US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi sure knows how to get herself in the papers, but she may have stepped in it this time. She showed up for Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica on the Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul, and presented herself for Holy Communion, which she received from one of the Ministers. This was after, according to one report, she had met with Pope Francis and received a blessing. That was bound to garner press coverage in the secular and the Catholic outlets. So far, so good.
Only, she perhaps wasn’t counting on Wednesday also being the day Pope Francis dropped a lengthy reflection on the meaning of the liturgy and proper liturgical formation. Pope Francis may not appreciate being upstaged at home, and almost certainly isn’t smiling at remarks like the one from John A. Monaco, who quipped on Twitter:
It’s hard to take a document on “liturgical formation” seriously when it is published on the same day a pro-abortion politician receives Holy Communion during a papal Mass at St. Peter’s Basilica.
On the other hand, the document Pope Francis published on Wednesday has to be the hands-on favorite in the race for Most Catholic Inside Baseball News Story of 2022, so perhaps this will prove a case of there being no such thing as bad press. Others have also noted that Francis has been willing – especially of late – to play fast and loose with the rules and regulations that govern Catholic liturgy, and wonder about the extent to which he wishes to be taken seriously when he calls people to greater respect for those rules.
Those observations are understandable, but in fairness to Pope Francis, he is suffering from a very bad knee and has been unable to participate as fully as he’d no doubt like in a host of functions recently.
Pope Francis’s letter bills itself as “some prompts or cues for reflections that can aid in the contemplation of the beauty and truth of Christian celebration.” That’s not exactly headline-grabbing stuff, but the Apostolic Letter, Desiderio desideravi, is worth your attention for several reasons, one of which is that it is a window into the mind of Pope Francis on a subject that has dominated his attention for some years.
A guy who doesn’t care about the liturgy doesn’t use his power to overturn and annul the signature act of his predecessor in office and smash the fragile peace his predecessor had established in law before it really had a chance to settle. A guy who doesn’t care about the liturgy doesn’t take pains, over fifteen pages of typewritten and single-spaced lines organized in numbered paragraphs, to discharge his mind on the subject. Pope Francis cares about the liturgy, and he wants people to see how much he cares, and he wants to explain how and why he cares.
So, it should come as a surprise to exactly no one that matters get pretty wonky, pretty quick.
One has to plow through about thirty of the letter’s sixty-five paragraphs before one comes to the crux of the matter, which is this:
I do not see how it is possible to say that one recognizes the validity of the Council — though it amazes me that a Catholic might presume not to do so — and at the same time not accept the liturgical reform born out of Sacrosanctum Concilium, a document that expresses the reality of the Liturgy intimately joined to the vision of Church so admirably described in Lumen gentium.
Pope Francis isn’t wrong to be amazed. The Vatican Council II was a thing that actually happened. There was a far-reaching reform effort in the wake of the late Council, which saw new liturgical books promulgated and the old ones effectively suppressed (even if they were never formally abrogated). There’s a small number of Catholics – albeit a number devoid of any real power or influence – who tie themselves in knots to explain that the Council never really was and its acts were and are therefore null and void. Some of them even go so far as to say that nobody who has received the new rites is validly ordained.
There’s a whole lot more of that kind of crazy out there, most of it found on blogs run from dingy basements and in internet commboxes peopled by folks with too much time on their hands. These aren’t the sorts of folks who make for any sort of real-world trouble.
Pope Francis appears to have decided, however, that nobody should have something such people care about, even if those nobodies who happen to love the old books and the rites celebrated according to them accept the Council and the new books; even if they’ve built their churches from nothing; even if they’re the life of their diverse and vibrant parish communities.
It’s almost the ecclesiastical version of, “It became necessary to destroy the town in order to save it.”
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
The more Francis talks the more I think he realizes that he has lost the Church. All his credibility is gone. How can the Pontiff Francis have any credibility when he allows a two-bit politician from a country he despises undermine one of his own archbishops who instructed one of his flock not to receive the Eucharist because she actively supports the murder of defenseless and vulnerable human persons?
Question: Between Pontiff Francis and Nancy Pelosi, which one is a disciple of Jesus Christ?
In the famous words of Mona Lisa Vito (My Cousin Vinny) – “No one can answer that question! It is a TRICK question!” And WHY is it a trick question? Because neither of them are!
A fake Catholic, although we can’t judge what’s in a person’s heart we can hear what she says over and over.
A person must be in communion with Jesus and his Church in order to receive our Lord’s gift, the Eucharist, which nourishes that existing communion. Pope Francis did say something like that.
So, as a progressive, do you condemn Pelosi’s brazen act of hypocrisy and disobedience, or are you going to rationalize that in some way as you often do?
As a side note, you’ve been missing in action in terms of the recent Roe decision. Awfully quiet on that topic. Interesting but not surprising.
Athanasius, for your information, I have always been conservative in my beliefs. I accept, without compromise, the teachings of the Church. For many years I had been writing against abortion and euthanasia in other websites. Lifesite published a lot of my posts for fifteen years but then they banned me when I disagreed with its opinion writers on Pope Francis. I did not write about Roe but I did pray for it to be overturned. I believe that it is best to leave it to the Americans to express their views on this decision.
Ok, but you didn’t answer my question, which again is not surprising. When Pelosi presented herself for communion, was that sin or not? A simple yes or no will do.
St Paul clearly tells us that anyone who receives communion unworthily condemns himself/herself. Pelosi’s statements indicate she is not in communion with the Church and is therefor not worthy to receive communion. The act is sinful but whether that makes her a sinner, I leave that to Jesus.
No rational on Nancy Pelosi. She is wrong, seriously wrong. I pray for her soul daily and for a change of heart. If she continues down the path she’s on, she will answer to God and I fear the answer she will receive.
On a side note: I have not been silent. I have prayed and marched quietly and respectively in support of the life God has provided. I just don’t find it necessary to jump up and down yelling and screaming “I win you lose”. It is not necessary. God knows who is who.
THe pope is a fake catholic?
The pope is the only catholic link to Jesus. If the pope isn’t the supreme leader, the whole religion is fake.
Not so. The gospel is about Christ, not about the pope.
Yes! Thank you for this truth.
Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
The pope should be praying for the flock rather than controverting tradition and locking horns with God’s word, as some tend to posit.
God bless you.
I think the reference was to Pelosi.
