From the book God Speaks Will You Listen https://www.scribd.com/doc/22505473/God-Speaks-Will-You-Listen# 6/27/07 Now let me clear up an area of confusion for you. Daniel 12:11. And from the time when the continual sacrifice shall be taken away and the abomination unto desolation shall be set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred ninety days. The continual sacrifice is the mass and the abomination of desolation is when the doctrine of the mass is changed in my church- the Roman Catholic Church. If you study church history, this doctrine of the mass is the one Satan has tried to destroy. From the time of the early church until now. Please read the next comments carefully. In my present church, there is much confusion regarding Vatican II. This is from Satan, not from me. Answer me a question: if the Holy Father calls an ecumenical council with all the bishops of the world and the Holy Spirit is guiding the church, how can that council be of Satan? It was not. My people do not understand the working of my Holy Spirit. Remember, I told you to beware of false prophets who come to you in the clothing of sheep. Satan has caused schism in my church, by allowing false interpretations to abound concerning Vatican II. My words do not change. I am going to give you a clue to share with my people. Satan hates the doctrine of the mass and the doctrines concerning my Blessed Mother. These are the two areas he has been trying to destroy. The Vatican II Council reaffirmed both of these doctrines. This council was not convened by hell, but by my Holy Spirit. A council or a Pope who destroys and denies my mass and my Blessed Mother’s privileges is from hell. This is how you can recognize the abomination of desolation. A false prophet or anti pope will proclaim the protestant doctrine of the mass to be correct. This is the one teaching that will change. The rest of my churches teachings can stay the same. Satan knows how to deprive my children of everlasting life, deprive my children of my presence. This is how the man of sin, the son of perdition will sit in the temple of God.Reference II Thessalonians 2:4-10. He will attempt to lead my people to deny my presence in the Eucharist and to teach the mass is only a symbol. This is antichrist. This will bring the wrath of God on the children of disobedience. This will cause the unleashing of the bowls of divine justice. My sacrifice of the mass daily holds back my Father’s justice. Luke 18:8. But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth? Will I find any of my children, who I recognize with my life in them? Will there be faith left in my holy sacrifice? These are the questions which need to be pondered. My son, a false Christian church will be forced on the people. A gospel of prosperity and a make you feel good gospel will be preached. My churches can be filled with people, but the churches will be dead because I am not there. Without my presence in the churches, God does not dwell in the churches. Then, these sheep who hear my voice will be forced to worship in underground churches where I will be present. This truly is the abomination of desolation and antichrist. Then I will come with the brightness of my coming, destroy this false church, and restore my church according to my will. Then you will see an era of peace. A Eucharistic era of peace where I will reign in the hearts and mind of my people in the holy Eucharist. You must believe all these words I am teaching you and the teachings of my church or you will not enter my era of peace. Ponder these words or I may say to: I NEVER KNEW YOU. The words of the Lord. I bless you Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. AMEN.
Let me respond to this by just copying my brief post from another thread to which Fatima refers: The Pope's encyclical involves a change in the rules accompanying the reception of Holy Communion. Those rules are, of course, man made rules The problem comes with the interpretation of what the Pope's change in the encyclical means with respect to basic doctrine. It is that disagreement on the significance, with respect to doctrine, of the rule update that is causing the conflict. Those who support Pope Francis believe that where such disagreement takes place, it is the Holy Father's role and privilege to be the final arbiter. Many have defended the Pope's words much more competently than I ever could. My comment above does not attempt to comment in any way of Pope Francis' words. I have merely pointed out that the matter involves an interpretation of the doctrinal significance of the change in the disciplinary rules for the reception of Holy Communion. And that the Holy Father has 'the last word' so to speak in such interpretative matters.
So davidtlig, answer this one question. Can a pope allow communion to those in grave sin/mortal sin? Does he have this authority?
