US Bishops Set to Tell Catholics Opposed to Teaching on Abortion or Homosexuality not

[vern_humphrey]

I’ll remember that during the next discussion about a bishop’s instructions about standing during communion. Or the next time someone one these boards rails against Cardinal Mahoney.

It is one thing to criticize a particular bishop, and another thing entirely to reject the Magisterium.

I also remember discussions regarding certain musical instruments that are allowed by the USCCB but a majority of people on this board want banned. Does this mean they can’t receive communion either?

Talk about a childish remark!!

Did the bishops say they can’t receive communion?

 

[cheese_sdc]

Talk about a childish remark!!

Did the bishops say they can’t receive communion?

Catholics should also refrain from Holy Communion, according to the statement, when they lack adherence to what the Church authoritatively teaches on matters of faith and morals or when a person is publicly known to have committed serious sin. -emphasis added

usccb.org/comm/archives/2006/06-204.shtml

You have posted this:

No, you cannot ignore rthe teachings of your bishop – and since this will be the teaching of all the American bishops, you most certainly cannot ignore it.

I am applying the same logic that many people here use against the so called “cafeteria catholics”. It is morality at its most basic level. “Do unto others as you have done unto yourself”:

There have been many, many threads about how guitars should be banned from the Mass. However, the USCCB has implicently allowed their usage.

Therefore, those people that do not agree with this teaching of the faith by the USCCB should not receive communion.

Another example? Okay.

The Catechism and the Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions makes it plain that non-christians can achieve salvation. So all those people who disagree with that can stay in the pew during communion.

Another example? Okay.

The Vatican II documents state that there is “a hierarchy of Truth”. (I can post the exact reference when I get home). That is, some Truths of the faith are more important than others, depending on how they were revealed (either directly through scripture, or not). Now, all those that think that all Truths are equal, you can stay in your pew during communion.

 

[cheese_sdc]

Now let me say here that I do not believe that people should be excluded from communion. I am illustrating a point that if the Church starts banning people from communion for theological differences, there will be about three people receiving communion in the whole world.

 

[estesbob]

Now let me say here that I do not believe that people should be excluded from communion. I am illustrating a point that if the Church starts banning people from communion for theological differences, there will be about three people receiving communion in the whole world.

They are talking only about people who OPENLY defy Church teaching.

 

[vern_humphrey]

usccb.org/comm/archives/2006/06-204.shtml

You have posted this:

I am applying the same logic that many people here use against the so called “cafeteria catholics”. It is morality at its most basic level. “Do unto others as you have done unto yourself”:

There have been many, many threads about how guitars should be banned from the Mass. However, the USCCB has implicently allowed their usage.

Therefore, those people that do not agree with this teaching of the faith by the USCCB should not receive communion.

Another example? Okay.

The Catechism and the Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions makes it plain that non-christians can achieve salvation. So all those people who disagree with that can stay in the pew during communion.

Another example? Okay.

The Vatican II documents state that there is “a hierarchy of Truth”. (I can post the exact reference when I get home). That is, some Truths of the faith are more important than others, depending on how they were revealed (either directly through scripture, or not). Now, all those that think that all Truths are equal, you can stay in your pew during communion.

If you were submitting that as a term paper in Logic 101, you’d fail the course.

The bishops collectively have the power to loose and bind. They have apparently decided to hold people to the Pope’s standards here – Cardinal Ratzinger said it is permissible to differ with the Pope on war and capital punishment, but not on abortion.

They have the power to do that, and if they do make that pronouncement, no honest person can espouse abortion and gay marriage and take communion. Dishonest people can take communion, of course – but they sin greviously when they do.

 

[cheese_sdc]

If you were submitting that as a term paper in Logic 101, you’d fail the course.

The bishops collectively have the power to loose and bind. They have apparently decided to hold people to the Pope’s standards here – Cardinal Ratzinger said it is permissible to differ with the Pope on war and capital punishment, but not on abortion.

They have the power to do that, and if they do make that pronouncement, no honest person can espouse abortion and gay marriage and take communion. Dishonest people can take communion, of course – but they sin greviously when they do.

