Criticize Fellay and be DENIED communion??
#41
Now what would the reaction be if the NO Bishop of some Diocese said that anyone who refuses to attend the NO must be denied Holy Communion?

Reply
#42
Yea I saw that thread.

I don't know if it's true.  I do know that if there's one thing that isn't missing amongst traditionalist circles, it's lots of gossip.  I don't know if gossip is the right word, but I mean lots of "unofficial" proclamations about this that and the other thing from lay people and anonymous sources.  

I don't know if it's true or not.  If it is, it isn't right.  If it isn't (true) then, well, what else is new?

If Fellay was really that intent on making sure people who attending and communicated at the sspx were "his kind" of Catholics, I would think that this would be far wider-reaching than just some local parishes.  But what do I know?  Keep praying!  The SSPX is the devil's number one target.  
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#43
(10-20-2012, 03:27 PM)Petertherock Wrote: Now what would the reaction be if the NO Bishop of some Diocese said that anyone who refuses to attend the NO must be denied Holy Communion?

Practically speaking, that would be great because it helps to know who one's enemies are. 
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#44
(10-20-2012, 03:22 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(10-20-2012, 01:05 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-20-2012, 03:59 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(10-20-2012, 03:55 AM)Geremia Wrote:
1983 Canon 220 Wrote:No one is permitted to harm illegitimately the good reputation which a person possesses nor to injure the right of any person to protect his or her own privacy.
The commentary on this says:
Quote:The canon protects one's reputation from illegitimate harm. … To protect the common good (see c. 223) and the Church itself, individuals may act, even though they might thereby damage someone's reputation. The motivating force of such an action should be a desire to protect another value, for example, the good reputation of the Church or of other individuals ad not to ruin one person's reputation; … the code presents various options to safeguard reputations and to ensure that penalties are inflicted only as a last resort.
Did Bp. Fellay invoke less severe penalties first?

Makes no never mind. Unless a person falls under one of the punishments outlined in Canon 1364-1398, he cannot be denied Communion.
So, one cannot incur such a severe penalty for ruining another's reputation that he would be excommunicated and thus not be able to receive Communion?

Not as I read Book VI, Part II, Title IV of the Code of Canon Law on 'The Crime of Falsehood'. There are only two Canons, neither of which mentions excommunication as a possible penalty.

***ETA***Plus, unless the Code calls for excommunication latae sententiae, there are procedures to be followed, laid out in Book VII, on 'Processes' before punishment is applied.

It is possible to deny a person Communion without excommunicating him.  They are two different things.
Reply
#45
(10-20-2012, 03:27 PM)Petertherock Wrote: Now what would the reaction be if the NO Bishop of some Diocese said that anyone who refuses to attend the NO must be denied Holy Communion?

My reaction would be to report him to the appropriate authorities in the Vatican, since he would clearly be violating Summorum Pontificum.
Reply
#46
If someone were denied HC at Bp. F's direction, I would file an appeal to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments at the Holy See and seek a ruling.  :grin:
Reply
#47
Back in my liberal days, I was a supporter of same-sex marriage.  In defiance of a bishops' statement calling on Catholics to oppose same-sex marriage, I wrote a letter in support of it to my MP and sent a copy to the local paper which published it.  When I confessed this, the priest told me that I was no longer allowed to be a lector and that I should not receive Communion.  I think that was a reasonable response.
Reply
#48
(10-20-2012, 03:29 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: Yea I saw that thread.

I don't know if it's true.  I do know that if there's one thing that isn't missing amongst traditionalist circles, it's lots of gossip.  I don't know if gossip is the right word, but I mean lots of "unofficial" proclamations about this that and the other thing from lay people and anonymous sources.  

I don't know if it's true or not.  If it is, it isn't right.  If it isn't (true) then, well, what else is new? 


Clare admitted:
Clare Wrote:Yes, Fr Morgan did gently have a word with me a few weeks ago, to the effect of the info in Gregorio's post.  

Gregorio's post:
Quote:According to my understanding, Bishop Fellay has 'suggested' to our District Superior that anyone who dares criticize the public words and actions of +Fellay or Menzingen on internet forums such as Ignis Ardens (named specifically) and blogs should be denied Holy Communion by SSPX priests. He communicated that anyone owning or moderating forums where criticism takes place should be denied Holy Communion, and that anyone employed by SSPX who falls into these categories should also get sacked.

If Clare says, after she initially wanted to stay out of it, that Fr. Morgan did have a word with her to the effect of Gregorio's post, above, I believe her.  If two moderators of a forum resign from being moderators, because they are afraid of being refused Sacraments, I take this seriously, and not as gossip.  These are, after all, real people, who even use their real names (more or less) on the forum, so it's not like they are some anonymous troublemakers.  So, how people can still wonder if it's just "gossip" or rumor or whatever is a mystery to me.  Again, I ask, are we to believe Clare & Gregorio are liars involved in some diabolical plot to discredit Menzingen?   Or did Fr. Morgan falsely attribute the threat to Menzingen?  

(10-20-2012, 03:29 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: If Fellay was really that intent on making sure people who attending and communicated at the sspx were "his kind" of Catholics, I would think that this would be far wider-reaching than just some local parishes.

It is.

Quote:  But what do I know?  Keep praying!  The SSPX is the devil's number one target.  

Exactly.
Reply
#49
(10-20-2012, 03:57 PM)JayneK Wrote: Back in my liberal days, I was a supporter of same-sex marriage.  In defiance of a bishops' statement calling on Catholics to oppose same-sex marriage, I wrote a letter in support of it to my MP and sent a copy to the local paper which published it.  When I confessed this, the priest told me that I was no longer allowed to be a lector and that I should not receive Communion.  I think that was a reasonable response.

Not really, no.  The confessor is prohibited by the seal from using what he learns and translating it into decisions or actions outside the confessional.  I'm sure I'm tripping over the right language here, and someone more learned in sacramental theology can weigh in, but you know what I mean.

If you confess stealing from the collection plate, the confessor could not as Pastor remove you from that position.  He could assign a penance to you, but not act as if he has knowledge of it or recalls it outside the confessional.

Reply
#50
(10-20-2012, 04:01 PM)Allan Wrote:
(10-20-2012, 03:57 PM)JayneK Wrote: Back in my liberal days, I was a supporter of same-sex marriage.  In defiance of a bishops' statement calling on Catholics to oppose same-sex marriage, I wrote a letter in support of it to my MP and sent a copy to the local paper which published it.  When I confessed this, the priest told me that I was no longer allowed to be a lector and that I should not receive Communion.  I think that was a reasonable response.

Not really, no.  The confessor is prohibited by the seal from using what he learns and translating it into decisions or actions outside the confessional.  I'm sure I'm tripping over the right language here, and someone more learned in sacramental theology can weigh in, but you know what I mean.

If you confess stealing from the collection plate, the confessor could not as Pastor remove you from that position.  He could assign a penance to you, but not act as if he has knowledge of it or recalls it outside the confessional.

I don't see Jayne relating him as doing anything that broke the seal, so long as he said this within the confessional and put the impetus on her to remove herself from the position and did nothing outside the seal, he did nothing wrong. Confessors tell people to do or not do things, that they can or cannot be such and such all the time, but its up to the penitent to follow their directions and obviously if they refuse to do it they can refuse absolution.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)