Catholic Exchange

Receiving Communion Worthily Teaches Us about God’s Love

On All Saints' Day, I attended Mass at a local Catholic high school.  The celebrant, the pastor of a nearby parish, started the Mass by saying to the student body of about 800 kids: "Is everyone here sorry for all the sins they've committed? Good. Did you know coming to Mass means your sins are forgiven? So everyone here should come up for Communion today."

In those few sentences, that priest was wrong on at least three levels. Can you name them?  Answers in a moment.

Two weeks later, on November 14, the Catholic bishops of the United States, gathered at their annual meeting in Baltimore, released a document called "Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper: On Preparing to Receive Christ Worthily in the Eucharist."   (The entire document can be accessed online at www.usccb.org/dpp/Eucharist.pdf.)

For today's American Catholics, many of whom lack the most basic understanding of the Eucharist, this short document provides simple and understandable explanations about the beauty and glory and importance of it all.  It emphasizes one particular topic: when we should and should not receive Communion at Mass, and why.

The document explains what used to be understood by every Catholic elementary school kid:  "In order to receive holy Communion we must be in communion with God and with the Church. If we are no longer in a state of grace because of mortal sin, we are seriously obliged to refrain from receiving holy Communion until we are reconciled with God and the Church."

 As examples of such sin, the document mentions "committing murder, including abortion and euthanasia," harboring hatred of others, and abusing others sexually, physically, or psychologically. It then points out other "serious violations of the law of love of God and of neighbor," including swearing a false oath, skipping Mass on Sundays, serious disobedience of proper authority, sex outside of marriage, stealing, slander, or using pornography.

Strong Words

Take a look next time you're at Mass, at how many people sit out Communion. If you're at a typical US parish, almost no one will.  Now, we Catholics are fine folks, but let's be realistic.

The Bible has very strong words for those who receive Communion in a state of sin: "Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor 11:27).

In other words, this is not the teaching of some fuddy-duddy old bishops. It's God, teaching us the reverence we must have for the Holy Eucharist. With this new document, the American bishops are being faithful to their role to teach the faith, whether or not it's what people want to hear.

That priest at the school Mass I attended, the one who called the whole world up to Communion, was wrong for at least three reasons:

1. He was presuming everyone was sorry for their sins. Just because you ask a crowd of 800 people if they're sorry doesn't mean every one of them is.

2. The teaching that going to Mass forgives yours sins applies only to venial sins (less serious ones), not mortal sins like those mentioned above: skipping Mass, sexual sins, sins of hate. (Of course, no high school kid would ever commit any sins like that, right?) For mortal sins, we need to go to confession.

3. The teaching about going to Communion in a state of grace applies only to Catholics. Because the Eucharist is an expression of a unity that we sadly do not have with all Christians, only Catholics should receive Communion at Mass.

More to the point, I was offended by his invitation, not just because he misled 800 students, but because in a single statement, he belittled and cast aside the serious efforts that many folks, trying to be good Catholics, make to observe these obligations toward the Eucharist.

When Compassion Is in Error

Early in our marriage, my wife and I went through a period of refraining from receiving Communion for five years.  As a result of some difficult circumstances and poor decisions we had made earlier in our lives, our marriage was not a sacramental one during that time.  With the help of diocesan officials, we went to great length to fix our situation, and eventually we were able to do that.  Throughout those five years, though, our pastor, aware of our circumstances, was encouraging us to receive Communion at Sunday Mass.  He, like the guy at the school Mass, was wrong.

They both think they're being nice guys, compassionate and all, but they're not. They're teaching people that sin is not significant, which I'm sure Jesus would like to have heard before He died on the Cross because of it.

They think they're making life easy for people, but they're denying people the chance to know the joy of God's mercy. Only people who are aware of their own sinfulness can ever truly know His merciful love.

I'll never forget the day I went to Communion after five years without it. I felt like a guy dying of thirst who found an oasis in the desert. I knew in a tangible way that I was fully reconciled to God whom I had earlier disappointed in a serious way. It was a very joyful day.

Following our bishops' lead in this new document will offer all of us opportunities to encounter God‘s merciful, eucharistic love more deeply. 

Comments

  1. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    AMEN BROTHER!!

    Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
    Viva il Papa!
    We Love B16, and we miss JP2

  2. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    We have truly lost the sense of sin. God is Holy and he wants us to be like him. Thanks. We must speak the truth to our youths. How will they know it if we do not speak it.

  3. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Every once in a while I forget and have something to eat or drink less than an hour before Communion. Abstaining from Communion on those occasions gives me a bigger appreciation for the Eucharist, and helps me to take it less for granted.

  4. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Thanks for an excellent article. My wife and I remember the heartache of not receiving communion until our earlier marriages were annulled. But the joy of returning to the sacraments let us know that the wait was well worth the reward. I have struggled with my adult children joining us at mass and communion when I know their attendance at Sunday service is sporadic and they do not go to confession. Through the blessings of email, I’m able to forward articles, such as yours, that help explain to them the responsibility involved and the privilege of receiving communion.

  5. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I’ve usually done the same as Claire, including when I’ve arrived at weekday Masses after the Gospel. If even these simple acts of discipline help us appreciate how special Jesus in the Eucharist is–like the author mentioned, since He went through the trouble of dying for our sins–let’s hope and pray that pseudo-compassionate priests and laity stop encouraging those in mortal sin to receive. It sadly goes to show that, even in this modern age, we still commit grievous sacrileges against this sacrament of love.

  6. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Hey – Roy – whose pontificating, here?

    1. He had no chance to correct the priest because he didn’t know the fool was going to make an ass of himself. And, yes, I write that about a priest . . . Mr. Michael’s communion was worthy because it is not the assininity of any communion minister that makes for the Sacrament.
    2. Since when do the ordained have corners on preaching? Show me dogma on that one; they reserve only homiletic lessons and exhortations at Mass. I preach as regularly as I have an audience – in part, because most audiences hear no priests, at all. But, if what I say runs against priests who for all practical purposes are endangering souls with near-heresy – it is my duty, my obligation, not my ‘contrariness’ . . .
    3. Oh, will I ‘dissent’ against any ordained or Religious teaching – spouting! – error! Talk to most of them and I am wrong for 1) simply being laity (pet me on the head) and 2) the old bogus ‘compassion’ theme they peddle as if it is Gospel above Gospel. They will bluster and splutter when cornered! And, as you note, it is my very job to corner them.
    4. And, sir, don’t beat me or anyone else on the head with Scripture and Catechism – it sounds like you should be flagellating yourself with them, first.
    *
    I remain your obedient servant, but God’s first,

    Pristinus Sapienter

    (wljewell @mail.catholicexchange.com or …yahoo.com)

  7. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Topic is quite interesting and woefully too common in today’s world. I agree the priest was apparently in error IF he presumed everyone attending the Mass was a practicing Catholic with rights to receive the Sacrament. Not even all Catholics are in a position to receive Holy Communion because of 1) sins, as was addressed in the article but also 2) not all Catholics have received the Sacrament of Holy Communion. As also stated in the comments, we must go to our brother who is in error and confront him with our grievences before we approach the Table of the Lord. I can only hope that Barry was able to speak to the priest mentioned and able to explain his concerns. At this time we need to PRAY FOR ONE ANOTHER WITHOUT CEASING for all our brothers and sisters in this world. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. MARY Merry CHRISTmas.

  8. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    If I should be flagellating myself, please name my error. I am ready for your exhortation. I am not beating anyone upon the head with the catechism, rather,I am quoting from the catechism for the sake of clarification. If discussion of the catechism is in error, please tell me how that can be? Peace be with you in the love of Christ.

  9. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Finally I have one more item to discuss with Barry Michaels. If you were not in agreement with the preaching of the priest concerning forgiveness, then why were you in agreement with the priest in your reception of the Holy Eucharist when you received the body and (perhaps the blood) and made your consent obvious with the words (Amen!) and hopefully a slight bow toward the priest as the communion was either handed to you or placed on your tongue? To put this question more simply, how can you be in agreement and at the same time not in agreement with this priest as ordained minister of the sacrament of Holy Communion?

  10. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    What’s all this about “dissenting from the preaching of an ordained priest”?

    If I dissent from the dogmas of the Church I’m in big trouble, but a priest preaching error? Come on! I am to respect the priest and treat him with courtesy because of his Holy Orders, but if he preaches error I have no obligation to follow him into error.

    As for taking up your grievance with him prior to receiving communion, if I am in a state of grace and prepared to receive My Lord, must I refrain from Holy Communion because I am shocked by what a priest says? I don’t think so! Good grief! If we stopped receiving Holy Communion from every priest that preaches erroneously now and then, most of us would be in a bad way. Priest are not infallible. We are even free to disagree with the Pope on some matters, but we don’t have to refrain from receiving Holy Communion.

