Italian Cardinal Bagnasco gives Communion to Marxist trans activists
#11
(06-07-2013, 06:42 PM)StCeciliasGirl Wrote:
(06-07-2013, 05:50 PM)Melchior Wrote:
(06-07-2013, 02:33 PM)StCeciliasGirl Wrote: So thanks, Vatican 2, for removing Papal powers!

Where did it do that? 

I'm confused about this, because on one hand people tell me that the Pope doe snot have the authority to universally deny faculties to a group so they cannot hear confessions nor preside over marriages.  On the other hand, you're saying Popes have no real authority any more.

How about, then, "sharing" papal powers with the College of Bishops, which is (in my thinking) removing them from the Pope, xeroxing them, then giving the powers to the Pope and a mystical College of Bishops (and putting the Pope in an unfortunate position of causing schism if he disagrees with papal power of the Bishops). The Lefebvre excommunication was done before JP2 knew about it (though he sent Ratzinger personally to try to stop Lefebvre from consecrating more than ONE bishop before it was too late). Oops, technicality.

Google "College of Bishops" in the V2 section of vatican.va (or just look it up on wiki, and be sure to hit the discussion tab there, which is really hilarious because the College of Bishops is who excommunicated Lefebvre, but the Vatican says there IS no real "college of bishops" — it's just a concept. A concept gave birth to the SSPX!) Major cool stuff.

Those are interesting thoughts.  What may have happened at Vatican 2 is a serious case of cold feet.  In the heady days of 1963 and 64, perhaps the most liberal wing thought they could use the council to revise Vatican 1.  Two problems developed.   First, the sheer breadth of the council fragmented the bishops, and where the liberals may have had some consensus in 63, it was eroding by the end.  Second, the conservatives, and a new pope, found their sea legs, and began a push back.  The liberals took stock of the situation, and realized that there was a silver lining in not stripping the papacy of its Vatican 1 power outright:  bad decisions could be blamed on the pope, but at the same time, the liberal position was not seriously in danger because in their numbers, they calculated that they could leverage the pope at least as often as he could leverage them.  In reality, the odds are closer to 3:1 in favor of the bishops, since the pope pays a big price in turning out a bishop.  Since the pope approves all bishops now, he is on the hook for the bad ones, and no one, not even a pope, wants to admit to using bad judgment.

The late 60s vindicated the liberal strategy, as the successive changes and novus ordo demonstrate.  Paul VI jerked the reigns on the liberals hard in 1970 with Humanae Vitae, against which the liberals and moderates waged a rear echelon resistance for the next decade, until finally going down for the count to John Paul II.  In the meantime, the liberals totally dominated the teaching orders, the vast majority of nuns, the Jesuits, the colleges and universities and the lion's share of the seminaries.  Plus, and here's the kicker for us fisheaters, they crushed - and I mean crushed - the old mass Catholics. 

All in all, not a bad outcome, compared to what the liberals had in 1959. 

Now I can hear you thinking, "That's great, Warrenton.  Where's your proof?"  That's a fair question.

I admit the case is circumstantial.  I reason it this way:  if the council were serious about collegiality, after Vatican 2, with the plethora of ideas swirling around universal Catholicism (a tautology, I know - humour me), there ought to have been "collegial" censures, remonstrances, complaints to the Vatican, and excommunications abounding.  Weakland ought to have been censured by Lyons of DC.   Mahoney ought to have been excommunicated by Paul of Arlington, VA.  But that didn't happen.  It's never happened, except to the SSPX, and a few imbalanced homosexual communities and a rogue African, here or there. The conferences of bishops - one of the big fruits of all this new found collegiality  - were singularly ineffective in the sex abuse scandal.  These bishops were more muted than their medieval and renaissance predecessors, who all agreed that the pope was the man in charge. 

It's like Arlo Guthrie said.  If one person walks into the local draft board office singing the refrain to Alice's Restaurant, they'll think he's crazy.  If two people walk in singing it, they'll think they are homosexual.  But if three people walk into the office singing the Alice's Restaurant refrain, they;ll think it's a conspiracy.  And that's what it is.  Except it's a conspiracy of silence.
Reply
#12
(06-07-2013, 06:15 PM)jonbhorton Wrote:
(06-07-2013, 05:34 PM)DoktorDespot Wrote: What basis would he have had in Canon law for denying them communion - I doubt that you can find one.

