Kudos to the Catholics in Chicago!

  • Thread starter Thread starter centuri0n
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes! Cardinal George shows his spine.

Normally he “works behind the scenes” so he’s no Fabian Bruskewitz.
 
So the centurion guy doesn’t even care about the sacraments at all, but he’s just glad that somebody’s getting bashed because he disagrees with them.

If he knew and accepted that the Eucharist was really and truely the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, in the corpreal sense, then should not he reconsider these reckless Collisium style jeers purporting the efforts of these particular Bishops.

One who recognized that if the real presence in the Eucharist is accepted, then what profit is it to try and defend it by the sword? Peter learned that lesson when Jesus admonished him.
It would be of better consequense, that one who maintains mortal sin on thier soul, ingest rat poision instead of partake in the Eucharist. St. Paul warns that those who eat and drink of the body and blood of the Lord unworthily eat and drink condemnation upon themselves. If fact, he attributes this conduct with the death and illness that some people had experienced.

The Church cannot be the thought police. The sword cannot defend our Lord. To teach correct doctrine so that eveyone knows the consquence of unworthily partaking in the Eucharist is truly all that we can possibly do. A Bishop cannot judge a man’s soul, even if it is “obvious” to him that the person is steeped in mortal sin. It sure would be wonderful if it were so clear cut; just like black and white, but its not.
Should it be a Bishop that judges a mans soul, even if its merely for a forensic political purpose, then by what measure will the soul of the Bishop be judged?
 
40.png
Xenon-135:
So the centurion guy doesn’t even care about the sacraments at all, but he’s just glad that somebody’s getting bashed because he disagrees with them.
Click to expand...
Not cool and not what Cent… is applauding. It’s not a matter of sacraments per se, but rather the RCC taking a stand for what’s right. I may not agree with the sacramentalism in your church, but I can tip my hat when the church shows the rest of the world that they are true to their definition of morality. Heck! I may go so far as to use this as an example of what other denominations should be doing.

If the church goes ahead and follows through on their threats to deny pro-choice candidates their highest sacrament, the Eucharist, I would be applauding the enforcers without ceasing.

Peace,
CM
 
Your applause would be only because your mindset is parallel to their radical motives.

Just like those who yelled “crucify Him!”. It SEEM like the right thing to do at the moment, but is it really?

I just wonder, what happens if the ACCB comes out and prohibits these Bishops from refusing communion to these specific persons? Will the Bishops and those who “applaud” their extreme effort then just break away from the Church, or will they accept the ACCB’s decision as rule unless there is a Papal proclamation that says otherwise?

I will accept what the Church teaches and what it decides for I belive it to be Christ’s Vicar on earth. Jesus speaks through the Church, and there is nothing in Church teaching that advocates the prohibition of communion to anybody who has been baptized Catholic.
 
40.png
Xenon-135:
Your applause would be only because your mindset is parallel to their radical motives.

Just like those who yelled “crucify Him!”. It SEEM like the right thing to do at the moment, but is it really?

I just wonder, what happens if the ACCB comes out and prohibits these Bishops from refusing communion to these specific persons? Will the Bishops and those who “applaud” their extreme effort then just break away from the Church, or will they accept the ACCB’s decision as rule unless there is a Papal proclamation that says otherwise?

I will accept what the Church teaches and what it decides for I belive it to be Christ’s Vicar on earth. Jesus speaks through the Church, and there is nothing in Church teaching that advocates the prohibition of communion to anybody who has been baptized Catholic.
Click to expand...
You know, I really don’t get what you’re saying. Is it your position that the church stay out of these matters and continue to administer the sacraments to Catholics on the basis of their baptism rather than their opposition to Catholic morals??? Or, do you just have a problem with a couple of Protestants who give credit to the church for defending her moral stance?

Peace,
CM
 
40.png
Xenon-135:
I will accept what the Church teaches and what it decides for I belive it to be Christ’s Vicar on earth. Jesus speaks through the Church, and there is nothing in Church teaching that advocates the prohibition of communion to anybody who has been baptized Catholic.
Click to expand...
Xenon,

The Catholic Church DOES teach that even if you are
baptized Catholic, you can be denied communion,
if you do not meet ALL of the requirements below:
being in a state of grace, having been to confession
after your last mortal sin, you must believe
that you are receiving the body and blood of Christ
(transubstantiation), fast 1h before receiving Holy Communion,
and not be excommunicated.

Now I would argue that they were not being in a state
of grace when they went to get the body and blood
of our Lord, since they were supporting (publicly, so no
doubt about it) grave sin.

Also I would observe the following obvious thing,
if you do not assent to the fullness of what the Church
teaches in terms of faith and morals, the Church has
the authority to correct you, that includes denying
communion, especially to those “who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin” (Code of Canon Law 915).

In the above I have used the assumption that
to support grave sin is also grave sin.
(perhaps it’s not as grave as actually committing it).

Any thoughts on this last thing?
Cristian
 
I appreciate your through response. I see that you are implementing opinion and intrepretation in the matter, for it is only in America that the issue of communion denial is a current matter. To whom is it to determine that one is in grave sin? If it is the Bishop, then why even do an examination of conscience, just go to him and he will be able to tell you.

I think the American effort to politicize the Eucharist is near heresy, and I do hope that the ACCB passes ruling on it soon. You all can quote canon law and CCC all day, but imposing your private interpretation of it is just the same as what Fundamentalists do with the scripture.
 
