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

[BroIgnatius]

No it’s not.

A priest does not know if a Catholic has been to Confession prior to presenting himself for Communion.

Mass, especially the Christmas Vigil Mass, isn’t the place for a priest to tell assistants to not receive Holy Communion.

Jim

This one you are wrong about. Public sinners are the only ones who may have the Eucharist withheld.

Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

The discipline in question appeared as canon 867 in the 1980 Schema of the Code of Canon Law and read:

“They who have grievously and publicly sinned, and manifestly remain in contumacy are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

[The text of the canon is clear. Those under the imposed or declared ecclesiastical penalties of interdict and excommunication, and those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be given Holy Communion. The text makes it clear that the Church has the responsibility to deny Holy Communion to those who are known to be under the imposed or declared penalties of excommunication and interdict, and to those who are known to persist obstinately in manifest grave sin. Although the text does not state so explicitly, it is clear that the Church’s responsibility is carried out by the minister of Holy Communion.

Regarding those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, it is necessary to know that indeed the person does obstinately persist, that is, that his pastor has informed him about the grave and public sinfulness of what he is doing and has cautioned him about not approaching to receive Holy Communion. The commentary on the 1983 Code of Canon Law, prepared by the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland, summarizes the point:

Likewise excluded are those <>. In this third case, unlike the first two, there has been no public imposition or declaration of the person’s state and so, before a minister can lawfully refuse the Eucharist, he must be certain that the person obstinately persists in a sinful situation or in sinful behavior that is manifest (i.e. public) and objectively grave. [The Canon Law Letter & Spirit: A Practical Guide to the Code of Canon Law, Dublin 1995,503]

Clearly, the burden is on the minister of Holy Communion who, by the nature of his responsibility, must prevent anything which profanes the Blessed Sacrament and endangers the salvation of the soul of the recipient and of those scandalized by his unworthy reception of Holy Communion.

Source: PERIODICA DE RE CANONICA,vol. 96 (2007) pag. 3-58. (The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin), Raymond L. Burke. therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm

 

[10gr8kids]

And the priest knows that the people in the pews don’t go to Mass at other parishes ?

Jim

It isn’t like the priest is calling out any particular person. It is completely fine for a priest to educate people on how to determine if you are able to recieve communion worthily. It is much better for someone to stop and think about why they may not be ready to recieve Christ in the Eucharist than to let them recieve while in a state of mortal sin. That just adds another sin to our soul. There may be people who do not want to hear that they need to go to confession; they may very well ignore the priest and recieve anyway. That would be on them. Then there would be some like JT who would hear the the words of the priest and take it to heart, repent and come back to the Eucharist.

 

[10gr8kids]

OK so you uncircumcised males, line up and get circumcised as St Paul directed, before you receive Holy Communion. Pray that the knife is sharp by the time it’s your turn.

Jim

What? That is the complete opposite of what St Paul said.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I repeat: priests can refuse communion to public sinners.

Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law indicates the principal cases in which Communion may be publicly refused. The canon says, “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”

And no one above was excommunicated nor in a state that the priest could know that they should not receive Holy Communion, otherwise he wouldn’t have felt the need to speak about it at Mass.

That talks would have to come from the priest to the person directly, prior to the beginning of Mass if possible…

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

What? That is the complete opposite of what St Paul said.

Posted earlier

Jerome said
“In Acts 16:1-3 Paul took a disciple named Timothy and on account of the Jews of that region, Paul had Timothy a gentile, circumcised.”

Get in line and get a grip on yourself.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

This one you are wrong about. Public sinners are the only ones who may have the Eucharist withheld.

Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

The discipline in question appeared as canon 867 in the 1980 Schema of the Code of Canon Law and read:

“They who have grievously and publicly sinned, and manifestly remain in contumacy are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

Go back and read what took place.

No one was a public sinner who is excommunicated as far as the priest knew.

Jim

 

[10gr8kids]

Posted earlier

Get in line and get a grip on yourself.

Jim

I think you are the one that needs to get a grip. Paul did not want anyone to have anything to hold against Timothy; remember when Paul said, “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.” On other occassions, Paul was very adamant that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised. So, no, Paul never said anyone had to be circumcised to recieve communion.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I think you are the one that needs to get a grip. Paul did not want anyone to have anything to hold against Timothy; remember when Paul said, “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.” On other occassions, Paul was very adamant that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised. So, no, Paul never said anyone had to be circumcised to recieve communion.

It’s a joke son.

Jim

 

[10gr8kids]

It’s a joke son.

Jim

It’s not funny girl.

 

[James248]

Posted earlier

Get in line and get a grip on yourself.

Jim

And as I said, Timothy was a basically a Jew, except for the fact he had a Greek dad and Jewish mom. Timothy’s grandmother and mother raised him in the Jewish faith.

 

[BroIgnatius]

Go back and read what took place.

No one was a public sinner who is excommunicated as far as the priest knew.

Jim

I responded to your erroneous statement that a Priest cannot withhold the Eucharist from someone.

James248:

Regardless of the purpose of the Eucharist, it is perfectly orthodox for priests to refuse the Eucharist to public sinners

. Ambrose did that to Theodosius.

