Saturday, October 24, 2015
ALL ARE WELCOME OR HAVE YOU AS A CATHOLIC EVER FELT UNWELCOMED? SHOULDN'T THE CHURCH MEANING ALL THE BAPTIZED BE WELCOMING OF GOD'S TRANSFORMING GRACE THAT LEADS TO REPENTANCE AND A NEW WAY OF LIFE?
Some of the bishops at the synod want the Catholic Church to be more welcoming. For the life of me, I thought the doors of the Church were open to all. That anyone could attend Mass, even if not Catholic. The only prohibition was that one must be in full communion with the Catholic Church and in a state of grace to receive Holy Communion. But Holy Communion, while essential for the priest who celebrates the Mass to complete the sacrifice, the Sacrifice is completed after his Holy Communion. The graces of God are present.
This is not to denigrate the reception of Holy Communion by the laity, but let's be clear, not all are invited to Holy Communion. A Catholic must be in the state of grace to receive and fully a Catholic.
I suspect, though, that those who are calling for a more welcoming Church are wanting to give Holy Communion to whoever presents themselves without judgment. I know of some Protestant denominations who say anyone can go to their communion even if not baptized. Wow, how welcoming is that!
Maybe some feel unwelcome when sin is preached in the homily (although from what others have told me, they don't hear about sin at all in homilies except the things they can't really control, like global warming, multi-nationals and the like).
But if a priest dared to speak about the Church authentic teachings on marriage and sexuality, all of a sudden people feel unwelcome.
Maybe they prefer sin to grace, lies to truth, hell to heaven and damnation to salvation? Do they feel more in tune with hell rather than heaven? Then maybe judgement day has arrived?
Maybe the truly unwelcome are any of us who do not welcome the transforming grace that Christ offers us in His Holy Church. We shut it out and say go away!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
This has never made any sense to me. I have never felt unwelcome in Catholic Church anywhere, even when I was a Calvinist minister. I cannot conceive of any atmosphere more open and welcoming than a Catholic Church. I am not sure what these people are looking for who say this. When I was a kid growing up in the 50's/60's south, a Catholic Church is the first place I saw people of all races worshipping together.
Father McDonald,
I agree with you. Sometimes I wonder if the problem is simply that many bishops, including the present Bishop of Rome, spent years as institutional rectors, superiors, instructors or chancery staff, rather than simply leading parishes. Perhaps that institutional experience creates a more rhetorical perspective on pastoral ministry.
Gene,
That's one of your most pleasant comments here, ever!
You should check out the new video from Michael Matt over at Remnant. He goes over what went on at the press conference yesterday in Rome. The words start of a "new church" were used. It's extremely troubling, that and everything else that was apparently said. I think the optimism I talked about in a previous post is gone, I believe it may be time to see the writing on the wall about the way we are going in the "new" false church
"This is not to denigrate the reception of Holy Communion by the laity, but let's be clear, not all are invited to Holy Communion. A Catholic must be in the state of grace to receive and fully a Catholic."
And there's the nexus of the problem here.
After the last few decades, we now realize that many of our priests and bishops were not in the state of grace when they themselves were receiving Holy Communion; thus, they are merely opening up the opportunity to receive Holy Communion to all others who are also not in the state of grace.
Traditionalist Catholics have been stating for years that we are still only in the beginning acts of this overall play. We are witnessing before our very eyes the coming of age of a new, false church.
Catholic mystics have been telling us about these times for awhile now. It's time we paid attention.
The problem with the modern world is idolatry. Personal opinions and sensual appetites are held to be more important than God and His moral law. When people feel excluded, they exclude themselves- they are the ones who choose not to leave their idols behind.
For all that the welcoming these churches say or sing about, am I welcomed if I want to worship God in a sacred language such as Latin with traditional song from the Scriptures, that is, Gregorian chant? I was not welcome by churches back in the 1960-70's for this, to say the least, and neither were millions of others. Will I be welcomed now?
of course given the thrust of my post, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, you'll have to welcome the grace of the vernacular--the bottom line, we, all the baptized, must welcome Christ and what His Holy Church gives to us even if we don't feel welcomed by the strictures!
DJR - Where do you get the information that leads you to say, ..."After the last few decades, we now realize that many of our priests and bishops were not in the state of grace when they themselves were receiving Holy Communion;..."
