It’s great when a Cardinal speaks the simple language of yes or no... http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/iss...ceive-communion-they-should-become-catholic1/ “What does the Church do that is as great as the Mass?” asked Cardinal Arinze. “The Church has only one possession equal to the Mass and that is another Mass. Nothing else. “It is very important to look at the doctrine,” he added. “The Eucharistic celebration of the Mass is not an ecumenical service. It is not a gathering of those who believe in Christ and who invent a prayer for the occasion. It is a celebration of the mysteries of Christ who died for us on the Cross, who made bread into His body and wine into His blood and told the Apostles ‘do this in memory of me’. “So the Eucharistic celebration of the Mass is the celebration of the faith community, those who believe in Christ. They are communicating in the faith, and in the sacraments, and in ecclesiastical communion, not now Holy Communion but ecclesiastical unity with their pastor, their bishop and the Pope. It is the community that celebrates the Holy Eucharist. Anybody who is not a member of that community does not fit in at all. “It isn’t just that we wish one another well. After Mass, you can have a cup of tea and even a glass of beer and a bit of cake. That’s OK. But the Mass is not like that. “But we wish other Christians well. The Holy Eucharist is not our private possession which we can share with our friends. Our tea is such and also our bottle of beer. We can share those with our friends.” He said that if Protestants wished to receive Communion in Catholic churches they should become Catholics. “Come, be received into the Church and then you can receive Holy Communion seven times a week. Otherwise, no.” Furthermore, Catholics who have committed mortal sins must receive absolution before they can receive the Eucharist, he said. “If a person is not in a state of grace, even if he receives Holy Communion five times a day he doesn’t get grace at all but he commits five sacrileges because he wasn’t well prepared,” he says. “It means that the Holy Eucharist is for those in the Catholic faith and fold who hold on to that faith and who are well disposed. For the same reason you can see if a person is divorced and remarried then there is a problem. Christ said [that] he who drives away his wife or husband and marries another… Christ has one word: adultery. It is not we who made that. It is not a Vatican law. It is Christ who said it. “We cannot be more merciful than Christ. If any of us says he has permission from Christ to change one of the major points Christ gave us in the Gospel we would like to see that permission and also the signature. You can see that it is not possible. Not even if all of the bishops agree, it doesn’t become so.”
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/iss...ceive-communion-they-should-become-catholic1/ Jarg, Did you read further down in the article where it describes how the Vatican continues to speak out of both sides of its mouth: But certainly change is in the wind and before too long it will, without doubt, descend upon English-speaking countries. This is perhaps evident in the statement by the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission published this month on authority and ecclesial communion. In one paragraph it expresses traditional Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, held with such conviction by figures like Cardinal Arinze, while in another it gently nudges open the door to novelty. The Catholic Church might “fruitfully learn from the Anglican practice of provincial diversity and the associated recognition that on some matters different parts of the Communion can appropriately make different discernments influenced by cultural and contextual appropriateness”, the document declares. Such innovations might well hold out the prospect of closer unity with other Christian communities, but they surely carry within them a counter-productive risk of grave division within the universal Church. I was always taught that such was the sin of duplicity. Definition of duplicity plural duplicities 1 : contradictory doubleness of thought, speech, or action the simplicity and openness of their lives brought out for him the duplicity that lay at the bottom of ours —Mary Austin especially : the belying of one's true intentions by deceptive words or action Safe Under Mary's Mantle!
Thank you Caridnal Arinze. Pity the Pope's not saying this. But he's not. He's not saying this atll. He's saying something quite different.
So much for "periods of discernment" and "grave necessity". The Germans didn't even wait for the ink to dry on the parchment before tossing the paperwork aside and letting Protestants who show neither "grave necessity" nor "true discernment" receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord. People who can neither go to confession nor receive absolution. People who do not share the same faith or beliefs. Why did they even write up the ridiculous process of inter-communion if they weren't even going to use it? https://onepeterfive.com/german-dioceses-respond-intercommunion/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Onepeterfive+(OnePeterFive)
Michael Voris commenting on Cardinal Muller's recent interview in which he states that what we are witnessing is a purposeful plan to Protestanize the Catholic Church.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/new...secrated-virgins-condemns-shocking-new-rules/ US Association of Consecrated Virgins condemns ‘shocking’ new rules by Staff Reporter posted Friday, 13 Jul 2018 Three women pause in prayer as they are consecrated to the Order of Virgins (CNS photo/Joel Breidenbach) The document says it is 'not essential' that a woman should have 'kept her body in perfect continence' The US Association of Consecrated Virgins has said it is “deeply disappointed” at new rules issued by the Vatican that appear to say consecrated virgins need not be virgins. The group has taken issue with section 88 of the new document, which states: “Thus to have kept her body in perfect continence or to have practiced the virtue of chastity in an exemplary way, while of great importance with regard to the discernment, are not essential prerequisites in the absence of which admittance to consecration is not possible.” The USACV said it was “shocking to hear from Mother Church that physical virginity may no longer be considered an essential prerequisite for consecration to a life of virginity.” “The entire tradition of the Church has firmly upheld that a woman must have received the gift of virginity – that is, both material and formal (physical and spiritual) – in order to receive the consecration of virgins,” the association added. They said that the new rules do not change the prerequisites for consecration as stated in the Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity, which says: “In the case of virgins leading lives in the world it is required that they have never celebrated marriage and that they have not publicly or manifestly lived in a state contrary to chastity.” The USACV says that this means virginity is a minimum requirement for consecration, and they add that there are “some egregious violations of chastity” that, although they do not violate virginity, do disqualify women from receiving consecration. The Vatican issued the document, titled Ecclesiae Sponsae Imago, last week after requests from bishops throughout the world for clarity on the role of consecrated virgins amid an upsurge in vocations. A consecrated virgin is a woman who has never married who pledges perpetual virginity and dedicates her life to God. Unlike a nun, she does not live in a community and leads a secular life, providing for her own needs.
Sometimes I think that there are very,very few sane people left on Planet Earth. Certainly no sane folk left in the Vatican. Nuts.
I look about my town as I go about and the same thought comes to mind. I sometimes look at old friends and wonder.......Do I know you ? In any regard nowadaze I try to keep old sins, memories to myself.............. Just keep plugging away there Paddy, keep plugging away.
