Eucharistic Coherence
 |
| Pascal Dagnan-Bouveret (1852–1929) | The Last Supper |
Jesus Christ is the Eucharist. He is Present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
A Basic Catholic Catechism (C) 1990 by Fr. William G. Most, Part 12
367. What is necessary to receive Holy Communion worthily?
To receive Holy Communion worthily it is necessary to be free from mortal sin, to have a right intention and to obey the Church's laws on the fast required before Holy Communion out of reverence for the body and blood of Our Divine Lord.
(a) Venial sin does not make us unworthy of receiving Holy Communion; but it does prevent us from receiving the more abundant graces and blessings which we would otherwise receive from Holy Communion.
368. Does he who knowingly receives Holy Communion in mortal sin receive the body and blood of Christ and His graces?
- He who knowingly receives Holy Communion in mortal sin receives the body and blood of Christ, but he does not receive His graces and commits a grave sin of sacrilege.
(a) To receive Holy Communion unworthily is a serious abuse of the sacred body and blood of the Lord, and therefore a sacrilege.
How's that for coherence?
Non Serviam
By contrast, there's the recent attempt by Democrat politicians to disguise incoherence (disobedience) by concealing it under the chasuble of the primacy of conscience. Which is to say that old chestnut - i.e., the primacy of conscience trumps the Truth of God taught by the Church - absolves them from following doctrine which is binding upon all consciences. "But daddy... my feelings are more important than doing what is right in the eyes of God!"
In all these issues, we seek the Church's guidance and assistance (while willfully refusing to be faithful disciples) but believe also in the primacy of conscience (but not investing in nor deferring to the Church's authoritative teaching, i.e., the teaching of Christ). In recognizing the Church's role in providing moral leadership, we acknowledge and accept the tension that comes with being in disagreement with the Church in some areas. We recognize that no political party is perfectly in accord with all aspects of Church doctrine (duh). This fact speaks to the secular nature of American democracy, not the devotion of our democratically elected leaders (Um, a first year philosophy student could call bull cookies on that shoddy reasoning.). Yet we believe we can speak to the fundamental issues (e.g., the sacredness and dignity of human life from conception to natural death, the fundamental issue which undergirds all inalienable rights) that unite us as Catholics and lend our voices to changing the political debate – a debate that often fails to reflect and encompass the depth and complexity of these issues (...so in the meantime we cafeteria (c)atholics will claim the moral high ground and pick and choose which teachings make us look acceptable in the eyes of God... .).
We also urge the Church to heed the words of Our Holy Father Pope Francis, who wrote in his Apostolic Exhortation, “The Joy of the Gospel,” that the Eucharist although it is the fullness of sacramental life, is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.” (It's nothing less than arrogant to equate oneself with 'the weak' while ignoring the fact that sinners must be repentant in order to receive the graces which assist the soul to recover from sin.) Further, the Holy Father extolls that clergy must act as facilitators of grace, not arbiters (you mean...like Demo-Caths who attempt to play God and impose their universalist bunk on Holy Mother Church?), because “the Church is not a tollhouse; it is the house of the Father, where there is a place for everyone, with all their problems.” (They seem to forget that Christ taught we are not to give to dogs what is holy, nor cast pearls before swine.) As legislators, we too are charged with being facilitators of the Constitution which guarantees religious freedom for all Americans. In doing so, we guarantee our right to live our own lives as Catholics but also foster an America with a rich diversity of faiths ('We don't impose our faith on others' is a tiresome attempt to absolve oneself from being a compelling witness for the sacredness of life.).
We believe the separation of church and state (?!! There is no such thing as separation of church and state. There is, however, a distinction that proscribes government interference in the free exercise of religion, that prohibits governments from robbing people of their inalienable rights.) allows for our faith to inform our public duties and best serve our constituents (Perhaps these Democrats are saying no one will vote for a faithful Catholic, so they have to shed their personal integrity to appease bigots). The Sacrament of Holy Communion is central to the life of practicing Catholics, and the weaponization of the Eucharist to Democratic lawmakers for their support of a woman’s safe and legal access to abortion is contradictory (Here they are attempting to borrow the sophistry of Bishop Robert W. McElroy. Faithless Democrats are attempting to weaponize - politicize - the Eucharist by attempting to have their cake and eat it too. For an excellent response to McElroy's baloney, read Fr. Thomas G. Weinandy: To refuse to give Holy Communion to dissident Catholic politicians, however, is not to politicize the Eucharist. The politicizing of the Eucharist occurs in the act of the Catholic politician presenting himself or herself to receive Communion even though he or she is well aware that to do so is contrary to what the Church teaches. Those who are objectively in the state of mortal sin, or who dissent from or promote contrary positions to the Church’s fundamental dogmatic or moral teaching are forbidden to receive the body and blood of Jesus, for they have made themselves unworthy to do so. Thus, such Catholic politicians, in presenting themselves, are using – and so abusing – the Eucharist for seemingly political purposes – to present themselves as “devout” Catholics. - https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2021/05/01/politicizing-the-eucharist-2/). No elected officials have been threatened with being denied the Eucharist as they support and have supported policies contrary to the Church teachings, including supporting the death penalty (No matter how heinous the crime, if society can protect itself without ending a human life, it should do so. - USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death. The same document states - The Supreme Pontiff Francis, in the audience granted on 11 May 2018 to the undersigned Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has approved the following new draft of no. 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, arranging for it to be translated into various languages and inserted in all the editions of the aforementioned Catechism. The death penalty 2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good. Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption. Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible (See below: UPDATE 28JUNE) because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.), separating migrant children from their parents (... the parents who abandon their children at the border?), denying asylum to those seeking safety in the United States (another huge and misleading generalization... with more sweeping generalizations to follow...), limiting assistance for the hungry and food insecure, and denying rights and dignity to immigrants. (Politicians should be denied access to the Eucharist if they obstinately and publicly promote and cooperate with injustice of any kind.)
UPDATE: 25JUNE: read also - https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/who-s-really-weaponizing-the-eucharist
UPDATE: 26JUNE: read also - https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2021/06/a-response-to-the-statement-of-principles#; and https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2021/06/collegiality-and-eucharistic-integrity
UPDATE: 28JUNE: https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2021/06/28/a-little-clarity-on-some-big-questions/
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - obfuscation is thy game!Calling the death penalty “inadmissible,” rather than unambiguously immoral, is a tacit sign that even the pope knows he’s on thin moral ice and wants enough ambiguity that he can’t be accused of changing the teaching of past popes.
Comments
Post a Comment
Your comments will be appreciated and posted if 1) they are on topic and 2) preserve decorum.
Stand by your word. Do not be anonymous. Use a pseudonym.