Neil, that last sentence is absolutely true. (Don’t tell that to some TLM “Catholics”). Jesus created that position when he spoke about His Church. The two go together. Denying this fact is akin to denying Jesus.
To Neil Allen: You might want to learn more about Catholicism. It will save you from your false premise and false conclusion. Aside from saints, there have been lunatics for popes in Catholic history. God likes to remind us that He is in charge in spite of our torrents of sins and stupidities.
I had previouly posted this comment at an incorrect location.
No need to know what in her heart. We know what public scandal is, & she engages in quite a bit of that.
Yes, she does in engage in quite a bit of that, but what is in her heart – a critical element – is only what Jesus, the judge, knows.
Regarding the judgments reserved to Christ, Pope Benedict XVI had something clarifying to say about our loss of guilt and our convenient silencing of conscience and our intellectual laziness:
“(First) I have been absolutely certain that there is something wrong with the theory of the justifying force of the subjective conscience . . . Hitler may have had none (guilt feelings); nor may Himmler or Stalin. Mafia bosses may have none, but it is more likely that they have merely suppressed their awareness of the skeletons in their closets. And the aborted guilt feelings . . . Everyone needs guilt feelings. (And second) The loss of the ability to see one’s guilt, the falling silent of conscience in so many areas, is a more dangerous illness of the soul than guilt that is recognized as guilt (see Psalm 19:12). . .
“To identify conscience with a superficial state of conviction is to equate it with a certainty that merely seems rational, a certainty woven from self-righteousness, conformism, and intellectual laziness. Conscience is degraded to a mechanism that produces excuses for one’s conduct, although in reality conscience is meant to make the subject transparent to the divine, thereby revealing man’s authentic dignity and greatness” (“Values in a Time of Upheaval,” 2006).
Considering these layered self-deceptions, there are still some “rigid bigots” around who would hold the Aztec Princess publicly accountable simply for the public scandal she causes. And what too about gratuitous photo-ops (?), but I’m not going there today. After all, who am I to judge?
All the intricacies that operate in the mind or, shall we say, deep within a person’s soul, are well known to God. Why was Cain’s offering not accepted by God? Or, what was it that Jesus knew about the adulteress for him not to condemn her as the law demanded? How did he know that an old woman who put two coins in the collection box gave more than others? How glad we should be that we have such a knowing and just judge.
Mal. What wisdom. The sages of old gape in awe. Oh those secretive hearts tucking away in deep inner recesses the glorious truth. That only God can know these inscrutable truths, and mercifully absolve the manifest serial murderer of the innocent. Puke bags anyone?
Mal. Pardon my sarcasm. I do appreciate you as a friend, and always consider your different points of view.
That’s okay, Fr. Peter. Sticks and stones and sarcasm won’t make me change my mind. I will only change my stance if and when I am shown to be wrong. In this instance, I agreed with MamalukeS (the poster) that Pelosi is involved in public scandal – using the writer’s words. However, I did not agree with the the sentence “No need to know what is in her heart.” Of course, we will never really know that. However, it is a critical element and it is something that only Jesus, the judge, knows.
Clearly, I did not condone Pelosi’s words and actions on this subject and so I do not know what evoked your response.
“St Paul clearly tells us that anyone who receives communion unworthily condemns himself/herself. Pelosi’s statements indicate she is not in communion with the Church and is therefor not worthy to receive communion. The act is sinful but whether that makes her a sinner, I leave that to Jesus” (Mal). Your comment here affirms what you say in your response to my criticism. So I apologize for the sarcasm. We’re compelled to make judgments on what is manifest, not in what is interior. However Mal, when someone continues to be obstinate despite continuous appeal then the Church is obliged to make a judgment regarding the state of that person and excommunicate them from the Mystical Body. It’s somewhat similar, in a lesser sense to the priest denying absolution when the penitent refuses to acknowledge what serious sin is. Although this is not equivalent to the certitude of God’s judgment of the soul, it’s a faculty given to the Church that is relevant to this question of guilt, and need’s be considered.
Your sarcasm is not misdirected. There is evilness involved in a prideful refusal to distingish the self-evident difference between judging wrongful behavior, something everyone does constantly, and morally culpable evil intent. It is pridefully evil to sanctimoniously presume anyone does not know this and to presume to point out the obvious. Such presumption corresponds to the patterns of pride of which Mal identifies with when he blindly identifies Francis as being brilliant for expressing greeting card sentimentalities while ignoring how Francis butchers the faith with moral relativism and how this victimizes masses of innocent humanity.
Fr Peter, Bishops do have the authority to excommunicate a Catholic who continue to espouse a teaching that is contrary to that which the Church teaches. But that is a different issue.
If the Pope had not wanted Pelosi to take Communion, rest assured, he would have instructed the ministers to deny her and likely would have told her directly–no Communion, sorry. You need to stop it with the abotion rhetoric.
The pope is the only catholic link to Jesus. If the pope isn’t the supreme leader, the whole religion is fake.
Hebrews 2:1 Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it.
2 Timothy 1:7 For God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Thessalonians 4:14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep.
Let us pray for one another. I I am not mistaken, the pope needs to be in constant prayer and devoted to Holy Scripture. What better role for a senior man of God?
The pope is the only catholic link to Jesus.
Only in the mind of a neophyte.
Who died and made you the arbiter of all things religious?
Okay. What the Pope’s bum knee has to do with Pelosi receiving Communion at the Vatican or his latest broadside against the Latin Mass and traditionalists is something that Mr. Altieri should explain to his slow readers, like me, who don’t see the connection. As to the former item, like her pleasant visit with Francis last fall just as the finishing touches were being applied to the US bishops’ Eucharistic Coherence statement, it is surely no coincidence that she was at a papal Mass less than a week after the Supreme Court overturned Roe, a decision which, of course, she bitterly opposed. It seems to me that there is an obvious inference to be drawn, but I suppose the respectful response is simply to scratch one’s head over what it all means.
Your exactly right. They are just letting pro-choice Catholics remain motivated to maintain their temporal power without jeopardizing their eternal status. There but for the grace of God go I…
If the Pope didn’t want Pelosi to receive Communion, she would not have. He would have instructed his ministers to deny, and told her that she would be denied.
Did Francis know that she would ask for communion? Could the eucharistic ministers have been well briefed how to recognize her?
I don’t approve (of course) of what she did, but I think that preventing it would have been very difficult.