Canon 915

Canon 915 says: "Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion"

The people in question in this case were clearly not excommunicated or under interdict. The only cause for denying them communion then would be "obstinately preserving in manifest grave sin." How is the Cardinal supposed to evaluate every potential communicate to see if the fall under this. He doesn't know the personal history or actions of each one, nor does he know the state of their soul/ relationship to the Church.

Numerous canonists have tackled this subject before and concluded that if someone presents themselves for communion it must be given to them, unless they are excommunicated or under interdict.
Reply
#13
(06-07-2013, 10:24 PM)DoktorDespot Wrote:
(06-07-2013, 06:15 PM)jonbhorton Wrote:
(06-07-2013, 05:34 PM)DoktorDespot Wrote: What basis would he have had in Canon law for denying them communion - I doubt that you can find one.

Canon 915

Canon 915 says: "Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion"

The people in question in this case were clearly not excommunicated or under interdict. The only cause for denying them communion then would be "obstinately preserving in manifest grave sin." How is the Cardinal supposed to evaluate every potential communicate to see if the fall under this. He doesn't know the personal history or actions of each one, nor does he know the state of their soul/ relationship to the Church.

Numerous canonists have tackled this subject before and concluded that if someone presents themselves for communion it must be given to them, unless they are excommunicated or under interdict.

"Mr. Luxuria (right), a known and avowed homosexual, received Holy Communion from the hands of a Cardinal at the Funeral Mass of Father Andrea Gallo."

"The event took place on May 25, at the Carmel Church in Genoa, during the funeral Mass for Father Andrea Gallo, officiated by Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco. After giving Holy Communion to Mr. Wladimiro Guadagno, alias Vladimir Luxuria, the same prelate gave Communion to another transvestite, ‘Regina’ Satariano a “transgender” activist.[1]"

Wouldn't this qualify as "obstinatley persevering in manifest grave sin"?   Honest question.
Reply
#14
(06-07-2013, 11:14 PM)GGG Wrote:
(06-07-2013, 10:24 PM)DoktorDespot Wrote:
(06-07-2013, 06:15 PM)jonbhorton Wrote:
(06-07-2013, 05:34 PM)DoktorDespot Wrote: What basis would he have had in Canon law for denying them communion - I doubt that you can find one.

Canon 915

Canon 915 says: "Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion"

The people in question in this case were clearly not excommunicated or under interdict. The only cause for denying them communion then would be "obstinately preserving in manifest grave sin." How is the Cardinal supposed to evaluate every potential communicate to see if the fall under this. He doesn't know the personal history or actions of each one, nor does he know the state of their soul/ relationship to the Church.

Numerous canonists have tackled this subject before and concluded that if someone presents themselves for communion it must be given to them, unless they are excommunicated or under interdict.

"Mr. Luxuria (right), a known and avowed homosexual, received Holy Communion from the hands of a Cardinal at the Funeral Mass of Father Andrea Gallo."

"The event took place on May 25, at the Carmel Church in Genoa, during the funeral Mass for Father Andrea Gallo, officiated by Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco. After giving Holy Communion to Mr. Wladimiro Guadagno, alias Vladimir Luxuria, the same prelate gave Communion to another transvestite, ‘Regina’ Satariano a “transgender” activist.[1]"

Wouldn't this qualify as "obstinatley persevering in manifest grave sin"?   Honest question.

It probably does - the point though that the Canonists have raised is since this is a vague criteria (and knowledge of the individuals sin may not be widely known,) a formal interdict or excommunication is probably required in most circumstances. Do we know that the Cardinal was aware who Mr. Luxuria was?
Reply
#15
(06-07-2013, 11:19 PM)DoktorDespot Wrote:
(06-07-2013, 11:14 PM)GGG Wrote:
(06-07-2013, 10:24 PM)DoktorDespot Wrote:
(06-07-2013, 06:15 PM)jonbhorton Wrote:
(06-07-2013, 05:34 PM)DoktorDespot Wrote: What basis would he have had in Canon law for denying them communion - I doubt that you can find one.

Canon 915

Canon 915 says: "Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion"

The people in question in this case were clearly not excommunicated or under interdict. The only cause for denying them communion then would be "obstinately preserving in manifest grave sin." How is the Cardinal supposed to evaluate every potential communicate to see if the fall under this. He doesn't know the personal history or actions of each one, nor does he know the state of their soul/ relationship to the Church.

Numerous canonists have tackled this subject before and concluded that if someone presents themselves for communion it must be given to them, unless they are excommunicated or under interdict.

