No communion for those who reject Church teachings warns Malta bishop

[CMatt25]

When this is often brought up, what I often wonder and don’t understand is how one would determine when someone approaches Jesus in the Eucharist if they reject any teaching. I know I can’t tell by just looking at someone whether they reject teaching or not. Would there be someone interrogating each person in line each wk to determine this?

 

[ANNE_2]

When this is often brought up, what I often wonder and don’t understand is how one would determine when someone approaches Jesus in the Eucharist if they reject any teaching. I know I can’t tell by just looking at someone whether they reject teaching or not. Would there be someone interrogating each person in line each wk to determine this?

When a Bishop or Priest teaches completely in line with the CCC, he must be obeyed.
If someone chooses to ignore Church teachings, those sins are on the individual.
In line with the “title” of this thread, we all have access to the “CCC 2nd Ed”.
There is no excuse for most Catholic Americans to receive Holy Communion in the state of Mortal Sin which is a Sacrilege.
In the end, the individual by his actions chooses Heaven or Hell for eternity.

Good Bishops and good Priests are reminding us so that we do not commit Sacrilege, or Mortal sins. - Just like the Apostles and Disciples taught in the New Testament.

 

[Santi2]

we need a top ten list of catholic places to live.

The Vatican.
Malta
Portugal (to live close to Cova da Iria as possible)
Philippines (I knew very little about the country until I came across the Bishops and the faithful’s work against abortion in that country. It would be nice to wake up in a country knowing that there are more than just a handful or so of faithful Catholics determined to live in accord with Catholic teaching)
Ireland.
Israel (I know it is not a Catholic country but it would be a blessing to wake up every morning where one can find footprints of Jesus.)

 

[wisdomseeker]

When this is often brought up, what I often wonder and don’t understand is how one would determine when someone approaches Jesus in the Eucharist if they reject any teaching. I know I can’t tell by just looking at someone whether they reject teaching or not. Would there be someone interrogating each person in line each wk to determine this?

Do you not know the role of our sheperds?

 

[barb_finnegan]

Three cheers for Maltese bishop Mario Grech!!

Amen to that! A true shepherd looking out for his flock! Woo Hoo!

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

 

[CMatt25]

When a Bishop or Priest teaches completely in line with the CCC, he must be obeyed.
If someone chooses to ignore Church teachings, those sins are on the individual.
In line with the “title” of this thread, we all have access to the “CCC 2nd Ed”.
There is no excuse for most Catholic Americans to receive Holy Communion in the state of Mortal Sin which is a Sacrilege.
In the end, the individual by his actions chooses Heaven or Hell for eternity.

Good Bishops and good Priests are reminding us so that we do not commit Sacrilege, or Mortal sins. - Just like the Apostles and Disciples taught in the New Testament.

Yes I understand what the Catholic Church says about receiving. But still if someone already is rejecting another teaching, they might reject the sacrilege teaching as well. So it just seems to me despite the cheers here for the bishop, there really is no way for him to enforce here on earth a policy of “no Communion for those who reject Church teachings” in Malta. But I guess I’m just still having trouble understanding how this can actually be accomplished without everyone being interrogated in the Communion line as they approach Jesus. Is it that ya’ll are just happy he says it?

 

[FCEGM]

Yes I understand what the Catholic Church says about receiving. But still if someone already is rejecting another teaching, they might reject the sacrilege teaching as well. So it just seems to me despite the cheers here for the bishop, there really is no way for him to enforce here on earth a policy of “no Communion for those who reject Church teachings” in Malta. But I guess I’m just still having trouble understanding how this can actually be accomplished without everyone being interrogated in the Communion line as they approach Jesus. Is it that ya’ll are just happy he says it?

No doubt this good bishop has in mind the politicians of Malta who want to see divorced permitted in that country. Being such a small island, their faces will be known to the bishop and his priests. Not unlike the Archbishop of San Francisco and his priests would easily recognize Nancy Pelosi should Archbishop Niederauer choose to follow his colleague’s example in Malta.