She spoke to the Pope, and got a blessing. No problem with that (she and her husband could use a few). I would bet money that he did NOT tell her to refrain
Kathryn, I bet he did not tell her to receive communion. Pope Francis has spoken out repeatedly against abortion. “Is it right, is it fair, to kill a human life to solve a problem? Scientifically it is a human life. … Is it right to hire a hitman to solve a problem?”
Pope Francis also said that people who are for abortion are not in communion with our Lord’s Church and so should not receive the Eucharist. Why? “Because they are out of the community, excommunicated, they are ‘excommunicated’ it is called. It is a harsh term but what it means is that they are not in the community or because they do not belong or are baptized, but have drifted away from some of the things.”
1) Of course he did.
2) If they weren’t they should have been.
The incident was a disgrace, not to mention blasphemus.
Remember, Pope Francis said he had never denied communion to anyone, and he said he discouraged the practice. So Pelosi made sure to travel to the Vatican to take advantage of that.
How do you know what was in his mind?
She indicated what was likely. Not need to get snarky.
I have come to believe, after decades of watching the cavalier treatment of the Blessed Sacrament by various priests and bishops–and now by minions of the pope–that the fundamental problem is lack of belief by these people in the Real Presence. It almost has to be that simple.
The simplest explanation seems to me to be the correct one: none of these people really believes in the Real Presence.
This issue is the single biggest obstacle I have toward “evangelization.” Our priest has really been hammering on that for a few weeks now. We need to bring people to Church
I’m a convert. Catholics don’t seem to have belief, only habits. Communion lines long, confession ones short. LGBT+ runs rampant; the “cisgendered” are busy fornicating, and quite probably using the contraception their “practicing Catholic” physician prescribed. Divorce is down, but marriages are way down, so not much of a victory.
Yes, I think you are absolutely right. Hence to many priests and bishops it was no big deal closing the churches for months for a flu. This story is just another in a long list of bitterly disappointing tales. Apparently she was seated in a vip section, imagine that, in the house of God.
Whereabouts is this vip section?
Could it be the blind communing with the blind? Perhaps in a spiritual sense! Papa knows how to wreak havoc on the church. Yet, I have my daily confession as well!
From Pope Francis (above):
“I do not see how it is possible to say that one recognizes the validity of the Council — though it amazes me that a Catholic might presume not to do so — and at the same time not accept the liturgical reform born out of Sacrosanctum Concilium, a document that expresses the reality of the Liturgy intimately joined to the vision of Church so admirably described in Lumen gentium.”
The disjunction comes in the unseen real meaning of “born out of.”
Was the (yes, valid and still capable of reverence) Novus Ordo (which this reader prefers) really “born out of” Sacrosanctum Concilium? Or, instead, in the words of Thomas More, rebuking the lineage of the superficial and sycophant Duke of Norfolk, “…somewhere back along your pedigree—a bitch [the Freemason Bugnini] got over the wall!”
One can fully accept the validity of the Council without accepting its abuse. Was the rejection of Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum also a rejection of the Council’s real Sacrosanctum Concilium?
Not everyone has forgotten the mongrel, liturgical stupidities of the 1970s and beyond. And now, Pelosi in Rome.
The Pope causes more scandal than Pelosi and Biden together. It’s almost funny!
Good call. It would be funny if it wasn’t so profane.
Media is the Message seems relevant here [not to dismiss what motive for Altieri’s shift from the significance of Pelosi’s visit on the Solemnity of Apostles Peter and Paul, to Francis’ liturgical reform]. Marshall McLuhan famed Canadian philosopher described contemporary media as the message. What is projected visually, by sound, and its effect on the mind.
McLuhan was influenced by anthropological sociologist Claude Levi Strauss’ perception of Cold and Hot societies. Cold cultures cherish the present in its continuity with tradition, whereas a Hot culture is motivated by desire to break with the past, modernization, acquisition [power], global idealization. So does McLuhan’s methodology apply, primarily by optics, by sound [what is said and not said], the message of a Hot ecclesiology?
Then, if we consider revealed Catholicism of the Word, this tradition is eternal, a tradition with fire, a living flame of love. Whereas the new paradigm discontinuity severed from Christ is cold, dead as a mackerel.
This story is sad, but not at all surprising.
“…the Apostolic Letter, Desiderio desideravi, is worth your attention for several reasons, one of which is that it is a window into the mind of Pope Francis on a subject that has dominated his attention for some years…” – Chris Altieri above.
Sorry, Chris, but I need no orchestrated insights into Bergoglio’s mind via a cut-and-paste compilation of paragraphs clearly written by numerous writers – none of whom was Bergoglio himself – to which he signed his name to the bottom of. I already have an endless supply of insights from all that he has actually done over the last 9+ years. I know him by his actions.
And just as I think the Trojans should have not have wasted their time admiring and admitting to their city the wooden workmanship of of the Greeks, I don’t delude myself that Bergoglio’s version referenced here (despite the fact that there may be a little bit of workmanship in it that all can agree to) serves any purpose whatsoever in increasing my understand of the man. He is what he is – what he has repeatedly proven himself to be.
This is the same Pope who ordered faithful, long-suffering Chinese Bishops to hand over control of their flocks to an atheist government that imposes forced abortions, the same Pope who gutted the Pontifical Academy for Life and turned it into yet another committee for spouting social justice pablum. Who cares what his “official” position on abortion is. Of course he’s fine with Pelosi receiving Communion. That’s the least of it.
Pontiff Francis might, if he was interested, spend less time sharing with us his own “musings” about “the liturgical reform” which he asserts is “born out of Sacrosanctum Consilium,” and devote a few hours reading the candid testimony of Fr. Louis Bouyer (a “ressourcement” churchman recently lauded by Larry Chapp here at CWR), who can explain to Pontiff Francis and others sll about the cultural impoverishment and deceitful behavior at the root of the do-called New Order of the Roman Rite.
I use the words impoverishment and deceitfulness to echo the first-hsnd experience of Fr. Bouyer, who served ss a member of the committee on (rupturing) the liturgy, and reveals in his memoirs that the whole project was a pretentious farce, operated by “Excellency” Annibale Bugnini, who Fr. Bouyer revealed was “a man as bereft of culture as he was of basic honesty.” Fr. Bouyer disclosed that he tried to resign from the “liturgical committee,” but relented when Pope Psul VI pleaded with him to remsin, do that his resignation did not create an embarrassing scandal about the “idiocy” and deceitfulness of the committee members.