No it’s not.

A priest does not know if a Catholic has been to Confession prior to presenting himself for Communion.

“A priest does not know if a Catholic has been to Confession prior to presenting himself for Communion” applies to private sinners, not to public sinners.

As I proved, this statement is wrong. A public sinner can be refused communion. As Canon Law states, as I have already posted, excommunication or any other formal censure is not required: “…others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion”.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

And no one above was excommunicated nor in a state that the priest could know that they should not receive Holy Communion, otherwise he wouldn’t have felt the need to speak about it at Mass.

That talks would have to come from the priest to the person directly, prior to the beginning of Mass if possible…

Jim

Jim I believe the Priest was advising his extraordinary ministers of Canon 916 not 915.

915 is about the Priest’s responsibilities. The decision is based on a persons external objective state not what is “on his soul” which no priest can see as you say.

Canon 916 is what St Paul was on about and how we must examine our own consciences and so eat and drink worthily. And the Canon no longer speaks of having committed mortal sin but is more generic and says “conscious of grave sin”.

So it is quite possible that a person who regularly engages in grave matter (say contraception) but is not conscious he is committing a serious sin…may worthily receive Communion as per 916.

However if it is publicly known he does so and the Priest has admonished him to either cease or refrain from Communion…and he does not do either, would be within his rights to refuse Communion according to Canon 915.

And again, if that same person engages in regular contraception but does not tout it, though the Priest knows it through spiritual direction, the custom is not to use Canon 915 and stop him. The Vademecum makes this clear also … so long as the penitent is on a path of gradual discernment with the priest re the gravity of this matter which the penitent may not yet see.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Of course it is a discussion. As such, if one proposes a definition, it is not against the rules of a discussion to enquire as to the source.

You make a claim about what is the ‘new perfect’, where did this definition come from?

If the Emporer or his advisors retort “prove I am not wearing any clothes” then he’s already lost and revealed his set position which no further clarification will overcome. One answer will be too many and a thousand not enough.

Pretty much like the 4-1=3 Cardinals who remain “confused” … and always will until the Pope agrees with them.

I am simply describing in clearer words/concepts what many of us here already see as fairly self-evident. You either get it or you don’t, as per the effect in the below image.
Not a big deal to get hot and bothered about I would have thought.

https://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2750&pictureid=19132

 

[steve_b]

Paul’s audience in Galatians was Gentiles who were taught that circumcision was necessary for salvation.

Paul refutes that Galatians 5:2

So with that, why did Paul have Timothy circumcised ?

james:

His thesis was that if a Christian Gentile submits to the ceremonial precepts of the Mosaic Law, that person has forfeited their salvation.

Timothy’s case was a different case entirely.

Acts 16:1-3
He also came to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple named Timothy was there, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but whose father was a Greek. 2 The brothers in Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. 3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was Greek.

And it’s pretty clear Timothy was raised as a Jew from Scripture.

2 Timothy 3:14-15
14 You, however, must continue in the things you have learned and are confident about. You know who taught you 15 and how from infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

His father was a Gentile Greek not a Jew. That’s what people look at in his day.

And besides, Paul says circumcision is worthless . So why did Paul have Timothy circumcised?

james:

Peter, however, stopped sitting with Gentiles and started eating with Jews simply because he didn’t want to offend James’s people. This action would have severely wounded the unity of the Church at Antioch. Peter’s actions basically confirmed the idea that Gentiles were second class believers in the Kingdom and that salvation was of the works of the Law of Moses.

You completely missed Jerome’s point . AND you completely missed Paul’s point, that circumcision has no value. So why did Paul have Timothy circumcised?

 

[James248]

Paul refutes that Galatians 5:2

So with that, why did Paul have Timothy circumcised ?

His audience in that verse was Gentiles.

His father was a Gentile Greek not a Jew. That’s what people look at in his day.

And besides, Paul says circumcision is worthless . So why did Paul have Timothy circumcised?

Yet apparently Timothy was raised Jewish.

You completely missed Jerome’s point . AND you completely missed Paul’s point, that circumcision has no value. So why did Paul have Timothy circumcised?

Because Timothy, although uncircumcised, was of mixed parentage, raised as a Jew, and he was to preach to Jews. Paul wasn’t doing it for Timothy’s salvation.

Peter, on the other hand, to please the Judaizers, made a decision that severely compromised the unity of the Church.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Blue Horizon

Jim I believe the Priest was advising his extraordinary ministers of Canon 916 not 915.

And the priest would’ve had to do this prior to when the EMHC’s were commissioned.

Had the priest knowledge of an EMHC’s situation which made him/her ineligible to serve, the priest should’ve taken that person aside and advised them of the situation and why they can not serve until things are made right.

This was at the Christmas Vigil Mass and he made the announcement at the Mass.

Wrong decision on his part.

One time a priest at a funeral Mass, interrogated each person who went up to receive to see if they were in good standing with the Church.

He could’ve announced the regulation for reception of Holy Communion before Mass started, but chose to interrogate each person before he gave them the Sacred Host.

