Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: RomanCatholic1953 on June 07, 2021, 05:47:31 PM

Title: Eucharist is bread of sinners, not reward of saints, pope says
Post by: RomanCatholic1953 on June 07, 2021, 05:47:31 PM: Eucharist is bread of sinners, not reward of saints, pope says

This is unbelievable. The sinner has to go to confession first and stop sinning. The Saints and Holy people increase their
sanctifying grace and holiness in frequent Holy Communion. The former sinner increases his grace to fight temptation.
It was would be sacrilege and blasphemy to say a sinner and keep on sinning and receive communion.

https://www.osvnews.com/2021/06/07/eucharist-is-bread-of-sinners-not-reward-of-saints-pope-says/
Title: Re: Eucharist is bread of sinners, not reward of saints, pope says
Post by: Viva Cristo Rey on June 07, 2021, 06:16:16 PM: Huh? 🤔?
Title: Re: Eucharist is bread of sinners, not reward of saints, pope says
Post by: donkath on June 07, 2021, 07:49:38 PM: The Pope has been saying this for years!

Catholic Sat (https://twitter.com/CatholicSat)
(https://twitter.com/CatholicSat)
@CatholicSat (https://twitter.com/CatholicSat)
·
Feb 14 (https://twitter.com/CatholicSat/status/1360920807212544009)

At Angelus, Pope Francis: "God is the One who contaminates Himself with our wounded humanity. “But Holy Father, what are you saying? God is contaminated?" I don't say it, St. Paul said it: He made Himself sin (cf. 2 Cor 5:21). See how God contaminated Himself to draw near to us"

(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/04/06/14/2751F43F00000578-0-image-a-25_1428327890668.jpg)

"Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it.
Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ
will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer." St. Francis of Assisi

Video (https://twitter.com/CatholicSat/status/1360920807212544009)

This is a follow-up heresy to the following **

At Angelus, (https://tinyurl.com/ytbywa7e)Pope Francis said:

"God is the One who contaminates Himself with our wounded humanity. “But Holy Father, what are you saying? God is contaminated?" I don't say it, St. Paul said it: He made Himself sin (cf. 2 Cor 5:21). See how God contaminated Himself to draw near to us"

Source (https://tinyurl.com/ytbywa7e)

(https://www.cor-mariae.com/attachments/1613471992953-png.3698/)

Hebrews 4:15 says, “For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.”

“Can any of you charge me with sin?” (Jn 8:46). The faith of the Church is expressed as follows: “He was conceived, born and died without sin.” This was proclaimed, in harmony with the whole of Tradition, by the Council of Florence (Decree for the Jacobites, DS 1347). Jesus “was conceived, was born and died without sin.” He is the truly just and holy man.

“Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; “like us in all things but sin.”[1] (https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/could-jesus-have-sinned-absolutely-not#_edn3)
_____________________

1. St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II,71,6. CCC 1849
___________________________

June 15th, 2013
Spot the heresy in Pope Francis’ Previous Homily **

Pope: The Christian life proclaims
the road to reconcilation with God

(Vatican Radio) Christian life is not a spa therapy "to be at peace until Heaven," but it calls us to go out into the world to proclaim that Jesus "became the sinner" to reconcile men with the Father. These were Pope Francis’ words during his homily at Mass Saturday at the Casa Santa Martha.

The Christian life is not staying in a corner to carve a road which takes you into heaven, but it's a dynamic that encourages one to stay "on the road" to proclaim that Christ has reconciled us to God, by becoming sin for us. In his usual profound and direct way, Pope Francis focuses on a passage from the Letter to the Corinthians, from today's liturgy, in which St. Paul very insistent, almost "in a hurry", uses the term "reconciliation"five times.

