It's illogical to decide, on the grounds that Holy Communion is being given to the unworthy, that the worthy should not take it. The rules might be wrong, but Holy Communion remains what it always is, the Body of Christ. It can never, never, never be a problem for the worthy to receive the Body of Christ. Transubstantiation is the Work of Christ, through the priest, who is only an agent. It will take more than errant priests (in that I include those of all stripes, from curate to pope) to stop Christ coming to those who are properly prepared for Him. In fact, I would think nothing can stop Him. Think of how much He wishes to enter under your roof, in contrast to being forcibly dragged to those of others. And, to be brutal about it, you have no authority to decide not to receive the sacraments for these reasons, except your own. So, I say, get back there!
Eucharist for all?? That's what this author believes PF's statement about the Eucharist means. Dear Lord, please help us! https://religionnews.com/2019/06/05...ays-pope-francis-about-sharing-the-eucharist/
Illinois Bishop Bans Pro-Abortion Lawmakers from Receiving Communion The bishop of Springfield, IL, has forbidden Catholic legislators who voted for the Reproductive Health Act from receiving Holy Communion in his diocese, citing penalties in Church Law for those who “persist in manifest grave sin.” In a statement released by the Springfield diocese Thursday, Bishop Thomas Paprocki declared that “Illinois Catholic lawmakers who promoted or voted for extreme abortion legislation are not to receive Communion.” Bishop Paprocki calls out two Catholic legislators by name, House Speaker Michael Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton, but extends the ban to any Catholic who voted for the bills. “Due to their leadership roles in promoting the evil of abortion by facilitating the passage of Senate Bill 25 this legislative session and House Bill 40 in 2017, House Speaker Michael Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton have been barred from receiving Holy Communion,” the statement reads. “In addition, Illinois Catholic lawmakers who voted for either of these abortion bills are not to present themselves to receive Holy Communion,” it says. These legislative leaders “have shown obstinate and persistent support of extreme abortion legislation,” the statement declares. “House Bill 40 legalized taxpayer funding for abortion and Senate Bill 25 makes abortion a fundamental right, allows for the killing of innocent children up to the moment of birth, and requires private insurance to pay for abortion, among other anti-life changes.” The statement was accompanied by a formal decree, which was mailed earlier this week to those Catholic lawmakers who voted for House Bill 40/Senate Bill 25. “To support legislation that treats babies in the womb like property, allowing for their destruction for any reason at any time, is evil,” the bishop said. “It’s my hope and prayer these lawmakers reconcile themselves to the Church so they can receive Communion.” Bishop Paprocki, who is a canon lawyer, said that if these legislators would like to return to communion with the Church, they must seek sacramental absolution and demonstrate a “public conversion of life.” “In view of their gravely immoral action to deprive unborn children legal protection against abortion, it must be said that any Catholic legislator who sponsored, promoted, advocated, or voted for these pro-abortion bills has acted in a seriously sinful manner unfaithful to the 2,000-year-old Christian teaching against abortion and therefore, would place themselves outside of the full communion of the Catholic Church,” the bishop said. “Such persons are not to receive Holy Communion until they have celebrated the sacrament of reconciliation and displayed a public conversion of life.” Along with citing Canon Law, Bishop Paprocki appealed to recent statements by Pope Francis in which he compared abortion to hiring a hit man to resolve problems in life. “I want to thank lawmakers who stood up to these barbaric pieces of legislation and voted ‘no,’ and I applaud their courage to speak the truth that the most basic right we should all enjoy, is the right to life,” Paprocki said. https://www.breitbart.com/faith/201...-abortion-lawmakers-from-receiving-communion/
My problem in taking Holy Communion isn't that adulterers are taking it. It is that adulterers being allowed to receive has now been declared Magisterium by the Pope. That means we must give assent to it with mind and will. My conscience is in conflict with the teaching authority of the Church. I am not deciding this on my own authority, but from what the Church teaches. III. Our third category is “ordinary teaching on faith and morals.” Citing LG 25, the Catechism of the Catholic Church[32] spells out how Christians are to receive such doctrines: “To this ordinary teaching the faithful ‘are to adhere to it [sic] with religious assent’ which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.” The passage in LG speaks of a “religious assent [assensus religiosus] of mind and will.” This assent is distinguished from the assensus fidei of the first and second categories on our list. https://catholicism.org/the-three-levels-of-magisterial-teaching.html
Obviously the issue is much larger than simply the rules being wrong. How can the Magisterium, in union with the Vicar of Christ teach this? We are talking about infallibility right?