Xenon,
First, I apologize for jumping into this conversation mid-stride.

Here is the problem with what you are saying: denying communion to someone isn’t a matter of politics, it is a matter of public dissent. When somone publicly dissents with the Roman Catholic church, and is a member, they are promoting scandal of the faith and giving a poor example of what it is to live a catholic life. At confirmation we make a vow stating: “I believe and profess all the catholic church teaches.”
When we dissent with the church on matters of faith and morals, we are dissenting with the vow we made to God himself. Homosexual unions, abortion, and support of heresy, is in opposition to the church.
Now for those who can and cannot recieve communion. Catholic politicians who come out and support groups such as planned parenthood are publicly dissenting with the church. It is a catholics duty to defend the faith in all practices of life. When a Catholic politician fails to do such, he/she is cutting themselves off from the faith. If one’s stance is against what we beleive and profess, contrary to their vow at confirmation, why should one be allowed to participate fully in what the church does best?
So you ask next: what about average joe person that is not a public figure and disagrees with church teaching? Basically, it turns into a personal decision. The church can advise and tell people the proper disposition for reception of the Eucharist, but it cannot simply make judgements of people when they present themselves to the altar. Again, this is a matter of public and private dissent. A person presenting themselves for communion should know when they disagree with church teaching. If there is a question, one may approach their pastor, who should be able to give an informed answer.
As far as the rainbow colored sashes in church goes: it is a matter of public dissent. It is like walking into the military, saying you want to fight, but you don’t want to fight. Coming to mass, publicly disagreeing with the church teaching, and then recieving communion all at the same time is a display of disrespect for both the church (both the magisterium and the people) and the Eucharist (Jesus) Himself.
What about the NCCB making decisions? This will be a short paragraph. If the NCCB makes a statement saying that catholics can run around being in homosexual unions, support abortion, and do whatever they like as long as they come to church and call themselves catholic. Rome will step in. The papal nuncio is here for a reason: to make sure everything stays in perspective! If you really think that the NCCB is the authority to decide what the church believes and how it is enforced, then I beg to differ! Rome is the authority of the church. Be sure to keep in mind what Cardinal Arinze said about this whole matter of the Eucharist. I really don’t think it is open to interpretation. John Paul II, the pope, would also dissent with permitting public dissent with the churches teaching. Why? Because the Holy Spirit won’t let the Holy Father do something which is in opposition to God himself! The NCCB may be our authority here in America, but it has no room to screw up, because Rome will correct them, as it has been done in the past.
One final thing: what is heresy? You mentioned that politicizing the Eucharist is borderline heresy. I say this: defending the Eucharist is different than politicizing it. Do you know who the Eucharist is? We are trying to make sure that the body and blood of Christ is not exposed to scandal. It is all summed up into this statment: If one should oppose life, then one should not recieve it. The Eucharist is life. If we oppose the truth, then we oppose the Eucharist. It has been the churches job for 2,000 years to defend the truth, and correct those those who oppose it. Check up on the history of church councils, that is what holy mother church has done for quite some time.
Heresy is when someone publically disagrees with Roman Catholic church teaching and refuses to be corrected. Be careful how you use that term, for it is the duty of every Catholic to protect the sanctity of the truth, which is life, which is the Eucharist, which is Jesus Himself.
God Bless!

Mik
 
40.png
Xenon-135:
…I see that you are implementing opinion and intrepretation in the matter…
Click to expand...
How is a clear and indisputable reference to canon law “implementing opinion and interpretation”? The Church obviously has the authority to deny the Eucharist, and centurion is right to applaud the Archbishop of Chicago’s integrity.
 
40.png
Xenon-135:
I will accept what the Church teaches and what it decides for I belive it to be Christ’s Vicar on earth. Jesus speaks through the Church, and there is nothing in Church teaching that advocates the prohibition of communion to anybody who has been baptized Catholic.
Click to expand...
Canon Law 915.

The Rainbow Sash is a sign of public disagreement with the Church. It would be a scandal to give communion to them while they are expressing their disagreement. If they took off their sashes, they could receive.
 
I recently heard Cardinal George speak on this subject, and he was very clear that communion should not be recieved if the person is making an outward display that shows he or she is not in communion with Rome. The example he gave was a person carrying a sign that says “I hate the Pope.”

He is not, however, ready to declare that pro-choice politicians in the area are “manifestly public sinners” and has therefore not issued an edict excommunicating them. He has not precluded a change of heart on the issue, however he does not want to politicize the Eucharist.

I am proud to have him as my Archbishop.
 
This issue is focused on the perspicuity of cannon law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church is its focus has anything in sight.

The platform that you are spouting is only that which is the OPINION of a handfull of U.S. Bishops and it is rooted primarily in the denial of communion to currently elected politicians who don’t follow THEIR INTREPRETATION of the canon.

This is where I think the Church is being hijacked by Collared Fundamentalist (Protestant radicals posing as Roman Catholic Priests and Bishops). I realize that I cannot protect the Eucharist by the sword, nor by refusing it to those who are selectively deemed unworthy. This is not to say that the malignant radical cancers that have grafted themselves onto the Olive Tree, cannot be peared away with the sword, lest they rob the root of its rich nourishment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top