"What is reconciliation? Taking one from this side, taking another one for that side and uniting them: no, that’s part of it but it's not it ... True reconciliation means that God in Christ took on our sins and He became the sinner for us. When we go to confession, for example, it isn’t that we say our sin and God forgives us. No, not that! We look for Jesus Christ and say: 'This is your sin, and I will sin again'. And Jesus likes that, because it was his mission: to become the sinner for us, to liberate us. " *

It is the beauty and the "scandal" of the redemption brought by Jesus and it is also the "mystery, says Pope Francis, from which Paul draws" zeal "that spurs him to" move forward " telling everyone" something so wonderful "the love of a God" who gave up his Son to death for me. " Yet, explains Pope Francis, there is a risk of "never arriving at this truth" in the moment when "we 'devalue a little the Christian life", reducing it to a list of things to observe and thus losing the ardor, the force of the '"love that is inside" of it:

"But philosophers say that peace is a certain ordered tranquility: everything is tidy and quiet ... That is not the Christian peace! Christian peace is an uneasy peace, not a quiet peace: it is an uneasy peace, which goes on to carry this message of reconciliation. The Christian Peace pushes us to move forward. This is the beginning, the root of apostolic zeal. Apostolic zeal is not to go forward to persuade and make statistics: this year Christians in this country have grown, in this movement ... Statistics are good, they help, but that is not what God wants from us ,is to persuade... What the Lord wants from us is to announce this reconciliation, which is his own core message . "

Concluding his homily the Pope recalls the inner anxiety of Paul. Pope Francis underlines that which defines the "pillar" of Christian life, namely, that "Christ became sin for me! And my sins are there in his body, in his soul! This - says the Pope - it's crazy, but it's beautiful, it's true! This is the scandal of the Cross! "

"We ask the Lord to give us this concern to proclaim Jesus, to give us a bit of 'that Christian wisdom that was born from His pierced side of love. Just a little to convince us that the Christian life is not a spa therapy:

to be at peace until Heaven ... No, the Christian life is the road in life with this concern of Paul. The love of Christ urges us on, it pushes us on, with this emotion that one feels when one sees that God loves us. We ask this grace. "

Emphasis added
Title: Re: Eucharist is bread of sinners, not reward of saints, pope says
Post by: Ladislaus on June 08, 2021, 07:34:08 AM: I’m not seeing the issue here. He doesn’t say that it’s OK to go to communion in a state of grave sin ... although it could certainly be taken that way by some, so he should have clarified. We’re all sinners and need the healing of the Blessed Sacrament. I’m grateful that this sinner here can receive Our Lord that way.

And I think he’s also right in saying that it’s not a reward. We can never do anything to earn or deserve it.

There’s plenty of actual heresy coming from him on a regular basis, so we don’t need to read it into everything he says.
Title: Re: Eucharist is bread of sinners, not reward of saints, pope says
Post by: DigitalLogos on June 08, 2021, 08:13:57 AM: He's not wrong. The sacraments exist as remedies to sin, not as prizes you get by becoming saintly on your own. A belief that we can do anything meritorious in the eyes of God outside of the healing grace of His sacraments, especially the Blessed Sacrament, would be Pelagianism.
Title: Re: Eucharist is bread of sinners, not reward of saints, pope says
Post by: RomanCatholic1953 on June 08, 2021, 08:17:22 AM: Does Francis want those in the state of unrepentant mortal sin to receive the Eucharist? What Francis says the answer is YES.
Title: Re: Eucharist is bread of sinners, not reward of saints, pope says
Post by: Ladislaus on June 08, 2021, 10:00:43 AM: Quote from: RomanCatholic1953 on June 08, 2021, 08:17:22 AM
Does Francis want those in the state of unrepentant mortal sin to receive the Eucharist? What Francis says the answer is YES.

Where did he say this? Really, the only suggestion of it is with Amoris Laetitia ... but even there what he's actually claiming is that what is objectively a grave sin in the external forum may in fact not be a mortal sin in the internal forum. So that's not quite the same thing. Of course it's wrong and it's absurd.

