6. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.
The USCCB has refused to obey Rome's direct demands regarding Holy Eucharist and Catholic politicians. There can no longer be any debate whatsoever where Rome stands on this.
The US bishops are in open declared schism, by refusing to obey these demands to obey Canon Law regarding the central belief of our Faith, the Real Presence of the Eucharist.
The USCCB voted 183 to 6 NOT to obey this clear definitive demand from Rome. (So what makes the American Catholic church any less schismatic than the SSPX?)
Rome HAS spoken.
The good guys to the rescue!
The USCCb needs to be dissolved.
Burke is my bishop. Does this mean we're not in schism?
I know the answer, but this is going to be very confusing to the uncatechized among us. And there are soooo many.
The USCCB voted 183 to 6 NOT to obey this clear definitive demand from Rome. (So what makes the American Catholic church any less schismatic than the SSPX?)
I wonder whether these bishops would have refused Communion to Hitler... Actually, I guess I don't.