Adam DeVille, in his own comment on Bouyers’s memoir, calls what Paul VI and Bugnini and the “committee” did “the great catastrophe.” That can be read here:
Now the Pontiff Francis has an opportunity to listen snd be accompanied so that he can attain understanding…but that is as likely to happen as him actually ever meeting face-to-fsce with a powerful US politician who is known to promote state-sponsored mass killing of unborn children, and doing his duty under Canon Law 915, and withholding the Blessed Sacrament from such person.
Some will be dismayed at the above, and urge instead that we get on with doing what the establishment yearns for, and get back to pretending reality isn’t happening…
To trivialize the hundreds of accomplished scholars and high prelates over the course of half a century, including Benedict XVI who identified specific secular humanist content worthy of condemnation in VII documents, naïvely optimistic content that has had an indisputably corrupting effect on post conciliar theological biases, including a Catholic tolerance of the murderous consequences of the sex revolution, as merely “kind of crazy out there, run from dingy basements”, is a rather silly criticism.
Edward J Baker – ‘ specific secular humanist content worthy of condemnation in VII documents ‘ – it would be good to get some outlines of what these are, as Benedict XVI made them out, as that way I can go into it more generously.
Perhaps there can be an article posted at CWR by someone knowledgeable on it, reviewing the contents of this area.
First, Before any fool falsely claims otherwise, I read every word of VII docs multiple times and many commentaries about them. Even though ultimate conclusions about the human condition align with a Catholic anthropology and its understanding of the human condition, there was enough sloppy language employed here and there that allowed for a soft enough reading to believe VII endorsed a denial of original sin and the suggestion that man, in due course, can “evolve” to a point of eradicating all the evils that previously befell the human condition. This was intentional on the part of modernists. Make your own judgments. Cut and paste each document into a single file of WORD (it accepts huge files now) and do a search on a derivative of the word evolve, not the whole word because you’ll miss some highlights. Just type “evol” and you’ll find sentences that express phony optimism. This is just one type of VII happy talk that irritated Benedict for its unavoidable denial of original sin.
DIGNITATIS HUMANAE begins with this silly sentence: “A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man, and the demand is increasingly made that men should act on their own judgment.” Less than 20 years after the end of WWII with all of its carnage and insults to human dignity in every conceivable manner, VII, with 2000 years of Catholic wisdom behind it, generates profound idiocy about man having “greater awareness” of human dignity. The document goes on to say some good things about what governments OUGHT to do, but why did the Council fathers act so reckless about kissing up to the zeitgeist when they didn’t have to. Well, we all really know why. Because the uninhibited modernists among them wanted to lay the groundwork for “the monstrously evil spirit of VII.” And it is only foolishness to claim that it is only foolishness that finds VII problematic.
If Pelosi had come to Communion wearing a mantilla, on her knees, while holding a 1962 Daily Missal, Francis would have leaped into action, bum knee and all, and body-slammed the eucharistic minister trying to give Communion to her.
Has he ever done that to anyone? I agree with the response: Too funny.
I’ll go with Phil Lawler’s analysis in Catholic Culture, June 30.
The Pope was simply applying and living out what he always preached about not weaponizing the Eucharist, about the sacrament being not a reward for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak, about one’s stand on abortion not being the only or even pre-eminent issue that defines a Catholic worthy or unworthy to receive the sacrament – there being a full range of other life issues that also need to be considered and so require prudential judgment and the use of conscience. Bishop McElroy understood and in turn preach these points well but Archbishops Gomez and Cordileone do not. So McElroy is made Cardinal.
Her bishop instructed her otherwise. The Pontiff Francis undermined her bishop’s authority -which has become ‘de rigeur’ for Pontiff Francis. If Francis chooses to act like an total autocrat, he ought to dismiss all bishops and run the Church by himself.
If, as this particular Pontiff declares in his novel sacramental theology, the Eucharist is purported to be medicine for sinners, then one would observe that after 50+ years, during ehivh “the medicine” has not cured Pelosi of her promotion of infanticide and her legislative program of state-sponsored mass infanticide, then it seems to be that a reasonable person would conclude that the Pontiff Francis doesn’t really understand the meaning of communicating the sacrament of the Body of Christ.
Due to the fact that McElroy is a homosexualist he should be denied the Blessed Sacrament under Canon 915, Dom.
By the way are you related to Teresa Pastore?
Weaponizing the Eucharist is precisely what Francis does in one of his favorite forms of hypocrisy. He uses it as a means of a pretentious ostentatious abuse of mercy that has no mercy for the victims of those major political figures he rewards for their crimes against humanity. Where is the “weakness” that you claim exists among those affecting the slaughter of millions? Do they need sacrilegious “nourishment”? Where is there evidence that they desire or every have desired a turning away from their crimes against humanity? Does Francis care? Has he ever condemned the specific persons and specific activities of the architects of mass murder?
A medicine that is typically good to help heal a physical malady can easily be harmful if a person’s body is not properly disposed to receiving the medicine.
In like manner, the Eucharist’s spiritual medicinal qualities that are typically good for most people will be harmful to any soul not properly disposed to receiving the Eucharist. Supporting abortion and doing things to increase it is sinful enough to render such a person unworthy to receive the Eucharist.
Next, actions in support of murder in the womb are egregious in and of themselves to warrant a most serious official reprimand as has been properly implemented by Abp. Cordileone on the repeat offender Pelosi. Other crimes she may be guilty of do not need to be considered since in many respects, her malevolent support of abortion is, to extend one more analogy, a most capital offense that is sufficient in itself to warrant the just penalty she has received by Abp. Cordileone.
So your would-be attempt at what would be another bogus seamless garment-type argument fails miserably. McElroy can receive 10 red hats, but such does not change the fact of his erroneous approach.
The Sacraments, including the Holy Eucharist, are for sinners not saints that is their function and their mystery.
Holy Communion is for those who are in communion–that is, in a state of grace, filled with God’s divine life–with the Triune Communion: “Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance” (CCC 1415). Catholic Doctrine 101.
Put another way: Baptism cleanses us of sin and fills us with sanctifying grace, or God’s divine life; having sinned, we must go to Confession in order to be once against filled with grace, that is, brought back into communion with God; the Eucharist is for those in communion with the Triune God. Again, Catholic Doctrine 101.
As to whether one is in the state of grace is determined solely apart from God by the person with the use of one’s conscience, and never by anybody else even by an authority or by any law.