AL is entirely another thread. Objectively of course adulterous cohabitation is grave sin. In order for grave sin not to be mortal, there could be inculpable ignorance, lack of full advertence of the will, or lack of full consent. There's no question of ignorance, because if they're trying to justify the activity in the first place, then they know that it's objectively a grave sin. And if they were to go to a priest, the priest is obliged to tell them. There's also no question of the "full advertence of the will" as cohabitation is an ongoing persistent state, and not just something that slipped into someone's mind while half asleep or not paying attention. So the only thing that Bergoglio can be suggesting is that there isn't a full consent of the will. He's implying that circuмstances made it so that the people living in adultery really had no choice. Now, the Church has acknowledged some situations, such as if they have a bunch of children, where couples could remain together in the same household, but nobody is forcing them to have adulterous relations; that was always under the strict condition that they live together as "brother and sister" and that there's no temptation to adultery. So what appears to be new here is that Bergoglio holds that they could continue having sɛҳuąƖ relations. As with the discussion around the subject of NFP, there's almost this hidden principle that people have some kind of God-given right to have sex.

To me this ties into the discussion we've been having in the context of the COVID vax regarding the nature of "formal" cooperation in sin. "Well, I don't really agree with adultery, but I had no choice because of how I got here." or "I was ignorant about it when I shacked up." So because the person doesn't want the sin or like the fact that they're sinning, then they're not "formally" committing sin? I hold a loaded gun to someone's head and pull the trigger, but in my mind I don't "want" the person to die. One one level, lots of people who commit sins of weakness, in part of them don't "want" to be committing the sin ... but they in fact WILL the sin by doing it. You can have some kind of emotional aversion to the sin even while you are willing to commit it. It's not your emotions that count but your will.
Title: Re: Eucharist is bread of sinners, not reward of saints, pope says
Post by: Matthew on June 08, 2021, 10:39:31 AM: Remember, that even when a Modernist says something "correct"

A) he's saying it for the wrong reason
B) they're hoping that many will take it the wrong way -- take it too far (receive Communion in a state of Mortal Sin) etc.

Remember how they managed to propagate the notion that the Tridentine Mass has been abrogated. A bit of lying, but a lot of misdirection and "security through obscurity". If you really dig, and really press them, they'll admit it. But they want to give the impression that attending a Tridentine Mass is some kind of sin. They keep it vague though; you can't pin anything on them. If they came right out and said it, it would be easy to take them to task (court?) and prove them wrong.

It's actually a great way of deception. To refrain from outright lying, so you can't be called out, yet ever moving as fast as possible towards heresy.
Title: Re: Eucharist is bread of sinners, not reward of saints, pope says
Post by: RomanCatholic1953 on June 08, 2021, 05:00:19 PM: Quote from: Ladislaus on June 08, 2021, 10:00:43 AM
Where did he say this? Really, the only suggestion of it is with Amoris Laetitia ... but even there what he's actually claiming is that what is objectively a grave sin in the external forum may in fact not be a mortal sin in the internal forum. So that's not quite the same thing. Of course it's wrong and it's absurd.

AL is entirely another thread. Objectively of course adulterous cohabitation is grave sin. In order for grave sin not to be mortal, there could be inculpable ignorance, lack of full advertence of the will, or lack of full consent. There's no question of ignorance, because if they're trying to justify the activity in the first place, then they know that it's objectively a grave sin. And if they were to go to a priest, the priest is obliged to tell them. There's also no question of the "full advertence of the will" as cohabitation is an ongoing persistent state, and not just something that slipped into someone's mind while half asleep or not paying attention. So the only thing that Bergoglio can be suggesting is that there isn't a full consent of the will. He's implying that circuмstances made it so that the people living in adultery really had no choice. Now, the Church has acknowledged some situations, such as if they have a bunch of children, where couples could remain together in the same household, but nobody is forcing them to have adulterous relations; that was always under the strict condition that they live together as "brother and sister" and that there's no temptation to adultery. So what appears to be new here is that Bergoglio holds that they could continue having sɛҳuąƖ relations. As with the discussion around the subject of NFP, there's almost this hidden principle that people have some kind of God-given right to have sex.

