SINNERS BANNED

FROM CATHOLIC COMMUNION

SNUBBED AT THE ALTAR

 

Roman Catholicism says the Blessed Eucharist or the Mass is an act of worship wherein the bread and wine are turned by the priest, who uses the power of God, into the body and blood of Jesus Christ who is true God and true man.

 

The Christians forbid notorious sinners to come to the Lord’s Table for Holy Communion.  People who live together in a state of adultery or fornication are barred.  Heretics who are not ashamed to let the world know what they are, are not wanted either.

 

The Catholic Church tells such people that they must not come to communion.  People have been turned away from the altar for selling contraceptives and for campaigning for abortion.  Most priests will give communion and meet with persons later to tell them to stay in their seats from now on.  Many will bluntly refuse to give communion and make a scene.

 

The Church is clear that when it won’t make a scene that scandalises the people that communion must not be given to people with whom she finds major faults.

 

This is a very judgmental attitude.  Some people who live in a state of “sin” cannot be guilty of serious sin for they are too weak to stop.  The Church is wrong to judge them.  The unfairness of the whole thing is more than plain when it is seen that the Church teaches that it is wrong to judge.  To do it herself is to sanction hypocrisy and hypocrisy is a very nasty insult against people who do judge and those who need to do it but are told not to.  The priest who obeys the Vatican and withholds communion is a hypocrite.  It is up to each person to examine themselves.

 

It is evil to tell anyone, “You can’t receive our Lord so go away.”

 

According to Catholic and Christian doctrine: “To consume Holy Communion in a state of grave sin is a sacrilege and another grave sin.  It is receiving Jesus into a pit of abominations.”  Hence, if a priest knows that a person is a grave sinner and gives them communion he is desecrating the body of Jesus.  He is being a partner in the crime of sacrilege. 

 

Some Catholics argue that though the priest does not know all the circumstances and judges nobody, there is a probability that, say, a cohabiting homosexual, is in a state of grave sin which means he can’t give communion just in case. 

 

Some may say we must assume the best to be on the safe side.  We must assume the person is holy despite outward appearances.  They would see the ban on the homosexual as based on cynicism.  But in certain cases the priest will have a good idea of what is going on.  If he sees two gays having sex and then coming up for communion he can refuse.  Also, if we assume people are always good where do we draw the line?  Do we pretend that the murderer is really a good person but was just misguided?

 

The Church says it can ban divorcees and homosexuals from communion not necessarily because it judges them but because it judges their lifestyle as unchristian and wants them to think about what they are doing and fix it and not give example to others to live the same way.  You can judge a person as doing wrong without accusing that person of sin for the person could be mistaken.  If people cannot accept this treatment then it is clear that they don’t care if they are right or wrong and/or want the Church to change what it believes just for them.  But many beliefs cannot be changed without the Church ceasing to be the Church.

 

But suppose it is right to keep the body of Christ away from some people.  Are the reasons the Church gives for not doing this all the time valid?

 

If the Church gives communion to people she disapproves of would she be giving the message that she approves?  Would it be making others feel better about sinning seriously or that this or that is not a serous sin at all?  It would be but it is up to the Church to instruct them properly.  She has no right to argue that she must refuse communion in case it leads people astray.

 

The priests cannot argue that they have to give communion in case the congregation are upset and alienated if they don’t.  The Christian is supposed to do right regardless of how others feel so the reaction of the congregation is irrelevant.

 

Perhaps it is wrong to refuse a sinner for it will hurt them and make them despise the Church.  The sinner should not be resentful for they deserve it.  The sinner should not have approached the altar.  God can prevent the pain and the hatred and if they happen it is the sinner’s fault or God’s will that they feel this way.

 

There is no excuse for sending anybody who is in a grave state of sin away from the altar without communion if it is ever right at all.  The Holy Spirit if good is not inspiring the Vatican’s attitude.  The pope and his men know fine well that they are being unjust for they are told often enough by progressive Catholics.

 

The Bible directs that sinners are not allowed to take communion and that those who do, eat and drink condemnation to themselves for they are profaning the Lord’s body and blood (1 Corinthians 11).  It does God no harm to let them eat him.  If you take the sacrament of confirmation in a state of serious sin it will not affect you and the grace it gives will not be conferred until you repent.  It should be the same with the Eucharist.  To bar anybody from communion is wrong.  The Catholic Church has no right to call itself Catholic and the true Catholic Church for it is not catholic, that is universal, that is for all people.

Top of the Document

 

 

 

Top of the Document

 

BOOKS CONSULTED

 

 

Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Book 2, Most Rev M Sheehan DD, MH Gill & Son, Dublin, 1954

Apologetics for the Pulpit, Aloysius Roche, Burns Oates & Washbourne Ltd, London, 1950

Born-Again Catholics and the Mass, William C Standridge Independent Faith Mission, North Carolina, 1980

Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1988

Confession of a Roman Catholic, Paul Whitcomb, TAN, Illinois, 1985

Critiques of God, Edited by Peter A Angeles (Religion and Reason Section), Prometheus Books, New York, 1995

Documents of the Christian Church, edited by Henry Bettenson, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1979

Eucharist, Centre of Christian Life, Rod Kissinger SJ, Liguori Publications, Missouri, 1970

Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, Fr Charles Chiniquy, Chick Publications, Chino, 1985

Is Jesus Really Present in the Eucharist? Michael Evans, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1986

Handbook to the Controversy with Rome, Vol 2, Karl Von Hase MD, The Religious Tract Society, London, 1906

Living in Christ, A Dreze SJ, Geoffrey Chapman, London-Melbourne, 1969

Martin Luther, Richard Marius, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1999

Radio Replies, Vol 2, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul, Minnesota, 1940

Roman Catholic Claims, Charles Gore, MA, Longmans, Green & Co, London, 1894

Salvation, The Bible and Roman Catholicism, William Webster, Banner of Truth, Edinburgh, 1990

Secrets of Romanism, Joseph Zaccello, Loizeaux Brothers, New Jersey, 1984

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Veritas, Dublin, 1995

The Early Church, Henry Chadwick, Pelican, Middlesex, 1987

The Mass, Sacrifice and Sacrament, William F Dunphy, CSSR, Liguori Publications, Missouri, 1986

The Primitive Faith and Roman Catholic Developments, Rev John A Gregg, APCK, Dublin, 1928

The Student’s Catholic Doctrine, Rev Charles Hart BA, Burns & Oates, London, 1961

This is My Body, This is My Blood, Bob and Penny Lord, Journeys of Faith, California, 1986

Why Does God…? Domenico Grasso SJ, St Pauls, Bucks, 1970

 

The Web

Transubstantiation, Is it a True Doctrine?

http://www.geocities.com/christian_apologist2001/  

 

BIBLE QUOTATIONS FROM:

 

The Amplified Bible

 

 

Top of the Document

 

 

Friday, 07 December 2007