 

[CMatt25]

No doubt this good bishop has in mind the politicians of Malta who want to see divorced permitted in that country. Being such a small island, their faces will be known to the bishop and his priests. Not unlike the Archbishop of San Francisco and his priests would easily recognize Nancy Pelosi should Archbishop Niederauer choose to follow his colleague’s example in Malta.

Well ok I get then how if it’s politicans who are being targeted, how their faces might be better known.

 

[ANNE_2]

Yes I understand what the Catholic Church says about receiving. But still if someone already is rejecting another teaching, they might reject the sacrilege teaching as well. So it just seems to me despite the cheers here for the bishop, there really is no way for him to enforce here on earth a policy of “no Communion for those who reject Church teachings” in Malta. But I guess I’m just still having trouble understanding how this can actually be accomplished without everyone being interrogated in the Communion line as they approach Jesus. Is it that ya’ll are just happy he says it?

When you read the CCC, the job of enforcement is only for known rejection of Church teaching. God will not hold Bishops responsible for what has not been revealed to them - which is usually “public” sin. When they are teaching as needed in their Diocese which is their primary responsibility, they are doing their job.

I can’t speak for other posters, but it is always good to hear a Bishop who is not afraid to publically speak out on important Church teachings. We need more Bishops like him.
The Bishop publically stating that when people reject Church teachings may not receive Holy Communion is accurate, wonderful, and courageous.
**When was the last time most of us in the USA, heard our own Diocese Bishop teach correctly like this **?
We must encourage our own Bishops and Priests to do the same. If all Bishops in the USA had been doing this for the past 40 years, there would be fewer sins of Sacrilege in our Country, fewer Souls lost, and we would not have the mess we have today.

CCC - " 2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith. Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

The previous poster brought up a good point. We each will be held responsible for our own votes - especially regarding politicians who support abortion/euthanasia, and who support sexual sinful lifestyles.
From a voting standpoint, many of the wrongs in our society are due to bad/sinful decisions in the voting booth. (Even those Judges at every level who are not elected, are appointed by elected Politicians.)

In 1996 an Amercian Bishop did his job which was upheld by the Vatican while most other US Bishops sat on their hands. (Remember that in 1996 SSPX was excommunicated by the Vatican and the Bishop was adhering to Church teaching.)
catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=48072
This needs to be done more often.

 

[po18guy]

Well ok I get then how if it’s politicans who are being targeted, how their faces might be better known.

Wait just a minute! “Targeted”? These politicians have knowingly made this a public issue, have been made aware of Church teaching, still maintain that they are “Catholic” and yet publicly oppose Church teaching. This brings scandal upon the Church and then forces the Bishop to defend the faith. We cannot blame the Bishops for merely recognizing the self-excommunication that the politicians have brought upon themselves by their hypocrisy and disobedience…

If there is any targeting, it is the politicians who have targeted the Church.

 

[CMatt25]

Wait just a minute! “Targeted”? These politicians have knowingly made this a public issue, have been made aware of Church teaching, still maintain that they are “Catholic” and yet publicly oppose Church teaching. This brings scandal upon the Church and then forces the Bishop to defend the faith. We cannot blame the Bishops for merely recognizing the self-excommunication that the politicians have brought upon themselves by their hypocrisy and disobedience…

If there is any targeting, it is the politicians who have targeted the Church.

Well if the bishops can’t stop the lesser known faces from approaching Christ during Communion but stop the politicians, they are doing this because they recognize their faces. That’s all I meant by targeting. Singling them out. I always remember though even the Church maintains that cafeteria, and even excommuincated Catholics are Catholic. Peace.

 

[FCEGM]

Wait just a minute! “Targeted”? These politicians have knowingly made this a public issue, have been made aware of Church teaching, still maintain that they are “Catholic” and yet publicly oppose Church teaching. This brings scandal upon the Church and then forces the Bishop to defend the faith. We cannot blame the Bishops for merely recognizing the self-excommunication that the politicians have brought upon themselves by their hypocrisy and disobedience…

If there is any targeting, it is the politicians who have targeted the Church.