To me this ties into the discussion we've been having in the context of the CÖVÌD vax regarding the nature of "formal" cooperation in sin. "Well, I don't really agree with adultery, but I had no choice because of how I got here." or "I was ignorant about it when I shacked up." So because the person doesn't want the sin or like the fact that they're sinning, then they're not "formally" committing sin? I hold a loaded gun to someone's head and pull the trigger, but in my mind I don't "want" the person to die. One one level, lots of people who commit sins of weakness, in part of them don't "want" to be committing the sin ... but they in fact WILL the sin by doing it. You can have some kind of emotional aversion to the sin even while you are willing to commit it. It's not your emotions that count but your will.
He does not have to say it. By not mentioning sacramental confession for mortal sins IMPLY that the Eucharist can be given to
those in unrepentant mortal sin. He has never corrected Joe Biden that he should not receive communion in his supporting abortion
rights. What about the gαy flag flying from the Vatican's American Embassy and I bet that many employees attend Mass and
receive communion. What about the average novus ordo mass almost everyone received communion and you know that most
have never been to confession in years.
Title: Re: Eucharist is bread of sinners, not reward of saints, pope says
Post by: Viva Cristo Rey on June 08, 2021, 10:07:29 PM: All the evils in the world are because of lukewarm Catholics. St Pope Pius V
Title: Re: Eucharist is bread of sinners, not reward of saints, pope says
Post by: 2Vermont on June 09, 2021, 04:35:26 AM: This, I believe is the "homily" in question:

https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/homilies/2021/docuмents/papa-francesco_20210606_omelia-corpusdomini.html

I actually do not see that particular quote in it (not rewards of saints, etc). However, what is important is what he leaves out about the Eucharist (ie. the need to be in state of grace). Of course, he does say this:

A third image from the Gospel is that of Jesus breaking the bread. This is the Eucharistic gesture par excellence. It is the distinctive sign of our faith and the place where we encounter the Lord who offers himself so that we can be reborn to new life. This gesture also challenges us. Up to that point, lambs were sacrificed and offered to God. Now Jesus becomes the lamb, offering himself in sacrifice in order to give us life. In the Eucharist, we contemplate and worship the God of love. The Lord who breaks no one, yet allows himself to be broken. The Lord who does not demand sacrifices, but sacrifices himself. The Lord who asks nothing but gives everything. In celebrating and experiencing the Eucharist, we too are called to share in this love. For we cannot break bread on Sunday if our hearts are closed to our brothers and sisters. We cannot partake of that Bread if we do not give bread to the hungry. We cannot share that Bread unless we share the sufferings of our brothers and sisters in need. In the end, and the end of our solemn Eucharistic liturgies as well, only love will remain. Even now, our Eucharistic celebrations are transforming the world to the extent that we are allowing ourselves to be transformed and to become bread broken for others.

Notice the examples for when we "cannot" partake of the bread. And no mention of sin or confession.
Title: Re: Eucharist is bread of sinners, not reward of saints, pope says
Post by: SimpleMan on June 09, 2021, 08:40:39 AM: Quote from: Ladislaus on June 08, 2021, 10:00:43 AM
Where did he say this? Really, the only suggestion of it is with Amoris Laetitia ... but even there what he's actually claiming is that what is objectively a grave sin in the external forum may in fact not be a mortal sin in the internal forum. So that's not quite the same thing. Of course it's wrong and it's absurd.

