Cardinal Kasper says the Church will soon allow the divorced and re-married to receive Holy Communion

Cardinal Kasper, who is a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has told a German newspaper that the Church will soon allow divorced and re-married to receive Holy Communion, directly contradicting and defying the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Müller.

Cardinal Kasper said about divorced and re-married Catholics:

‘Christians who want to live by faith with the Church, who acknowledge that they have made ​​mistakes by the breaking of the first marriage, which they also regret – for them it should be a way back fully to participate in Christian and ecclesial life. What is possible with God, namely, forgiveness, should help to achieve this even in the Church.’

However, Cardinal Kasper did make a distinction though, ‘Whoever divorces just to run away with the young secretary, is a scoundrel. ”

Amazingly Vatican Radio reported Cardinal Kasper’s contradiction of Archbishop Müller without any comment or criticism.

Protect the Pope comment: That such a senior prelate in the Holy See has expressed the conviction that the Church will soon allow divorced and re-married to receive Holy Communion should be a cause for faithful Catholics to be greatly concerned. To be clear, Cardinal Kasper is supporting the Church changing her teaching on the indissolubility of marriage, the immorality of adultery, the nature of mortal sin, but even worse, the authority of Our Lord’s words. If Cardinal Kasper is correct in his prediction then the authority of doctrine will collapse completely and become just the words of man, that can be changed according to fashion and politics. What Kasper is proposing is the mutation of the Catholic Church into a clone of the Church of England. Faithful Catholics, clergy and people alike, will not allow such a betrayal of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-kasper-says-church-will-soon-give-communion-to-divorced-remarried?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=910dc1e786-LifeSiteNews_com_Intl_Headlines_06_19_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0caba610ac-910dc1e786-326240826

49 comments to Cardinal Kasper says the Church will soon allow the divorced and re-married to receive Holy Communion

  • Rifleman819

    Deacon Nick ,
    If we are starting to mutate into a clone of Anglicanism then let’s go with the phrase….” Does my gallero look big in this….?”

    I for one will not be around to see the Catholic Church change from the Grenadier Guards into a Group. 4 Security outfit.

  • Peter 2

    “Faithful Catholics, clergy and people alike, will not allow such a betrayal of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”. Ok. What do you suggest doing? Assuming this happens, and let’s be honest it’s going to happen, what is the faithful Catholic, clergy and lay, going to do about it? Pray, hope, wait indefinitely for better days…maybe Cardinal Burke will be elected Pius XIII and the next conclave while in the meantime we watch the Deposit of Faith be eroded if not completely discarded….

  • Joseph Matthew

    In a certain sense, the Holy Father has got us into this mess. Let us pray that he will now get us out of it.

  • Michael Petek

    Look at the way the Eastern Orthodox do it. In Orthodoxy a Christian can be sacramentally married to only one person at a time. A second marriage is allowed if the Church gives a dispensation for it, but it is not counted as sacramental while the first one subsists. Sometimes a third marriage is allowed, but never a fourth.

    So how does this tally with the truth that a marriage cannot subsist between the baptised unless it is a sacrament?

  • “Faithful Catholics, clergy and people alike, will not allow such a betrayal of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.”

    It is true that Our Lord’s teaching – the Faith – cannot change because the Church decides to change her pastoral practice. Such a change would amount to defection from the faith. But in such circumstances what is to be done? Is there to be a schism and Pope Francis deposed and declared a heretic? Would his election be declared invalid and the faithful regroup around Pope Benedict?

    It would seem that if this goes ahead, the only alternative to schism would be to participate in the apostasy to the potential loss of our souls. We need to pray for the Pope that he does not lose his faith.

    • (X)MCCLXIII

      I think I agree.

      As for “faithful catholics, clergy and people alike”, there seem to be very few of us left, not least among the episcopate.

    • Michael Petek

      If God forbid, Pope Francis were to allow the divorced and re-married to receive Holy Communion, by changing Canon Law to enable it, or even to dispense from Canon 915, it would still be a sacrilege for a cleric or lay minister to give Holy Communion to someone he knows is living in manifest grave sin.