An excellent point.

 

[po18guy]

Well if the bishops can’t stop the lesser known faces from approaching Christ during Communion but stop the politicians, they are doing this because they recognize their faces. That’s all I meant by targeting. Singling them out. I always remember though even the Church maintains that cafeteria, and even excommuincated Catholics are Catholic. Peace.

The Bishops are backed into a corner. The politicians are special cases, since they are public representatives, and also per se represent the Church, by their insistence that they are practicing Catholics. As a practical matter, this constitutes an attack on the faith, for the sake of politics. Since they are known to everybody, and have a worldwide media pulpit, they must be called on their hypocrisy.

 

[po18guy]

To put this in a perhaps more readily understandable context, suppose that I proclaimed myself to be a current and life-long Democrat. However, everything I support, vote for, and advocate for, is directly from the Republican party platform. Should I be able to get away with calling myself a faithful Democrat?

 

[CMatt25]

The Bishops are backed into a corner. The politicians are special cases, since they are public representatives, and also per se represent the Church, by their insistence that they are practicing Catholics. As a practical matter, this constitutes an attack on the faith, for the sake of politics. Since they are known to everybody, and have a worldwide media pulpit, they must be called on their hypocrisy.

Thank you so much for clarifying your recognition of their identity as Catholics, if not perhaps the most faithful practicing ones. Your one post in which you instead put quotation marks around the word Catholic could have been confusing. As that could be taken by someone not knowing better, that they are not Catholic.

 

[po18guy]

Thank you so much for clarifying your recognition of their identity as Catholics, if not perhaps the most faithful practicing ones. Your one post in which you instead put quotation marks around the word Catholic could have been confusing. As that could be taken by someone not knowing better, that they are not Catholic.

When I use quotes, it simply means that they are Catholic in name only. I see little chance for confusion, since our Vice president, Minority leader Pelosi, and many other very prominent political leaders all openly claim to be Catholic. What’s to be confused about? They are baptized Catholics, but unfaithful ones, by their stubborn refusal to obey the teaching of the Church. Pardon me, if you will, but they are simply whoring for Catholic votes. Sadly, they are also getting them.

As I said, if I claimed to be a faithful Democrat, but voted 100% with the Republican party, would I not be a hypocrite? Would not the Democratic Central Committee be correct in calling me on the carpet?

 

[ANNE_2]

No the Bishop in the article is not targeting anyone, but all Catholics in his Diocese.
It does not matter whether a baptised Catholic is a politician who commits some serious sins in public, news commentators, actors, the person next door, or you, or me.

When there is self-excommunication or due to heresy, schism, incredulity, or apostate - those Catholics can not receive Holy Communion, until they have put themselves back in good standing with the Church and made amends for their sins - which is atonement.

**None of us who reject Church teachings can receive Holy Communion, until such time as we confess our sins, promise to not to commit those sins again, and make atonement for those sins as appropriate. **

See the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition”.
CCC - " 2089
Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.
Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;
**Apostasy **is the total repudiation of the Christian faith;
**Schism **is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

The responsibility of Bishops is also defined in the “CCC 2nd Ed”; as is our responsibility to our Bishop.
When you read the New Testament, the Apostles did the same - teach and correct.

 

[CMatt25]

No the Bishop in the article is not targeting anyone, but all Catholics in his Diocese.
It does not matter whether a baptised Catholic is a politician who commits some serious sins in public, news commentators, actors, the person next door, or you, or me.

When there is self-excommunication or due to heresy, schism, incredulity, or apostate - those Catholics can not receive Holy Communion, until they have put themselves back in good standing with the Church and made amends for their sins - which is atonement.