AL is entirely another thread. Objectively of course adulterous cohabitation is grave sin. In order for grave sin not to be mortal, there could be inculpable ignorance, lack of full advertence of the will, or lack of full consent. There's no question of ignorance, because if they're trying to justify the activity in the first place, then they know that it's objectively a grave sin. And if they were to go to a priest, the priest is obliged to tell them. There's also no question of the "full advertence of the will" as cohabitation is an ongoing persistent state, and not just something that slipped into someone's mind while half asleep or not paying attention. So the only thing that Bergoglio can be suggesting is that there isn't a full consent of the will. He's implying that circuмstances made it so that the people living in adultery really had no choice. Now, the Church has acknowledged some situations, such as if they have a bunch of children, where couples could remain together in the same household, but nobody is forcing them to have adulterous relations; that was always under the strict condition that they live together as "brother and sister" and that there's no temptation to adultery. So what appears to be new here is that Bergoglio holds that they could continue having sɛҳuąƖ relations. As with the discussion around the subject of NFP, there's almost this hidden principle that people have some kind of God-given right to have sex.

To me this ties into the discussion we've been having in the context of the CÖVÌD vax regarding the nature of "formal" cooperation in sin. "Well, I don't really agree with adultery, but I had no choice because of how I got here." or "I was ignorant about it when I shacked up." So because the person doesn't want the sin or like the fact that they're sinning, then they're not "formally" committing sin? I hold a loaded gun to someone's head and pull the trigger, but in my mind I don't "want" the person to die. One one level, lots of people who commit sins of weakness, in part of them don't "want" to be committing the sin ... but they in fact WILL the sin by doing it. You can have some kind of emotional aversion to the sin even while you are willing to commit it. It's not your emotions that count but your will.
Very well put. Before I say anything further, I will just say that the Eucharist is both --- a "reward for saints" and "medicine for sinners", the latter being true if one is determined to break with their venial sins. Receiving in mortal sin is a sacrilege, and adds sin upon sin.

Just being real, what the Newchurch is trying to do here, is to "grease the skids" so that people living in certain irregular situations --- unrepentant contraception (which is totally "crickets" from the pulpit, and even more horribly, in the confessional, and the latter applies both to would-be penitents not confessing it, and priests not asking when there is reason to believe the penitent is just "not mentioning it"), people living together, irregular divorce and "remarriage" situations, and God forbid, now even ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ relationships --- can go ahead and receive communion, under pretext of some "grave matter, but not mortal sin" claptrap. If someone's "internal forum" tells them that grave matter (or, as I prefer to call it, "matter mortally sinful in itself"), committed with sufficient knowledge and full consent of the will, is not mortal sin, then their "internal forum" needs correcting, in the confessional, or by someone. Allowing people to have their own "internal forum" is basically Protestant moral theology (such as it is). And the typical modern Catholic wants to be a Protestant so badly, at least where moral matters are concerned, that they can taste it. Am I right or am I wrong?

And as far as "full consent of the will" goes, no, you do not have to live in mortally sinful situations. You can walk away. Can, and should, no, not just "should", must. Did Our Lord not call us to cut off that which leads us to sin? What about martyrdom? What of it? Perhaps God has ordained that the loss and pain you will suffer from, for instance, separating from an illicit spouse, even if it means having to live in poverty, is both your cross and your penance for the sin committed. Nobody has to fornicate. Nobody has to commit adultery. I know everyone here knows these things, but many do not. I really don't like to see us refer to "grave" sin --- if you will stop and think about it, in the past 40 years, people have quit speaking of "mortal" sin (the catechetically ignorant will even call it "moral" sin, in that they don't know the terminology), it was first "serious" sin, now "grave" sin. Bite the bullet, people --- call it "sin bad enough to go to hell for". This needs to be brought up, in the pulpit, in the confessional, relentlessly, until people once again understand that concept that was vest-pocket knowledge for everyone 75 years ago.

