Posted on 04/24/2015 7:19:49 PM PDT by marshmallow
Archbishop Blase Cupich allows non-Catholic Governor to receive Holy Communion
CHICAGO, April 24, 2015 (ChurchMilitant.com)—Eyewitness reports as well as television footage clearly prove that Illinois governor Bruce Rauner received Holy Communion at Cardinal George's funeral Mass at Holy Name Cathedral on Thursday, April 23.
Governor Rauner is not Catholic.
Therefore, what appears to be a grave violation of Canon 844 has been committed. Present at the Mass was Chicago's new archbishop Blase Cupich.
In addition to the violation of canon law, the question is being asked: Was a sacrilege committed on the new archbishop's watch?
According to canon law, since the governor is a non-Catholic, he is unable to be given Holy Communion unless a number of conditions are all met:
1. Foremost, there must be a grave and urgent need, usually understood to mean danger of death.
2. The governor must demonstrate Catholic faith in the Real Presence.
3. He must be duly disposed, and not conscious of any grave sin.
As for the matter of sacrilege, it is understood to mean to treat that which is holy in an unholy manner. Unfaithful reception or administering of Holy Communion is a sacrilege. So a number of questions arise:
(Excerpt) Read more at churchmilitant.com ...
Seriously!? Who is judging?
As to your last point, you’re not Jewish so, of course, you would not presume.
As to the rest I have a history that makes me unable to accept Christians judging one another.
Nicely stated... and no there is no decorum, no respect any longer for the sacred traditions of others.. sad.
This guy needs a blanket party.
Comparison with the teachings of Jesus Christ and present day denominational practices, I suppose.
Equally humorous is the RC assertion that the Church Christ founded has its origin in Rome. On the day of Pentecost when the church began, there was no church in Rome. When John received the Revelation (95 AD) ... there was no letter to Rome.
Does no one have any standards anymore? Does no one understand words and their meaning anymore? God help us!
As a former catholic, I absolutely agree with your statement. I grew up and understood the church's rules and teaching well on the subject of communion. I've been to weddings & funerals for family and friends over the years in the catholic church and have always understood that since I left the church, by the catholic church's rules I'm no longer to accept communion during a catholic ceremony.
I'm not certain that other non-catholics (non-denominational Christians, etc..) are as aware of the rules of communion in the catholic church, so I'm willing to give our new Governor a break.
I'm also not certain that cardinal Cupich had a clue as to Rauner's faith.
BTW, Cardinal's Bernardin and George were wonderful men who demonstrated their faith with grace and class. Cardinal George exhibited much courage and faith in the face of death in his final days.
From what I'm hearing, a fair number of my catholic friends don't seem to be too enamored by Cardinal Cupich.
I was taught as a child that it was impolite to accept communion in a church to which you were not a “confirmed” member. Confirmation, meaning you went through the structure of that denomination’s teachings in an organized class.
So as a Lutheran, if I had the occasion to attend other denomination’s (Presby lets say, or Catholic), services that you should not accept communion in that denomination’s services as a general matter of respect. Not that it was sacrilege, but that it was impolite and not proper etiquette. I know that the Episcopal Churches, Methodist Churches, teach the same things as do most denominational churches. Some of the non-denominational churches are a little more free wheeling in this regard.
What it does is it places the preist in the awkward place of having to refuse communion to someone, during the service. He’s not looking at everyone and thinking “are you a catholic” he’s looking at the clock, and the program.
1 Corinthians 11:27-29 ESV
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.
With respect to the catholic church's rules, I see nothing in scripture that says anything beyond the need for each of us to examine ourselves before taking communion.
And who appointed this Archbishop? None other than Francis. But Voris will never bring that up, will he?
Canon Law never allowed for non-Catholics to receive UNLESS they converted, that is until 1983.
It is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church.
The Catholic hierarchy has no problem blurring the lines in their attempt to “fundamentally transform” the Church; before Easter our regional (county) bishop in my archdiocese here in NJ had a Protestant “she-bishop” speak at his home parish. I don’t believe it was at Mass (so Communion was a non-issue), but he had no reason to do it. The uncomfortable truth is that the Catholic Church has more in common with heretical Muslim fundamentalists than they do with liberal “Protestants” embracing homosexuality, abortion, and female clergy - there isn’t a trace of biblical teaching in the latter, but at least Old Testament logic in the former.
I am not Roman Catholic, but have been to many Weddings and Funerals in the Catholic Church. I KNOW that The Catholic Church has “Closed Communion”, and that only those practicing Catholics in a state of grace can go up to receive it. It is the responsibility of the Person in the pew to make the decision NOT to get in line if they do not fit that description. I would never show such disrespect as a guest by breaching this protocol. It has nothing to do with one’s doctrine about Transubstantiation, and has everything to do with decency and good manners.
However, there are those in the line who publicly celebrate sin, and the priest is aware of this. These are the politicians who advocate abortion, flagrant homosexualists, and people who are cohabiting and make a public show of it. What is the priest to do when they present themselves for communion? Shall he make a big scene? Shall he just give them the host to prevent a disturbance? Shall he participate in and endorse the sin in the interest of preserving peace? I feel very badly for the priest who is stuck with this split-second decision that has to be made in front of hundreds of people!
Meanwhile the person who is forcing the priest into this corner is acting in a very evil manner.
Someday Rome may be destroyed, and the seat of the Church will end up somewhere else; the location doesn't matter, the teachings of Christ transcend location.
If people did so honestly, they’d all be Catholic.
Yeah, but you're going to the Bible and they have TRADITIONs and RULEs and a magisterium. You're taking The Word of God over mens rules and commandments. They'll just say your interpretation is incorrect and they see no discrepancy.
Ya' think? Did Jesus (or His Disciples) genuflect before statuary, wear crucifixes (or any jewelry), pray to dead people, sell indulgences, burn heretics alive or forbid anyone to take communion with them in good faith? Would Jesus really have placed Galileo under house arrest (with threats) for promoting heliocentricity? Would Jesus cover up or move priests around to avoid authorities accused/guilty of child molestation? Do you honestly see NO differences between what Jesus practiced and what Catholics today practice?
Who does that? Not Catholics. Catholics only genuflect before the Son of God in the Eucharist.
Bearing false witness is sinful. Knock it off.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.