Actually I earned an “A” in Logic 101.

I used, as the first premise, the statement:

No, you cannot ignore rthe teachings of your bishop – and since this will be the teaching of all the American bishops, you most certainly cannot ignore it.

and

  	 				Catholics should also refrain from Holy Communion, according to the statement, **when they lack adherence to what the Church authoritatively teaches on matters of faith and morals** or when a person is publicly known to have committed serious sin.  -emphasis added

And then posted several examples of how many people do not follow those teachings from Vatican II, the Catechism and the USCCB.

Therefore, using your own logic, those people should not receive communion.

No logical fallacy there.

Now the question one must ask themselves is this: “Is this action by the bishops consistent with the ideals that Jesus preached?”

 

[vern_humphrey]

Actually I earned an “A” in Logic 101.

Remind me not to send my granddaughters to that college .

And then posted several examples of how many people do not follow those teachings from Vatican II, the Catechism and the USCCB.

Kind of like saying of we execute serial killers, we should also execute jaywalkers – because they both are lawbreakers.

Now the question one must ask themselves is this: “Is this action by the bishops consistent with the ideals that Jesus preached?”

The people qualified to give that an authoritative answer are all bishops.

 

[cheese_sdc]

Remind me not to send my granddaughters to that college .

All you have done is say that the statements were illogical. You have yet to show proof. I believe that you are falling for a famous logical fallacy know as “I don’t agree with you so you must be wrong.” Don’t feel bad, my boss does it all the time.

Oh, and your daughters couldn’t get into the college I attended. It was a seminary.

Kind of like saying of we execute serial killers, we should also execute jaywalkers – because they both are lawbreakers.

Not really. The examples I pulled are either sufficiently serious to merit such treatment. After all, we are dealing with matters of worship (guitars in Mass), salvation (can non-christians go to Heaven), and Truth (hierarchy of Truth). Seems like grave matter to me.

The people qualified to give that an authoritative answer are all bishops.

Nope. We must answer that question ourselves. That is the responsibility of an adult believer. Not a child who blindly follows what he is told.

 

[fix]

No, we are talking about something much more serious. We are talking about restricting communion to people not for grave sin, but to good Catholics who have an honest disagreement with Church teaching.

That is serious.

There is no such thing as an honest disagreement with the teachings of Christ.

The document binds if Rome says it binds or if it restates Church teaching.

 

[vern_humphrey]

All you have done is say that the statements were illogical. You have yet to show proof. I believe that you are falling for a famous logical fallacy know as “I don’t agree with you so you must be wrong.” Don’t feel bad, my boss does it all the time.

Oh, and your daughters couldn’t get into the college I attended. It was a seminary.

I emphasize this word because it will be important later on.

Not really. The examples I pulled are either sufficiently serious to merit such treatment. After all, we are dealing with matters of worship (guitars in Mass), salvation (can non-christians go to Heaven), and Truth (hierarchy of Truth). Seems like grave matter to me.

Right – not liking guitars at Mass is the same as murdering a baby in the womb. You betcha.

Nope. We must answer that question ourselves. That is the responsibility of an adult believer. Not a child who blindly follows what he is told.

And you learned at the “seminary” that when the bishops speak in concert, you can ignore it?

Does the word “Magisterium” mean anything to you?

 

[cheese_sdc]

Right – not liking guitars at Mass is the same as murdering a baby in the womb. You betcha.

That is exactly my point! In this document, as reported, there is no sense of proportion. The bishops are debating denying communion to people, not for what they’ve done, but what they think. I will again post the words of the press release, as you seem not to grasp this point:

  	 				 			 				Catholics should also refrain from Holy Communion, according to the statement, **when they lack adherence to what the Church authoritatively teaches on matters of faith and morals** or when a person is publicly known to have committed serious sin.  -emphasis added

Please understand that distinction!

Does the word “Magisterium” mean anything to you?

1st of all, this document has not been adopted - therefore, by the official rules, it is up for debate. I do not defy the teaching authority of the Church by disputing it at this time.

