This is one of the points I have been making since the start of this event....
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From today's Washington's comPost:
As Catholics present themselves for Holy Communion, the priest or delegated minister says, “The Body of Christ” and “The Blood of Christ.” The communicant responds, “Amen.” This brief interaction expresses a much deeper reality of the belief in what the Church teaches about the Eucharist, the proper disposition of the one receiving Communion and the pastoral charity of the priest.
As Catholic Christians, we believe that the Eucharist is the real presence of Jesus Christ. It is not just a symbol, a wafer or a cup of wine. Jesus is truly present - Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Because of this we believe that to receive Communion, a person should be in the state of grace, which means that they are not conscious of having committed a sin serious enough that it ruptures their relationship with God. As with any relationship, it is not just a one-sided judgment that determines what hurts the relationship with God. This determination is based on what the Church teaches objectively from sacred Scripture and tradition of Christian experience. If a person is conscious of having committed a grave sin, he or she may not receive Communion until they have received absolution in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. A person who is conscious of grave sin but has no opportunity to go to Confession may receive Communion for a serious reason, but first that person must pray to Christ expressing their sorrow, also known as a perfect act of contrition, and have the intention of going to Confession as soon as possible.
The priest has an obligation to make sure that the sacraments are respected, and any person who obstinately perseveres in manifest grave sin is not to be admitted to Holy Communion. Ideally, the priest will handle such a situation pastorally by discussing the consequences of such sin with the person privately before actually denying them Communion.
The Archdiocese of Washington recognizes that the prime obligation to determine one’s preparedness to receive Communion falls to the persons who are presenting themselves for Communion. In extreme cases where someone has been formally excommunicated or is trying to use the Eucharist to make a political statement it is appropriate to consider denying Communion. The reception of the Eucharist is a blessing and a grace. We should receive Jesus with the intention of becoming more like him. No one is entitled to the Eucharist. It is a free gift and should be received with humility and reverence.
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/barbara-johnson-and-the-importance-of-communion-a-statement-from-the-washington-archdiocese/2012/03/01/gIQAWeiikR_story.html?hpid=z5
4 comments:
There is a serious contractiction here:
"The priest HAS AN OBLIGATION to make sure that the sacraments are respected, and ANY PERSON who obstinately perseveres in manifest grave sin IS NOT TO BE ADMITTED to Holy Communion."
"The Archdiocese of Washington recognizes that the prime obligation to determine one’s preparedness to receive Communion falls to the persons who are presenting themselves for Communion. IN EXTREME CASES where someone has been FORMALLY excommunicated or is trying to use the Eucharist to make a political statement it is APPROPRIATE to CONSIDER denying Communion."
If PERSON primarily determines fitness to receive, why need priest's permission to receive FIRST communion? If, as Jesus said, priests have authority to forgive or not forgive sin, and criteria for admission to Communion is "State of Grace", how can it NOT be primarily priest who determines fitness to receive? Until the last 100 years (and still in orthodox church) no-one receives w/out permission (and notification at least night before) of priest.
A similar thing happened w/Rudy Giuliani when Pope visited US in 2008. Although bishop had made "deal" w/Rudy not to "present himself", apparently when Rudy saw all the pro-abort dems getting communion at Wuerl's papal mass in DC (Ted Kennedy was even taken 'the sacrament'):
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/apr/08041817
Rudy presented himself and was given communion. Thereupon Egan released a statement headlined as follows:
"Cardinal Egan UPSET Pro-Abortion Rudy Giuliani Took Communion"
http://www.lifenews.com/2008/04/28/state-3173/
Egan "deeply regrets" but what does God feel? Is it better to upset God or shame Rudy? Feelings of shame lead to repentance. When Rudy is in hell for all eternity will God blame Egan? What does St Paul say about the condemnation that comes to the individual committing sacrilege? Is "upset" and "regret" the reaction of a priest who believes in the real presence, judgment, heaven and hell?
But contrast even that reaction w/Wuerl's:
"On Saturday, California Catholic Daily reporter Allyson Smith conducted a brief taped interview with Archbishop Wuerl focussing on the new pro-abortion speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi. LifeSiteNews.com has reviewed the tape and can confirm this accurate transcription of the main portion of the interview:
...
Smith: "Do you intend to discipline her at all for being PERSISTENT and OBSTINATE about supporting abortion and same-sex marriage?"
Wuerl: "I WILL NOT be using the faculty in that, in the manner you have described."
Smith: "Will you issue a statement to your priests and deacons, I'm sorry, to priests and deacons to warn her not to allow her to receive if she presents herself for Communion?"
Wuerl: "You're talking about a whole different STYLE of pastoral ministry. No thank you.""
http://www.tldm.org/News10/ArchbishopWuerl&Pelosi.htm
How does this concern w/"STYLE" contrast w/Jesus Chris's who on the night he was betrayed made sure everyone knew who his betrayers were? Why didn't he say to Peter and John it's none of your business who my betrayer is? Why did he even bring the matter up if it isn't appropriate to publicly point out sin? Why didn't he let Judas stay at the last supper - MS. Johnson-Gresser is upset that the priest left - if Fr. G were like Jesus Christ (Peter denied betrayal, but Judas didn't) he would have thrown her out (also like the sellers in the Temple). How can the faithful distinguish what is sinful behavior when they witness these public figures w/"private understandings" receive communion?
This statement from the ADW clarifies nothing.
I agree that this statement is full of contradictions. The Diocese cannot say, on one side, that the Catholic Church “teaches objectively from sacred Scripture” and on the other side punishes exactly the priest who is acting upon that teaching.
I am an Eastern Rite Catholic priest and I will not give communion to somebody that admits living in sin in the eyes of the Church and did not come to confession first.
Unfortunately, because people putted in charge to protect and defend the Truth are not doing their jobs – are they ashamed of the Gospel? -, in many churches the process of receiving communion became a show, if not a joke. How can people take seriously the receiving of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, when bishops are negotiating if a “catholic” politician supporting anti-Catholic teachings should come to take communion or not?
The Acts of Apostles talk in chapter 3 about the encounter between Peter and Ananias, a guy who sold his land but did not give all the money to church as everybody else did. Because he tried to cheat God, conspiring in the same time with his wife to hide some of the money, he was killed by God. Now, comparing the attitude of all these Bishops with those of the Apostles, do you see Peter negotiating with Ananias if he should give everything to God or not? What would have been the amount that Peter would have settled for?
How can people take seriously the receiving of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, when bishops are negotiating if a “catholic” politician supporting anti-Catholic teachings should come to take communion or not?
How can the lay faithful take seriously the receiving of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, when priests (eastern and western rite) are quikc to speak out against Catholic politician who they don't like but never utter a word or take an action against rich and powerful businessmen who more than permit the civil legality of acts opposed by the Catholic Church but are actively involved in the production and sale of contraceptives, the financing of abortion and other anti-Catholic deeds?
I guess these priests think like that line from "The Godfather", nothing personal, its just business:
http://catholicsforobama.blogspot.com/2012/01/santorum-making-money-off-abortions.html
Katherine, it seems that you are just trying to have an opposing argument against mine. Where did I say that for a Catholic businessman we should lower the standards?
Post a Comment