But that is not the only stipulation:
Abp Cordileone outlines all of this quite clearly in his letter to Speaker Pelosi.
Mr. Olson, thank you for correcting this oft-voiced canard about those in serious sin being eligible to receive Communion.
As with all of the evil one’s lies, there’s just enough truth there to gull those willing to be deceived.
Thank you Carl.
Canon law is law. Here, conscience is supreme. This is a matter that is truly needed more and more to be introduced and known widely in this passionate (not reasonable unfortunately) debate. These politicians you want denied communion are obviously using their conscience and after praying have duly determined they are in the state of grace. John Henry Newman understood this deeply and said it aptly, “To conscience first, to the Pope afterwards.”
On the contrary. The church has long used the standard of “giving public scandal” and also excommunication in order to bring public figures into line with church teaching, lest they influence those around or below them. Its grand for a cleric who doesnt want to exert his authority when needed to take the cop-out of “whom am I to judge”. But the reality is it could not be clearer that people like Pelosi and Biden are not simply going along with a role forced by their political position. Rather their rabid and exaggerated response to any opposition to the abortion issue indicates their belief in the subject is genuine and supercedes their loyalty to the church and the teachings of Jesus. They KNOW this is wrong if they are so-called “practicing Catholics” . They are doing it anyway. They support this topic and are encouraging others to do so and thus make this sin more common. Jesus talked about forgiveness, yes. He also talked about sin and repentence. And hell. For clergy at ANY level to focus on forgiveness to the exclusion of sin or the need for repentence is false teaching. The pope and the Cardinals/Bishops should know better. Most do, but evidently lack the courage to act. But then these are the ones who caved completely to govt requests to shutter our churches for months because of covid. One day they will be asked by God to account for their actions.
The trick is, how can we judge whether another has sinned mortally. We cannot judge the state of a person’s soul before God. That is between them and God. “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” There are three elements for mortal sin: grave matter, full knowledge, deliberate consent. Only one of these can be objectively known with certainty – the a person has committed an sin that pertains to “grave matter” – in this case using her status as a public figure and legislator to publicly and actively support abortion while simultaneously proclaiming to be a devout Catholic. It sure looks like a mortal sin, but I think we’d best not make ourselves the judge of that.
There is unfortunate sloppiness in our discussion of this issue. The Catechism, the Code of Canon Law, and various magisterial documents use “mortal sin” and “grave sin” almost interchangeably in this area. Grave sin is something that can be objectively judged, discerned, assessed. Mortal sin is not.
The Code does not specify “mortal sin” but “grave sin” as excluding one from communion. Canon 916 says that anyone who is aware of having committed a grave sin must not receive before going to sacramental confession.
Likewise, Canon 915 does not refer to “mortal sin.” Rather, it says that anyone who “obstinately persists in manifest grave sin must not be admitted to communion.”
This distinction may seem semantic but it is critical. Is NP in a state of mortal sin? It sure looks like it but I dare not say. Has she obstinately persevered in manifest grave sin? No question: that is a matter that can be objectively known without making ourselves her judge before God.
St. Pius X’s “On Frequent Communion” attempted to put an end to the debate on this issue after hundreds of years of dispute about worthiness to receive. He said the only requirement is that one must be in a state of grace. But who can know for absolute certain that they are in a state of grace? The Catechism quotes St. Joan of Arc on this point:
2005 Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith. We cannot therefore rely on our feelings or our works to conclude that we are justified and saved. However, according to the Lord’s words “Thus you will know them by their fruits”- reflection on God’s blessings in our life and in the lives of the saints offers us a guarantee that grace is at work in us and spurs us on to an ever greater faith and an attitude of trustful poverty.
A pleasing illustration of this attitude is found in the reply of St. Joan of Arc to a question posed as a trap by her ecclesiastical judges: “Asked if she knew that she was in God’s grace, she replied: ‘If I am not, may it please God to put me in it; if I am, may it please God to keep me there.'”
But we can certainly know whether we or someone else have contravened God’s law in a grave matter. For example, that a man has committed murder or rape can be objectively known. Whether it was a mortal sin, condemning him to hell if not confessed, is another matter.
“Judge not lest ye be judged” obviously doesn’t mean to suspend judgment, because we are told that every man will be judged.
Therefore, it is a warning to all that all will be judged, so all should be prepared.
It is not Christ offering a deal that he will not judge us, if we agree to refrain from judgment of others.
Yes. We can (and are even commanded) to judge the actions of others. No society can exist without such judgments. We judge that rape is gravely wrong. Thus, the man who rapes can and must be judged a rapist – he has committed a grave offense. Such a man is in very grave spiritual danger. He needs to repent, confess sacramentally and do penance. And he should be admonished to do so for the sake of his soul. To admonish the sinner is one of the 7 spiritual works of mercy. But do we dare to judge his sin as “mortal” and thus condemning him to hell if he does not? Only God knows the state of someone’s soul. Only God can make the judgment of condemnation.
This is where I think our discussion of public figures like NP and JB gets sloppy. Often people judge them as being in mortal sin and therefore unable to licitly receive communion. But we can’t know if their sin is mortal despite what the circumstance might suggest. That’s why the Code (915-916) refer to grave sin as the basis for exclusion from the Eucharist, rather than mortal sin.
When we speak accuse them of mortal sin, NP and JB can throw “Judge not” in our faces – and they would be right even though cynical. My point is that we should use objective grave sin, rather than mortal sin, in our discussion as per the Code. Then we are not judging the person’s soul but looking to their objective actions as the basis for exclusion from communion.
I do think, however, that the language of the Code, excluding based on “grave sin” is difficult to reconcile with St. Pius X’s On Frequent Communion which says the only requirement for admission to the sacrament is to be a baptized Catholic in a state of grace (ie, without mortal sin) and the Catechism’s use of the term mortal sin when discussing exclusion from communion. One can commit sin that is grave but not mortal. On the other hand Veritatis Slendor, Sacramentum Caritatis, and certain sections of the Catechism seem to indicate that there are some sins that are always mortal regardless or circumstances (ie, for which one cannot claim ignorance or lack of deliberate consent).
To the last point in my reply (above? / below?), see for example CCC 2390: “The sexual act must take place exclusively within marriage. Outside of marriage it always constitutes a grave sin and excludes one from sacramental communion.”