No, the Holy Father does not have the authority or the privilege of having the last word when the Lord in the Scriptures says that he who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery. Plain and simple, and adulterers are committing sacrilege if they receive Holy Communion. Boil it down. With all due respect, your reasoning is faulty because it doesn't take the Holy Bible into consideration.
Of course he does NOT have the authority to violate the words of scripture and 2000 years of Church teaching in this regard. Davidtlig serves a purpose here. He is an abject lesson on what we all must avoid becoming.
See what happens when you drill down to the heart of the the matter. Because I know how liberal social justice people think, I know that they deal in the surface of issues and not substance. Pope Francis works within this same superficial mindset. Liberals can never drill down, because it exposes their false compassion for the gospel, Gods truth. They want it both ways. They want their good intentions for all those who are in contradiction to the truth and can't arrive at the same end because they cannot abandon their sinful choices, the cannot detach themselves from the love of the flesh over the love of God's truth. This being said, according to the liberal mindset those in abortion, contraception, fornication, masturbation, pornography, sodomy , LBGT, polygamy etc... can receive too communion too, cause we cannot exclude anyone for their choices. After all, who are we to judge?
With respect, Fatima, your question is not responding in any way to the brief post I made. It is simply not relevant.
Link, in case anyone is wondering: https://translate.google.com/transl...llintercomunione-di-fra-cristoforo/&edit-text
David, it is at the heart of the issue. Can a pope give communion to those in objective grave sin? According to what you have said, he can, because it is a matter of church discipline. Right?
Back in 1984 a priest wrote three books called, Defending the Papacy, The Crisis of Dissent and What the Catholic Faithful Can Do. He had to use a fictitious name called Gerard Morrissey, because he would have been in in big trouble with his liberal priestly order had he been exposed. The book was published by Christendom Publications. If anyone can find them online, they are a great resource of more importance today then they were over 30 years ago when I first read them. They have the Imprimatur of Monsignor Richard J. Burke, Vicar General , Diocese of Arlington 10/31/1984. I fear we at the moment that if we don't know our faith well we will loose it by following a church head that is not attached to sound doctrine.
"Careful research through the hundreds of manuscripts by church leaders of the first five centuries has revealed that the Church Fathers were unanimous in their understanding that Christ and Paul taught that if one were to suffer the misfortune of divorce, remarriage was not permitted, regardless of the cause." (Third Way (London), November 17, 1977). First, the early Church saw marriage as a lifelong, unbreakable bond until the death of one of the partners. You can’t miss this point and understand their view. Modern discussions about divorce and remarriage never seem to grasp this point. The modern Christian frequently cries out, “Can’t my sin be forgiven?” The answer is, “Of course, Jesus can forgive your sin.” However, the modern mind misses an important point. The problem preventing the person from considering a second marriage is not the “sin” per se. Yes, the sin must be dealt with and repented of. However, as the early Church saw it, the actual barrier preventing the new marriage is not the “sin,” but rather the fact that the person is still married in the eyes of God. To enter into another marriage would have been serial polygamy to the early Church. Jesus said, “Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” Today we ask, “Why does Jesus call the remarriage ‘adultery’ if the woman is legally divorced?” The early Church answered that it was called “adultery” simply because the woman was still married in the eyes of God—regardless of what divorce procedure she went through.
It is all a matter of whether someone is in a state of mortal sin or not. A person who is "in objective grave sin" may actually be in a state of sanctifying grace. Certainly the Pope can give permission for anyone in such a state to receive Holy Communion. Don't forget that even Cardinal Burke doesn't believe Pope Francis is preaching heresy, unlike quite a few on the forum!