How rediculous !

It’s this type of Catholic that the Pope is speaking out against.

Did Jesus interrogate his Apostles to see if they were worthy, before he instituted the Sacrament at the Last Supper ?

Jim

 

[James248]

Blue Horizon

And the priest would’ve had to do this prior to when the EMHC’s were commissioned.

Had the priest knowledge of an EMHC’s situation which made him/her ineligible to serve, the priest should’ve taken that person aside and advised them of the situation and why they can not serve until things are made right.

This was at the Christmas Vigil Mass and he made the announcement at the Mass.

Wrong decision on his part.

One time a priest at a funeral Mass, interrogated each person who went up to receive to see if they were in good standing with the Church.

He could’ve announced the regulation for reception of Holy Communion before Mass started, but chose to interrogate each person before he gave them the Sacred Host.

How rediculous !

It’s this type of Catholic that the Pope is speaking out against.

Did Jesus interrogate his Apostles to see if they were worthy, before he instituted the Sacrament at the Last Supper ?

Jim

According to some He may have told the unworthy one to go before instituting the Sacrament.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue Horizon

And the priest would’ve had to do this prior to when the EMHC’s were commissioned.

Had the priest knowledge of an EMHC’s situation which made him/her ineligible to serve, the priest should’ve taken that person aside and advised them of the situation and why they can not serve until things are made right.

This was at the Christmas Vigil Mass and he made the announcement at the Mass.

Wrong decision on his part.

One time a priest at a funeral Mass, interrogated each person who went up to receive to see if they were in good standing with the Church.

He could’ve announced the regulation for reception of Holy Communion before Mass started, but chose to interrogate each person before he gave them the Sacred Host.

How rediculous !

It’s this type of Catholic that the Pope is speaking out against.

Did Jesus interrogate his Apostles to see if they were worthy, before he instituted the Sacrament at the Last Supper ?

Jim

I am not sure what you mean by interrogate but really the private failings of his EMHC (grave or light) are none of his business other than to remind them of the need for self examination.

 

[poche]

Pope says he’s saddened by ‘perfect’ Catholics who despise others.

You realize that this could fit the description of a lot of people of all persuasions.

 

[steve_b]

His audience in that verse was Gentiles.
Yet apparently Timothy was raised Jewish.

Whether Jew or gentile, Paul says circumcision is useless.
Galatians 5:2

So why did he have Timothy circumcised? If he was raised Jewish as you say, then Timothy would have already been circumcised… right? So why did Paul have Timothy circumcised?

james:

Because Timothy, although uncircumcised, was of mixed parentage, raised as a Jew, and he was to preach to Jews. Paul wasn’t doing it for Timothy’s salvation.

Peter, on the other hand, to please the Judaizers, made a decision that severely compromised the unity of the Church.

you completely miss Jerome’s point.

St Jerome responded to this charge of Paul rebuking Peter by observing that,

Peter a Jew, was well aware of the law of Moses, but was playing to those who were weak in their faith and out of fear that he might lose them, did what he did so like the Good Shepherd, would not lose ANYONE given to him.

Do you understand that point?

Now look at what Paul did
In Acts 16:1-3 Paul took a disciple named Timothy… and on account of the Jews of that region, Paul had Timothy a gentile, circumcised.

Then

Acts 18:18, Acts 21: 18-26 Paul shaved his head, purified himself and made sacrifice according to the Mosaic law, which he had previously said is no longer to be followed. Catch that? Paul rebukes Peter while giving himself a pass on far more.

But actually, Paul learned from Peter in this exercise that he would enjoin later in his ministry… Because Paul later in his travels explains HIS behavior by saying, to the Gentiles he becomes as a Gentile, to win them over, as to the Jews he became a Jew so that some might be saved. [1 cor 9:20] This is exactly what Peter did earlier with the gentiles and was rebuked by Paul for it. Then Paul embraces this behavior for himself…

St Jerome points out.

"O blessed Apostle Paul, who has rebuked Peter 
for hypocrasy because he withdrew himself from the
Gentiles for fear of the Jews who’ came from
James, why are you, not withstanding your own
doctrine, compelled to circumcise Timothy, the son of a
Gentile, for he was not a Jew, having not been circumcised? Will you answer, ‘Because of the Jews which are in these quarters.? If so, then forgive yourself the circumcision of a disciple coming from the Gentiles, and forgive Peter also, who has precedence above you, his doing some things of the same kind through fear of the believing Jews."

Jerome continues, “Why did you [Paul] shave your head, why did you walk barefoot according to the Jewish ceremonial law, why did you offer sacrifices, why were victims slain for you
according to the law? Will you answer, ‘To avoid giving offense to those of the Jews who had believed.’ To gain the Jews, you did pretend to be a Jew”. [snip]

As I said previousIy, I tried to highlight and compress what Jerome writes to Augustine concerning this subject. I focused particularly starting with ch’s 3…. of his letter. Here is Jerome’s full letter. Please read it.

newadvent.org/fathers/1102075.htm

defendingthebride.com/ch/pa/gatatians.html expanded explanation