Note the use of the term “grave sin” rather than “mortal sin.” And yet it “always” excludes. BTW, until this is amended or removed from the CCC, I feel I am entitled to rely on it (as should all clergy) despite whatever ambiguities were attempted to be smuggled in through footnotes in AL. “Always” … “excludes” is pretty definitive.
“Judge not, lest ye be judged.”
“And why even of yourselves, do you not judge that which is just?” Jesus Christ, Luke 12:57
You’re making it way too complicated here. A tree is know by it’s fruit. Behavior is a reflection of what’s going on in the heart. What Pelosi did was wrong, plain and simple.
Simply stated, an important reminder for all!
1 Timothy 3:2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1 Peter 5:2 Shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly;
Blessings and thanks.
Your three conditions for mortal sin agree with the Catechism’s: grave matter, full knowledge, deliberate consent.
As a cradle Catholic, attending Sunday Mass and presumably having had the benefit of sacramental prep and faith formation classes, Ms. Pelosi cannot conceivably (rationally)plead ignorance of God’s first commandment to our first parents. “Be fruitful and multiply.” Was she not educated in Catholic schools?
As for ‘full consent,’ Ms. Pelosi is on record in multiple media, claiming that she does not agree with Church teaching; she has claimed in multiple media over many years that she believes Church teaching on abortion does not apply to her enacting legislation. She is on record in multiple media over the course of many years; she is on record in numerous legislative documents, regulations, and laws that she is FOR abortion rights.
To claim that Ms. Pelosi has not fully consented to the grave matter of serious (mortal) sin, to claim that Ms. Pelosi has incomplete or faulty knowledge of God’s commandments and the Church’s perennial teaching on abortion is an assault against reason and against faith.
When the Pope asked Pilosi are you in God’s Grace, she replied:”Of course I am, and if not, put me in it by giving me Communion”.
There is no trick to judging the gravity or the mortality of a sin that has been public, repeated, and of longstanding duration. Ms. Pelosi has been counseled and advised, admonished and repeatedly rebuked. When a sin so and so opposes or rejects commands of the Church and God, we perceive its objectively serious or mild nature.
Scripture attests that murder of the innocent is one of only four sins crying to heaven for vengeance. We understand why God allows the earth and its people to undergo chastisement. I’m thinking of the Flood, the exile and banishment of the Jewish people from their homeland, and the current state of the Church.
JPII’s document Reconciliatio et paenitentia explains that grave sin is mortal sin (para. 17).
The Sacraments, including the Holy Eucharist, are for sinners
Correction: The Sacraments, including the Holy Eucharist, are for repentant sinners
But not mortal-sinners. Pelosi is locking-in her own damnation. Deeper and deeper into hell she goes.
“Upstages” in the title of this news article is an example of the inordinate and politically partisan attention given by the author, by CWR and most rightist Catholic media platforms, on the issue of abortion as the only determinant of one’s worthiness or unworthiness to receive Jesus in the Eucharist. (Which by the way this singular focus on abortion as that which defines a Catholic is not what is taught by the Church and by the Bible.) While the new letter by Pope Francis on the liturgical formation of Catholics is indeed and truly profound and revealing in its appreciation of the essence and theology of the Eucharist, the author simply focused on Nancy Pelosi receiving Communion as any faithful Catholic using one’s conscience has determined she’s worthy to receive the Lord. It’s the author’s bias not the Senator’s act that “upstaged” the liturgical reflections of the Pope.
“Most rightist Catholic media platforms, on the issue of abortion as the only determinant of one’s worthiness or unworthiness to receive Jesus in the Eucharist.
The problem with this statement is that it simply isn’t true. Faithful Catholics do not believe this. You are just a typical progressive trying to defend the indefensible. Would it be safe to assume that you are a “pro-choice Catholic,” not that there’s any such thing?
Athanasius: You are wrong. I am a Pro-Life Catholic, a Pro-Whole Life Catholic, that is. This qualification and clarification is needed because the tagline Pro-Life is misused and abused as it mostly means Pro-Birth or at most Anti-Abortion for most Catholics as evidenced in this discourse about Catholic politicians receiving communion. Genuine Catholic teaching as taught in the Social Teachings of the Church is truly Pro-Whole Life, that is focused on fighting for the protection and promotion of life from womb to tomb. The way most Pro-Life Catholics are today, they are mostly focused on the womb only, the unborn. The true Catholic teaching based in the Bible embraces the unborn and the born. This means that the genuine and full Pro-Life also fights against the death dealing forces that cause pre-mature death on the immigrants, the poor, uninsured sick, homeless, exploited workers, death row inmate, terminally ill, school children subject to gun violence, war casualties, and in this time of climate emergency, the very matrix of life, our common home planet Earth. This Catholic Pro-Whole Life mandate entails that Catholics not only believe this but most especially act on this through active care for those threatened with pre-mature death, those in the full spectrum of life from womb to tomb, and the matrix of life. Active care also consists in voting Pro-Whole Life during elections. This means that the genuine Catholic follows the Bible and the Social Teachings of the Church in voting on social issues focused not only on life in the womb but on life from womb to tomb and the matrix of life. In the context of this present exchange, this also requires understanding that Catholics especially politicians are not to be judged only on their stand on abortion as the Church teaches that there is a whole spectrum of life issues mentioned above to be considered also as their other positions and policies. This obviously is complex and requires discernment and prayer by way of prudential judgment and the use of conscience. Catholics are not to vote or judge politicians or political parties on abortion alone. This communion issue brought out by highly partisan bishops and pastors is wrongly conceived as it assumes that only abortion matters to be a Catholic Pro-Lifer. So, are you a genuine and full Pro-Lifer that a Catholic should be, or are you just a Pro-Lifer focused on the unborn only – who should rightly be called Pro-Birther or Anti-Abortionist?
Since there appears to be no beginning and no end to the causes you consider WHOLE-PRO-LIFE, since you’ve covered all conceivable bases, I’m going to leave your rational distortions and misconceptions wholly and completely up to God. It’s your life in His hands. Surely He’s glad you were born.
Simply put, being pro-life does not mean simply being pro-birth. That is a common lie of the left’s narrative. Thanks for proving my point btw.
You have never read the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
Abortion has the absolute and no exception prohibition unlike the issues you bring forth; the ‘seamless garment’ argument that has been thoroughly discredited.
Discredited by whom?
Mal, try this–in 1998, a mere quarter of a century ago, from the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (now the USCCB), when they replaced the problematic “seamless garment” with “a consistent ethic of life”:
“…We pray that Catholics will be advocates for the weak and the marginalized in all these areas. ‘But being ‘right’ in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect [!] any claims to the ‘rightness’ of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community'” (from John Paul II, Living the Gospel of Life, no. 23).