      This applies in all cases in which a man and a woman are living together adulterously or in fornication, or in the case of a man who notoriously maintains membership of Freemasonry.

      The purpose of Canon 915 is to protect the minister of Holy Communion from committing a sin of sacrilege, even should it turn out on Judgement Dat that the recipient is not in a state of mortal sin.

      If the Pope were to teach the heresy that it is not sacrilege to allow an adulterous couple to receive Holy Communion, his act would be ultra vires and void.

      Not being an official teaching (because in excess of the powers of the episcopal office) it could not bind the faithful and would have to be ignored.

  • Rifleman819

    “Traison des clercs.”…………..I have always wanted to use that phrase.

    But to use an Armed Forces analogy…..we who are under military discipline are constrained “to obey all lawful orders”…..under the Armed Forces Act 2006.

    Of course it all turns on what constitutes a “lawful order”….many a Court Martial has turned on that phrase.

    Catholics are distinguished from heretics by obeying all licit parts of the Church’s teaching.

    Don’t forget ladies and gentlemen ….Lutheranism produced its own heretics within a decade from being itself a Catholic heresy.It is exponential….and any swift revolution always seems to swallow its original leadership.

  • Deacon Augustine

    Yet the Lord says there is a time to leave, when you see ‘the abomination of desolation’.

    15When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand. 16Then they that are in Judea, let them flee to the mountains: 17And he that is on the housetop, let him not come down to take any thing out of his house: 18And he that is in the field, let him not go back to take his coat. 19And woe to them that are with child, and that give suck in those days. 20But pray that your flight be not in the winter, or on the sabbath. 21For there shall be then great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, neither shall be. 22And unless those days had been shortened, no flesh should be saved: but for the sake of the elect those days shall be shortened.

    • Yes Laurence, but that prophecy has generally been interpreted as a warning to Christians to flee Judea at the time of the sacking of the Temple in 70 AD. I don’t know of any biblical prophecy that is likely to refer specifically to the fall of the faith in Rome…unless the Pope really is somebody who we would rather he were not…

      I’ve been a Catholic for 26 years now and I’m not ready to revert to the Westminster Confession just yet.

  • Karla

    I do not understand why this teaching would change. Why now?

  • Rifleman819

    Dear All ,

    Just remember ….the Owner of the Church is God……..the Vicar of Christ on Earth is just that and he and his cardinals are transient ………just like all of us.

    Heresy is transient too…….as is the resistance to it.

    REMEMBER Athanasius the Great…….”Athanasius contra mundum”….the Arians thought they had won.
    They reckoned without one of the greatest Doctors of the Church, didn’t they?

  • William

    If the pope officially teaches that someone in mortal sin can receive Holy Communion worthily without benefit of confession then he is a heretic and no longer pope. He will cause a schism.

    • Deacon Nick Donnelly

      That’s why I think Cardinal Kasper is going to being proven wrong in his expectation that the Pope and Synod will permit communion for divorced and re-married. Deacon Nick

    • Damask Rose

      William – what type of schism? You mean the Papal blacklisted uncharitable, dare I say even “fundamentalist” promethean neo-pelagian Catholics will separate themselves from the mainstream majority of practicing, contracepting, “don’t pass your faith on to your kids”, gay-marriage approving, divorced and remarried (aka adulterers), 70% not believing in the True Presence Catholics and “any which way you want it Mass” Catholics. Ah yes, those Catholics… I can see it now, a mass Exodus to the SSPX.

      • Mark Thorne

        Don’t forget the “sourpusses” as Pope Francis terms it, as well, Damask Rose. If the worst does happen, then knowing that people have been authorized by the Church to receive communion who wouldn’t have been properly disposed to have done so for the past two millennia clearly isn’t meant to perturb the unadulterated joy of our being followers of Christ, or concern us in the slightest. It seems to me as if potentially we might have a lot to become miserable about.

        Still, didn’t the SSPX deny the legitimacy of the Vatican II Council? Surely there must be some faithful Catholics who would wish to see the teachings of the Second Vatical Counil implemented authentically, who fully respect the achievements of the papacies of Blessed John Paul II and the Pope Emeritus?

