Pope says he's saddened by 'perfect' Catholics who despise others

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimR-OCDS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
friardchips said:
He is guided by the Holy Spirit. So no, not just my opinion.
Click to expand...
Both Francis and Benedict have said that health care is a natural right. I disagree completely.

Since a natural right isn’t dependent on laws. Natural rights are things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to fair trail, ownership of property, the right to life.

These are also known as negative rights, meaning government if government act upon them that government is in violation of Gods law. Now I can give up my natural rights. If I steal from someone and go to prison for it, I gave up my right of freedom.

I have a right to life, but no where does that mean I have a right to a healthy life.

I believe the church is wrong in claiming the health care is a natural right, I think Benedict used the term “inalienable”
 
I’m sorry if someone mentioned this before, but is there a reason why a priest can’t (before Mass starts) remind the parishioners that Communion must only be partaken by those who have gone to confession and are in a state of grace (and did the Eucharistic fast)? Maybe with a reminder that certain sins that are fashionable these days count as mortal sins…?

That way, at least there’s a decreased chance of unworthy Communion and punishment thereafter…
 
RdrJohn said:
Please forgive an outsider butting in again. I note several instances of posters saying “the communion line is not the place for denying communion”. I would have to disagree. As a seminarian, I am blessed to serve in many parishes. I have witnessed many times in many parishes the priest or deacon turning someone away from communion. Always with utmost charity. If a priest is not familiar with the communicant he will inquire as to the parish they belong, last confession, and have you completed the fasting and prayer rule. If he is not satisfied with the answer the communicant is blessed and turned away with the request to meet after liturgy. A priest is responsible to defend the Eucharist and must answer to God for any instance it was administered improperly or irreverently. I have never seen someone react poorly. Mayb bcause this is a know thing with Russians? When traveling I am sure to call the parish I will be visiting ahead of time so that they know to expect me. Some priests even require attandence at vespers the evening before the liturgy followed by confession with the priest who will be communing you the next morning.

Perhaps this is because Orthodox parishes are typically much smaller and it is only proper for a priest or deacon to distribute the gifts that makes it a bit different for us. When I visit Catholic Churches I am astounded that just about everyone receives. It is almost as if they are more stigmatized to remain in the pew and admit that they are an unworthy/unprepared sinner (we all are) than to recieve improperly.

Thanks for listening to an outsider, please know that my statements are not meant to cause offense but only to share how a sister church deals with these issues.

Spraznikom! Joyous feast! Have a blessed Dormition/Assumption. ☦️
Click to expand...
Your contribution is most appreciated. Thanks for sharing.
 
EIF5A said:
I’m sorry if someone mentioned this before, but is there a reason why a priest can’t (before Mass starts) remind the parishioners that Communion must only be partaken by those who have gone to confession and are in a state of grace (and did the Eucharistic fast)? Maybe with a reminder that certain sins that are fashionable these days count as mortal sins…?

That way, at least there’s a decreased chance of unworthy Communion and punishment thereafter…
Click to expand...
Yes. Its intrusive and the private failures of parishioners are not the business of the minister of Communion as Canons 915 and 916 indicate.

Yes it is good to remind parishioners of Canon 916 from time to time in a homily as with any other important precept or doctrine.

Unfortunately even your wording above suggests you do not understand actual Catholic Church teaching on this point. Your “sorry” does not really excuse you for your lack of understanding which is easily relieved by reading this thread instead of just jumping in without that minimum effort/respect.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
Yes. Its intrusive and the private failures of parishioners are not the business of the minister of Communion as Canons 915 and 916 indicate.

Yes it is good to remind parishioners of Canon 916 from time to time in a homily as with any other important precept or doctrine.

Unfortunately even your wording above suggests you do not understand actual Catholic Church teaching on this point. Your “sorry” does not really excuse you for your lack of understanding which is easily relieved by reading this thread instead of just jumping in without that minimum effort/respect.
Click to expand...
I asked because one or two Orthodox posters on this thread said the priest reminds the parishioners of the requirements of worthy reception.

Had I known it was such a faux pas to even consider this happening at a Catholic parish, I wouldn’t have asked.

And you’re right. I do not understand the Catholic Church teaching on this point. Hence the question on the difference in practice.

But with my meager understanding, I know it is taught unworthy reception is a bad thing to do, and the Orthodox Church seems to have a reminder to prevent/minimize that.