    Also, when we receive the Body and Blood of the Lord from a priest (regardless of his condition of sin or error) we do not say “Amen I believe every word you have spoken” but rather, we say “Amen, I believe that you are a validly ordained priest given the power by Christ to confect His Body and Blood, and I believe and practice all of the teachings of the Church.” Big difference.
    Everybody should get a grip. Ours is a religion of reason after all.

  11. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Sherry is correct on the point that our “Amen” is not to whether we agree with the priest or not, but to clarify a little, the “Amen” doesn’t say “I believe” but rather “It is so (that this before me is the Person of Christ).” Our belief in the Real Presence has no bearing on its reality. Regardless, reception of communion is not properly a cause for scandal unless it is improperly confected.

    But Mr. Michaels is correct in saying that the priest taught error. The mass does not forgive all sin nor should all be invited to partake. Further, his disagreement with the teaching is not an occasion of sin, since it is not against the person of the priest, but rather the error preached.

    Michael

    “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried”

    “The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.” – GK Chesterton

  12. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Wrong Sherry, If you are in a disagreement with the priest whom is the minister of your communion, you are bound by the sacrament of reconciliation to reconcile your differences directly with him “prior” to reception of holy communion. Your disagreement with his preaching is prima facie evidence that you are not “in a state of grace” as you say. Your disagreement indicates that you are in need of the sacrament of confession prior to holy communion. We must be “united” as one mind, heart and soul prior to holy communion. Without that unity, we are not in communion with Jesus Christ, Our Lord and so receive communion unworthily or as Father Carapi says, “de facto excommunion”. Peace be with you and I pray that you will reconcile with your priest for the love of Christ. Merry Christmas! Roy

  13. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Mr Michaels is in error bringing his concern about the priest to his column in the Catholic Exchange prior to discussion of his disagreement with the priest and in so breaking his bond with the priest in communion also breaks his bond with Christ in communion. Mr Michaels communion was sacriligious. Peace be with you. Roy

  14. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Where in the article did he say he never went to the priest? Where did he say he received communion?

    Michael

    “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried”

    “The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.” – GK Chesterton

  15. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Which part of the Catechism states that disagreement with erroneous preaching is a sin so grievous that it gives de facto excommunication?

    Michael

    “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried”

    “The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.” – GK Chesterton

  16. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Roy quotes Fr. Corapi, but I can not help but be reminded of another quote of Fr. Corapi.

    Roy, the priest in the article was teaching something that is contrary to the infallible teaching of the Magisterium. Priest and bishops are not infallible themselves, unless they teach in communion with the universal teaching of the Supreme Pontiff-who teaches in the CCC:
    The Eucharist is not ordered to the forgiveness of mortal sins-that is proper to the sacrament of Reconciliation…anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1395, 1385

    Jesus Christ does not merely speak the truth. He IS truth itself. And as Fr. John Corapi has said to those who distort the Faith to fit their own ideas; “You will not mess with the Truth!”
    We as human beings, and children of God have a moral obligation to tell the truth. To proclaim Christ faithfully. This responsibility falls in a special way upon priests and catechists. In a world that says it is acceptable to believe whatever you want; young people are extremely vunerable to this threat. Because what we believe is shown in our actions. For as St James writes, “…faith apart from works is dead.” (James 2;26)
    In a time when scripture “scholars” are telling us that Our Lord didn’t really work miracles. That they could be explained naturally. Think about it, these people are in the church. They are telling children that He who died upon the cross for their sins, was not really God!! We have them denying scripture as the Word of God. We have them denying the Magisterium as the true interpretor of that Word. The list goes on and on. It’s called “relativism”.
    Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism…Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along by every wind of teaching, looks like the only attitude acceptable to today’s standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognise anything as certain and which has as it’s highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires.” (Pope Benedict XVI)

    Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
    Viva il Papa!
    We Love B16, and we miss JP2

  17. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    The wrong that is done in this case between the priest and Mr. Michaels is that Mr. Michaels writes a column in the Catholic Exchange making the priest an example of error then presenting Mr. Michaels observations to the general public without indicating that he made any attempt to reconcile with the priest and especially before communion. This is the error committed by Mr. Michaels that is sacriligious in communion. If Mr. Michaels had simply presented his article without using his perceptions of the error of the priest, then we would have nothing to discuss, although Mr. Michaels deliberately used his perception of the priest’s error to make an example of him which is a direct and (very deliberate) betrayal of Mr. Michael’s relationship with the priest. As Judas already demonstrated, how long did it take Judas to betray Christ with only a kiss? Yet Mr. Michaels betrays this priest with an article in the Catholic Exchange and am I the only Catholic who sees the betrayal of the the bond between the priest and Mr. Michaels and Christ in the Eucharist?

  18. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Dear Viva il Papa, I have a question for you: Why do we sing on the way to holy communion, “One bread, one body, one Lord of all, one cup of blessing which we bless. And we though many, throughout the earth, we are one body in this one Lord.” If you will consider that we are all one body, one mind, one heart and one spirit in Christ, then how can Mr. Michaels dissent from agreement with his priest without reconciliation and still remain one bread and one body? I am certain if you think this through, Mr. Michaels has a duty to reconcile any error he is aware of prior to holy communion, even if it is an error outside of his own body. If Mr. Michaels does not reconcile the error, then Mr. Michaels receives holy communion in a state of error with his priest. Do you see now what I am trying to point out? Peace be with you and Merry Christmas. Roy

  19. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Dear michaelme, The fact that Mr. Michaels does “not” say in his article that he never went to the priest before communion and the fact that he does “not” mention whether he receives communion or not proves the error of his article. The scriptures and the catechism and the dogma of the Catholic church preach, “Therefore, when you bring your gifts to the altar, and there finding that you have a conflict with your brother, then leave your gift at the altar, go find your brother and make peace with him and return to the altar to present your gift to the Lord.” Does this explain to you why Mr. Michaels made error with the priest in question?

  20. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    “More to the point, I was offended by his invitation”…these are the words quoted from Mr. Michaels article concerning the priest whom presided at the childrens mass. This quotation from Mr. Michaels is direct evidence that Mr. Michaels needs to reconcile with this priest prior to reception of Holy Communion. As Our Lord Jesus Christ has said, “Blessed is he who takes no offence in me.” Praise be to Our Lord for the sacraments and reconciliation and Merry Christmas to all. Roy

  21. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Dear Viva il Papa, “In a time when scripture “scholars” are telling us that Our Lord didn’t really work miracles. That they could be explained naturally. Think about it, these people are in the church. They are telling children that He who died upon the cross for their sins, was not really God!! We have them denying scripture as the Word of God. We have them denying the Magisterium as the true interpretor of that Word. The list goes on and on. It’s called “relativism”.”
    I need to quote your statement in order to prove my point, “relativism” is pointing out error without mentioning a name. “Relativism” is trying to reconcile concepts and not people. Only people can reconcile and people must reconcile their differences and especially errors prior to reception of Holy Communion. I have not in my entire lifetime (55 years) ever met a man or woman by the name of Relativism. Peace be to you and Merry Christmas. Roy

  22. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    One reconciles relationships; there’s nothing to reconcile regarding factual errors : if a statement of fact is wrong,it’s wrong. The priest’s statements,if accurately quoted in the article,are nothing short of scandalous,especially in view of the fact that he’s presenting said statements to impressionable,and,quite possibly,otherwise uninformed youth. That Mr.Michaels has the ears and intellect to recognize such things is to his credit,and certainly not a sin. If he hasn’t already done so, it would probably be a good idea for him to approach the priest to express his concerns.Ideally, the priest will amend this remarks from the pulpit. If he refuses,I’d suggest notifying the bishop…

  23. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Dear CathyCee, Your presumption is in error. The priest has full authority first of all to minister the communal absolution or communal penance. The priest also has full authority to modify the language of the absolution for the benefit of the children. The presumption also that factual errors cannot be reconciled person to person is curious as this is exactly what takes place in the confessional. Sin is a personal demonstration of factual error and without reconciliation to truth and to the church, the sin remains in the person. Mr. Michaels is in error and also are you. I pray in Jesus Holy Name that you are delivered to your confessor and especially before your next Holy Communion. Merry Christmas and peace be with you. Roy

  24. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    CathyCee-Please try to remember what St. Francis said, regarding the holy priesthood….that if we were to encounter an angel and a priest at the same time, we would give deference to the priest, because HIS HOLY HANDS GIVE US HOLY COMMUNION. We should be ready and willing to kiss the holy hands of any priest, even if they happen to be temporarily, out of compliance on an issue, and who is to say if they are???Only their bishop is allowed to make that decision, not a lay person, and also, most importantly…ONLY JESUS CHRIST CAN READ THE HEARTS OF MEN.

    jeaninemaries@myway.com

  25. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    CathyCee-Please try to remember what St. Francis said, regarding the holy priesthood….that if we were to encounter an angel and a priest at the same time, we would give deference to the priest, because HIS HOLY HANDS GIVE US HOLY COMMUNION. We should be ready and willing to kiss the holy hands of any priest, even if they happen to be temporarily, out of compliance on an issue, and who is to say if they are???Only their bishop is allowed to make that decision, not a lay person, and also, most importantly…ONLY JESUS CHRIST CAN READ THE HEARTS OF MEN

    Dear CathyCee – I am resending this response in my name, instead of Roy Sheehan’s, as I was using his computer ID.

    p.s. would you happen to know where I can purchase some plain ROSE WATER?
    As, I think this would make an excellent Christmas gift for our priest to dip his fingers into during the rite of purification? Thank you.