  • Cardinal Kasper can say what he likes, but it would take the Pope to make a statement and if contrary to the teaching of Christ, a thing which has never happened from the Chair of Peter, this Pope will not do this. The Cardinal may cause a schism, but I really doubt if this Pope would–he would be taking his own soul in his hands.

  • “However, Cardinal Kasper did make a distinction though, ‘Whoever divorces just to run away with the young secretary, is a scoundrel. ””

    Why does he think most people get divorced in the first place? Men especially do not leave a position of security unless they see a “better alternative” with somebody else.

  • Owen Meany

    Don’t panic, Captain Mainwaring, don’t panic.

  • Wake up England

    Deacon Nick:

    practically every divorced and “re-married” Catholic, who feels like it, goes to holy Communion anyway.

    The spirit of Judas is very much in evidence in the church.

  • JabbaPapa [Julian Lord]

    Cardinal Kasper has already reached mandatory retirement age, an event that all too often is seen by liberals Bishop as an excuse to start pushing all sorts of nonsense as a kind of final salvo in the battles that they’ve lost.

  • iggy o'donovan

    Nick, just wishing you and your folks a happy and holy Christmas. I never cease to wonder at the time and energy you devote to your blog – an eclectic mix of topics if ever there there was one. We may not all sing in unison but surely as fellow Christians we can sing in harmony. As an Augustinian priest I quote Augustine . In a Christmas homily (Sermon 184) he says
    “Rejoice all you who are Christians for it is Christ’s birthday”

    Iggy O Donovan

    • Deacon Nick Donnelly

      Fr Iggy, thank you for contributing to the discussions on Protect the Pope, and wishing you the blessings of Our Lord’s nativity. Deacon Nick

  • Shaun the Sheep

    Can anyone now doubt that these are the times Our Lady of Fatima warned us about?

  • Peter

    I wholeheartedly agree with Kasper. Will the Synod will change teaching – I have no idea.
    peter

  • Aline

    I think we’ve been there before. In the sixties, there were great expectations that the Pope would change the Church’s teaching on contraception. People thought they had the right Pope for that, but what happened in July 1968? Pope Paul VI reaffirmed the teaching of the Church! So let us not despair. The Holy Spirit is still in charge.

    “Eternal Father Whose Mercy is endless and the treasury of compassion inexhaustible, look kindly upon us and increase your Mercy in us. That in difficult moments, we might not despair nor become despondent, but with great confidence, submit ourselves to Thy Holy Will, which is Love and Mercy itself.”

    • Mark Thorne

      Dear Aline, Well said – the situation re. the publication of Humanae Vitae, and the similar circumstances, passed through my mind as well today. Despair is futile; let’s place our faith in both the Holy Spirit and the successor of St Peter whom he has appointed, Pope Francis.

  • rjt1

    Cardinal Kasper’s personal ‘hopes’ and opinions do not constitute the teaching of the Church.

  • Shaun the Sheep

    It seems to me that, just as before Humanae Vitae, hopes of change were raised, so too with this issues, things have been said which would arouse hopes of change.

  • iggy o'donovan

    Shaun the Sheep, what are the times
    Our Lady of Fatima warned us about.??

    Iggy O Donovan

  • Lionel (Paris)

    It makes me sick!

  • Nicolas Bellord

    Do we not believe that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church? The supposed change is just not going to happen; this is just the huns at the gates making a nuisance of themselves once more.

  • BenYachov

    Geez people liberal Catholics, bishops and Cardinals have been saying crap like this for 50 years. To date nothing has ever com of it. Heck before Pope Paul VI issued Humani Vite nearly every “theologian” on his commission to study the issue of birth control advocated the Church change it’s teachings on artificial contraception. He ignored them & overrode them.

    Francis is Peter now. Get over it & stop the bed wetting hysteria.