No priest or bishop claims to be a saint - we are, in fact, sinners. But to make a blanket statement that "many" are receiving communion sacrilegiously really needs some kind of support.
If they are out supporting gay marriage and giving communion to known pro-abortion politicians, I'd say they were not in a state of grace, wouldn't you?
My question is, why would someone who clearly understands, but still rejects, Church teaching on divorce and remarriage want to receive Holy Communion anyway? I sympathize with the plight of the ignorant adulterer, but I'm baffled by the demands of the catechized adulterer.
JBS, seriously. I don't understand these catechized Catholics who want to defiantly take Communion in a state of mortal sin. I have not received when I had intended to because of my lustful thoughts regarding the revealingly clad woman sitting next to me.
What the Hell is wrong with people.
"Blogger Michael Kavanaugh said...
DJR - Where do you get the information that leads you to say, ..."After the last few decades, we now realize that many of our priests and bishops were not in the state of grace when they themselves were receiving Holy Communion;..."
No priest or bishop claims to be a saint - we are, in fact, sinners. But to make a blanket statement that "many" are receiving communion sacrilegiously really needs some kind of support."
I'm at a loss to understand the basis for the above post.
Is it possible that there is someone in the world, who is apparently an adult, who is unaware of the thousands of priests who have been involved in sex scandals over the last several decades?
The Church admits that several thousand have been involved. That doesn't qualify as "many"? Weren't those priests committing mortal sins?
And that's only to mention the sex scandals, and only those who have been caught. We've had a priest who killed a nun in a Satanic ritual, priests who have stolen money from parishes and others, priests who joined the communist party, et cetera.
DJR - How many of the "many" you mention went to confession? Or how many of the "many" you mention were, in their hearts, deeply aware of their failings, deeply sorry for them, and deeply repentant?
Also, the sins of the "many" were not known by the people in the pews, so how is it that a sinful priest or bishop can be accused of "opening up the opportunity to receive Holy Communion to all others who are also not in the state of grace." This simply does not follow from their fact that they may not have been in the state of grace themselves at the time of communion.
Your accusations seem to come from a desire to bolster your own standing as a "Traditionalist Catholic" at the expense of those you do not, by your own reasoning, include in that category.
Michael Kavanaugh said...
DJR - How many of the "many" you mention went to confession? Or how many of the "many" you mention were, in their hearts, deeply aware of their failings, deeply sorry for them, and deeply repentant?
Is this supposed to be a serious discussion?
The homosexual priests going to confession? Like Father Charamsa? He's an admittedly active homosexual who lives with his boyfriend.
"Don Patrizio Poggi, who spent five years in prison for sexually abusing underage boys at his parish on the outskirts of Rome, was arrested Friday, The Telegraph reported. July 1, 2013.
The latest awkward moment for the Catholic Church came this week when the archbishop of Taranto in the southern Italian province of Puglia dismissed Father Antonio Calvieri, a priest in his 50s who worked at the monastery of the local Carmelite order. Calvieri is the subject of a sexual harassment charge and lawsuit by Andrea Baldon, a 32-year-old man the priest apparently had set his sights on. According to court documents filed in Taranto, Baldon is seeking unspecified damages against Calvieri as well as the church of the Santissimo Crocefisso after apparent aggressive sexual harassment. The Daily Beast. 4/10/15.
The headlines could be multiplied.
These men were going to confession after their "dalliances" and then offering Mass and then lapsing back into homosexual acts, after which they went to confession again? Which planet do you live on?
The priests who were sodomizing young men did not do so just once. They were doing this numerous times. Nor were they repentant during their activity. They didn't see the need to be repentant for anything, much like the divorced and remarried.
And it doesn't matter that the laity didn't know what was going on. That's irrelevant to the point.
The point is this: Priests were offering Mass in the state of sin because those priests were active homosexuals who were ordained.
It's a demonstrable fact, admitted to by many people, sometimes even the priest themselves. Ask Archbishop Weakland, who defended his actions publicly.
It is only natural that those same priests would be fine with adulterers and other active homosexuals receiving Holy Communion. They themselves were/are guilty of it.
And you're right. I don't include homosexual clergy, divorced and remarried adulterers, and other types in the category of "Traditionalist Catholic." They're not.
Kavanaugh doesn't care what anyone does as long as they aren't "racist" and don't stain the sheets.
Post a Comment