  26. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Well, Roy, looks like you enjoy spending the day sparring over the computer. Have a drink and relax. When we go to communion, singing that we are one bread and one body, we are, of course , not saying that we are united with everyone in the church on every issue. We are united in our belief of Christ’s presence. We are certainly NOT united politically, socially, or on every religious issue. I respect priests but as a baptized Christian I am called to be priest, prophet, and king too. Just because someone is laity doesn’t mean they must accept everything an ordained priest says. Barry’s article is wonderful and he, in my exalted opinion (I was personally created by the maker of the heavens and the earth- so my opinion COUNTS!)is free preach as he pleases. Go Barry Go!! Happy winter solstice.

  27. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Dear Zebedee, I do not spar, this is called theological or doctrinal debate. Your response that you are not required to be united doctrinally with an ordained priest proves that you are not in communion with the Roman Catholic church. I do not know what church you belong to or where you received your instruction. All Roman Catholics are required to be doctrinally and theologically and communally united as one with their parish priest and the teachings of the Roman Catholic church.No one in the Roman Catholic church that is considered “in communion” is allowed to differ from the church in faith and morals as concerns politics and personal behavior. If you are not united with the Catholic church in such a way, then you are not a member of the Roman Catholic church. Opinions are sometimes interesting to listen to although the “deposit of faith” is not subject to opinion, it is entrusted to the church for safekeeping and the pope along with the college of cardinals are the only authoritative ministers of the deposit of faith. The priests are replica’s of the bishops whom are all united with the
    Bishop of Rome whom is also called “The Pope” The laity are also called “the faithful” as they are indeed faithful to the teaching of the church and are willing to submit to the authority of the priesthood of whom Christ is the “High Priest” and all priests are considered to be speaking and acting en personna Christi Merry Christmas, may Christ lead you to peace of heart. Roy

  28. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Lets try this question again: Where in the catechism, specifically, does it say that one must be in agreement with erroneous teaching in order to avoid de facto excommunication?

    We have the sign of peace to reconcile us with our brothers/sisters, but this does not mean that we allow error to work its way into the Church. The priest actually preached heresy, though the communion confected was valid (providing the “form” was correct, that is, the words of institution).

    Michael

    “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried”

    “The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.” – GK Chesterton

  29. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Dear Shellyecr, If you know of a pseudo-compassionate priest, I am trying to find one. In all my life (55 years) I have not met a man yet whom was willing to give his entire life to the service of the church and Christ that was not genuinely compassionate. I have met many psuedo-compassionate parishoners, most of whom fell away from the Roman Catholic church into a state of utter despair and misery. Sometimes the fallen away do return, thanks be to God Almighty through the ministry of Christ and his apostles. Merry Christmas and peace to you. May all your confessions be happy ones!

  30. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Dear michaelme, I thought I would hear from you sooner or later. Martin Luther was excommunicated for preaching error as well as many other ministers whom obstinately persevere in error especially with the benefit of correction from the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic church. In this day and age there are still excommunications on-going. In the catechism you will find at the back of the book on page 768 under the word, “Excommunication” absolution # 1463 and as penalty # 1463. I do not want to write the definitions hear as that would delay your participation in learning the use of the catechism. I would much prefer that you are able to read and quote the catechism alone (I taught catechism for 6 years). Happy reading and may the grace and peace of Our Lord Jesus be with you. Merry Christmas from Roy

  31. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Dear michaelme, You presumptuously in error concerning heresy. The priest in question has full authority to minister the sacrament of reconciliation as general absolution and also has full authority to modify the language of the absolution for the children so they understand it from their own level of understanding. I am astounded that there is such a lack of understanding from the laity concerning the authority of the priesthood although this does explain why God chooses men for the priesthood that are able to assume those responsibilities and leaves the laity where they are because of their need for instruction. Remember michaelme that Christ said the goats are to be separated from the sheep and that whomever hears the voice of Christ are his sheep. Sheep do not “butt” heads with a Roman Catholic priest that is ordained to act and speak en personna Christi. Peace to you and may you be led to your confession in a most graceful and heavenly way. Roy

  32. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Hi ,Roy,just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean that he/she needs to go to confession. Merry Christmas to you too 🙂

  33. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Dear CathyCee, How do you disagree with me? So far I have found you most agreeable. May your confession mention me as your brother in faith and that we both have found peace in Christ. Roy

  34. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    One of the big problems I see in this whole debate is about excommunication. The Catecism does not govern the conditions for excommunication, nor does it define what offenses are punishable through excommunication. This is defined in the Code of Canon Law (cc hereafter). In Canons #1364-1398 which define excommunicable offenses, disagreement with a priest’s preaching is not listed in any of them. From this it follows that it is not a matter of excommunication. Disagreement with Church teaching is a grave matter and sets a person in mortal sin (Fr Corpai’s de facto excommunication, at least that is the only thing I can think of that it would be). However, disagreement a priest who is teaching falshood at a public Mass, is not a mortal sin. Perhaps you can enlighten me to where this is located in Church Law or Church documents, I do not know of any place where that is written. I also agree that the first step is to speak to this priest personally as the Gospels teach. We do not know if Mr. Michaels did this or not, he very well may have. But we do have to remeber that anything said or done at Mass is before the public and a response can be made justly in a public forum. I agree with Roy that we must respect our priest, but if they are teaching falsly we have a duty to challenge them to teach as the Church does. Laity share in the Baptism of Christ and are the ones who bring Christ out into the world.

    A side note on: Excommunication is not the right word to be using, because excommunication is a censure penalty (a penalty used to correct and bring back into union) by the Church (cc 1331). The Church must magisterim must go through the steps to bring about excommunication. This process must be done even for most latae sententiae (be the very act) excommunications, because of the midigating circumstances in Canons 1323 and 1324. Not the least of these is is ignorance of a law being broken (cc 1323 # 2). Mortal sin only needs to go to confession to be forgiven. IN some cases excommunication cannot be forgiven by confession.

    And a not to Roy about Genral absolution, no priest has the right to grant genral absolution of mortal sins, unless there is immenate danger of death and insufficant time to hear each individual’s confession (cc 961). As for venial sins those are forgiven by the Pentiential Rite at the beginning of Mass. Also as far as changing the wording, a priest does not have the right to change the wording of the Mass, because it is not his Mass it is Christ’s. This holds true for all of the other Sacrments (See the Congergation of Devine Worship and the Disciple of the Sacraments, Liturgiam authenticam, for more on this). Both the Mass and the Sacrmant of Confession have versions of the Rite that are for children. The answer is not in changing the Mass for age groups, the answer is in teaching our children what is about and who it is that we are recieving. The best way to do this is by living it ourselves and they will see our example.

    Sorry, this ended up so long and please forgive my spelling and grammer. Those are to areas I have never been any good at.

  35. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Dear Roy,

    I feel confident in saying that I believe that your heart is in the right place. I, too, am a teacher of the catechism, although formally not as many years as yourself.

    One of the things that I came to understand during my first year of teaching was that Truth and Love are one and the same, and that God Himself is both Truth and Love. It’s made all the more glorious when you consider Saint Paul’s teaching to “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15). Speaking love alone possibly puts others in harm’s way; to speak truth alone without love is to border on malice; to speak the truth in love is to connect with another soul in such a way that it benefits both the speaker and the receiver to fortify their path to heaven.

    My dear brother in Christ, I want to say gently that perhaps the words and tone of your posts are usurping your love for Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, and your love for all of the faithful. I share your passion regarding the worthy reception of the Eucharist! I also know that at times I have been less than charitable in how I have shared my knowledge (I hope that this isn’t one of them), in the name of speaking the truth. The message is lost if the love isn’t apparent to the receiver.

    I admire your courage and conviction, and am reminded of Saint Therese, who so beautifully shared with us the treasure of the Little Way.

    May God bless you and keep you all your days, and let us pray for each other.

    Jennifer

  36. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Roy,
    It is both heretical and hypocrital to believe that individual priest’s words must be believed as if they are an ex cathedra pronouncement.
    The fact remains, just because he is a priest does not make his words true, and if they lead others (esp. children) into error, than it is our moral imperative to speak up.

