Criticize Fellay and be DENIED communion??
#91
(10-24-2012, 09:18 AM)Fontevrault Wrote: denial of communion is a serious matter
But, in causes of doubt, isn't it better to err on the side of denying Communion?
Reply
#92
(10-24-2012, 03:11 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-24-2012, 09:18 AM)Fontevrault Wrote: denial of communion is a serious matter
But, in causes of doubt, isn't it better to err on the side of denying Communion?

Is that the traditional practice? 

I do think this: in causes of doubt, we should voluntarily abstain from Communion.
Reply
#93
(10-24-2012, 03:17 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote:
(10-24-2012, 03:11 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-24-2012, 09:18 AM)Fontevrault Wrote: denial of communion is a serious matter
But, in causes of doubt, isn't it better to err on the side of denying Communion?
Is that the traditional practice? 
I'm not sure. That's why I asked. I wonder if it's even possible to be in doubt in such matters.
Reply
#94
(10-24-2012, 10:14 AM)Fontevrault Wrote:
(10-24-2012, 09:23 AM)TrentCath Wrote:
(10-24-2012, 09:18 AM)Fontevrault Wrote: TrentCath,

I certainly don't expect the priests of the SSPX to be anything other than sinners like the rest of us.  But, denial of communion is a serious matter.  To glibly dismiss such an act as a non-issue seems wrong too.  

I have only seen denial of communion in a TLM setting and only once.  I was in France when a man came up at the very end of communion.  The priest met his eyes and with a very sad face shook his head.  I remember being struck by how dejected the priest was to have to deny anyone communion - on Christmas of all days.  The man hung his head and returned to his seat.  The whole thing took mere seconds and could easily have passed unnoticed by most of the congregation.  I assume it was done with a fair bit of forethought and communication between the two men.  I had the feeling that it hurt both of them.  

It seems to me that this is the way denial of communion should be.  It shouldn't be done in anger or out of pettiness.  It should be something done carefully, with forethought and communication about the circumstances.  It should be done as a corrective - out of charity for the sinner involved.  Anything else seems wrong.

You are missing the point completely:
a) no one is being glib and no one is saying its a non issue, that is you reading your frustrations into other peoples words
b) the point is that these things happen and people who want to use as a stick to bash the SSPX with need to be aware they prove too much and bash the Church with it too. These sorts of purported mistakes, happened in the past history of the church and no doubt will happen in the future history too.

No I'm not missing your point.  

To not address the issue is to be glib about it.  To not be outraged when injustice happens - in the rest of the church or the SSPX - is not appropriate.  

It seems very easy to say something like "you just hate the SSPX and are using this as an excuse to attack it."  That lets everyone off the hook way too easily.  If we can sit around and bash the church when stupid crap happens, like clown masses and refusal to deny communion to very public supporters of abortion, then we should be equally able to address injustice and inappropriatness when it happens in the SSPX. 

Nope you are missing it. By no means stop complaining if its a genuine injustice, but people who think these things won't happen or that mistakes won't be made just because its the SSPX and thus will be scandalised and leave the SSPX mileau or claim this proves their prejudices against it are being unreasonable.

As I said earlier there is a possible prima facie  case for denying communion in the case which formed the basis of this thread, it then becomes an argument about facts and not the law.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)