Cardinal Nichols had already admonished priests not to discuss the Synod with the public, which is his right to do, but in fairness, this is also something Pope Francis has himself done on several occasions.
[Catholic Herald] Almost 500 priests in Britain have signed a letter urging those attending this year’s family synod to issue a “clear and firm proclamation” upholding Church teaching on marriage.
In the letter, published in this week’s Catholic Herald, the priests write: “We wish, as Catholic priests, to re-state our unwavering fidelity to the traditional doctrines regarding marriage and the true meaning of human sexuality, founded on the Word of God and taught by the Church’s Magisterium for two millennia.”
Last year’s extraordinary synod provoked heated debate on the question of whether remarried Catholics should be permitted to receive Holy Communion – a proposal presented by retired German Cardinal Walter Kasper.Link to Catholic Herald...
13 comments:
And they were condemned by Cardinal Nichols for doing it!
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/03/25/cardinal-nichols-urges-priests-not-to-conduct-synod-debate-in-press/
Yay, well done Fathers! :-)
"Cardinal Nichols had already admonished priests not to discuss the Synod with the public, ...this is also something Pope Francis has himself done on several occasions."
...Like father, like son...
Yes, Cardinal Nichols, the 21st century version of the Vicar of Bray. Be assured that if Pope Francis decides to change tack, Cardinal Nichols will be right on his heels.
In a press release, the worthless Cardinal Nichols, he of the Soho gay mass, has criticized those priests who signed this letter. How dare they uphold the teachings of Christ, right?
The passion of the Church continues. It won't be enough to get rid of Bergoglio, many of the "conservative" cardinals will need to be gotten rid of as well.
This is the minimum of their duty to upold the Faith, to fight evil, to keep souls from mortal danger. Thank you, Lord. The statement of the CCC in England was very good.
If I don't misunderstand this, the Catholic position is that someone in a state of mortal sin receives no grace by taking communion because they're in a state of mortal sin. Therefore the reason for denying communion to the D&R Catholics is not that they might get grace from it, but that the priest himself would be sinning. So to change things to where D&R Catholics can receive communion would not technically be changing anything with regards to them but only with regards to the priest: it would be saying that the priest bears no guilt in giving communion to someone that he knows will receive no grace from it. Is that not right? Did I miss something?
Nichols. Francis Lite. A veritable Bergoglio blood pudding. At least a Bergoglio treacle sponge pudding.
Without pulling out my Catechism, David, I can tell you that receiving the Body and Blood of our Lord unworthily is a sacrilege. Christ himself told us not to eat the body and take the blood unworthily-- that command is the reason not to do it. The priest has the responsibility of safeguarding the Body and Blood, so he cannot administer it to anyone he knows not to be worthy. The Church is charitable and does not want anyone to receive who is not in the appropriate state of grace. I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be saying it is all right for some in mortal sin to receive the Eucharist, but not others-- or that anyone in mortal sin can receive, and no worries on the Church's part. It is the Church's task to teach that who receives unworthily commits a sacrilege. The Church would be abetting sacrilege if it looked the other way as you said. The priest would not be acting as alter Chrisiti but as alter Pilati. The communion rail is not a refreshment stand at the circus.
Barnum, what I was getting at was I think this is what the hierarchy is thinking, that its only a matter of whether the priest is sinning, and they think they have the authority to declare that he is not. After all, at Vatican II they replaced Thomas Aquinas with Karl Barth, and it was Thomas Aquinas who defined the priest as sinning in this instance from what I can tell. I didn't get this information from the catechism but from the Summa Theologica. Their argument will be that essentially the priest is innocent if he allows this for a pastoral reason, such as keeping these people coming to mass so that they will bring their children.
This is why we have confession before mass,you're correct.Its a sacrilege to receive communion in a state of sin.
500 hundred Priests sign this petition. This is great news. We do have very good priests who say only the Novus Ordo Missae. A traditional priest back in 1979 told me several times that he was not happy with the New Mass and many of his priest friends were of the same mentality. But that they said it only out of obedience. These priests were hated by many and loved by many. They never wavered from the Truth. Today many young priests who say the Novus Ordo, long for Tradition. It is the older priests who are the enemies of Tradition. Dr. Alice Von Hilderbrand the wife of Dietrich Von Hilderbrand in an interview said that the crisis of faith did not begin after V2. She said that before the Council there was already a grave crisis of Faith. She explained this as the reason why so many Bishops and priests gladly accepted the New Mass, as they no longer had any Faith. After hearing her say this, I realized that the priests in my Diocese who hailed the New Mass were the very ones who distorted the teachings of the Faith. Those priests in my Diocese who said it only out of obedience, but were not happy with it and longed for the Ancient Mass, were the ones who upheld the teaching Tradition of the Church. Believe me, in my Diocese those faithful priests suffered a great deal at the hands of modernist priests and laity, but they were not seekers of honors from the world but loved God and were zealous for souls.
Andrew
Those who, though their objective moral action(s) cannot be in the State of Grace, (i.e. whose souls lack the indwelling of the Holy Ghost), and who then move forward to ‘take’ Our Lord Jesus Christ in Holy Communion, commit an immense sacrilege. And this is to say nothing of the affects of the scandal that has been caused.
This new doctrine on mercy emanating from Rome is often clearly antithetical to true mercy, which is always directed towards the eternal good of souls.
Why can't we show mercy to those who are divorced and remarried ? why cannot we think like Jesus thinks? he had shown mercy to those who had repented for what they did and I am sure these people who have divorced and remarried have asked for repentance from God . Sometimes it happens ,we make wrong choices in life and we try to make better choices . The same thing has happend to those who have divorced , maybe they found that they cannot adjust with their Partner, due to several reasons like drug abuse, physical abuse etc. whatever be the case if they are asking to be shown mercy we as Christians should should accept them in the Church.
I know of some Catholic Priest , who have many bad vices which can be considered far worse than divorce and remarriage and the priests continue to celebrate mass now that is sacrilege , but we, the laity pray for our priests so that they get the courage and strength to overcome their bad vices , we try to show mercy to them then why can't we show mercy to the divorced and remarried, who eagerly want to be in communion with christ?
The 500 priests who have signed the letter have to check their conscience. Has none of the 500 priests who have signed the letter ever broken the vow of chastity ? some of them have, I know it. Even if you think of a person in a lustful way you have broken the vow . If you want to be shown mercy , then why not those who are divorced and remarried?
Post a Comment