what is right and what is wrong.

Question: Does the word “seems” keep this from being judgmental?

This is not the correct attitude for a Catholic.

Question: Is this not judgmental?

Rather, when a question arises, it should be addressed as a question in a respectful manner.

Question: Please, what is “respectful” enough?
Question #2: Isn’t "it should be

" rather arrogant?

What I have seen posted here is hardly respectful and is, in fact, judgemental and arrogant.

Question: What? What’s this? Is this not exceptionally judgmental???

I’m now putting on my asbestos underwear.

Question: (Let me guess…) Is it so that the tongues of fire … or perhaps the heat your halo won’t singe?

Deacon Ed

Anna

 

[philjane]

I am from Alberta, Canada where we have a very good & outspoken bishop—he told the previous prime minister that if he kept his stand on abortion & same sex marriages–he was in danger of losing his soul----he also told a pro-abortion former prime minister that at his death he would not get a state funeral from the catholic church in alberta

 

[Fortiterinre]

We could take a lesson from Canada! My overwhelming impression is that even some good bishops don’t want to alienate the politicians they run into over and over again at big-wig functions. In a lot of places the politicians are big donors and “big supporters,” and I honestly think some good bishops wrongly apply the “choose your battles” dictum to any situation that involves correcting a politician. The temporalities dominate the spiritualities, even for some pretty spiritual bishops.

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

philjane:

I am from Alberta, Canada where we have a very good & outspoken bishop—he told the previous prime minister that if he kept his stand on abortion & same sex marriages–he was in danger of losing his soul----he also told a pro-abortion former prime minister that at his death he would not get a state funeral from the catholic church in alberta

WOW! That’s not only judgmental, it’s arrogant!!!

Question: Did he tell the prime minister that if he didn’t like it he could just move to another part of the country? (Ignore that, philjane, it’s late, and I’m just being sarcastic! )

How blessed you are!

Anna

 

[Deacon_Ed]

=Anna Elizabeth]I will do my best to phrase my responses in the guise of questions, since that is how you have requested them. (Actually, I believe you told us, rather than requested, but that would have been arrogant of you wouldn’t it?)

Well, since my role as a deacon is to teach what the Church teaches, I get to tell. Laity get to ask.

How does this apply to the present nationwide confusion?

As Archbishop Flynn pointed out in his article, this is something the National Conference of Bishop’s is dealing with, and do not have a satisfactory answer at this time. Yes, it should be the same everywhere, but they have allowed each bishop to decide how his diocese is to deal with this. We can question the wisdom of the bishop’s determination, but we certainly cannot call him a heretic because he chooses to let God take care of Himself.

Question: Wasn’t this in the Baltimore Catechism right after, “Why did God make you?”

No, that question deal with what we must do to save *our *souls. And, of course, the answer is: “To save our souls, we must worship God by faith, hope, and charity; that is, we must believe in Him, hope in Him, and love Him with all our heart.” I must say, I see very little charity in your posts on this thread (unless, of course, the poster agrees with you).

Question: How can I thank you for pointing out that “table” was indeed the correct word for the archbishop to use, since what he was describing was a community supper and not at all an earth -shaking sacrifice on an altar?

The Church has given us certain terms to use with regard to the fixtures in the church building. We should use those terms. The Sacrifice of the Mass is celebrated on the mensa of the altar. That is, on the table. This has nothing to do with a “community supper” – although that is precisely what the Mass was in the Early Church, an *agape meal *to which the community (ekklesia) came. The word ekklesia is the Greek word that we now translate as “church”.

Question: Does the word “seems” keep this from being judgmental?

It means that I can’t see into the soul of another and so I don’t presume to judge the person, but I do judge the actions and find them less than charitable.

Question: Is this not judgmental?

Again, I judge the action, not the person. Contrast that with your post in which you presume to judge Archbishop Flynn.

Question: Please, what is “respectful” enough?
Question #2: Isn’t “it should be” rather arrogant?

How about a question like, “Bishop, you have come to this conclusion while Bishop X in another diocese came to the opposite conclusion. Can you explain why?” That would be respectful. And arrogant has no place in our Church, not in bishops, not in priests and especially not in deacons. I try to be charitable and present the teachings as clearly as I can. I try not to be arrogant. If you have perceived me as being arrogant, I apologize.
Deacon Ed:

I’m now putting on my asbestos underwear.