    If you will consider that we are all one body, one mind, one heart and one spirit in Christ, then how can Mr. Michaels dissent from agreement with his priest without reconciliation and still remain one bread and one body?

    Mr. Michaels was NOT the one in error, his priest was…and don’t give me an anathema for that Roy, stop playing the Pope. The words of the infallible Catechism protected by the Holy Spirit as Dogma speak plainly…

    The Eucharist is not ordered to the forgiveness of mortal sins-that is proper to the sacrament of Reconciliation…anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1395, 1385

    The priest proclaimed the opposite, which meant that HE was in a state of sin, and therefore performing an illicit Mass.

    Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
    Viva il Papa!
    We Love B16, and we miss JP2

  37. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    The priest in question has full authority to minister the sacrament of reconciliation as general absolution and also has full authority to modify the language of the absolution for the children so they understand it from their own level of understanding. I am astounded that there is such a lack of understanding from the laity concerning the authority of the priesthood
    although this does explain why God chooses men for the priesthood that are able to assume those responsibilities and leaves the laity where they are because of their need for instruction.

    Yes Roy, YOU NEED SOME INSTRUCTION…so let me instruct you. Or Rather I will let the Supreme Pontiff do it for me. The Law of the Church is quite clear on the matter.

    The priest possesses no authority whatsoever to change the words by which a sacrament is administered! A sacrament is instituted by Christ to give grace. The priest did not institute this sacrament, he is merely the instrument.
    Holy Mother Church makes it quite clear that this is a serious matter, and expounds severe penalties on priest who do such things.
    In his 2002 Letter , “Misericodia Dei”, Pope John Paul II reaffirms the norms for the sacrament of confession, esp with regard to general absolution.

    I quote:

    “It is a question of ensuring an ever more faithful, and thus more fruitful, celebration of the gift entrusted to the Church by the Lord Jesus after his Resurrection (cf. Jn 20:19-23). This seems especially necessary, given that in some places there has been a tendency to abandon individual confession and wrongly to resort to “general” or “communal” absolution. In this case general absolution is no longer seen as an extraordinary means to be used in wholly exceptional situations. On the basis of an arbitrary extension of the conditions required for grave necessity,(10) in practice there is a lessening of fidelity to the divine configuration of the Sacrament, and specifically regarding the need for individual confession, with consequent serious harm to the spiritual life of the faithful and to the holiness of the Church.

    Thus, after consultation with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, and the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, and after hearing the views of venerable Brother Cardinals in charge of the dicasteries of the Roman Curia, and reaffirming Catholic doctrine on the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation as summarized in the Catechism of the Catholic Church,(11) conscious of my pastoral responsibility and fully aware of the need for this Sacrament and of its enduring efficacy, I decree the following:

    Since “the faithful are obliged to confess, according to kind and number, all grave sins committed after Baptism of which they are conscious after careful examination and which have not yet been directly remitted by the Church’s power of the keys, nor acknowledged in individual confession”,(16) any practice which restricts confession to a generic accusation of sin or of only one or two sins judged to be more important is to be reproved.

    In the light of and within the framework of the above norms, the absolution of a number of penitents at once without previous confession, as envisaged by Can. 961 of the Code of Canon Law, is to be correctly understood and administered. Such absolution is in fact “exceptional in character”(18) and “cannot be imparted in a general manner unless:

    1. the danger of death is imminent and there is not time for the priest or priests to hear the confessions of the individual penitents;

    2. a grave necessity exists, that is, when in light of the number of penitents a supply of confessors is not readily available to hear the confessions of individuals in an appropriate way within an appropriate time, so that the penitents would be deprived of sacramental grace or Holy Communion for a long time through no fault of their own; it is not considered sufficient necessity if confessors cannot be readily available only because of the great number of penitents, as can occur on the occasion of some great feast or pilgrimage”.(19)

    With reference to the case of grave necessity, the following clarification is made:

    a) It refers to situations which are objectively exceptional, such as can occur in mission territories or in isolated communities of the faithful, where the priest can visit only once or very few times a year, or when war or weather conditions or similar factors permit.

    b) The two conditions set down in the Canon to determine grave necessity are inseparable. Therefore, it is never just a question of whether individuals can have their confession heard “in an appropriate way” and “within an appropriate time” because of the shortage of priests; this must be combined with the fact that penitents would otherwise be forced to remain deprived of sacramental grace “for a long time”, through no fault of their own. Therefore, account must be taken of the overall circumstances of the penitents and of the Diocese, in what refers to its pastoral organization and the possibility of the faithful having access to the Sacrament of Penance.

    c) The first condition, the impossibility of hearing confessions “in an appropriate way” “within an appropriate time”, refers only to the time reasonably required for the elements of a valid and worthy celebration of the Sacrament. It is not a question here of a more extended pastoral conversation, which can be left to more favourable circumstances. The reasonable and appropriate time within which confessions can be heard will depend upon the real possibilities of the confessor or confessors, and of the penitents themselves.

    d) The second condition calls for a prudential judgement in order to assess how long penitents can be deprived of sacramental grace for there to be a true impossibility as described in Can. 960, presuming that there is no imminent danger of death. Such a judgement is not prudential if it distorts the sense of physical or moral impossibility, as would be the case, for example, if it was thought that a period of less than a month means remaining “for a long time” in such a state of privation.

    e) It is not acceptable to contrive or to allow the contrivance of situations of apparent grave necessity, resulting from not administering the Sacrament in the ordinary way through a failure to implement the above mentioned norms,(20) and still less because of penitents’ preference for general absolution, as if this were a normal option equivalent to the two ordinary forms set out in the Ritual.

    f) The large number of penitents gathered on the occasion of a great feast or pilgrimage, or for reasons of tourism or because of today’s increased mobility of people, does NOT in itself constitute sufficient necessity.

    5. Judgement as to whether there exist the conditions required by Can. 961 §1, 2 is not a matter for the confessor but for “the diocesan Bishop who can determine cases of such necessity in the light of criteria agreed upon with other members of the Episcopal Conference”.(21) These pastoral criteria must embody the pursuit of total fidelity, in the circumstances of their respective territories, to the fundamental criteria found in the universal discipline of the Church, which are themselves based upon the requirements deriving from the Sacrament of Penance itself as a divine institution.

    I decree that everything I have set down in this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio shall have full and lasting force and be observed from this day forth, notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary.

    Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
    Viva il Papa!
    We Love B16, and we miss JP2

  38. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Fr. Corapi often speaks up against priests and bishops who “play fast and lose with the teachings of the Church. He says that they are “worse criminals than rapist and murderers and their places in hell will be lower than that of rapist and murderers. The latter destroys the body, while these priests and bishops destroy the soul.

    He and I reiterate that if a priests teachings something contrary to what Holy Mother Church teaches, DO NOT listen to him. As Mother Angelica said:
    I’ve chosen my Magisterium, now you chose yours”.

    Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
    Viva il Papa!
    We Love B16, and we miss JP2

  39. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    “relativism” is pointing out error without mentioning a name. “Relativism” is trying to reconcile concepts and not people. Only people can reconcile and people must reconcile their differences and especially errors prior to reception of Holy Communion. I have not in my entire lifetime (55 years) ever met a man or woman by the name of Relativism. Peace be to you and Merry Christmas. Roy

    This is what is sooooo dangerous about relativism, it takes so many forms, and can encompass so many things, and likewise endanger the Faith of so many. It is not limited to one thing, it attacks nearly every facet of our Faith. It is nearly impossible to narrow the heresies down to one, which is what makes relativism so dangerous. Merry Christmas to you too.

    Many no longer believe in “the Faith”, but rather “my faith” (Britannica).

    During the sixties until the present day, the Church that for centuries had stood for truth was overrun by the very thesis of relativism: that there is no such thing as truth (Britannica). An adult faith was being replaced by a relativistic faith. The most fundamental truths of the Faith gradually began to be seen as subject to what the individual believer considered to be true. If someone found a teaching to be too difficult to believe or practice, they simply ignored it, believing that they were following the dictates of conscience. This was in no way more dangerous than with regard to sins against sexuality, as is obvious given the public response to Humanae Vitae. Faith itself was now something relative, and it would have dire consequences for future generations. Shortly before his election to the papacy in 2005, Pope Benedict XVI diagnosed in the most poignant of words the root of the crisis that has plagued the Church and society for the last forty years:

    How many winds of doctrine we have known in recent decades, how
    many ideological currents, how many fashions of thinking…
    the small boat of thought of many Christians has been tossed about
    by these waves, thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism
    to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical
    individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from
    agnosticism to syncretism…Every day new sects are created…
    Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled
    today as fundamentalism, whereas relativism, which is letting oneself
    be tossed and swept about by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today’s standards. We are moving toward a
    dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as certain and
    that has as its ultimate standard one’s own ego and one’s own desires.