Is a person in adultery in the state of mortal sin? A person in objective grave sin can be in the state of sanctifying grace? Do you have any Catholic references to this? Even when they know that the Church teaches it is a mortal sin? Once they are taught properly, can they still go to communion when they remain in this adulterous relationship? Just to clarify your position. You believe a person in mortal sin can receive communion? Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. http://www.therealpresence.org/dictionary/adict.htm GRAVE SIN. The transgression of a divine law in a grievous matter with full knowledge and consent. The matter may be serious either in itself (as blasphemy) or because of the circumstances (as striking one’s father or mother) or on account of its purpose (as telling a lie in order to destroy a person’s character). Sufficient knowledge of the serious nature of a sinful action is present if one is clearly conscious that the act is mortally sinful, say because the Scriptures or the Church identify certain acts as seriously offensive to God. It is enough that one knows that what one intends to do may be a mortal sin, but does it anyhow. Indifference to the laws of God is equivalent to disobeying them. Full consent is present when one freely wills to commit an action although one clearly knows it is gravely sinful. No sin is committed if one does not will the deed, no matter how clear one’s knowledge may be. After all, the essence of sin is in the free will. Thus, too, a person does not sin who, with the best of will, cannot dispel obscene or blasphemous thoughts and desires, even though he or she well knows they are gravely sinful. The resolution to perform an action is not the same as the pleasure or satisfaction experienced in the emotions, nor the same as a compulsive idea, “I like the sin.” One sign of partial knowledge or not full consent would be the fact that a person does not complete an action when this can easily be done, or is so minded that the person would rather die than commit a grave sin. MORTAL SIN. An actual sin that destroys sanctifying grace and causes the supernatural death of the soul. Mortal sin is a turning away from God because of a seriously inordinate adherence to creatures that causes grave injury to a person's rational nature and to the social order, and deprives the sinner of a right to heaven. The terms mortal, deadly, grave, and serious applied to sin are synonyms, each with a slightly different implication. Mortal and deadly focus on the effects in the sinner, namely deprivation of the state of friendship with God; grave and serious refer to the importance of the matter in which a person offends God. But the Church never distinguishes among these terms as though they represented different kinds of sins. There is only one recognized correlative to mortal sin, and that is venial sin, which offends against God but does not cause the loss of one's state of grace. (Etym. Latin mors, death.) ADULTERY. Sexual intercourse of a married person and another who is not the wife or husband. Forbidden by the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, it was extended in meaning by Christ, who forbade divorce with the right to remarry during the lifetime of one’s legitimate spouse. (Etym. Latin adulterium, adultery, carnal or spiritual.)
Cardinal Burke does not say so , no. He has never said he thinks so. But does he privately think so? Who knows? I would strongly think he and many of the other Cardinals and clergy at this point in time do in fact think Frankie is a heretic. Certainly going by the posts in the forum many ordinary Catholic lay folk think he is well gone off the rails. Personally I think Frankie makes Martin Luther look like amateur week. It continues to amaze me that you, David and people like continue to pretend that everything fine in the State of Denmark. What Frankie has never ever put a foot wrong? We are virtually in a state of outright schism for the first time in centuries and not even an iota of it is Frankie's fault? You really believe this? I mean really?
You see this is the problem in answering a question. It just provokes another series of questions... However, I need to correct your misplaced summary of my position. I did NOT say a person in mortal sin can receive communion. I said "A person who is 'in objective grave sin' may actually be in a state of sanctifying grace" Let me copy a quote from St John Paul II: Dear brothers and sisters, my heartfelt recommendation today is to have confidence in all those who are living in such tragic and painful situations. We must not cease “to hope against all hope” that even those who are living in a situation that does not conform to the Lord’s will may obtain salvation from God, if they are able to persevere in prayer, penance and true love. John Paul is referring here to people objectively in a state of mortal sin but who may be in a state of sanctifying grace.
No, its not a matter of what they "think" (Canon 916.) If they are in a state of manifest grave sin, the Eucharistic Minister MUST refuse them communion according to Canon 915 - which is based on the words of Christ and St. Paul in scripture, so it's NOT just a matter of "discipline." It is not their decision to make.
Not a single person on Earth can judge the interior of a person's soul. This is why the Church in her wisdom has always dealt with objective states. If a person is in objective mortal sin they cannot receive Holy Communion. Period! This is the entire reason for canon 915.