Anna Elizabeth:

Question: (Let me guess…) Is it so that the tongues of fire … or perhaps the heat your halo won’t singe?

I don’t have a holo – but you were generous to supply the flames I expected…

Deacon Ed

 

[Middlefork]

Thanks Deacon Ed…I appreciate your comments and example.
Pax et Bonum
Middlefork

 

[_veritas]

It’s funny… as has been observed before, our Archdiocese has one of the highest numbers of parishes with Perpetual Adoration of anywhere in the world. Over 35 parishes, with another 25-30 with non-Perpetual Adoration.

It has always been commented to me how our diocese must be doing so great (tons of vocations, etc) because of all the Adoration here. It has just occurred to me that our faithfulness to Adoration may be actually preventing worse things here.

Many people here have had higher confidence in our Archbishop (including me) because we see the “good fruits” of his episcopate–even though we scratched our heads over the existence of SJA and other completely liberal parishes (and yes, even ones with invalid Masses). Until recently, though, many of us have overlooked that to a certain degree, and have called Bp. Flynn the “quiet mover”. We have thought that he was a “long-term planner” because we have been seeing the gradual development of younger conservative priesthood, seeing some of the liberal parishes becoming more conservative, seeing the young adults of this Archdiocese spontanously ignite in a Holy Spirit-driven fire of love for their Lord, their Church, and their Holy Father.

Now I wonder. I think that our Archdiocese’s good fruits may be, in some ways, in spite of our Archbishop.

I wonder if the Spirit isn’t inspiring vocations, inspiring the young people, inspiring orthodoxy, inspiring the Catholic faithful because of the prayers of the faithful (devotion toAdoration*, OurLady, etc), and not* because of any grand “plan” atttributed to our Archbishop!

Now, don’t get me wrong, I do think our Archbishop is misguided in his attempts to placate everyone at any cost – but I do not think he is a “heretic”. I think that he truly thinks he is doing the right thing by being as “non-controversial” as possible. He is a younger bishop I guess (mid-50s?), but he comes from the liberal era, and likely still sees this as the best path to follow. I do not dislike the man. I obey him as my rightfully appointed bishop, even in my disagreement with his pastoral decisions. I also realize that he spends time in Adoration himself every day, he is a man of deep private prayer. However–while this is all fine and worthy of respect, none of it means he is necessarily right, especially when the universal magisterium (which has authority over him) disagrees with him. Even if he is a bishop. Remember “Athanasius against the world”? Hard to believe all the other bishops he was refuting were doing it knowingly and heretically… certainly at least some of them thought they were doing the “right thing” too.

Anyway, my first “solution” is to pray more and more! Take up another hour of Adoration for your priests and bishops! My second, is to be encouraging to those bishops/priests who are faithfully orthodox and don’t care if others know it. As for Rome, if you write that letter to Rome, fellow Twin Citians, let me know… I do want to sign it.

+veritas+

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

Deacon Ed:

Well, since my role as a deacon is to teach what the Church teaches, I get to tell. Laity get to ask.
Deacon Ed

:bowdown:

Anna

 

[cestusdei]

I would posit it this way: what if an abortion doctor who is a Nazi wore a fascist uniform with swatstika to Mass and marched up for communion doing the Hitler salute? Does he have the “right” to receive? You don’t have a “right” to receive in the absolute sense. The deacon is simply wrong. If public scandal would be caused the priest is obligated to refuse the sacrament.

I don’t know what has come over Archbishop Flynn. I have met him and he seemed quite orthodox. This does not seem characteristic.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

cestusdei:

I would posit it this way: what if an abortion doctor who is a Nazi wore a fascist uniform with swatstika to Mass and marched up for communion doing the Hitler salute? Does he have the “right” to receive? You don’t have a “right” to receive in the absolute sense. The deacon is simply wrong. If public scandal would be caused the priest is obligated to refuse the sacrament.

It never ceases to amaze me that people will assert another person as beign “simply wrong” without a shred of support for their claim. However, being charitable and willing to teach I offer in my support:

Canon 213: The Christain faithful have the right to receive assistance from the sacred pastors out of the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the word of God and the sacraments.

