Author Topic: Denial of Sacraments! (Read 15565 times)

Robin · « **Reply #20 on:** October 07, 2012, 11:53:20 PM »

I seriously fear that the SSPX will be either splitting again or self destructing. Something is seriously wrong. This is heart breaking as so many good, faithful, SSPX Catholics are being punished by pastors. As were some of our faithful holy priests and bishops.

Matthew · « **Reply #21 on:** October 08, 2012, 12:05:54 AM »

Quote from: Belloc

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.

Matthew · « **Reply #22 on:** October 08, 2012, 12:10:25 AM »

In other words, a mortal sin being "public knowledge" is not sufficient. The person has to be a NOTORIOUS mortal sinner -- in other words, the entire chapel should know very well whey the man or woman is being refused Communion, at the time it happens.

Senator Ted Kennedy, Nancy Peℓσѕι, etc.

If Prince or The Great Whore (an 80's vulgar pop star that hails from Italy) were denied communion, no one would be shocked.

Even if a priest knows first-hand that a man is in mortal sin, it is not his job to judge each person at the communion rail.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #23 on:** October 08, 2012, 07:28:55 AM »

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...?"

JPaul · « **Reply #24 on:** October 08, 2012, 08:08:21 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

In other words, a mortal sin being "public knowledge" is not sufficient. The person has to be a NOTORIOUS mortal sinner -- in other words, the entire chapel should know very well whey the man or woman is being refused Communion, at the time it happens.

Senator Ted Kennedy, Nancy Peℓσѕι, etc.

If Prince or The Great Whore (an 80's vulgar pop star that hails from Italy) were denied communion, no one would be shocked.

Even if a priest knows first-hand that a man is in mortal sin, it is not his job to judge each person at the communion rail.

It is evident that the salvation of souls is no longer the imperative in Menzingen.