    (qtd. in Seewald 122)

    He went on to encourage Catholics to hold fast to their faith. He appealed to them by reminding them that “being an ‘adult’ means having a faith that does not follow the waves of today’s fashions” (qtd. in Seewald 122).

    Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
    Viva il Papa!
    We Love B16, and we miss JP2

  40. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Roy:

    Thanks for you note, though I’m not entirely sure why you chose not to post the text of CCC 1463. If you are laboring under the impression that I lack other things to which I need to attend please allow me now to disabuse you, and anyone so believing, of this impression.

    It’s also unclear to me how CCC 1463 advances the argument I made. For the sake of saving others from having to find it, I’ll review:

    My question was: Where in the catechism, specifically, does it say that one must be in agreement with erroneous teaching in order to avoid de facto excommunication?

    To which you reply: In this day and age there are still excommunications on-going. In the catechism you will find at the back of the book on page 768 under the word, “Excommunication” absolution # 1463 and as penalty # 1463. I do not want to write the definitions hear [sic] as that would delay your participation in learning the use of the catechism. I would much prefer that you are able to read and quote the catechism alone (I taught catechism for 6 years). Happy reading and may the grace and peace of Our Lord Jesus be with you. Merry Christmas from Roy

    CCC 1463 states:

    Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.

    So either you thought that CCC 1463 answers the question or you have an argument from 1463 to present which I await.

    So let me propose another argument in the form of a trilemma:

    I contacted one of the priests who recently served at our parish. He indicated that your understanding regarding Mr. Michaels’ article is in error, namely that:

    1. The scripture and the catechism are both very clear on conversing first with any person you have a disagreement with. You did not follow the catechism in this article by writing and printing your disagreement with the priest at this childrens[sic] mass without discussing the problem first with him, therefore, if you did receive communion on that day, you did so sacriligiously[sic]. 2. Your articles promote dissention of the priesthood in the way you present yourself to be “self ordained” to preach in opposition of an ordained priest.

    And further expanded here:

    A priest is ordained as shepherd and is acting and speaking “en [sic] personna[sic] Christi” according to the catechism and the teaching of the majisterium [sic] of the church through the infallability[sic] of the pope. No ordained priest deserves to be ignored by any member of the laity, including the ignorant of the laity. As the holy scriptures so accurately prophesy.

    Here:

    If you were not in agreement with the preaching of the priest concerning forgiveness, then why were you in agreement with the priest in your reception of the Holy Eucharist when you received the body and (perhaps the blood) and made your consent obvious with the words (Amen!) and hopefully a slight bow toward the priest as the communion was either handed to you or placed on your tongue? To put this question more simply, how can you be in agreement and at the same time not in agreement with this priest as ordained minister of the sacrament of Holy Communion?

    And reiterated following. If I’ve missed an important point from your prior quotes, please include such in your response.

    The trilemma is thus:

    1. You can recant your position as in error given this and all of the additional posts directing one to canon law, etc. Further, per your argument, it doesn’t even matter if he is wrong, so finding a priest who indicates differently is irrelevant.
    2. You can amend your argument, though having already established yourself up as an authority, this may be bad form and sets up an additional dilemma in that prior arguments will have to be reviewed for their validity or emendation allowed.
    3. You can refrain from communion on Sunday, Christmas, and every other day until your dispute with the priest abovementioned concludes since this priest is ordained as shepherd and is acting and speaking “en [sic] personna[sic] Christi” according to the catechism and the teaching of the majisterium [sic] of the church through the infallability[sic] of the pope. No ordained priest deserves to be ignored by any member of the laity, including the ignorant of the laity.

    So as not to deprive you of the pleasure of discovery, there is enough information about me on CE, and the Internet for you to determine my identity, my parish, my priest, and those priests who have served the parish. Please feel free to call him that you may be “worthy to receive” per your argument.

    As to your second post presuming my presumption, that has been answered most articulately by others on this thread.

    Finally, Mr. Michaels wrote for OSV and the article was republished on CE.

    Michael

    “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried”

    “The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.” – GK Chesterton

  41. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Roy:

    Let’s look at the position you espouse in another light.

    If true, it would have placed the priest, whose homily provoked Nestorius Heresiarch to say that Mary was not properly “Mother of God” but rather “Mother of the person of Jesus but not His divinity,” in the untenable position of being both teacher of the Magisterium and in sin by his disagreement with the heretic response of his metropolitan during the mass. Similar examples exist.

    Further to the argument, mortal sin is 1. grave matter (it must be of a nature that it severs our relationship with God), 2. full knowledge of its sinful character (that is, acting with an informed intellect regarding the sinful nature of the act), and 3. full consent of the will (requiring reflection and deliberation about the act and committing it anyway). Assuming you are correct, that Mr. Michaels’ (or anyone’s) disagreement with a priest (regardless of whether that priest is correct or in error) constitutes “grave matter,” we must still demonstrate that the other two criteria are present. If not, we have a less serious sin (venial) which the mass can and does forgive.

    But let’s go further, suppose that one disagrees, after serious reflection, with error taught by the priest (full consent); that the church does indeed define such as grave matter; that the person knows this. If true, the church has then set up a system whereby any heresy can be officially sanctioned and one can go to hell for remaining orthodox (which really, under this proposed system, lacks meaning). Similarly, any theological opinion (not doctrinal) expressed by the priest (and with which others, in good conscience, may disagree) carries the weight of a doctrinal statement; something expressly forbidden under the extant system.

    If, however, what you say is true, I suggest you apply for a position in the Curia. It took ten years for that body to validate the excommunication of Call to Action, but you’ve managed to excommunicate (albeit de facto) a number after only one article and a few posts.

    Michael

    “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried”

    “The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.” – GK Chesterton

  42. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    (SIGH!)

    Do we need one more lay clericalist around here?

    I remain your obedient servant, but God’s first,

    Pristinus Sapienter

    (wljewell @mail.catholicexchange.com or …yahoo.com)

  43. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I know:

    And yet I’m always willing to learn something, Pristinus, as I believe you can well attest. I only trust the same is true of others choosing to take up a discussion. I would like to actually see Roy articulately defend his conclusion against the arguments and evidence given. I and the others here taking the contrary may be wrong, we just haven’t been persuaded.

    Admittedly, I’ve been curious about your thoughts on the subject.

    May God bless all on the Exchange with an outpouring of His Grace this Holy Christmas

    Michael

    “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried”

    “The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.” – GK Chesterton

  44. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I would like to actually see Roy articulately defend his conclusion against the arguments and evidence given.

    As would I…but than again it is Christmas. Let’s give the poor ill-informed lad some time, and a Merry CHRISTmas to all!!

    Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
    Viva il Papa!
    We Love B16, and we miss JP2

  45. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Dear Viva il Papa, Phantom of the Opera, kindly remove your mask so that we all may look upon your face and know who you are! In the Holy Love of God I am your brother in Christ Roy

  46. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Dear Michaelme, IF the priest did anything wrong in this childrens mass, we should not have known anything about it as Mr. Michaels, being a responsible Catholic in practice of his faith would have discussed the wrong with the priest prior to his posting the article in the Catholic Exchange. I see no effort on the part of Mr. Michaels to explain why he totally ignored the explanation of the priest nor did Mr. Michaels even present in his article any attempt to address his concern with the priest in question. This is the wrong that was done to the priest by Mr. Michaels that makes Mr. Michaels communion sacreligious. If Mr. Michaels had left out the example of what Mr. Michaels perception of error in the priest, then his article would have been enlightening for the faithful. Woefully, Mr. Michaels instead convicts himself of error by his own testamony against the priest in his “expose’ “. Much better for Mr. Michaels to confess his sin to the priest and henceforth write his articles without the benefit of public humiliation of a Roman Catholic priest. In the Holy Love of God I am your brother in Christ Roy

  47. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Dear michaelme, You state that you contacted your parish priest then further stated that your parish priest foun d me to be in error. Unfortunately and to my great dismay, you forgot to tell me what is my error, other than some grammatical errors in mis-spelled words. I can easily confess to my parish priest that I mis-spelled some words, no problem there. In the Holy Love of God I am your brother in Christ Roy

  48. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Dear Viva il Papa, Thank you for proving my point. I had wanted to quote the entire text of the catechism yet I had simplified my argument for the sake of the learned. As I stated, the priest has full authority to minister the sacrament of general absolution to the children and also has full authority to modify the language to the level of understanding of the children at the appropriate moment during the mass. This time instead of finding your response in a text of the church, see if you can get a response from your bishop, then let me know what he says.In the Holy Love of God I am your brother in Christ Roy

  49. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Dear Viva il Papa, Mr. Michaels was in grave error by printing his article without the express consent and involvement with the priest in question. Outside the church what Mr. Michaels did to the priest would be called defamation of character and slander. Inside the church what Mr. Michaels did is betray the confidence of the priest in the mass and communion. Mr. Michaels owes the priest an apology and a confession.In the Holy Love of God I am your brother in Christ

  50. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Quite to contrary dear Roy,
    I did not prove your point, I refuted it. Currently, my diocese is without a bishop.
    But that is beside the point. What one bishop says SHOULD be the same as what the Bishop of Rome says, in order for the Church to truly be UNIVERSAL (catholic). There is no need to ask a local bishop about this matter when the UNIVERSAL law of the Church speaks it out so plainly.
    And the Church teachings, that one must be in a state of grace to receive holy communion, that state can only come about through sacramental confession. The priest seperated himself from the teaching of the Church by saying others, and lead his flock, esp. the children to believe otherwise.

