Try to keep the topic of this thread in mind.
It asks, "Blackmailing" the Faithful with the Blessed Sacrament ( 1, 2 )
» Has this been done before?
The sub-forum is SSPX-Rome Agreement.
This is not all about sedevacantism. Now, to a sedevacantist, everything is
reducible to proclaiming the pope is not the pope and the bishops are not
bishops and priests are not priests. But that can really cloud your thinking in
this sub-forum, and it takes away from the discussion instead of adding to it.
Catholics should educate themselves on the Church's laws regarding reception of Holy Communion. Fr. Cekada penned an excellent article on this years ago in response to the scandalous and sinful policy of the SSPV in refusing Holy Communion to Catholics:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=54&catname=14
While I applaud Father's excellent work on this, I also find it strange that a layman was unlawfully denied communion at St Gertrude's, his offense: attending Holy Mass of a priest of the Society of St. Pius X.
Perhaps the St. Gertrude's folks also need to re-read Fr. Cekada's article.
Fr. Cekada's article is directed at a specific problem that has little to do with
this current SSPX problem. The principles are the same, true, but his application
is in regards to the SSPV denying Communion to Fr. Cekada's faithful. The SSPV
is not refusing Communion to recipients who post certain messages on the Internet.
The SSPV is not in the middle of a push for regularization with Rome.
Fr. Cekeda is not urging his followers to resist regularization of Rome with the
SSPV.
But the whole thing is reducible to doctrine. For a priest to refuse Communion to
a recipient at the communion rail, the recipient must have shown somehow that
he has publicly denied some Church doctrine by his actions or words. From the
linked article:
• Church law bars the “publicly unworthy” from Communion.
• One becomes “publicly unworthy” under the law through:
(1) Excommunication.
(2) Interdict.
(3) Notorious Infamy.
(4) An offense against some other law resulting in prohibition of Communion.
(5) Being a public and notorious sinner.
It would seem that the SSPX has refused Communion in two cases so far, to
individuals who they would seem to have judged fall into either the (4) or (5)
categories. In order for (4) to apply, they would have to identify the law they
are applying, and I have not seen that being done. If anyone here knows of it
happening, please post the information. The (5) seems more likely, as posting
on an Internet forum any opposition to +Fellay's agenda, he is treating as if it's
public and notorious sin.
Fr. Cekeda then provides some requirements, which translated into this present
topic would read as follows:
• Church law sets forth in detail how each of these is incurred.
• An [SSPX] priest who intends to refuse communion to [someone], must specify:
(1) The offense committed.
(2) The law it violated.
(3) When it was committed.
If that someone is one who has posted an objectionable message on the
Internet, then these three points of offense, law and time apply, apparently.