Yes, I actually agree if it were my Church I think I would be open to all taking communion - the facts remains it’s effective in the worthily receiving and ineffective in the unworthily receiving. Sometimes I do fear that we get too wrapped up with rules and deteriorate into the works mentality. You worry more about doing it right than doing it genuinely. Sometimes you can get so far down that road I wonder if communion does even work anymore. It’s a slippery slope.
But it’s NOT my Church and I didn’t make the rules. And, as I have stated before, my bigger concern is the consequences of this whole Kasper discussion and potential changes in pastoral practice on a much much wider scale. I like your idea of a reminder at Mass though about how it is your choice to take communion.
unworthily is biblical (st paul) so it’s tough to brush it under the rug. confession and communion are inextricably linked, and i think that’s where some have a problem. God will judge our hearts, man has no way of knowing. my RCIA priest did say it might be a good idea to make a general pronouncement before communion, about who should and shouldn’t receive, but he was ready to try it yet.:rolleyes:
Oh, no, I am not against rules, don’t get me wrong. And I go to Mass weekly - the EverReady Bunny would be impressed. (I actually believe the Eucharist does nourish the soul and keep you in Christ as opposed to being completely in the world; I think Mass is the most important thing you do.) I am defending rules here. I would be happy to get a reminder in Church. Everyone does just go up in every parish I’ve attended. It is a little fishy - let’s face it. On the flip side, I have known some to go to confession over and over for the same thing - I don’t see a lot of fruitful holiness blossoming there (but please, please let us not go off on a tangent about that).
Last point, I sometimes wonder how priests (who are really the front line here) feel about this. They are being asked to police souls - that is an impossible job. Just sayin’ this could become a heck of a can of worms really quickly. It is a dangerous area to be wandering around - people’s consciences before God. I think we should just keep things the way they are - the pot is being stirred and stirred and stirred. Ain’t no good gonna come from it.
I see it as the perfect opportunity to reach new ears who may be curious. The confusion which is being wholley blamed on some ‘progressive agenda’, is clearly the result of those muckrakers trying to imply that a change of doctrine is being proposed when all along it has been stressed that no general rules concerning communion and remarriage will be altered.
The Church is showing a wonderful serenity and confidence in the Holy Spirit by continuing to speak Truth above the fray rather than trying to explain the synodal questions and process to those who won’t listen anyway. Those that want to portray the process as some sort of evil agenda.
I think that Pope Francis probably doesn’t even bother reading the reams of sidelock tugging and wailing that’s going on in streets.
caught the catholic news on the way home from work tonight. i guess cardinal burke said the best way to avoid controversy is to ignore the progressive agenda to begin with. not quoting him, just heard it reported and caught my attention.
It will depend more importantly on how the bishops read it at the next synod. It is fairly clear to me that it is slanted in favour of Communion for remarried divorcees, and it got the majority vote, but a lot can happen - and is happening - between then and the next synod.
Well, one is free to think this paragraph represents a victory for traditional teaching if one wants to. I rest my case that it is a disaster.
True. Personally I find Napier enigmatic. Was his group at the synod so completely and determinedly progressive that he couldn’t influence its conclusions at all? More importantly, has he said anything about the Communion issue ***since ***the Synod? I’m really curious about this last.
Yeah, ultimately all that matters is how the Bishops read it. I certainly understand your concerns with the document, I don’t think it’s strong by any means. My reading on it is that the document by itself is neutral, but the circumstances around it seem fairly encouraging :shrug:
You’re probably looking for things of a grave matter, only one of the conditions of mortal sin. Lying, cheating, stealing, gluttony, etc. can be grave matter. Conscience should know right from wrong generally speaking. Anything wrong can become gravely wrong. Missing Mass on Sunday, adultery, fornication, murder, and such are almost always grave matter.
OTOH, scandal does not necessarily become a mortal sin. But it is an obviously something you don’t want to spread and a bishop or priest can withhold communion from someone persisting in scandal, such as a politician who runs a pro-abortion campaign, chooses to cohabit, etc.
I am posting this just as a general comment in this discussion (re where do the bishops stand? and what is the laity’s response?). Great quote from Cardinal Newman (prediction more or less). The laity play a VITAL role along with the bishops when the Church is faced with these kinds of periods of questioning, renewal: (fantastic stuff)
“As to the prospects of the Church, as to which you ask my opinion, you know old men are generally desponding—but my apprehensions are not new, but above 50 years standing. I have all that time thought that a time of widespread infidelity was coming, and through all those years the waters have in fact been rising as a deluge. I look for the time, after my life, when only the tops of the mountains will be seen, like islands in the waste of waters. I speak principally of the Protestant world—but great actions and successes must be achieved by the Catholic leaders, great wisdom as well as courage must be given them from on high, if Holy Church is to be kept safe from the awful calamity, and, though any trial which came upon her would but be temporary, it may be fierce in the extreme while it lasts.”
Newman does not make the explicit point here but throughout his Catholic writings he was careful to stress the crucial role that the laity must perform in ensuring that the Church continue faithful to the depositum fidei, especially in circumstances where, as in the fourth century, the episcopate proved less than faithful. While Father Ker points out that this is certainly one legitimate reason why Newman can be seen as a formative influence on the Second Vatican Council, he also stresses how Newman’s understanding of the faithful laity included the faithful clergy. To make this point, Father Ker quotes from Newman’s pivotal essay, “On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine” (1859), though even in The Arians of the Fourth Century (1832), the Anglican Newman had shown how the laity and clergy preserved the Church from false developments, in which the episcopate connived.
The episcopate, whose action was so prompt and concordant at Nicæa on the rise of Arianism, did not, as a class or order of men, play a good part in the troubles consequent upon the Council; and the laity did. The Catholic people, in the length and breadth of Christendom, were the obstinate champions of Catholic truth, and the bishops were not. Of course there were great and illustrious exceptions; first, Athanasius, Hilary, the Latin Eusebius, and Phœbadius; and after them, Basil, the two Gregories, and Ambrose; there are others, too, who suffered, if they did nothing else, as Eustachio’s, Paulus, Paulinus, and Dionysius; and the Egyptian bishops, whose weight was small in the Church in proportion to the great power of their Patriarch. And, on the other hand, as I shall say presently, there were exceptions to the Christian heroism of the laity, especially in some of the great towns. And again, in speaking of the laity, I speak inclusively of their parish-priests (so to call them), at least in many places; but on the whole, taking a wide view of the history, we are obliged to say that the governing body of the Church came short, and the governed were pre-eminent in faith, zeal, courage, and constancy.
Whole article here. Father Ian Ker’s book about Cardinal Newman and Vatican II.
The Catholic people, in the length and breadth of Christendom, were the obstinate champions of Catholic truth, and the bishops were not.
Thank you so much for posting this as it lends confirmation to my earlier post #19. It is also borne out with the history of Pius XXII and the Beatific Vision and the crucial role the laity played in preserving truth! Of course, he was not speaking as pope, but as a private theologian.