I still don’t know how a priest reminding before Mass that one must be in a state of grace is intrusive.
 
steve_b said:
This letter was a year later in 405. It’s more about James and his party. Peter never circumcised anyone, Paul did. And Jerome didn’t answer this letter. So we don’t know how he would have responded other than his previous letter…
Click to expand...
The subject was the same. Jerome’s silence showed his assent to Augustine’s claims.

Haydock has this to say about it:

so that the Jews seeing St. Peter publicly blamed, and not justifying himself, might for the future eat with the Gentiles. But St. Augustine vigorously opposed this exposition of St. Jerome, as less consistent with a Christian and apostolical sincerity, and with the text in this chapter, where it is called a dissimulation, and that Cephas or Peter walked not uprightly to the truth of the gospel. After a long dispute betwixt these two doctors, St. Jerome seems to have retracted his opinion, and the opinion of St. Augustine is commonly followed, that St. Peter was guilty of a venial fault of imprudence. In the mean time, no Catholic denies but that the head of the Church may be guilty even of great sins. What we have to admire, is the humility of St. Peter on this occasion, as St. Cyprian observes,
 
EIF5A said:
I still don’t know how a priest reminding before Mass that one must be in a state of grace is intrusive.
Click to expand...
In the secular sphere it would be called “Nanny State-ish”.

That you would prefer focused weekly before-mass reminders instead of a once or twice a year exposition of the teaching in a homily suggests the equivalent of private scrupulosity mixed with authoritarianism projected into the public sphere.

In the 10,000 odd masses I have attended in my lifetime I have never experienced anything like what you suggest from the celebrant.
I still recall the somewhat self-evident teaching I received before my First Communion at age 8 re respecting Jesus with first your heart then your body before Communion. Maybe the RCIA isn’t so hot on that when receiving adults these days but if an 8 year old can see it as self evident I am surprised that adults cannot even if it isn’t explicitly spelt out. If you go to see the Queen you don’t wear dirty clothes or a foul mouth. We aren’t receiving bread and wine.

So I would find it hard to imagine any regular Roman Catholic mass goer who is unaware of the well known rules regarding reception of Communion.

Maybe its different with Orthodox Catholics.
And you’re right. I do not understand the Catholic Church teaching on this point. Hence the question on the difference in practice.
Click to expand...
That’s not a problem.
What I found more difficult to accept was your:
I’m sorry if someone mentioned this before, but is…
Click to expand...
…as this suggests you just posted without making the effort to read the lead in.
If you had I suggest you would have answered your own question with the info provided.
Saying “sorry” doesn’t make the lack of effort, if that is indeed the case, any more acceptable I am afraid.
 
philipl said:
Both Francis and Benedict have said that health care is a natural right. I disagree completely.

Since a natural right isn’t dependent on laws. Natural rights are things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to fair trail, ownership of property, the right to life.

These are also known as negative rights, meaning government if government act upon them that government is in violation of Gods law. Now I can give up my natural rights. If I steal from someone and go to prison for it, I gave up my right of freedom.

I have a right to life, but no where does that mean I have a right to a healthy life.

I believe the church is wrong in claiming the health care is a natural right, I think Benedict used the term “inalienable”
Click to expand...
You may need to read the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church and add St John Paul to the team of Popes…🙂

Your concern is addressed in Chapter IV. Go to 153 for the " inalienable" you mentioned and then continúe until 166 which deals with the right to basic health care and other rights.
But it is much better understood when reading it all.
Take your time. All of it is worth the read.
And going back to it when necessary.
It has helped me at least…
Have a good night!

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
 
Blue_Horizon said:
That’s not a problem.
What I found more difficult to accept was your:

…as this suggests you just posted without making the effort to read the lead in.
If you had I suggest you would have answered your own question with the info provided.
Saying “sorry” doesn’t make the lack of effort, if that is indeed the case, any more acceptable I am afraid.
Click to expand...
I skimmed through the posts and did not read every single sentence in all of them. I might have missed it on the small chance someone else may have asked the same question.

The Orthodox poster’s reply stood out because it was not something typically done but seemed like a useful reminder. I merely asked if such a thing can be done at a Catholic parish. But you might be right about scrupulosity and adherence to authoritarianism from my end.

What I find difficult to understand is your insistence that I committed some heinous crime in even prefacing the question with a “sorry”. Is it really a breach of some internet etiquette to apologize beforehand in case something was missed?