This leads me to ask myself how can I "resist" the teaching of the Vicar of Christ and the Magisterium and be in communion with the Church and Christ? It is absurd.
Exactly the mental conundrum I have been wrestling through. I don't think most people grasp the import of this being made Magisterial. Even Popes who erred in the past never included their errors in the Magisterium of the Church. This is unprecedented in all of Church history.
I personally can not imagine any time when there was more cause for tribulation on the part of those who love Christ than now. Even in the times when there were three claimants to the seat of Peter it was not like we see today.
To my knowledge even when the Church has had one or two anti-popes vying for the Throne of Peter, the anti-popes never even dared to make an attempt to change Church Teaching. No this is by far the worst crisis. By far...
I'm not denying that, but what steps does one take to rationalise that the worthy ought not take Communion? To me it is a complete non sequitor. The good remains good, no matter what attempts people might take to undermine it. The ultimate logic would be for only the unworthy to receive Christ. This seems to me a result that would be welcomed more by Pope Francis than by Christ. We are certainly talking about Infallibility, but Bergoglio has cleverly avoided making a definitive doctrinal statement. Those deeming they can continue to actively enjoy the pleasures of their adultery while remaining worthy of receiving the Body of Christ are doing so under the auspices of a gigantic sleight of hand. The first Vatican Council, in my understanding, defined Fallibility as only extending to the defense by a pope of the established doctrine of the Church and deliberately excluded the definition of novelty. The Fathers of this Council had a good handle on human fallibility. Pope Bergoglio did not aspire to introduce these errors under the authority of Infallibility-he knew enough to know he couldn't. Now, explain to me how boycotting the Body of Christ can be anything other than gravely unhelpful in this appalling mess? A pope who introduces falsity and anti-magisterial teaching cannot be in communion with Christ and the true Church. Therefore, if one rejects this pope's false teaching, one is not dissociating oneself from Christ and His Church, but affirming Him and it and aligning oneself more closely to Him and His Church. We plebs might not have the authority to make a final decision on the legitimacy of this pope, perhaps nobody living has, but we can all demonstrate our allegiance to Christ and His Church Triumphant and what remains of His Church Militant by carrying on as Catholics throughout the ages have done. That is done most effectively through prayer and receiving the Sacraments. We are in an appalling situation, but this is how I see it-I intend to remain Catholic no matter what they do in Rome. In consequence, I will seek the Sacraments as long as I can find them. If it gets to the stage that they are no longer obtainable, a quite plausible prospect, I will just have to put my trust in Christ.
You speak my mind as well DeGaulle. But there is no doubt we are being stretched to breaking or snapping. Everyone both priest and people must come to their own road here-- yet stay within the barque of Peter. It is a terrible dilemma. Our Lady must show us the way. She promised her Immaculate Heart would be our safe refuge. I'm counting on her.