In the commentary on this canon we read:

All christians have a right to receive help from the spiritual goods of the Church. This right is rooted in baptism; it is not a privilege granted by church authorities but a claim rooted in the action of Christ that empowers Christians to seek the services of the sacred pastors.

Of course, cestusdei was really forming a strawman argument since he used the term “absolute right” which I did not use. I noted that one who was a notorious sinner whose bishop had forbidden him to receive communion would, indeed, be denied. This is, in fact, what I said and what the last sentence of cestusdei’s first paragraph says. Thus, he seems to assert something I didn’t say, and then shoots it down.

Deacon Ed

 

[JCPhoenix]

Just want to comment on one thing.

Denial of Communion has happened before, and I believe it was in regards to a different political issue. This is not new, and we in the US have fought these same debates before.

I wish I could remember the exact context, but I think it is in regards to denying Communion to those who supported slavery. That may not be the context, but as you can see…we officially have history repeating itself in at least one regard.

And in the past, in the end, Communion was defended against those who had the “right” but publically thumbed their noses at Catholic belief.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

JCPhoenix,

Yes, during the era of slavery there was a denial of communion. That was also before the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Since the Code was issued, denial of communion requires the action of a bishop. The most recent that I’m aware of was in California where former Governor Gray Davis was denied communion by his bishop for his stance on abortion. There have been rumors of others, but I have not substantiated them.

Deacon Ed

 

[cestusdei]

Deacon, the quote you give doesn’t say that anyone has an absolute right. That is in effect what you said. We both know that canon law restricts Holy Communion to a variety of people in a variety of situations. Pastors have an obligation to protect the sacraments. I have already told my parish that no pro-abortion politician or activist will receive Holy Communion at our Masses. I stated it would be a scandal. Likewise any rainbow sash types would be refused Holy Communion on the same grounds. It is no wonder that respect for the Blessed Sacrament is lacking when we hand it out like candy to anyone who thinks they have “right” to it. We need to be less concerned with our “rights” and more concerned with our responsibilities. But hey I am just one of those young mean conservative priests that send shivers up the spines of the dissenters.

 

[JCPhoenix]

cestusdei:

Deacon, the quote you give doesn’t say that anyone has an absolute right. That is in effect what you said. We both know that canon law restricts Holy Communion to a variety of people in a variety of situations. Pastors have an obligation to protect the sacraments. I have already told my parish that no pro-abortion politician or activist will receive Holy Communion at our Masses. I stated it would be a scandal. Likewise any rainbow sash types would be refused Holy Communion on the same grounds. It is no wonder that respect for the Blessed Sacrament is lacking when we hand it out like candy to anyone who thinks they have “right” to it. We need to be less concerned with our “rights” and more concerned with our responsibilities. But hey I am just one of those young mean conservative priests that send shivers up the spines of the dissenters.

Will you please request a transfer to Mpls/St. Paul diocese? Or at least visit a few of the most dissenting parishes?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

cestusdei:

Deacon, the quote you give doesn’t say that anyone has an absolute right. That is in effect what you said.

Actually, was very clear that following due process a bishop could rule that an individual was to be denied communion. You keep raising the strawman argument of “absolute right” which is not at all what I said.

cestusdei:

We both know that canon law restricts Holy Communion to a variety of people in a variety of situations. Pastors have an obligation to protect the sacraments. I have already told my parish that no pro-abortion politician or activist will receive Holy Communion at our Masses. I stated it would be a scandal. Likewise any rainbow sash types would be refused Holy Communion on the same grounds.

Canon law says they must be “proprly disposed.” If someone came to communion wearing a rainbow sash I would have no qualms about saying that they are not “properly disposed” since they are making a political statement out of a sacrament, and that is something that cannot be permitted. As for saying that no pro-abortion politician may receive communion – that’s a call based upon objective morality (since the subjective state of the communicant’s soul is not accessible except in confession). Therefore, this would fall under the category of avoiding scandal. I would not fault such a position, and would certainly hate to be the one to make such a decision.

cestusdei:

It is no wonder that respect for the Blessed Sacrament is lacking when we hand it out like candy to anyone who thinks they have “right” to it. We need to be less concerned with our “rights” and more concerned with our responsibilities. But hey I am just one of those young mean conservative priests that send shivers up the spines of the dissenters.