Secondly, if it is adopted by the USCCB, then it still does not meet the previously stated criteria of an Ex Cathedra statement, Public Revalation, Tradition, or part of an Ecumenical Council.

 

[fix]

That is exactly my point! In this document, as reported, there is no sense of proportion. The bishops are debating denying communion to people, not for what they’ve done, but what they think. I will again post the words of the press release, as you seem not to grasp this point:

Please understand that distinction!

1st of all, this document has not been adopted - therefore, by the official rules, it is up for debate. I do not defy the teaching authority of the Church by disputing it at this time.

Secondly, if it is adopted by the USCCB, then it still does not meet the previously stated criteria of an Ex Cathedra statement, Public Revalation, Tradition, or part of an Ecumenical Council.

This is from the OP:

The document, addressed to all the faithful, points out that Catholics may not receive communion if they do not accept Church teaching on matters such as abortion and homosexuality. Catholics should refrain from Holy Communion, says the document, “when they lack adherence to what the Church authoritatively teaches on matters of faith and morals.”

This is what the Church says andis in canon law and it binds us right now. The proposal seems to be a reminder of what we ought to be doing right now. It is nothing new.

We are required to be in full communion. Failure to assent as we ought to is breaking full communion and a grave sin.

If the final document simply restaes current teaching why would it not bind?

 

[fix]

This is from the OP:

This is what the Church says and is in canon law and it binds us right now. The proposal seems to be a reminder of what we ought to be doing right now. It is nothing new.

We are required to be in full communion. Failure to assent as we ought to is breaking full communion and a grave sin.

If the final document simply restates current teaching why would it not bind?

 

[cheese_sdc]

It is plain that we are talking at each other, and not in a discussion.

To you two gentlemen, Fix and Vern, I say good day. We are not getting anywhere with each other. May God have mercy on the Church. She needs it now more than ever.

 

[vern_humphrey]

That is exactly my point! In this document, as reported, there is no sense of proportion. The bishops are debating denying communion to people, not for what they’ve done, but what they think. I will again post the words of the press release, as you seem not to grasp this point:

Faith is essential to salvation. One who sins in his heart, sins.

1st of all, this document has not been adopted - therefore, by the official rules, it is up for debate. I do not defy the teaching authority of the Church by disputing it at this time.

And the laity have the same standing to participate in the debate as the Bishops?

Secondly, if it is adopted by the USCCB, then it still does not meet the previously stated criteria of an Ex Cathedra statement, Public Revalation, Tradition, or part of an Ecumenical Council.

I note that you omitted the Ordinary Magisterium from your list.

If the Bishops publish this document, will you or will you not accept their authority?

 

[mary_bobo]

Now let me say here that I do not believe that people should be excluded from communion. I am illustrating a point that if the Church starts banning people from communion for theological differences, there will be about three people receiving communion in the whole world.

Pretty definite statement. And your proof of this is…?

 

[vern_humphrey]

We already exclude many people from communion for their beliefs. We call them “Protestants.”

We call them that because they protest against the Magisterium.

 

[Richardols]

We are required to be in full communion. Failure to assent as we ought to is breaking full communion and a grave sin.

Same with getting drunk or abusing our parents or coveting or beating our wives. The Church forbids those actions and by doing them we are no longer in full communion and so commit a grave sin.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Same with getting drunk or abusing our parents or coveting or beating our wives. The Church forbids those actions and by doing them we are no longer in full communion and so commit a grave sin.

And there we agree. And such a person must make a sincere confession, which includes a resolve to avoid such sins in the future.

Similarly, the bishops appear to be prepared to say one who supports abortion or gay marriage cannot take communion **until **he confesses his sins and changes his position.

This is a typical Catholic approach, going right back to the Council of Nicea and the Nicean Creed.-- and probably before that.

 

[fix]

Same with getting drunk or abusing our parents or coveting or beating our wives. The Church forbids those actions and by doing them we are no longer in full communion and so commit a grave sin.

What is your point?