    Let me ask you this Roy, If all we need to do to forgive our mortal sins is to go to Mass, then why do we even have the sacrament of Reconcilation. It would then serve no purpose and be a complete contradiction.
    See my point.

    Perhaps the author was wrong to “slander” the priest, but notice that he never mentioned the priest by name, by only recounted his actions. Thereby one must wonder whether “slander” really exists in this case.

    Nevertheless,
    By speaking “in persona Christi”, the priest must speak with the heart and mind of the universal Church established by Christ upon the Rock of Peter.

    Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
    Viva il Papa!
    We Love B16, and we miss JP2

  51. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    To all concerned: From The Code of Canon Law prepared by the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland published in 2001 with the Imprimatur of George Basil Hume OSB the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster …I quote the text of Canon#913 “For Holy Communion to be administered to children, it is required that they have sufficient knowledge and be accurately prepared, so that according to their capacity they understand what the mystery of Christ means, and are able to receive the Body of the Lord with faith and devotion. Canon #915. Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy CommunionIn the Holy Love of God I am your brother in Christ Roy

  52. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    In the Holy Love of God I am your brother in Christ

  53. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Can. 961 §1. Absolution cannot be imparted in a general manner to many penitents at once without previous individual confession unless:

    1/ danger of death is imminent and there is insufficient time for the priest or priests to hear the confessions of the individual penitents;In the Holy Love of God I am your brother in Christ

  54. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Dear Viva il Papa, Please read the following quotes from Canon Law which indicate that the priest in question acted within the guidelines of his authority. Mr. Michaels made an extraordinary presumption for a lay person. I beleive he owes the priest an apology and a confession. In the Holy Love of God I am your brother in Christ Roy

  55. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Dear Jennifer, My question for you is this: If Jesus Christ was represented by an attorney, would he still have been crucified? Point of law: There are many false witnesses in the world and unfortunately also many false judges. The truth is sometimes hard to see or even hear especially when many forget the infinite value of one human life. In the Holy Love of God I am your brother in Christ Roy

  56. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Dear Viva il Papa, What you are missing in your debate is the fact that there were 800 children at this mass. What priest in his best vestments would try to hear 800 confessions prior to mass. He would have to start hearing confessions about midnight the day before mass in order to hope to be done hearing the last confession by perhaps the 10:00 am mass on the next day. I think it is about time that someone other than me cuts this priest some slack and I wish it were Mr. Michaels.In the Holy Love of God I am your brother in Christ Roy

  57. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    H. Em. Card. Eduardo MARTÍNEZ SOMALO, Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church (VATICAN CITY)

    The Second Vatican Council remind us, as it is well known, that we priests are consecrated, above all, to celebrate the Eucharistic sacrifice, as the representatives of Christ, “in persona Christi agentes” (LG 28).
    The priest, as the minister of Christ, is himself in the measure in which, in the Church, he is not a presence of himself, but that of Christ; he does not act by himself, but as Christ’s instrument.
    All this determines the priest’s life and his activity. In fact, it makes no sense to put personal intelligence, will and our own voice at the service of Christ but then not to establish with Him a real communion of life, of intentions and of sentiments.
    It is not possible to transform into human history the mystery of grace through the sacramental administration without this illuminating, inspiring and fertilizing the life. All this is valid in a particular way, when it deals with the Eucharistic Celebration, in which also the practice of the sacred ministry reaches its summit.
    Acting “in persona Christi” without this leaving a mark in us, would be even a contradiction. It is not possible to be an instrument and mediator of love and mercy without becoming ourselves mercy and love: amoris officium (S. Augustine).
    The priest is the man of “sacrifice”, and not only in the sense that he offers the sacrifice of Christ, but that he offers it as “being Him”. The whole life of the priest is sacrificial because it must be offered continuously. And the Eucharistic sacrifice is center, summit and source of this. It is above all here that the priest learns to make of his existence a joyful immolation. “Let us also learn from the Lord Jesus Christ, who sacrificed Himself… – said the Holy Father at the meeting with the Clergy of Rome on 13 May 2005 – the art of priestly ascesis”.

    [00129-02.03] [IN121] [Original text: Italian]Can. 961 §1. Absolution cannot be imparted in a general manner to many penitents at once without previous individual confession unless:

    1/ danger of death is imminent and there is insufficient time for the priest or priests to hear the confessions of the individual penitents;

    I am asking if anyone would say that it is reasonable to expect a priest to hear the individual confessions of 800 children prior to mass? In the Holy Love of God I am your brother in Christ

  58. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    c) It is clear that penitents living in a habitual state of serious sin and who do not intend to change their situation cannot validly receive absolution.Can. 961 §1. Absolution cannot be imparted in a general manner to many penitents at once without previous individual confession unless:

    1/ danger of death is imminent and there is insufficient time for the priest or priests to hear the confessions of the individual penitents; The case could be made that the priest in question could not possibly hear the individual confessions of 800 children In the Holy Love of God I am your brother in Christ Roy

  59. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Dear Viva il Papa, Another question. Mr Michaels states that he and his wife were not sacramentally united for 5 yearsc) It is clear that penitents living in a habitual state of serious sin and who do not intend to change their situation cannot validly receive absolution.. So suddenly when his marriage is finally validated and he at last can receive Holy Communion in good conscience, he becomes a leading authority on the ordination of the priesthood and the rite of the Catholic mass, knowledgable enough to critique then criticize a priest in good standing with the Roman Catholic church? How is it that I am alone in my observations of the Mr. Michaels obvious disregard for the sacraments and the priesthood? Wont anyone join me in an honest appraisal of this situation or do many of you despise the priesthood and the mass as well? In the Holy Love of God I am your brother in Christ Roy

  60. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Dear tomvanriper, Whether the priest was right or wrong in this forum is not the question as he is not able to defend himself, what is wrong in this article from Mr. Michaels is that you and I should not have been told by Mr. Michaels that he had any disagreement with the priest without the benefit of an explanation from the priest in question. Dont you see the betrayal in the behavior of Mr. Michaels regarding the priestc) It is clear that penitents living in a habitual state of serious sin and who do not intend to change their situation cannot validly receive absolution.? If Mr. Michaels has a problem with this priest, the problem should have been resolved prior to Mr. Michaels writing and posting his article regarding worthy reception of communion. I am astounded that so many Catholics are so ready to find this priest in error when Mr. Michaels is so obviously in error in the fact that he shares with us a contention he has with this priest without the benefit of any effort on Mr. Michaels part to reconcile his differences with the priest directly without involving any one of us in this. Had Mr. Michaels told us in his article that he had tried to reconcile with the priest and gave us evidence that the priest refused to reconcile, then Mr. Michaels would have a substantial case to bring his concerns to this forum. Lacking that attempt to reconcile with the priest, betrays Mr. Michaels relationship with the priest in the sacrament of Holy Communion. In the Holy Love of God I am your brother in Christ Roy

  61. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    At the risk of turning this conversation unnecessarily back to the original point of the article, I’ll follow the dictates of charitable conscience and assume that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, Mr. Michaels did in fact take this matter up in private with his priest before publishing the article. I shall thus refrain from judging the man and interpret his lack of a specific response in this forum as an act of charity exercised by the wrongfully accused. In any event, the point of the article reflects the teaching of Archbishop Chaput of Denver:


    This earnest desire to receive our Lord sacramentally is traditionally called a ‘spiritual communion.’ Regrettably, we don’t talk about spiritual communion as we once did. But Thomas Aquinas, Alphonsus Liguori and many other great saints strongly encouraged spiritual communion as a practice.


    “Both children and adults can make a spiritual communion. They may come forward with their arms crossed and bow before the Eucharist. Then the priest, deacon or extraordinary minister could say to them kindly, ‘Receive the Lord Jesus in your heart.’ This is not a blessing, but an invitation to worship, so no gestures are made.


    “This spiritual communion would more authentically carry out the spirit of the liturgy. Being faithful to the truths of the sacramental celebration allows all of us, young and old, to enter more deeply into worship.”