Jone backs me up, for the most part, on the question of priests asking about contraception in the confessional. Here 'tis:
Title: Re: Eucharist is bread of sinners, not reward of saints, pope says
Post by: Ladislaus on June 09, 2021, 09:37:26 AM: Quote from: SimpleMan on June 09, 2021, 08:40:39 AM
Very well put. Before I say anything further, I will just say that the Eucharist is both --- a "reward for saints" and "medicine for sinners", the latter being true if one is determined to break with their venial sins. Receiving in mortal sin is a sacrilege, and adds sin upon sin.

Just being real, what the Newchurch is trying to do here, is to "grease the skids" so that people living in certain irregular situations --- unrepentant contraception (which is totally "crickets" from the pulpit, and even more horribly, in the confessional, and the latter applies both to would-be penitents not confessing it, and priests not asking when there is reason to believe the penitent is just "not mentioning it"), people living together, irregular divorce and "remarriage" situations, and God forbid, now even ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ relationships --- can go ahead and receive communion, under pretext of some "grave matter, but not mortal sin" claptrap. If someone's "internal forum" tells them that grave matter (or, as I prefer to call it, "matter mortally sinful in itself"), committed with sufficient knowledge and full consent of the will, is not mortal sin, then their "internal forum" needs correcting, in the confessional, or by someone. Allowing people to have their own "internal forum" is basically Protestant moral theology (such as it is). And the typical modern Catholic wants to be a Protestant so badly, at least where moral matters are concerned, that they can taste it. Am I right or am I wrong?

And as far as "full consent of the will" goes, no, you do not have to live in mortally sinful situations. You can walk away. Can, and should, no, not just "should", must. Did Our Lord not call us to cut off that which leads us to sin? What about martyrdom? What of it? Perhaps God has ordained that the loss and pain you will suffer from, for instance, separating from an illicit spouse, even if it means having to live in poverty, is both your cross and your penance for the sin committed. Nobody has to fornicate. Nobody has to commit adultery. I know everyone here knows these things, but many do not. I really don't like to see us refer to "grave" sin --- if you will stop and think about it, in the past 40 years, people have quit speaking of "mortal" sin (the catechetically ignorant will even call it "moral" sin, in that they don't know the terminology), it was first "serious" sin, now "grave" sin. Bite the bullet, people --- call it "sin bad enough to go to hell for". This needs to be brought up, in the pulpit, in the confessional, relentlessly, until people once again understand that concept that was vest-pocket knowledge for everyone 75 years ago.

Jone backs me up, for the most part, on the question of priests asking about contraception in the confessional. Here 'tis:

I agree. Of course, I would bet that 95% of the Novus Ordo don't go to Confession at all. They need to be told this from the pulpit. AT BEST you hear the promotion of NFP, but with rarely a mention of the fact that contraception is mortal sin and you shouldn't receive Holy Communion.

Of course, if Francis permitted communion for cohabitating adulterers, then why can't the same "internal forum" consideration apply to ANY sin. I would think it applies to contraception a fortiori.
Title: Re: Eucharist is bread of sinners, not reward of saints, pope says
Post by: SimpleMan on June 09, 2021, 11:05:14 AM: Quote from: Ladislaus on June 09, 2021, 09:37:26 AM
I agree. Of course, I would bet that 95% of the Novus Ordo don't go to Confession at all. They need to be told this from the pulpit. AT BEST you hear the promotion of NFP, but with rarely a mention of the fact that contraception is mortal sin and you shouldn't receive Holy Communion.

Of course, if Francis permitted communion for cohabitating adulterers, then why can't the same "internal forum" consideration apply to ANY sin. I would think it applies to contraception a fortiori.
Bingo.

