jump to navigation

Cardinal Sarah: not even Pope can change Divine Law on Communion November 20, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, episcopate, Eucharist, General Catholic, Papa, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership.
trackback

Via LifeSiteNews, not exactly surprising, but perhaps some cold comfort that not everyone in Church leadership is on board with some of the notions abounding in the Church today.  In fact, Cardinal Sarah gives some commendably strong catechesis below, even if he does not condemn the source of the sudden resurgence of error as some might like:

On the heels of a statement by Pope Francis seeming to suggest openness to non-Catholic Christians receiving Holy Communion, the cardinal who heads the Vatican congregation dealing with the sacraments has said that there are preconditions for the reception of Holy Communion and when those conditions are not met, and the situation is publicly known, ministers of the sacrament “have no right to give him communion.”

Cardinal Robert Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, added, speaking of priests: “If they do so, their sin will be more grave before the Lord. It would be unequivocally a premeditated complicity and profanation of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Jesus.” [Yeah, well, most priests, in their horrific formation, couldn’t care less.  They’re invincibly convinced none of this matters and almost everyone (save for those mean ol’ judgy types and all right wingers) go to Heaven, anyway]

The statements from Cardinal Sarah come from a forthcoming article in the French Catholic magazine L’Homme Nouveau. Vatican specialist Sandro Magister has published an excerpt in advance.

“The entire Church has always firmly held that one may not receive communion with the knowledge of being in a state of mortal sin, a principle recalled as definitive by John Paul II in his 2003 encyclical ‘Ecclesia de Eucharistia,’” said the prefect. “Not even a pope can dispense from such a divine law.” [I agree.  But perhaps be even more explicit in  your refutation]

……Regarding “communion for all, without discrimination,” Cardinal Sarah says that those in grave sin who are unrepentant (unless in total ignorance) “would remain in a state of mortal sin and would commit a grave sin by receiving communion.

Even in the toughest case of an abused wife who left her first marriage and was remarried without an annulment, Cardinal Sarah notes there can be no communion unless she decides to live without sexual relations with her new partner.

The cardinal’s most powerful statements, however, are his lament at the confusion about Holy Communion among the clergy.  “I feel wounded in my heart as a bishop in witnessing such incomprehension of the Church’s definitive teaching on the part of my brother priests,” he said.  “I cannot allow myself to imagine as the cause of such confusion anything but the insufficiency of the formation of my confreres.” [Bad formation, yet.  But also likely a marked predisposition towards progressive-modernist beliefs, and a likely attachment to sexual immorality which powered such beliefs, before they even entered seminary.  How many good men have been denied admittance to seminary, and how many manifestly unfit men chosen in their stead, all to help force the “crisis in the priesthood” to such a state that the Church would, in desperation, complete the final destruction of the priesthood by opening it to married men and even women?  That’s been the modernist game for 50 years now, anyway]

Recalling his position as “responsible for the discipline of the sacraments in the whole Latin Church,” Cardinal Sarah said he was “bound in conscience” to spell out the Church’s teaching regarding sexuality – the source of much of the current confusion.

The Church, he said, “stigmatizes the deformations introduced into human love: homosexuality, polygamy, chauvinism, free love, divorce, contraception, etc.”

“In any case, it never condemns persons. But it does not leave them in their sin. Like its Master, it has the courage and the charity to say to them: go and from now on sin no more.”

That’s always been the key, the missing bit from the modernist program to redefine the Church.  They say “go and sin some more,” which is the exact opposite of what Christ and His Church have always said.

We’re all sinners.  All of us sin to one degree or another.  Our Lord warned us more sternly not to judge ourselves superior to those whose outward sins are greater than our own.  But at the same time, Jesus Christ took an already strict Jewish moral law and made it far stricter.  He, God Incarnate, died for our sins, but He did so after conveying a very high moral standard.  We will all fall short of that standard to one degree or another, but what Our Lord made plain was absolutely vital was our constant striving to meet it (carrying our cross).

Modernists throw out the bit about striving, and just pretend – on no real rational basis – that Jesus just forgives carte blanche, no matter how much we not only continue to sin, but make no effort whatsoever to amend our lives.  They reveal their dishonesty in the fact that they pretend Christ’s only condemnation is reserved for their ideological opponents, but I digress.

That’s the key.  Intent. The difference between a faithful soul and an immoral one comes down to will/intention.  The unfaithful soul loves his sins, revels in them, and feels no need to change.  The faithful soul abhors his sins and strives, to varying degrees, to no longer fall into them.  This used to be Catholicism for Kindergartners, but apparently its beyond the vast majority of bishops and cardinals today, who prefer to go along with the zeitgeist than hold culturally disapproved beliefs. It’s only beyond them, because they want it to be.

Comments

1. Tim - November 20, 2015

“This used to be Catholicism for Kindergartners, but apparently its beyond the vast majority of bishops and cardinals today, who prefer to go along with the zeitgeist than hold culturally disapproved beliefs. It’s only beyond them, because they want it to be.”

BULLS. EYE.

2. tg - November 20, 2015

I wonder if Cardinal Sarah will get demoted next. Has anybody heard from Cardinal Burke since the Sinnod? I hope he’s not a prisoner somewhere.

Baseballmom - November 21, 2015

I thought I read somewhere that Cdl. Burke was given some post back in the Vatican… I think the honorary post he had gave him too much freedom to speak…. You know… “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.”

3. Marguerite - November 21, 2015

Those who are not permitted to receive Holy Communion can always make a spiritual one. That was something the church advocated. In this way, if it’s done often enough, the soul will be converted and make the necessary changes in order to receive Communion sacramentally. We have all the elements of mercy already in the Church, Penance, the annulment process and spiritual Communions. Something else is afoot when these are dismissed so casually.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: