Quote from: Belloc

My understanding, can dney only if someone is in mortal sin and priest knows it-ie, pro-abort politician, active homo,etc....

It may not be pleasant to think about, but if the priest knows a man is an active homo, but it isn't publicly known, he CAN'T deny him communion.

Only a notorious public sinner can be denied Holy Communion.

is the assumption toward the receipant that he is not actively sinning? he might be a chaste homo or confessed some point unk to the priest?

To deny somebody the sacraments because they are in good conscience defending the Faith they believe to be in jeopardy sounds like a sacraligious act and hence a mortal sin. We'll let God judge that one but the appearances are certainly not good.

This is something we have to pray about.

Once again poche, please make your prayer requests in the "The Sacred: Catholic Liturgy, Chant, Prayers" category, and stop trying to derail threads here.

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Belloc

My understanding, can dney only if someone is in mortal sin and priest knows it-ie, pro-abort politician, active homo,etc....

It may not be pleasant to think about, but if the priest knows a man is an active homo, but it isn't publicly known, he CAN'T deny him communion.

Only a notorious public sinner can be denied Holy Communion.

is the assumption toward the receipant that he is not actively sinning? he might be a chaste homo or confessed some point unk to the priest?

If a priest learned in confession that a man was an ACTIVE homo, and he had to deny him absolution, but later saw him at the communion rail, he could not withhold Communion from him.

For that matter, if a priest saw a man enter a known ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ bar, then present himself for communion the next day, he couldn't withhold the Sacrament either.

Long story short: the priest can often be compelled to turn Our Lord over to the torturers, to suffer the mocking and scourging, as it were, a second time. The man who thus receives sacrilegiously will be held to account for this.  And it's not the priest's job to JUDGE at the communion rail.

At the communion rail, it's time for mercy and extreme benefit of the doubt, even when there is no doubt in some cases. The burden of worthiness rests upon the recipient, as St. Paul teaches (I can get you an exact quote if you need it). "He who eats the Body of the Lord unworthily..." etc.

Imagine in some chapels in areas like San Francisco or West Hollywood (there
may be none but I'm saying imagine if there were) where the lineup at the
Communion rail might look like a Rogues' Gallery of miscreants.  

Or what about a priest going to a prison to say CTLM for the inmates and at
Communion time they all kneel down at the rail, looking like an ID lineup or
mug shots without the ID numbers?

How would you like to be the priest, saying, "Domine, non sum dignus...?"

This is something we have to pray about.

Who is this guy????  Is that all he can say????  How annoying!!!

FYI - there's another thread discussing this already. I'll go find the link...

HERE: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=20619&min=0&num=5

Everyone is assuming that it is Bishop Fellay's doing, that people are being denied communion, however, having met and talked with Bishop Fellay a few times, I find it hard to believe that it is he who is directing this whole totalitarian crackdown. I saw him as a gentle giant, a kind of large child, incapable of harming anyone. I think it is more likely that he is being manipulated by others. That would make more sense to me, having known him before. His personality was such, that I could see how he could be manipulated by others.

I wonder what the other bishops have to say about my analysis, for they know Bishop Fellay the best.

Quote from: nadieimportante

Quote from: MaterDominici

FYI - there's another thread discussing this already. I'll go find the link...

HERE: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=20619&min=0&num=5

Everyone is assuming that it is Bisghop Fellay's doing, that people are being denied communion, however, having met and talked with Bishop Fellay a few times, I find it hard to believe that it is he who is directing this totalitarian crackdown. I saw him as a gentle giant, a kind of large child, incapable of harming anyone. I think it is more likely that he is being manipulated by others. That would make more sense to me, having known him before. His personality was such, that he could easily be manipulated by others.

Even if you are correct, it changes nothing. Even if Bishop Fellay isn't personally at fault, if he is rubber-stamping such outrages to be committed with his authority or in his name, he might as well be guilty of perpetrating them himself. Remember, if someone with his level of power doesn't oppose an injustice, it's about the same "sin" as if he thought up the injustice himself.

A simple layman doesn't have much power, at home, work, or otherwise. The Superior General of a large religious organization? He has much more control and influence. Such a one must be careful to not sin by tacit consent or omission.

True, Matthew.

However, my question then is, who is it then, who is "whispering" in Bishop Fellay's ears? Someone in the SSPX or outside? That would make a good thread all by itself, No?