Anytime I speak of “rights” there is an implied acceptance of the concomitant responsibilites. Anything else is license, and that isn’t a part of our Catholic tradition. As for being conservative – I most certainly am that. I live in the most conservative part of California. And, fortunately, I never had to deal with the rainbow sash folks, or even pro-abortion politicians (although my state is filled with 'em).

Deacon Ed

 

[Theodora]

Anna Elizabeth:

Archbishop Flynn has made his definitive announcement on how goes the Eucharist in the St. Paul/ Mpls. diocese.

… his understanding of the Eucharist: “It is my strong belief that the Eucharist is a source of healing and unity…”

Please pray for us,

Anna

OK. Normally speaking, how can grace flow through a soul dead in mortal sin?
Is remorse and reconciliation only required from catholics who are not politicians? Why is it implied that that these necessary requirements (remorse and reconcilliation) do not apply to “catholic politicians” who are publicly known to disregard Church’s teachings in very serious matters - like life and death.

I am confused.

Theodora

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Theodora:

OK. Normally speaking, how can grace flow through a soul dead in mortal sin?
Is remorse and reconciliation only required from catholics who are not politicians? Why is it implied that that these necessary requirements (remorse and reconcilliation) do not apply to “catholic politicians” who are publicly known to disregard Church’s teachings in very serious matters - like life and death.

I am confused.

Theodora

The reason you are confused is that you are equating a stand for abortion and mortal sin. They do not, necessarily, go together. Remember, for mortal sin to be present there are three elements: it must be grave matter, sufficient reflection must be given, and the actor must freely choose to perform the action (the action need not be performed, just chosen). Now, in the world of objective morality, certain actions are mortally sinful. This is why the Church can teach that abortion is an intrinsic evil. Yet, suppose someone is forced to have an abortion – a minor child forced by her parents. Does the child sin? No, because freedom of action was not present.

I certainly don’t want to defend a politician who has chosen a pro-abortion stand because I think that’s a heinous position. At the same time, I cannot know the state of his or her soul because I cannot know how he or she arrived at such a position.

God’s healing graces can always flow. This is why people in invalid marriages are encouraged to continue going to Mass even though they cannot receive communion. They are in an objectively grave situation.

I can agree that pro-abortion politicians should be considered in the same position – but to deny them communion based only on an objective, external understanding is, possibly, to deny them the graces that would lead to their repentance and change of heart. I won’t play games with the sacraments, but I also do not know the state of another’s soul. I think that is what the Archbishop is getting to…

Deacon Ed

 

[Theodora]

Deacon Ed:

OK. But to willfully cast votes to facilitate abortion, does that not indicate that you’re promoting the procedure? The person might not actually perform the abortion, but nevertheless a person who does this (at least to me) is guilty by association of a very serious crime. Not a crime of the land but a very serious crime in God’s eyes, as taught by the Church.

Politicians are in the public’s eye with a high level of visibilty. They’re smart. But are the people in the pews to assume that these politicians are not smart enough to reflect before they act and do the right thing? Why are they allowed to get away with their wrong choice and can be excused for it and still have access to the Eucharist? Would this not be an insult to Christ? And by deliberately insulting Christ, is that not a sin. And how many times is the following line not used: Ignorance of the Law is no exuse.

Publicly, politicians use the coward’s line of “personally opposed, but…” and then vote for the allocations of funds to support abortion. They are not actually involved in the abortion, but they might as well be.

I see contradictions in what is said and what is done. Doesn’t the actual deed override anything that comes out of one’s mouth? Especially when the deed is very serious, would it not be better to send a clear signal that such striking, contradictory behavior will result in refusal in not being able to receive Holy Communion.

Can you comment on my questions, please. Thank you.

My God Bless You.

Theodora

 

[aquinasadmirer]

Deacon,

I looked up Canon 915, it’s a frequently read canon these days.

“Those who are excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

And from the Catechism # 2273

• "The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.
  When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined…*

I don’t understand how a politician who publicly promotes abortion, or is publicly indifferent to abortion is not a person who does not fit the description of a person who “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin” Can you help me understand how this does not objectively apply here? What–in particular–is subjective?