  • Ralph

    Read the new testament, the whole thing, not just snippets, and then think about what Jesus would do. Do you think he would humiliate some of the faithful that gathered to remember Him by turning them away from His feast?
    The verses in Corinthians used to justify turning people away from communion really where addressing people that came to the mass and ate and drank without having the right state of mind; they pigged out on the food without caring there would not be enough for the others, made little groups within the church and humiliated the poor.
    If anyone should be denied communion, it should be the person who thinks it is correct to humiliate another believer by refusing him communion when he/she has come to remember Jesus to Mass.
    The Bible verse is copied below, but read the whole new testament. More Catholics need to read the Bible!!! The catechism MUST be consistent with the Bible, and if it is not then the catechism is WRONG. Test the teachings all the time.
    ———————————————————
    1 Corinthians 11
    Abuses at the Lord’s Supper
    17 But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20 When you meet together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat.[b] 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.

    • Nicolas Bellord

      Jesus invites everyone to the feast; but there are those who refuse it and turn away from him. That is what mortal sin is; a turning away from Christ’s invitation. There are several examples in the New Testament of people failing to prepare for the feast and thus being turned away e.g. the foolish virgins.

      • Ralph

        The parable of the foolish virgins is warning people to always be ready in a state that they could go into Heaven because Jesus’s second coming may happen at any time. Jesus’s teaching are actually very simple; love God above all else and love others. That simple. Humiliating a believer by turning them away from communion with Jesus is showing a lack of love for that believer. Just like the believers that Saint Paul referred to in 1 Corinthians 11 where not showing love towards their fellow believers by eating and drinking without caring if the other believers had enough to eat and drink. Their obvious lack of love towards the other believers showed that they where not in a state worthy of communion.
        The parable of Jesus asking whoever was free of sin to be the first to throw a stone at the prostitute marks a transition where God wants us to let Him judge us. He doesn’t judge us every Sunday, He will judge us at the second coming. We are in the meantime supposed to lovingly take care of each other and correct each other, but we do not judge each other, that is God’s domain.
        So the parable of the foolish virgins is talking about God’s right to turn away from Heaven anyone who is unprepared at the final judgment. But He can do that because He is God. We are not supposed to be judging others anymore. Put those stones away!!!

        • Nicolas Bellord

          Ralph: You say that we are to correct each other. Before doing so you have to make a judgement as to whether the behaviour to be corrected is right or wrong; so I presume that kind of judging is okay with you? The problem, so often, with people talking about not being judgemental is that they do not specify what they mean by judging. If you see somebody doing something that is obviously wrong then you should correct them by appropriate means if possible; failing to do so and letting them harm themselves or even end up in hell is not loving. Saying to someone that they are not in a fit state to receive the body and blood of Our Lord can be a loving act. The teaching of the Church is that those in a state of mortal sin must first seek confession and repent with a firm intention of amendment of their life before receiving Holy Communion. Do you not accept that?

