Sinners Unjustly Banned from Some Sacraments

"What conclusions can be drawn from the study of the history of the canonical discipline of denying Holy Communion to those who obstinately persist in public grave sin?

First of all, the consistent canonical discipline permits the administering of the Sacrament of Holy Communion only to those who are properly disposed externally, and forbids it to those who are not so disposed, prescinding from the question of their internal disposition, which cannot be known with certainty.

Secondly, the discipline is required by the invisible bond of communion which unites us to God and to one another. The person who obstinately remains in public and grievous sin is appropriately presumed by the Church to lack the interior bond of communion, the state of grace, required to approach worthily the reception of the Holy Eucharist.

Thirdly, the discipline is not penal but has to do with the safeguarding of the objective and supreme sanctity of the Holy Eucharist and with caring for the faithful who would sin gravely against the Body and Blood of Christ, and for the faithful who would be led into error by such sinful reception of Holy Communion.

Fourthly, the discipline applies to any public conduct which is gravely sinful, that is, which violates the law of God in a serious matter. Certainly, the public support of policies and laws which, in the teaching of the Magisterium, are in grave violation of the natural moral law falls under the discipline.

Fifthly, the discipline requires the minister of Holy Communion to forbid the Sacrament to those who are publicly unworthy. Such action must not be precipitous. The person who sins gravely and publicly must, first, be cautioned not to approach to receive Holy Communion. The memorandum, "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion", of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in its fifth principle, gives the perennial pastoral instruction in the matter. This, in fact, is done effectively in a pastoral conversation with the person, so that the person knows that he is not to approach to receive Holy Communion and, therefore, the distribution of Holy Communion does not become an occasion of conflict. It must also be recalled that 'no ecclesiastical authority may dispense the minister of Holy Communion from this obligation in any case, nor may he emanate directives that contradict it'.

Finally, the discipline must be applied in order to avoid serious scandal, for example, the erroneous acceptance of procured abortion against the constant teaching of the moral law. No matter how often a Bishop or priest repeats the teaching of the Church regarding procured abortion, if he stands by and does nothing to discipline a Catholic who publicly supports legislation permitting the gravest of injustices and, at the same time, presents himself to receive Holy Communion, then his teaching rings hollow. To remain silent is to permit serious confusion regarding a fundamental truth of the moral law. Confusion, of course, is one of the most insidious fruits of scandalous behavior."
The Catholic Church claims that baptism and the sacrament of reconciliation and sometimes the anointing of the sick are for the spiritually dead – those who do not have God’s saving grace in them. The function of these rites is to restore a person to God’s friendship. But if the person willingly adheres to mortal sin then they do not work. There is no valid sacrament.

The other sacraments, the Eucharist, Confirmation, Matrimony and Ordination are only for people who are in God’s friendship or free from serious sin. If they take the sacraments in serious sin then they are committing a sacrilege for the rite and its power is not meant for them. They are defying God and showing contempt for his ways. These sacraments are called the sacraments of the living for they are meant for those who are living in God’s presence and way.

If you take ordination, marriage or confirmation in serious sin, the grace they give is not received until you make your peace with God. In other words, they are not real sacraments at all but potential ones. You might be really ordained and really married and really confirmed but there is no spiritual help in them. Some will say that they do something and so must be sacraments. But when you become a lawyer you become one in the sight of God and that is not a sacrament. Receiving the grace later does not make them sacraments. They are supposed to give grace when the person receives them. The person should have to go through the rite again. To say that a sacrament may not be activated at the time but later on when the sinner’s dispositions change, is simply to admit that the rite is only red tape. A God with red tape is a superstition.

This receiving the grace later does not make them sacraments but potential sacraments. It is really repentance that gives the grace and that means the sacrament does not for the symbol is past and does not give you grace for that reason.

Giving sacraments to give grace is one thing but giving sacraments that confer magical powers like turning a man into a priest is occultism. That is not about grace at all for grace helps you to be holy but about casting spells.

Some Protestants require that recipients of the sacraments be free from all sin and detachment from sin but all the Catholics ask is that they do not have mortal sin. Impenitent venial sinners – people who allegedly have not sinned badly enough to cease being in union with God – are welcome to Rome’s sacraments. Unrepentance is a sin as bad as the sins one is not sorry for. So for venial sinners to take a sacrament is sinful for they think, “Let us take these graces to make us better people but we are not going to show God the gratitude of casting off our sins and we will do good when it pleases us not him.” Their respect is just a hypocritical mockery in the eyes of God. If that is what it is then they cannot do anything good for God when they adhere to their impenitence. They cannot draw grace from sin. The sacraments cannot work on them. If anybody’s grace works on them it is Satan’s.

Sin is a complete divorce from God for it is infinite ingratitude for his willingness to do infinite good for us. Their “venials” are really mortal sins. Catholicism would say that any religion that gives sacraments to unite unrepentant mortal sinners to God is permitting sacrilege and insincerity for the sinners hate God. It would see its sacraments as homage to the Devil and its Masses are as black as the cloths on the Devil’s altar. But the Church is doing exactly that.
Rome will sometimes refuse baptism to babies when the parents will not raise them as Catholics. This is an evil law because if God is all-powerful then let him make the child a believer. If those parents want to mock the ceremony by saying that they will raise the child in the service of God then the priest should not let them but get suitable godparents to take over and take on the religious duty. The priests are mistreating baptism by giving it to some babies and not others. Even if they do baptise such babies they are doing it grudgingly.

The bishop has the power to retain the forgiveness of certain sins to himself. Years ago, if you made poteen the priest could not absolve you unless you were in danger of death meaning you had to go to the bishop to get forgiven. It is keeping people in sin until they get to the bishop. If the bishop makes you stay in sin then he is willing that you be kept from God and sinning as seriously as you himself. Jesus would not like to be blamed for this but they say he started this system. The Church claims he told her to retain certain sins when he told the apostles that any sins they retained would be retained. But he meant, “Any sins that are not pardoned by God and open to his mercy are not to be forgiven by you”.  A religion with such an evil rule has no right to ban people from communion.

Rome bars heretics from the sacraments. But if a person loses their Roman Catholic faith then their new belief is sincere. Sincerity cannot be a sin. Sincere people who find happiness in a new belief and want to participate should be allowed. To forbid them is discrimination.  It is wrong to take the sacraments when that is what they are for expressing.

Rome says that even if you a have a sin forgiven in confession you can repeat it at every confession after that because you are repenting anew for it and will get more help from God. But it says you do not have to do this. That cannot be right. If you will not grab as much grace as you can, you are making it more likely that you will commit mortal sin. You cannot hold back without willing a bit that you sin this way which means that it is a mortal sin.

This means that it is a mortal sin not to pray as much as you can and go to the sacraments all the time. God comes first so it is a sin to have a job for that will keep you from prayer – you could pray more if you didn’t work - and the sacraments. Catholics complain about people being Sunday Christians and devils for the rest of the week. What about themselves? When they go to the sacraments they are saying, “I serve you on my terms God and not yours”. What use would the sacraments be with an attitude like that?

If the sacraments did not have to be abused then God could have made them. But if we are sinners then they can be nothing else but abused. And if we are not sinners we do not need them. So whether we are sinners or not they are no good to us and that means that God did not establish them. If Jesus made sacraments he was not the Son of God. 


No Copyright