I think we all know what is going on --- people use contraception, a mortal sin of the flesh, essentially mutual masturbation using one another's pudendae, and go ahead and receive communion. Somewhere along the line, many of them have had one of these horrible priests tell them "it's up to your conscience", they "don't think there's anything wrong with it", and that's the last thought they give to it. Priests don't ask. If you even bring up that possibility, even "conservative Novus Ordo" people howl like they've been shot, say "you can't know what someone says, or doesn't say, in the confessional", and we're all supposed to say "yes, how right you are, my bad, let's talk about the weather or something". I think a lot of them just don't want to admit that their church has gone to s**t. Some of them have memories of the Faith taught at mother's knee, all of those beautiful First Communions and weddings, and they don't want to be reminded of the reality. And besides, there is no way to "enforce" a ban on contracepting people going to communion. They'll just come back and say "I don't think that's a sin, what are you going to do, ask me when I come up to receive or something?".

My wife and I did not have a child for 14 years, and among other things, we used NFP sinfully and selfishly, because just to call a spade a spade --- I don't mind people knowing this, they need to have it stuck in their eye that there is such a thing as sinful use of NFP (and, yes, I know, some would say that any use of NFP is sinful, this despite what Pius XI, Pius XII, and Paul VI, assuming you accept him, taught) --- it was just too easy to have a nice little marriage, save tons of money, and take enjoyable vacations, and no priest ever asked me "why no children, is everything OK?". Not even once. Not even SSPX. Not even priests who knew us. Why be sheepish about asking? I have heard all of these lachrymose whinings about "it's such a sensitive subject, maybe we're not able to have children, oh, it's so hurtful", well, snowflakes might melt, but souls seeking forgiveness and salvation shouldn't be so sensitive, they just need to realize that the priest is trying to help them get to heaven, and forget about how it "makes them feel". I don't imagine hell feels all that great either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sr_yaZQmRzA
Title: Re: Eucharist is bread of sinners, not reward of saints, pope says
Post by: donkath on June 10, 2021, 02:08:58 AM: Sion Lift Thy Voice and Sing
(English translation of Lauda Sion Salvatorem, the sequence for the Mass of Corpus Christi)

Sion, lift thy voice and sing:
Praise thy Savior and thy King;
Praise with hymns thy Shepherd true:
Dare thy most to praise Him well;
For He doth all praise excel;
None can ever reach His due.

Special theme of praise is thine,
That true living Bread divine,
That life-giving flesh adored,
Which the brethren twelve received,
As most faithfully believed,
At the Supper of the Lord.

Let the chant be loud and high;
Sweet and tranquil be the joy
Felt to-day in every breast;
On this festival divine
Which recounts the origin
Of the glorious Eucharist.

At this table of the King,
Our new Paschal offering
Brings to end the olden rite;
Here, for empty shadows fled,
Is reality instead;
Here, instead of darkness, light.

His own act, at supper seated,
Christ ordained to be repeated,
In His memory divine;
Wherefore now, with adoration,
We the Host of our salvation
Consecrate from bread and wine.

Hear what holy Church maintaineth,
That the bread its substance changeth
Into Flesh, the wine to Blood.
Doth it pass thy comprehending?
Faith, the law of sight transcending,
Leaps to things not understood.

Here in outward signs are hidden
Priceless things, to sense forbidden;
Signs, not things, are all we see:-
Flesh from bread, and Blood from wine;
Yet is Christ, in either sign,
All entire confessed to be.

They too who of Him partake
Sever not, nor rend, nor break,
But entire their Lord receive.
Whether one or thousands eat,
All receive the selfsame meat,
Nor the less for others leave.

Both the wicked and the good
Eat of this celestial Food;
But with ends how opposite!
Here 'tis life; and there 'tis death;
The same, yet issuing to each
In a difference infinite.

Nor a single doubt retain,
When they break the Host in twain,
But that in each part remains
What was in the whole before;
Since the simple sign alone
Suffers change in state or form,
The Signified remaining One
And the Same forevermore

Lo! upon the Altar lies,
Hidden deep from human eyes,
Angels' Bread from Paradise
Made the food of mortal man:
Children's meat to dogs denied;
In old types foresignified;
In the manna from the skies,
In Isaac, and the Paschal Lamb.