          • Ralph

            Denying communion to someone that has come to the feast of the Lord is applying judgement and punishment. Jesus clearly forbid us from punishing other sinners in the parable of the prostitute. That is the teaching in the Bible.
            As a believer, and hopefully one that has put in the time to understand scripture, you are to spread the word and correct others in a loving way. Denying communion is not a loving act. They have free will to choose, you can tell them what you think and invite them to reflect on it, but it is their choice. Not even God takes away a man’s free will, who are you to do that then?
            Also, the state of repentance of a person is only known to them, and to Jesus and God. You are assuming that you know the state that that person is in, how can you know? So if someone repents from lying, and then they go ahead and every week come back and confess that they lied again, does that mean that you should at some point step in and deny them communion because of the clear pattern of continuous lying? Does the pattern of continuing confession of the same sin mean that the person didn’t sincerely repent? No! Repentance is acknowledging to God that we are wrong, that we have sinned. God knows we are sinners, that is why He had to send Jesus to pay for our sins.
            Jesus said that we should forgive others seventy times seven, a.k.a. basically a lot of times. And that we should not judge/punish each other. I think He knows that as soon as Judges appear, then a lot of bad unloving things happen in the Church, especially that those Judges think of themselves as superior to the others and make Him a liar by acting as of they have no sins(or very little sin). Then believers get turned off by these Judges and may then even leave the Church. So He took the judging and punishing away from us, and only left us with the obligation of loving of each other and of loving Him.
            I’m catholic and have been going over the canon and the Bible to make myself clear as to how everything ties together. For the vast portion of my life I was away from the church, and only returned due to signs and miracles that where so clear that they where impossible for even someone like me at the the time to ignore. To say that I was a very determined non-believer is a vast understatement. But God loved me enough that despite my endless sinning, all the time spent denying Him with the mind that He gave me and persuading others that the entire Christian thing was so unlikely that it was almost evident it was not true, He came back for me and for that I cannot ever repay Him fully. For the vast majority of things, the canon is clearly aligned to the Bible from what I’ve seen so far, there is still quite a lot more that I need to review. But things get dicey as you start superimposing concepts and doctrines that rely on observations outside of the Bible. I see how God through time modified the expectations he had on our behavior. Nature (hint hint) has been the same from the beginning of the creation, but he has modified through time expectations on our conduct, the logic behind this may only be known to Him, but that is what He has done and everything He does is out of his love for us. Nature has not changed, but his expectations on our conduct have been changing through time, why? Knowing how He loves us, then I know that He must have done this for our own good. So I am weary of all the arguments where people start saying nature “this”, therefore “that” without much/any biblical basis to the “that”.
            I am very concerned for the state of the RCC. I see how young adults are vastly disengaged due to a few of the doctrines in the RCC that do not jive with the Bible or with common sense. Young adults are not always right, but some of the things the RCC has been pushing for a long time are not very well (or at all) supported by scripture and somehow people can discern these inconsistencies and they turn their backs on the RCC. Women have left in droves, and with them the entire families that they give birth to. The ones that left due to abortion, clearly left for the wrong reason, as abortion is clearly forbidden and is murder. However, contraception, specifically condom use is not as far as I can see in any way forbidden by scripture. The natural law arguments assume that human sexuality is the same as an animal’s sexuality and that my penis is only meant to reproduce. Anyone that has been married knows that sex is also a way of increasing the bond between wife and husband, and of softening our hearts as they sometimes become so hard. But with the natural rhythm and other natural ways of contraception, there is about a 95% chance of effectiveness per year, and by simple probabilities after 10 years you have a 40% (0.95×0.95…=0.6) chance of having an undesired pregnancy. This assumes you practice the rhythm method perfectly which is very hard to do. So the RCC by its ban on condoms takes a lot of joy out of the sexual lives of married people and puts believers under a lot of stress, and may even cause an unwanted pregnancy which then introduces the temptation to abortion. So most RCC members turn their backs on the church on this teaching, and then become suspect on the rest of the teachings too given how this one is so obviously lacking in common sense and a biblical basis. The sin of Onas was to take advantage of his sister in law, disobey God’s law regarding giving a son to his dead brother and being a greedy person due to his motivation to get the inheritance; he showed no love to God and to his family. The spilling of the seed was a peripheral aspect to the sin. Just like using a knife to murder someone is a sin, but using the same knife to cut some meat for dinner is not a sin. The tool is not the sin.
            Anyway, I veered of course from the topic. I believe God is acting now to correct the course of the RCC. People like me coming back to the church by means other than normal I believe are signs that needed corrections are coming to the RCC and they are already happening.

  • Ralph

    One more thing, what about fornicators, thieves, liars, idolaters(money anyone?), the promiscuous, THOSE WHO JUDGE, etc… ? I can tell you that if all these sinners get turned away from communion, that line is going to be pretty small. Adultery is a sin, but so are ALL these other things too. I know some may justify their stance on adultery by saying that adultery undermines marriage and so that is the more dangerous sin. But that is not Biblical. Jesus didn’t say you should pick on adulterers above all else. I can picture Jesus saying to people that want to deny communion for adulterers; “whoever is free of sin please be the first to escort the adulterer out of the line for communion”. Who would have the guts to be that person? When we know we are all sinners, and God had to give us His only son as sacrifice because otherwise we where not going to make it into Heaven by ourselves.

    • Nicolas Bellord

      Ralph: The point is that anyone who is in a state of mortal sin should not present himself for communion; there is no particular rule directed against those who are living in a state of adultery except that it might give rise to scandal in a way which somebody who has just committed a mortal sin once would not because nobody would know about it. Probably the line for communion would be shorter if the queue for confession does not get longer. Incidentally I cannot help feeling that if one had to kneel down at a communion rail it might make one think a bit harder rather than the current casual manner in which communion is received. What needs to be taught is that mortal sin separates us from God and if you die in that state the separation is permanent. You therefore need to go to confession at the earliest possible opportunity. That is the hard doctrine which people need to be taught!