Who do you think you are to repeat the ridiculous claim that pro-lifers care about nothing else than birth? What ridiculous and shallow line of reasoning must you use to achieve the basis for exercising the sort of perverse logic that enables you to believe that all the parents and doctors and nurses and scholars and teachers and clergy and attorneys and blue collar workers and white collar workers and students and people from thousands of walks of life have never cared about children after they are born? I tell you what. If you will agree to pay me back for all the bills I paid for my children over the years, I will agree to allow your shallow insults towards me. But the offer only applies to me. Is it a deal?
Cordileone’s authority only covers the territory of his archdiocese. The Pope is a higher authority than the Archbishop.
Deacon Dom, as long you do not lose sight of the usual caveats that bind popes as much as any other Christian with authority. Nothing heretical or immoral is admissible. Opposition may even be obligatory.
Yes, but the truth that he is defending with his authority extends universally, thus the Pontiff is subverting the truth.
We all learned that we are morally wrong to either present ourselves for communion when we are in a state of mortal sin (Canon 916), and Bishops are morally wrong to admit persons to Communion who are publicly persisting in grave sin (like abortion…per Canon 915).
Thus, Pontiff Francis has committed sn offense against the law of the Church that governs the Church’s most important sacrament.
You see what has ensued…
A Bishop – even the Bishop of Rome – should defer to and respect the judgment of the actual communicants ordinary.
That’s not the way Canon Law works. Boundaries and limitations are clear. Everybody is expected to be in their proper place and power within the hierarchy. Only the Pope is the absolute monarch. The bishops with and under him have their specific powers but they are limited by jurisdiction as specified in the nature of their office.
Not true. Under Canon law the local ordinary’s disciplinary action is binding throughout the Church and throughout the world. The Pope does not have the ecclesiastical authority to supercede it.
That’s not the way Canon Law works.
Canon law doesn’t work that way in the current Pontificate but your assertion is incorrect. The Pope may choose to thumb his nose at Canon law and treat it as if it were a smorgasbord but he lacks the authority and right to do so.
If, for example, one were to be denied a declaration of nullity in one Diocese, should one be allowed to Diocese shop in order to find one that would grant it?
Were the excommunications of Jackson Ricau, Una Gaillot and Leander Perez limited only to the Archdiocese of New Orleans?
Some things decided by a local ordinary carry over to the entire Church, but other things do not. Archbishop Cordileone’s restriction of Communion to Pelosi does not extend to the entire Church the way a decree of nullity (automatically recognized/accepted by other bishops) and other actions do however much we might want such to be the case.
Cordileone’s specific penalty imposed on Pelosi also sets forth the limitation of the penalty to the Archbishop’s specific jurisdiction. Some brave bishops outside Cordileone’s jurisdiction have agreed to recognize and impose the same penalty, but other bishops have chosen to not do so, and they have the authority to make this call that is, again, unfortunate and weak, and we can make the case that they should all join in with Cordileone, but it is still their call to do or not do so as Cordileone’s action does not extend to the whole Church.
Re. Your 7/1/22 @3:11 p.m.
The Pope’s authority does exceed that of the Archbishop – that’s an obvious point.
But – the Pope is aware of the proclamation of the Archbishop, and if he is not he most certainly should be – to the extent that there can be no real excuse for his not knowing of it. Therefore by allowing Ms. Pelosi to receive Holy Communion he is overriding the Archbishop.
To me, a Catholic who agrees with the Archbishop, this is scandalous. To liberal ‘catholics’ (small c) this is just more ammunition for them as it is to the non-Catholics with whom we are fighting the abortion battle tooth and nail – they point to the fact that the Pope allowed Ms. Pelosi to receive Holy Communion and can then claim that the Pope thinks it’s ok.
I also don’t see what PF’s bum knee has to do with any of this.
Francis has amply shown that he doesn’t have a clue about the American Church. If it comes to a choice between Francis’s views/actions toward Pelosi and Cordileone’s, there is no contest, IMO. I’m more interested in his comments on the liturgy. He needs an editor who will keep the solid, even inspiring, parts and excise the myopic (rigid?) drivel.
For what it’s worth, many accept the Council but question whether the Mass of Pope Paul VI (aka the Bugnini Mass) is a necessary or even consistent corollary to the Constitutions adopted by the Council. That’s probably more of the “middle of the road” position that doesn’t seem to get any attention in this atmosphere of unnecessary polarization. Just my opinion. People smarter than me can agree or disagree
I agree 100% with what you so concisely stated.
Thankful for comments. I will pray on it asking saints to help me.
One wonders where, if at any point, PF would draw the line in and personally follow his own Code of Canon law rather than ignoring it. A few hypotheticals.
1. If Donald Trump or Victor Orban were baptized Catholics and arranged to be at the Vatican for a papal mass as and receive communion as political stunt to upstage their own bishop, I firmly believe that PF would ensure that the occasion did not arise by informing them that it would not work out well for them. Perhaps I am wrong.
2. What about a baptized Catholic who is a known Freemason and therefore excommunicated? Yes or no?
3. What about a baptized Catholic who has become a notorious and avowed Satanist? Communion or no?
4. Joel Osteen!?!?
Surely he has a line somewhere. So, what are his limits for being “pastoral”? Or does he have a line at all?
Jesus did give communion to someone he knew was going to sell him to the enemy.
Mal, God does not condemn us for sins we may commit in the future. Only for those we actually have committed.
That is true, Brineyman, but the sin had already been activated in the mind.
Surely he has a line somewhere.
Only for the rigid.
Ha ha! Good one.
I’m a non-Catholic pro-lifer, and I find Francis repugnant because he goes out of his way to affirm public officials who support abortion up until a year after the child is born. If abortion is murder, then over 63 million unborn children have been victimized by genocide in America alone. And Francis’ charity towards the blood-soaked politicians who support that genocide (and seek its expansion) makes him complicit.
Francis’s Pontificate is coming to an end soon, so this act of sacrilege is him lashing out.
Millions are praying for Pope Francis. He will be our Pope as long as our Lord wants him there. It is not what we want, but what Jesus wants.
I suspect Pope Francis will make two more American Cardinals by awarding Pelosi and Biden with Red Hats at the end of their time in office. Since they’ll both be over 80 and unable to vote in the conclave, the Pope could see fit to employ them as leaders in the Synod on Synodality.