"Mr. Luxuria (right), a known and avowed homosexual, received Holy Communion from the hands of a Cardinal at the Funeral Mass of Father Andrea Gallo."

"The event took place on May 25, at the Carmel Church in Genoa, during the funeral Mass for Father Andrea Gallo, officiated by Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco. After giving Holy Communion to Mr. Wladimiro Guadagno, alias Vladimir Luxuria, the same prelate gave Communion to another transvestite, ‘Regina’ Satariano a “transgender” activist.[1]"

Wouldn't this qualify as "obstinatley persevering in manifest grave sin"?   Honest question.

It probably does - the point though that the Canonists have raised is since this is a vague criteria (and knowledge of the individuals sin may not be widely known,) a formal interdict or excommunication is probably required in most circumstances. Do we know that the Cardinal was aware who Mr. Luxuria was?

Bold is the million dollar question. If unknown, Canon 915 applies but is unenforceable as there must be knowledge on the part of the cleric who is distributing Holy Communion to those that present themselves. Kinda like oh... a cop pulling someone over who just committed triple homicide but lets them go for a tail light because they don't know the perp just offed three people. If the cop knew, he's bound to enforce the law and arrest for the crime.

The individual in question is undoubtedly in obstinate manifestation of grave sin due to their views, lifestyle, etc. So, if Bagnasco knew, I would not want to be him. If he didn't know, it's still horrific but he has no culpability being without knowledge. 

Reply
#16
Interestingly the canon in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (binding on Eastern Catholics) says that:

"The publicly unworthy are to be kept from the reception of the Divine Eucharist."

That seems much more forceful, although there is the issue of what constitutes the "public unworthy."
Reply
#17
isnt this Luxuria man kind of well known in that part of the world?
Reply
#18
(06-08-2013, 12:28 AM)Miles Christi Wrote: isnt this Luxuria man kind of well known in that part of the world?

Even if he is, that doesn't mean the Cardinal would necessarily recognize him in the communion line.
Reply
#19
Can we really imagine that Bagnasco didn't know Gallo and his pro-abortion, pro-gay, and (most importantly) anti-Church crew? Really? Nah. LBR: Gallo was notorious, the "ceremony" filled with cross-dressers chanting pro-abortion crap; Gallo was in trouble (with laity), notorious for blaspheming the Holy Mother. The Card put a son of perdition in the ground and called him "a good Samaritan." HE KNEW GALLO. He knew Gallo's crew.  Well. Hopefully not that well; I've seriously had my fill of practicing bisexual cardinals. #O'Brien.

When trying to find the Bp. Sheen quote about the laity saving the Church, I ran upon this most interesting page: The Worst Scandal of All. That's my evening's reading, I'm afraid, but here's the Sheen quote (shortened; there was more, but now I'm reading this other page ):

Bp. Sheen Wrote:It is the laity that will save the Church.

And indeed, when the powers were dispersed in V2 (and didn't Bp. Sheen tell us to READ V2; to KNOW it? Maybe not; all before my time), they weren't dispersed merely to the mystical, non-existent "College of Bishops" which can trump the Pope somehow (it makes no sense; forget the fallen bishops, they're useless as teats on a boar hog). Someone called that a prophecy. I think it MUST be.

Because the bishops aren't even HIDING now. The question is, how does a pawn knock over a Bishop [chess]?

Also reading The Ratzinger Report again; it is CLEAR AS DAY that Ratzinger changed his tune, not about his hopes for V2, but about the fruits of V2. (I'm on the chapter where he's making HIDEOUS FUN of "priests" who do confessions as a park walk with their layperson like they're BFFs LOL Papa has a GREAT sense of humor, btw.) My theory is Papa B and the "God-fearing" V2 fathers bought us some time, and while V2 seems a Latin version of Finnegan's Wake, it may just be the way we (ooops, GOD!) hangs the depraved bishops. —Ah: our King is +Jesus; our Queen is the Holy Mother... we've just got to, um, figure out who our Knights and Bishops are, who the Satanic counterparts are, and help our guys (the good ones) checkmate Satan! Thumb

(Too much chess today; rainy day; sorry LOL )
Reply
#20
(06-08-2013, 12:28 AM)Miles Christi Wrote: isnt this Luxuria man kind of well known in that part of the world?
No, never heard of him nor has anyone I know. Yet another thread unjustly libeling a doctrinally sound Catholic prelate. Brilliant!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)