Posted on 08/31/2009 11:51:54 AM PDT by Irisshlass
I read on facebook a woman who watched Senator Kennedy's funeral mass, stated that President Obama received Holy Communion. Is this true? Did anyone watch the Mass?
Zero would suck down rotten eggs to win his prom queen popularity contest.
But you can bet there wouldn’t be a videotape anywhere left that showed him participating in the Holy Eucharist...his Imam controllers would go ballistic...
Just to let you know this seems like the Priest did something that was forbidden.
from http://catholicexchange.com/2007/12/13/81132/
What, then, is the purpose of general absolution, which involves the granting of absolution to a group without the priest having heard each person's individual confession of sins? Canon 961.1 explains that there are two situations when it may properly be used.
The first (c. 961.1 n.1) obtains when danger of death threatens, and there is insufficient time for the available priest(s) to hear the confessions of everyone present. The most obvious situation in which this might happen is a time of war. Imagine, for example, that Sunday Mass is being celebrated in a parish church that is more or less crowded with parishioners. Suddenly, planes are heard overhead, and bombs begin to fall. It is quite possible that the church may be hit and everyone inside killed in a matter of moments. At that point, the celebrant of the Mass would rightly move to give general absolution quickly to the entire congregation.
The second situation (c. 961.1 n.2) pertains to circumstances which are less extreme. It involves a "grave necessity," described as a large number of penitents and an insufficient number of available confessors, such that there is no time to hear everyone's confession, and the faithful would be deprived of the grace of the sacrament for a lengthy period of time.
Either way you have to go to the Sacrament of Reconciliation as soon as possible in order for the Absolution to be granted. Since you probably didn't know this and believed in good faith what the priest was doing was in accordance with the laws of the Church the priest is at fault here. He should know better because the Pope has issued quite a few warnings on the abuse of General Absolution.
Not surprised. I suspected that then and I was likely the only one present who needed the excuse. And I took it, so that's my bad again, but I did not feel that I was disrespecting the Church, and still don't.
Was Father Pflegar there?
x, Irishlass asked a question to determine the accuracy and veracity of a “facebook” poster. I see no hint of rumor-mongering at all. Perhaps you might want to go back and again read her declarative statement and question. Shame on you for falsely accusing her.
I'll never forget that photo and it taught me a lot.
I don’t think bishops are supposed to make that kind of exception. Remember - it’s for the good of the individual, not the good of the church. If you aren’t confirmed into the Catholic church, we believe it harms your soul to take communion, because you don’t believe all that we think you need to believe, and you believe some things we believe to be untrue. It’s an awkward point, but it’s reality.
I'm Catholic. Still, we should always make sure to specify it's our opinion if we aren't quoting the catechism, practically.
I would maintain that it IS the mystical body and blood. Mystical means it's a mystery, and we have a mystic faith. We don't know how the creatures of bread and wine are transubstantiated into the Body and Blood, we just know that He told us it is, and we believe him. To your other point, you're probably right. It's the sacrifice of the Mass, it's the Holy Eucharist, it's the Holy Communion, it's the Supper of the Lamb, it's the Passover, and it's the Lord's supper. Protestants just seem to be limited to that final meaning.
I find it difficult to believe they didn’t instruct non-Catholics to come forward for the blessing. This was at a funeral where there were clearly multitudes from all different faiths. Unless they intended to feed them all from the Blessed Sacraments, which, if they did, should be considered a public scandal, and the Cardinal should be recalled.
No, many of the mainline protestant denominations have what is called “open table” so that any who wish can share in the Lord’s Supper. However, as posted before, these denominations do not believe it is the true body and blood, which is actually the reason for the Catholic restriction.
It is frowned on for RCs to take communion elsewhere, but I don’t think it’s a terribly serious sin. If I’m to go to hell, the Lord will be able to find many better reasons to send me there than that.
Well, that’ true, there is no ID card. We’re talking about the case where the Priest knows very well that the individual is not Catholic. Other than that it’s between you and your concsience. I always refrained until I was confirmed. If you wish to have closed communion at your Luther church, and you say so, I would respect that. I attend a piskie church a lot, I’m a cradle piskie, and I’m not taking communion. But I might. I plan to go to Rome for my Eucharist in the main.
In the front of most missals it says something like “if the danger of death is present or other grave necessity the d. bishop can OK communion for Christians not in full communion with the Church”. I think such Christians would have to be in a state of grace and profess belief in the Catholic understanding of communion. I could be wrong, I reckon.
Freegards
Why would that be a mortal sin?
If it's just that one page that has the rumor, it's not very likely that it's true.
Start up your own thread on it and then it becomes part of other people's Google searches and you contribute to the myth.
People see threads like yours and figure there must be something in the story. It happens a lot.
thank you...that was very helpful.
I get so excited sometimes..but I learn a lot here..and I have much more to learn.
Perhaps it was the selection of words...”why on earth would you...?”
True that
For a believing Catholic, the reception of "communion" in say a Protestant Church , receiving bread and wine, would constitute a denial in the dogma of the Real Presence and would be a sin against the First Commandment. Objectively speaking that is.
You didn’t read my posts otherwise you would already know the answer to that question
How can you objectively know what the person is believing? Objectively speaking, that is. If they think they’re getting the real thing, that’s a problem, but if they’re just sharing in the nibbles with the rest of the folks, where’s the harm?
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.