**None of us who reject Church teachings can receive Holy Communion, until such time as we confess our sins, promise to not to commit those sins again, and make atonement for those sins as appropriate. **

See the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition”.
CCC - " 2089
Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.
Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;
**Apostasy **is the total repudiation of the Christian faith;
**Schism **is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

The responsibility of Bishops is also defined in the “CCC 2nd Ed”; as is our responsibility to our Bishop.
When you read the New Testament, the Apostles did the same - teach and correct.

I understand all of that Anne. My point was only how do you enforce it? That’s the trickier part it would seem to me unless everyone is going to be questioned each time they are in the Communion line to approach Jesus. I mean if someone already is disregarding a teaching, what can stop them from disregarding the teachings you presented?

 

[CMatt25]

When I use quotes, it simply means that they are Catholic in name only. I see little chance for confusion, since our Vice president, Minority leader Pelosi, and many other very prominent political leaders all openly claim to be Catholic. What’s to be confused about? They are baptized Catholics, but unfaithful ones, by their stubborn refusal to obey the teaching of the Church. Pardon me, if you will, but they are simply whoring for Catholic votes. Sadly, they are also getting them.

As I said, if I claimed to be a faithful Democrat, but voted 100% with the Republican party, would I not be a hypocrite? Would not the Democratic Central Committee be correct in calling me on the carpet?

Yes they claim to be Catholic because they are in the eyes of the Church. You and I know they are Catholics in the eyes of the Church. But perhaps some do not and quotations and such could make them wonder. I think you cleared it up fairly well though as to what you mean.

No you would not be a hypocrite if you were registered a Democrat. You would be a registered Democrat. The Democratic Party is a big tent. There have been many Democrats in Congress even who have voted with Republicans on many issues. They’re called conservative Democrats or blue dogs. There are moderate or centrist Democrats. Liberal Democrats. Combinations like center-left Democrats. I don’t know who the DNC calls on the carpet. They can if they want. But what’s going to prevent someone from registering as a Democrat but voting as you describe?

It’s the same as a baptized Catholic is a Catholic. Or do you believe the Church is being hypocritical for calling them Catholic?

Your scenario though of the voter voting 100% Republican is probably not the best of comparisons though because I highly doubt Biden, Pelosi, et al, disagree with 100% of Church teachings.

 

[po18guy]

Yes they claim to be Catholic because they are in the eyes of the Church. You and I know they are Catholics in the eyes of the Church. But perhaps some do not and quotations and such could make them wonder. I think you cleared it up fairly well though as to what you mean.

No you would not be a hypocrite if you were registered a Democrat. You would be a registered Democrat. The Democratic Party is a big tent. There have been many Democrats in Congress even who have voted with Republicans on many issues. They’re called conservative Democrats or blue dogs. There are moderate or centrist Democrats. Liberal Democrats. Combinations like center-left Democrats. I don’t know who the DNC calls on the carpet. They can if they want. But what’s going to prevent someone from registering as a Democrat but voting as you describe?

It’s the same as a baptized Catholic is a Catholic. Or do you believe the Church is being hypocritical for calling them Catholic?

Your scenario though of the voter voting 100% Republican is probably not the best of comparisons though because I highly doubt Biden, Pelosi, et al, disagree with 100% of Church teachings.

Well, you have a diametrically opposite view of the term “membership” than I do! I see membership as more than a campaign buzzword, or more than a casual association. The Church sees them as Catholics by their baptism, but disobedient by their behavior, and their refusal to hold to the foundational Apostle’s Creed. The Bishop believes, as should all Catholics, that providing them with communion while they publicly oppose Church teaching, they are eating and drinking damnation unto themselves. Why would a loving Bishop knowingly participate in something that will eternally condemn the communicant? That’s not love - that would be hate, and the Bishop does not hate them, but loves and prays for them. Should they receive communion for the sake of gaining votes, thereby damning their eternal souls? That is prostitution.

Does anything mean anything? Or are we a bunch of random atoms, zigging about the theological universe? Should the Church have any standards at all?

Rhetorical questions, most of these.