I had been told years ago that the purpose of a priest denying Communion to
someone was always to protect the doctrine of the faith.  And there had to
be a judgment exercised by the priest, for he can hardly assess each person
at the rail when giving out the hosts.  But if he notices someone conspicuous
and a publicly open heretic or apostate, then he is obliged to withhold the
sacrament.  

What is going on now with the SSPX is a violation on two different levels, and
it is therefore HIGHLY SCANDALOUS.

On the lowest level, the discerning priest is passing judgment on an individual,
based on his own, personal assessment of the recipient, from time the priest
has apparently spent doing detective work that is not part of a priest's normal
mission in the first place.  So he is using an abuse of his own mission to give a
reason to abuse a holy communicant with this denial to receive.  

But on a more serious level, it is not really a teaching of the Church that is
being defended by the denial of the sacrament to the recipient, rather it is an
arbitrary claim that 'disobedience' to some concept of 'authority' has taken
place.  And these are all priests with no jurisdiction.  And the 'authority' they
pretend to protect does not in any way ever extend to the faithful, but is
limited to the SSPX clerics only, as members of a fraternity.  

Thus this abominable abuse is, so to speak, a two-headed monster........................



Fr. Rostand harps and harps that the current agenda of regularization is a
'prudential decision' that +Fellay should have the power to make (even though
the Chapter has promised that it would be put up to a vote of a special
session!).  Well, I think it may be time to put a note in the collection basket,
saying that you have taken Fr. Rostand's advice, and you have made a
'prudential decision' - to put this NOTE in the basket, instead of the other
kind of 'Note' - so that you can be obedient, of course.  

I know of an FSSP priest threatening to refuse Communion to those who attend SSPX, but he is only one and with an ax to grind. I don't think it is the norm as I have met others who didn't flinch at knowing we normally attend SSPX.

 

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.

Actually, I have been thinking of putting Clare's avatar on a button so I can pin it to my sweater. the one I often wear to Mass. What do you think, Clare?