Jesu! Shepherd of the sheep!
Thy true flock in safety keep.
Living Bread! Thy life supply;
Strengthen us, or else we die;
Fill us with celestial grace:
Thou, who feedest us below!
Source of all we have or know!
Grant that with Thy Saints above,
Sitting at the Feast of Love,
We may see Thee face to face. Amen
Title: Re: Eucharist is bread of sinners, not reward of saints, pope says
Post by: Last Tradhican on June 10, 2021, 04:57:02 AM: Quote from: 2Vermont on June 09, 2021, 04:35:26 AM
This, I believe is the "homily" in question:

https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/homilies/2021/docuмents/papa-francesco_20210606_omelia-corpusdomini.html

I actually do not see that particular quote in it (not rewards of saints, etc). However, what is important is what he leaves out about the Eucharist (ie. the need to be in state of grace). Of course, he does say this:

A third image from the Gospel is that of Jesus breaking the bread. This is the Eucharistic gesture par excellence. It is the distinctive sign of our faith and the place where we encounter the Lord who offers himself so that we can be reborn to new life. This gesture also challenges us. Up to that point, lambs were sacrificed and offered to God. Now Jesus becomes the lamb, offering himself in sacrifice in order to give us life. In the Eucharist, we contemplate and worship the God of love. The Lord who breaks no one, yet allows himself to be broken. The Lord who does not demand sacrifices, but sacrifices himself. The Lord who asks nothing but gives everything. In celebrating and experiencing the Eucharist, we too are called to share in this love. For we cannot break bread on Sunday if our hearts are closed to our brothers and sisters. We cannot partake of that Bread if we do not give bread to the hungry. We cannot share that Bread unless we share the sufferings of our brothers and sisters in need. In the end, and the end of our solemn Eucharistic liturgies as well, only love will remain. Even now, our Eucharistic celebrations are transforming the world to the extent that we are allowing ourselves to be transformed and to become bread broken for others.

Notice the examples for when we "cannot" partake of the bread. And no mention of sin or confession.
It is really amazing to me how people are so demented (as in dementia, Alzeimers) when it comes to what the Vatican II popes have said and done. Maybe it is just the people who are indifferent or naive? If our neighbor betrayed us as many times as Bergolio, would we still even talk to him? If a friend, politician, business partner, doctor, CEO, brother or sister betrayed us so many times would we just forget about all of it and still talk well of them and recommend them?

It is amazing to me how quickly people forget everything when they are thrown a crumb. Stalin hit the nail on the head!

The Soviet novelist, Chingiz Aitmatov recounted a story in one of his articles written near the end of the failed Marxist movement in Soviet Union.

In 1935, Stalin invited his trusted senior advisors and some media henchmen to a meeting with intent to make a point using the most evocative of methods. When everyone was gathered at the barnyard, he called for a live chicken and vigorously clenched it in one hand. With the other hand, he then began to pluck out the chicken’s feathers in handfuls. The poor bird squawked under the torment but Stalin kept at denuding the chicken until it convulsed with agony. Remarkably unperturbed by the feeling of disgust obvious on the faces of the people too afraid to express their unease to the dictator, he continued until the chicken was completely unfeathered.
He then put the bird down by a small heap of grain and stood up to finish the last act while the people curiously observed the chicken move towards the grain. As the chicken started to peck, Stalin put his hand into his jacket pocket and pulled out another fistful of grain, putting it out in front of the wounded bird. To the utter surprise of the transfixed spectators, the chicken managed a weak-kneed stagger back to Stalin and started to peck the fresh grain right out of the hand that moments ago had inflicted unbearable pain on it. Stalin had made his point — loud and clear.

He turned to the people and said, “People are like this chicken. It doesn’t matter how much pain you inflict on them. The moment you offer them what they need, they will still follow you and turn to you for their survival.”