What misfortune that I haven’t been to 10,000 Masses and don’t know all the canon laws to even conceive of asking such a question.

None of the posts here mentioned anything about priests offering reminders before Mass like the Orthodox Church does apparently (at least in some places). So I’m not sure I would’ve found the answer to my question in the posts written herein. There was a story about a son attending a Catholic funeral for his mother and wanted to receive Communion though he was allegedly living in a homosexual lifestyle; he did not know of the requirements for reception of Communion. So it’s quite possible for some to not know or to have forgotten what they previously knew.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
That you would prefer focused weekly before-mass reminders instead of a once or twice a year exposition of the teaching in a homily suggests the equivalent of private scrupulosity mixed with authoritarianism projected into the public sphere.
Click to expand...
People come and go all the time; it’s not the same people at every parish.

I only posed the question because of reading about the Orthodox practice. They have valid sacraments and are still regarded highly. They have a means to dissuade unworthy reception – I wondered, It seems beneficial, why not us then?

Since you offered an explanation for my reason for asking (scrupulosity and authoritarianism), maybe I can offer an explanation for your response: you bring up stigma of not receiving Communion (in an unrelated post) and intrusiveness, so it seems preventing the perception of “shame” (such as sitting in the pews and not receiving) and not prying into people’s spiritual lives are of importance to you.

Perhaps my question triggered something and seemed to imply that stigma could be attached by frequent, intrusive reminders. I can see how frequency can be intrusive.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
Yes. Its intrusive and the private failures of parishioners are not the business of the minister of Communion as Canons 915 and 916 indicate.

Yes it is good to remind parishioners of Canon 916 from time to time in a homily as with any other important precept or doctrine.

Unfortunately even your wording above suggests you do not understand actual Catholic Church teaching on this point. Your “sorry” does not really excuse you for your lack of understanding which is easily relieved by reading this thread instead of just jumping in without that minimum effort/respect.
Click to expand...
You’re treatment of this posters is way out of line.
 
graciew said:
You may need to read the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church and add St John Paul to the team of Popes…🙂

Your concern is addressed in Chapter IV. Go to 153 for the " inalienable" you mentioned and then continúe until 166 which deals with the right to basic health care and other rights.
But it is much better understood when reading it all.
Take your time. All of it is worth the read.
And going back to it when necessary.
It has helped me at least…
Have a good night!

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
Click to expand...
I couldn’t care less where and what is written IT IS NOT A HUMAN RIGHT, PERIOD. . If Francis wants to excommunicate me because I say he is wrong, no big loss.
 
philipl said:
I couldn’t care less where and what is written IT IS NOT A HUMAN RIGHT, PERIOD. . If Francis wants to excommunicate me because I say he is wrong, no big loss.
Click to expand...
Your understanding regarding the fundamental right of health care is at odd with the teaching of the Church.

You place your opinion on this matter above that of the Magisterium?
 
ringil said:
Your understanding regarding the fundamental right of health care is at odd with the teaching of the Church.

You place your opinion on this matter above that of the Magisterium?
Click to expand...
The church and the Magisterium is wrong. Health care is not a natural right. I am not going to surrender my brain to the Pope or the Magisterium.
 
philipl said:
The church and the Magisterium is wrong. Health care is not a natural right. I am not going to surrender my brain to the Pope or the Magisterium.
Click to expand...
You don’t have to surrender your brain, but don’t you think that—as a Catholic—you owe it to yourself to listen to why the Church teaches as She does? That requires using one’s brain. You can’t properly listen and consider the teaching without using your brain.
 
philipl said:
I couldn’t care less where and what is written IT IS NOT A HUMAN RIGHT, PERIOD. . If Francis wants to excommunicate me because I say he is wrong, no big loss.
Click to expand...
Try St Thomas Aquinas.Natural Law.
And no…no one is excommunicated for being hard- headed. From my own experience!I d be in the oven and fried by now for hard headed. Keep trying!🙂 if you want,that is.
Have a great day!
 
steve_b said:
😃 I’m sure you guys have great fun giving it to each other … in good humor of course.

Are you Russian Orthodox?
Click to expand...
Yes, we do! I love my Greek brothers and sisters in Christ. I am secretly jealous as my voice could never keep up with Byzantine chant.

I am in an OCA parish but it has strong Russian roots.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top