DeGaulle, As laypersons, we are in a position only to assume that Francis is a valid Pope. My understanding is that Praetorian believes that Francis' interpretation of AL (which allows for the possibility of the married-and-divorced to receive Holy Communion) falls under III above in post 13005: III. Our third category is “ordinary teaching on faith and morals.” Citing LG 25, the Catechism of the Catholic Church[32] spells out how Christians are to receive such doctrines: “To this ordinary teaching the faithful ‘are to adhere to it [sic] with religious assent’ which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.” The passage in LG speaks of a “religious assent [assensus religiosus] of mind and will.” This assent is distinguished from the assensus fidei of the first and second categories on our list. Of this category, Pope Benedict has had this to say: ...here are magisterial decisions which cannot be and are not intended to be the last word on the matter as such, but are a substantial anchorage in the problem and are first and foremost an expression of pastoral prudence, a sort of provisional disposition. Their core remains valid but the individual details influenced by the circumstances at the time may need further rectification. It appears that Praetorian's conscience is torn between acknowledging the Pope's authority to make such a magisterial decision (to which Praetorian should religiously assent) and yet in danger of participating in receiving Holy Communion at Holy Mass where adulterers are doing so also. Praetorian might feel that such an action on his part sets a bad example because others will assume he agrees with the Pope's position when he interiorly does not? In my attempt to empathize with Praetorian I obviously am guessing and do not fully understand his hesitation. Until I do understand (Praetorian's free to ignore such a request) I'm at a loss as what to suggest. I love you Praetorian and will continue to pray. Safe in the Barque of Peter!
That is not the way the Church should operate, but sadly it is. We have no leadership. "And Jesus saith to them: You will all be scandalized in my regard this night. For it is written: I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep shall be dispersed.." -Mark 14:27
I doubt Benedict meant to imply that a direct contradiction of Christ's words could be 'an expression of pastoral prudence'. I cannot accept that the reception of Holy Communion by a worthy soul can ever be construed as undesirable. It is not the worthy soul who gives scandal. It is beyond his control.
Thank you both (and everyone) for your concern. I did not mean to make this an issue again, but was just responding to the responses to my earlier post. I am afraid it is simply a mental conundrum I cannot escape. From much reading my understanding is that this teaching on adulterers being allowed to receive Holy Communion falls under the “ordinary teaching on faith and morals.” So it is not infallible, but that does not mean we can ignore it. All that means, to my understanding, is that it is not guaranteed from error. That being said, we are expected to grant assent of the will and mind to this level of teaching. From other articles I have read that includes not doing such things as speaking against it, denying it, etc. It also appears that theologians may be exempt from this last restriction as they are qualified to point out things contrary to the faith and to explore new topics. My receiving Holy Communion at a Mass where adulterers may be receiving has nothing to do with it at all. The problem lies in me not giving assent of will and mind to the Pope's teachings. If I accept Pope Francis is a valid Pope, which I do because I have no authority to do otherwise, then I am bound to accept his Magisterial teachings. I think my current position may mean I am not in communion with Pope Francis. This might make me unworthy to receive Holy Communion. Unless someone can show me where I am not bound to do this. Honestly, show me an actual teaching if you can. I would welcome it.
Praetorian, I'm away for the weekend. I'll give it some thought. Thanks for the clarification. Safe Under Mary's Mantle!
You must be obedient in all things but sin. His teaching cannot ask you to accede to sin. "Even if an Angel from heaven should bring you a teaching different than the one handed down to you let him be anathema" No Pope can circumvent the traditional doctrine and dogma of the Church. If he does so that puts him into intentional volitional heresy at which point he ceases to be Pope. I'm willing to be corrected but I'm pretty sure the Church fathers and later teachers like St Robert Bellarmine say so.
Pope Innocent III said one must obey the Pope in all things unless he goes against the customs of the universal Church. If he goes against the customs of the universal Church, he need not be followed. This ties in with what AED posted above.
Thank you both. No need to fret though, I am hoping it will get sorted soon enough. To the best of my ability I am not following those teachings that my conscience and intellect tell me are in error. The quotes of a saint though are not an excuse for me to ignore official Church teaching. Sometimes even saints have said things in error and not every off the cuff remark of a Pope is magisterial, whereas the teaching I am concerned with is. So we have reached the point where is seems sin is enshrined in the official Magisterium of the Church. How is that possible?