    These words speak for themselves, but my own experience in making spiritual communion is that it is an extremely powerful and public witness that recognizes one’s current (and temporary) unworthiness to receive while at the same time pointing one’s heart unreservedly towards Christ. On more than one occasion, making a spiritual communion has nearly brought tears to my eyes and prompted me towards appropriate sacramental confession. Teaching the truth about spiritual communion can only be good, and it follows that failure to teach about spiritual communion is at least questionable, not because I say so but because the good Archbishop says so.

  62. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    As so does the Bishop of Rome, Christ’s Vicar on Earth.
    Who reaffirms time and again the necessity of a state of grace for the worthy reception of the Eucharist.

    Roy,
    the authors intentions are indeed noble, and he should be commended. You claim he slandered and defamed the priest. While in actuality, he did the opposite. He never mentioned the priest by name, and he never said one “bad” thing about him. He did what any “loyal son of the Church“(what JPII called Bishop Sheen)should do. He recognized the error in the priest’s words. Whether or not he discussed this with the priest is not for us to know. What is for us to know is that we must all examine ourselves carefully before receiving communion. And we should be on guard against “false teaching” that could lead ourselves and others astray. While it may be considered judgmental to nit and pick at every little “questionable” word and action, it is one’s duty to tell the truth. “In season and out of season, whether convenient or inconvenient.”

    The fact remains, the priest was WRONG in his words. The authors intention can be seen as loyal, for this particular matter was one of a very serious nature, as is the reception of the sacraments.
    The fact remains, the priest did not grant a “general absolution”. No absolution was granted.

    “Is everyone here sorry for all the sins they’ve committed? Good. Did you know coming to Mass means your sins are forgiven? So everyone here should come up for Communion today.”

    Even if he had granted a general absolution, the absolution, as well as the communion would have been valid, but illicit. One MUST ALWAYS confess ones sins in order to receive forgiveness. Unless there is danger of death. The mere fact that there was 800 people does not qualify such a condition. Does the Holy Father grant general absolution before midnight mass? Once again, consider the words of the Magisterium in Miseriecordia Dei

    it is not considered sufficient necessity if confessors cannot be readily available only because of the great number of penitents, as can occur on the occasion of some great feast or pilgrimage”.

    Even if the priest had granted a general absolution to the students, he still made a dangerous statement by leading them to believe that
    coming to Mass means your sins are forgiven”

    Some of these kids may think that they never have to go to confession again.

    Hey, I don’t need confession, I can just show up at Mass and all my mortal sins will be forgiven.

    Yes, our priest must be loved and respected, which the author showed by not disclosing his name, and not speaking ill of him, but merely pointed out the danger in his words. In this way, it is my firm belief (with the teaching of the Church to back me up) that Mr. Michaels acted responsibly and compassionately.

    Your attitude Roy gives me the impression that you believe that if a priest tells me that there are now 8 commandments instead of ten, that I should believe him. The words of a priest have no value unless those words speak the truth. Unless they are united with the Pope, and thereby united with Christ and his church. We all have a responsibilty to tell the truth. And that responsibility falls in a special way upon priests and catechists.
    There are many priests (some of whom I know personally and who are dear friends of mine)who either frequently or occasionally teach something that is against what the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic church teaches. I still love them with all my heart, and reverre them because of the power of their sacred ordination, but when they speak something of which I know is NOT what Holy Mother Church teaches, then I do not listen to them. And I would encourage others to do the same.

    Jesus Christ does not merely speak the truth. He IS truth itself. And as Fr. John Corapi has said to those who distort the Faith to fit their own ideas; “You will not mess with the Truth!”
    We as human beings, and children of God have a moral obligation to tell the truth. To proclaim Christ faithfully. This responsibility falls in a special way upon priests and catechists. In a world that says it is acceptable to believe whatever you want; young people are extremely vunerable to this threat. Because what we believe is shown in our actions.

    The priest is the minister of the sacraments, he is not their institutor. The hands of the priest are indeed holy and sacred. No power can ever take away the indelible mark that he received at ordination. Every word that comes from his mouth SHOULD speak the TRUTH. But priest are just as human as you and me. They do not always speak the truth, and when they do not, we turn to the Rock of the Church for guidance and strength.

    “AD MAJOREM DEI GLORIAM;
    FOR THE GREATER GLORY OF GOD” St. Ignatius of Loyola

    This was the motto of St. Ignatius. Some time ago I took it as my motto. Why? Because My God is the one most important Being in my life. I would like to think that all my actions up to this time have been for His greater glory. I, however acknowledge that I am a sinner. There have been times when I, like every other human being, have fallen. There have been times when I have forgotten, or neglected to give My Lord the glory and love that is His due. Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa “A broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.” (Psalm 51;17)

    But I must strive in all things to do His Will, to give Him glory. For that is the purpose of life. “God is the author and final end of our lives”, so our purpose must be to follow His Will, wherever it may lead. Pope Benedict XVI said, “The purpose of our lives is to reveal God to men. And only where God is seen does life truly begin. Only when we meet the living God in Christ do we know what life is.”

    2. “THERE IS NOTHING SO PRECIOUS AS THE CATHOLIC FAITH.” St. Augustine

    O, how these words ring so true today. This world of ours is in such torment, in such disarray. It is falling into the pits of darkness. Satan is at work everywhere. All those who long for truth, there is but one place to find it; in the arms of your Lord. Holy Mother Church has possessed saints and sages of every century and nation. Christ founded the Church to be a means of salvation for all.

    With the words “Tu es Petrus-You are Peter”, He establised an unshakable foundation to guide the Church, His Bride, through the desert into the promised land. The new promised land is the kingdom of heaven. We (the Church Militant)do not make this journey alone. Our Blessed Lord promised that the Holy Spirit would lead her always. The Catechism tells us that the Church is the place “where the Spirit flourishes”.

    And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. ” (Matthew 16;18-19) Many argue that Christ only meant such power to be bestowed upon Simon Peter, and not on a line of successors. Christ, however, intended His Church to live on for all ages, and for all peoples. The rock of the Church, and of mankind itself will live on in a line of successors known as the Roman Pontiffs. Fr. John Laux wrote: “The Pope does not receive his power from the bishops or from those who elect him, but directly from Christ.” Some will ask, “How can a sinful man be the Vicar of Christ on earth?” The answer is that St. Peter denied Jesus. “Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you three times deny that you know me.” (Luke 22;34) That didn’t stop Our Lord from forgiving him. In 1870, Pope Pius IX, and the First Vatican Council solemnly declared, “that the Pope is protected by a special divine guidance” in matters of faith and morals. There have been “bad popes”. Remember, even St. Peter denied Christ. But God will keep His promise. In my opinion, what I see as the persuading proof of the Papacy being a divine institution, is that for nearly two thousand years, two hundred and sixty-five popes (even the “bad ones”) have never contradicted each other on a matter of faith or morals.

    What does all this mean to me? I am proud to call the Catholic Church my home. The Council of Trent tells us that “without the Catholic Faith, it is impossible to please God.” I must remember my motto, Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam. My goal is to give God glory. This must be the best way to do it. By believing the Faith which has been handed down to us through Scripture and Tradition, by putting that Faith into practice through the sacraments, especially the Eucharist. Blessed Teresa of Calcutta said, “The time you spend before Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament is the best time that you will spend on earth.” This is especially true for me. I absolutely love my weekly adoration hour. It is the one time when I can put aside all the stress and distractions of life, and hold converse with my Lord, face to face. The Holy Cure of Ars (St. John Vianney) once asked one of his parishioners what he did during those hours he spent before the Sacred Host. He answered, “I look at Him, and He looks at me.

    I put my life at the service of God, and His Church. My hope is to serve Him in whatever way He wishes me to. I do it all through Our Blessed Lady. As the Memorare of LaSalette says, “Most loving Mother, obtain for me the grace to love Jesus above all else.”

    ‘Do not be afraid! Open wide the doors for Christ!’
    The Pope was speaking to the young. Are we not perhaps all afraid in some way? If we let Christ enter fully into our lives, if we open ourselves totally to Him, are we not afraid that He might take something away from us?
    Are we not perhaps afraid to give up something significant, something unique, something that makes life so beautiful? Do we not then risk ending up diminished and deprived of our freedom?
    And once again the Pope said; No! If we let Christ into our lives, we lose nothing, nothing, absolutely nothing of what makes life free, beautiful and great.
    No! Only in this friendship are the doors of life opened wide. Only in this friendship do we experience beauty and liberation.
    Do not be afraid of Christ! He takes nothing away, and He gives you everything. When we give ourselves to Him, we receive a hundredfold in return.
    Yes, open, open wide the doors to Christ – and you will find true life. Amen ” (Benedictus XVI)

    I have said all I am going to say on this subject, I will not post again on this topic.

    And one last thing Roy, (Please accept this in the spirit intended) but please stop demanding to “see my face”.

    A Blessed CHRISTmas to you all, and as Bishop Sheen would say,

    GOD LOVE YOU.

    Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
    Viva il Papa!
    We Love B16, and we miss JP2

  63. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    It is worth reiterating one point made by Viva il Papa: “He recognized the error in the priest’s words.” This is an important point because it goes to the very nature of truth and falsehood, as well as to the very nature of good and evil – as all four pertain to the human person. Truth and goodness stick. Our moral actions in response to the Truth define us. To paraphrase St. James in the contrapositive: if our faith is alive then we have good works. To criticize the good works of someone, then, is to criticize their very person, for, while our good works are insufficient without Christ’s grace for so grand a thing as salvation, they are indispensable to the Christian life and are a very powerful means of opening ourselves to receive Christ’s grace.

    On the other hand, evil and falsehood do not define us, at least not so long as we sojourn through this valley of tears. Sin does affect our relationship with God, either eroding it (venial sin) or killing it (mortal sin), but even then we are God’s child and God will welcome us back if we recognize our error and repent (in the confessional in the case of mortal sin). Our personhood remains despite even the spiritual death of mortal sin – and it is our person, our very self, that God revives in the confessional. Put another way, God conquers death for us, freeing us from the temptation to allow our wrong actions to define us permanently. Thus, criticizing a person’s error is completely separate from criticizing the person. Indeed, criticizing the error is often required to help someone recognize that error. And when that error is promulgated publicly by a person with formal authority, then that error must also be corrected publicly. But both the criticism and the correction are of the error and not of the person who errs. Mr. Michaels has clearly criticized an error. Therefore, no criticism of a person is present in the article.

  64. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Roy:

    Let’s first be clear, the mass mentioned in Mr. Michaels’ article was for high school students, certainly far removed from “children.” If all were Catholic, we could, with a fair degree of certainty, surmise that they had received catechetical instruction up to at least Confirmation, at which point a “children’s” mass is improper for them. The priest in question did in fact commit error, however, in giving general absolution (unless you assume that no high school student commits mortal sin or that the building was about to be hit by a comet), and in inviting all congregants to receive (unless you assume that all of the student body is Catholic and in a state of grace, per above). It is inconsequential whether Mr. Michaels discussed the error of the priest with him prior to writing the article for Our Sunday Visitor because he is making an object lesson on receipt of the Eucharist. In proper charity the identity of the priest and all possibility of identifying him was absent from the article (as ViP has also indicated, above). Mr. Michaels, therefore, committed no error or sin since no “public humiliation,” calumny, defamation, or slander could exist. Any attempt to couch this as a such lacks standing. However, you come closer to slander and defamation by imputing to Mr. Michaels a mortal sin without anything to back your claim…not one document you have cited goes to show that he is in error. And, unless you have taken this directly to Mr. Michaels, you may be guilty of backbiting. That, however, is between you and your confessor.

    Now to my posts.

    ” You state that you contacted your parish priest then further stated that your parish priest found me to be in error. Unfortunately and to my great dismay, you forgot to tell me what is my error…”

    From a reading of the sentence immediately following the fact that I contacted a priest formerly serving at our parish, it should be entirely clear to anyone what the “error” is:

    ” I contacted one of the priests who recently served at our parish. He indicated that your understanding regarding Mr. Michaels’ article is in error, namely that:

    [emphasis added].

    Following this is a series of citations from you on your thesis. I hope that this clears things up and that you are able to understand and follow the rest of the post.

    Even if the entire post had been unclear, however, there remains the post following which has gone unadressed.

    Moving on…

    I am asking if anyone would say that it is reasonable to expect a priest to hear the individual confessions of 800 children prior to mass?

    But, since we have already established that 1. these were not children 2. there is no way to know if all were Catholic, and 3. that no danger of death seemed to exist, the fact remains that the priest committed formal error.

    Further, this question you would seem to suggest that during every mass (with more than four or five people present, let’s say) the presiding priest should grant general absolution since it is unreasonable to expect that he hear the individual confessions of the congregants prior to the Eucharistic Celebrtion. This is the logical consequent of your question, when turned to an assertion.

    “So suddenly when his marriage is finally validated and he at last can receive Holy Communion in good conscience, he becomes a leading authority on the ordination of the priesthood and the rite of the Catholic mass, knowledgable [sic] enough to critique then criticize a priest in good standing with the Roman Catholic church? How is it that I am alone in my observations of the Mr. Michaels obvious disregard for the sacraments and the priesthood? Wont [sic]anyone join me in an honest appraisal of this situation or do many of you despise the priesthood and the mass as well?”

    Your argument above is invalid since you engage in artumentum ad hominem by developing a conclusion (Mr. Michaels is in error regarding his contention about the erroneous statement of the priest) based on a premise that, some time prior to the article’s publication, he was not of the mind of the Church regarding his marriage. But the conclusion has nothing to do with the premise. Thus far you have produced no evidence that one is in mortal sin when in disagreement with the erroneous statement of a priest nor have you provided evidence that the priest was correct in what he said. All arguments made by the members of this thread point out the error in so believing and so, to date, constitute our best shot at an “honest appraisal” of the situation. It is our love for priests and the mass which propels us.

    I continue to wonder at your use of CCC 1463 which seems to have nothing to do with the argument. I would have thought CCC 1348 might have been more to your point, though maybe you found that as easy to confute as the rest of us would, and so decided not to use it.

    I sincerely hope yours is a joyful Christmas and blessed new year.

    Michael

    “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried”

    “The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.” – GK Chesterton

  65. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Roy:

    Reflecting on your post of 12/24 at 3:25 and your following arguments provoke a question about the understanding of the canon you reference:

    Can. 961 §1. Absolution cannot be imparted in a general manner to many penitents at once without previous individual confession unless:
    1/ danger of death is imminent and there is insufficient time for the priest or priests to hear the confessions of the individual penitents;In the Holy Love of God I am your brother in Christ

    You later argue that, for the 800 students, individual confession was impractical. Am I, then, to understand that you read the canon to state that the priest may provide general absolution 1. when danger of death is imminent, and 2. when there is insufficient time for him to hear individual confessions? This seems to be the case from your later assertion that the priest couldn’t hear 800 individual confessions prior to mass and so general absolution was permitted.

    If this is the case I would have to respond that the two conditions are conjoint by the use of “and.” Properly the conjunctions “or,” “but,” “either…or,” “neither…nor” disjoin conditions. The conjoint reading of the canon means, then, that when the danger if death is imminent with insufficient time to hear individual confession, then and only then, without his Ordinary’s approval, may the priest administer general absolution. If either of the conditions is absent, that is, if danger of imminent death is present but there is sufficient time for the priest to hear individual confessions, he may not grant general absolution or, similarly, if there is insufficient time to hear individual confessions before some event but the imminent danger of death is not present, the priest may not grant general absolution.

    If this was not your contention, please forgive the presumption, but it seemed the direction of your posts.

    Michael

    “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried”

    “The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.” – GK Chesterton

  66. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    So is this topic now dead? Resolved to everyone’s satisfaction?

    Michael

    “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried”

    “The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.” – GK Chesterton

  67. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I don’t think it is resolved, but to resolve it would take us all thinking about what everyone is saying. There have been some arguments, from Canon Law in particular made that do not apply (a prime example is the use of Canon 913), but that was addressed I do believe. Another problem is the claim of “slander” against the priest in the article. I see this is a problem because it cannot be slander because slander has to be spoken, liable is the written equivalant of it. I bring that difference in termenology up only because both of them have to be shown to be intentional falshoods to ruin their reputaion. It being an intentional act to harm the person is very important. This is not present, since as has been pointed out we do not know the priest’s name or location.

    I would also like to say another thing about genral absolution. After some thought, I do not think that the priest was granting a genral absolution, because it does not have the form of absolution. The form of absolution is: “I absolve you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” These words are nesscary for the absolution to be valid. So it follows that he was not granting an absolution, but assuming that everyone present was only guilty of venial sins that attending Mass does forgive or that everyone present was Catholic. I agree with Mr Michaels that this assumption is out of place, because of the number of people present. I wish it was possible and pray that a day will come when it will be. Until then we need to remeber that we are a fallen people and need the grace given in the Confessional.

  68. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Tom:

    I believe you’re correct on every count.

    I think that the author was not suggesting that the form of the absolution was valid, but rather that the potential for inference that it had been granted (to the uninformed mind) was present in the words of the priest. An unfortunate mistake at best; at worst a heretical notion.

    Michael

    “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried”

    “The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.” – GK Chesterton

  69. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    You know, your Sufficiency, even Chesterton was noticeably silent on the subject of cheese. I mean, consider the scope, the splendor, the possibilities –

    – cold or warm, slice or chunk, solid or melted on crackers, etc.

    The good man barely took a sliver out of the wheel . . .

    I remain your obedient servant, but God’s first,

    Pristinus Sapienter

    (wljewell @catholicexchange.com or … yahoo.com)

Leave a Reply