Holy Communion – spiritual food for the weak, the sick, the needy, and for the genuine the seeker after truth, wisdom, and a construction vision for a better tomorrow.
This contradicts the apostolic faith (St. Paul the Apostle, for instance).
So while it may be well-intentioned, it is not on the right path.
Not quite. You are defending the indefensible. Sometimes you just have to call sin a sin. It’s not complicated, and it’s not appropriate to justify or minimize it.
Sometimes a sin is committed without making the wrongdoer a sinner. Circumstances and the person’s state of mind also count.
To kill a person is a sin. However, killing in self defense might justify the action.
Your perspective is fundamentally dishonest. There is always some type of equivocation in your points, always some kind of justification or rationalization for sin. What is driving this compulsion of yours to constantly minimize sinful actions?
Wrong again, Athanasius. I never condone sin. I do, however, appreciate our Church’s view regarding the conditions that make a person, who commits a sinful act, a sinner.
we all need to study our Faith.
Most of the religious leaders condemned JESUS for eating with and in the house of a tax collector. They also condemned Him for as was said that he must not know who or what this person is? All can be forgiven if we Repent!
Curiously, jim, what you suggest left to itself, would go to nullify the witness of particular women saints like Magdala, Bakhita, Avila, Siena, Alexandria, The Maid of Orleans, Cascia, Agnes, Agatha, Lucy.
You might want to learn more about Catholicism. It will save you from your false premise and false conclusion. There have been lunatics for popes in Catholic history. God proves to us that He is in charge in spite of our torrents of sins and stupidities.
neuron: What distortions? Read, study, pray, and act on the Social Teachings of the Church and Sacred Scriptures and you’ll understand what genuine and full Pro-Life means and entails. Expand your focus from the womb to include all of life to the tomb, that is from conception to natural death. Follow what Christ and the Church teaches, not your preferred partisan commentariat. This is not easy at first as this requires prudential judgment and use of conscience to get to a reasoned belief and concrete action like when voting or when deciding on what active care for life to take. For a starter, read the latest edition (2020) of the U.S. Bishops teaching document, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.” I invite you to seriously consider the above and be assured of my prayers.
Unfortunately for you Emerson M, I heard some Freemasons spout the same thing you offer while guarding abortionists and leading young people to abort. We could also substitute the nickname Nancyson for the Catholic ones among them. I have a friend who says he is not anti-Semite yet he calls the Masons “Ju-Ju Boys”. What he is trying to communicate about it is, that at the top of all the “speculation” with them there are Jews as well as non-Jews but it is the Jews, in there, who hold sway. Of course the power inside Freemasonry is the devil. That is why we are seeing the re-modulating of pro-life which until now always meant exactly what it says. They merely came public with their segmenting and their dazzle-dom.
What we must notice is that the segmenting is not only conceptual, it has very practical consequences …. and manifestations. And for the record it is not really pro-life either and it never was.
Thank you Emerson M for your illuminating posts.
What Christ teaches is personalism. Which is why pro-lifers and other Catholic conservatives donate more time and money to helping the poor and downtrodden that sanctimonious do little or nothing liberals who talk down to us about caring by a factor of ten to one to a hundred to one depending on the charity. Even when in comes to donating blood Catholic conservatives donate 50 tiems the rate of Catholic liberals.
This reminds me of the two men who went to the Temple to pray. One, a Pharisee who boasted about his good deeds …
And your comment sounds just like that.
As usual, you have matters backwards. I was pointing out the condescending sanctimony of an individual invoking gratuitious insults towards pro-lifers for not caring about lives after they are born. Even you might be able to figure out how inherently foolish this is. And I did it in the only manner possible to an invincibly prideful mind, with facts that contradict the sanctimony. Leave it to you to achieve a reverse understanding of the meaning, although I will extend the same invitation to you I did to another post. If you will reimburse me for all the bills I paid for my children, I’ll tolerate you claiming I don’t care about children after they’re born.
What should we do we do with the drunken sailor? Let a pro abortionist bring him along to Papa so they can both have communion.
In fairness, perhaps they repented asked for forgiveness and that is what God wants!
Yet, we heard no words from them saying, “We were wrong, God forgive us.”
Presumptuous behaviour in front of all is unbecoming of all.
1 Corinthians 14:20 Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature.
Hebrews 6:18 So that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us.
1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints,
We must pray for them the the Holy Spirit speaks to their hearts.
If Pelosi received the sacred host unworthily (to use St Paul’s term) then she has condemned herself. There would have been no communion with Jesus and with his Church, just an empty gesture.
Well, well, well, I can see that in order for something to be true you have to be the one to have said it. Not only do you use the word “illuminate” but you have inadvertently shown that, that is the added sense you bring with it.
Worse than an “empty gesture,” once upon a time a mortal sin of sacrilege…Unless, of course, somnambulist Pelosi pleads only a “grave” sin, but not knowingly mortal, because of invincible ignorance–but, after so many years, not many would hang their chances for eternity on such a slender reed of “circumstances and state of mind.”
And, what do we have to say about Churchmen who remain silent about such things? John Chrysostom had this to say: “The road to hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lampposts that light the path.” But, no need to listen to him; he came some time before our foggy century and, therefore, does not exist.
Peter, I did say that if she received communion unworthily then she has condemned herself.
Mal, I caught you again, I knew you would say that.
You called it an empty gesture when it could well be something immensely worse or something else between the two.
Empty gesture goes more with/to ignorance; but also, what St. Paul actually posited is, receiving without discerning your Lord.
Mal, you seem to be one of the new knot-tiers, a worker of knots.
All you have to do is throw the word “illuminate” around and the nooses jump out the closets everywhere.
I’m not sure how people have read this Apostolic Letter.
If not, Please read it!
It’s Beautiful, Loving and Deep. And read slowly, very slowly. You just might change your mind about Who is this man – Francis. I have.
Papa is meet and greet, out and about and politically correct! What is the matter with that one might say? It leaves little time for spiritual contemplation, speech writing and sermon preparation. Those in high positions have speech writers and for good reason.
Though i could be mistaken, too many careless words and actions against church tradition and holy Scripture causes one to wonder!
I make no judgement on his soul, that would not be right, never the less ,his words and deeds present the case for further examination.
Prayers for him as he goes forward. His task carries great responsibility.