  • Nicolas Bellord

    Ralph: I am glad to hear that you have come back to Church but I would ask what Church is it that you have come back to. Is it the Roman Catholic Church or some other Church? You seem to be relying upon the Bible alone – sola scriptura – in the way in which a Protestant would do and ignoring the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church and its Tradition.

    You then write a great deal which really does stray from the point. Are there no circumstances in which you think communion should be denied to somebody? Supposing an atheist publically declares that he is going to desecrate the host and then presents himself at the altar in order to get a host? Supposing a man in a valid marriage, abandons his wife, publicly announces that he is marrying another in a registry office, says that the teaching of the Church on the subject is rubbish and then presents himself for communion? Suppose a surgeon carries out abortions and says that he there is no harm in doing so and presents himself for communion?

    You write “Also, the state of repentance of a person is only known to them, and to Jesus and God. You are assuming that you know the state that that person is in, how can you know?” If somebody has publically announced his position as in the examples I have just given then it is fair for the priest to assume that that is really the position of the person. Obviously, in general, one cannot know whether any particular person is in a state of grace or not and one should not assume they are not – and I have not made any such assumption so please do not argue that I have.

    But first and foremost it is the decision of the person themselves that matters. If they know that they are not in a state of grace then they should not present themselves for communion. Do you agree with that?

    Repentance is not just acknowledging our sins to God but also requires sorrow for our sins and a firm purpose of amendment. For that firm purpose to be genuine it may be that we should avoid occasions of sin such as sharing a bed with someone to whom one is not married.

    Again you are using the word “judge” without defining what you mean. In the case of the woman taken in adultery I do not think anyone at the scene doubted that she had sinned. Everyone judged that she had. Jesus presumably knew that she had. What Jesus was criticising was the judgement that she should be stoned to death i.e. sentencing or punishing someone which is different from judging whether someone has sinned or not. Pope Francis in his recent exhortation puts it well: “The Gospel tells us to correct others and to help them to grow on the basis of a recognition of the objective evil of their actions (cf. Mt 18:15), but without making judgments about their responsibility and culpability (cf. Mt 7:1; Lk 6:37).”

    As to the purpose of the marriage act I suggest you check out what the Catechism has to say. Procreation and mutual support are indissolubly linked. I wonder what you have read about the Natural Law.

    Incidentally the Guttmacher Institute – the research arm of the largest provider of abortion in the world IPPF – says that regular use of condoms means that there is an 18% chance of conceiving in one year. So on your figures the natural method is three times more effective. But there again you have to have serious reason to restrict the number of births.

    As to Onan your logic is flawed. If he was depriving his sister-in-law of the chance of procreation he did this specifically by spilling his seed – an act not a tool! You cannot say that knifing someone is okay because you could use the knife for another purpose!

    If you are returning to the RCC then I would recommend reading the catechism so that you know what you have signed up to and understand the drama of our redemption and particularly the four last things – death, judgement, heaven and hell. It has been the eviscerating of that drama from the practice of religion that has led to the exits from the Church. I mean why bother if that drama is not important?

    • Ralph

      I have come back to the Roman Catholic Church, the only church that I have ever known, a church with a tradition that is not perfect like everything else in this fallen world. God blesses the church with brilliant minds every generation so that it can correct the errors of the past.
      I pray to a God who sent his only son to be flogged, humiliated, stripped naked and then crucified to death. He came back from the dead. He loved us. God has loved me. I cannot, under any circumstances, no matter what the catechism says today, deny communion to anyone no matter what. The Son of God was desecrated himself, and He did it for us.
      The grace of God is the only thing that has saved this world. He is mighty, He is just, He is all powerful and He will be our judge. And when I stand in front of Him, and he asks if I loved, I will say that I loved as much as I could with as much grace as I could. That is why I do not quit the RCC.

  • Nicolas Bellord

    Ralph: Very glad to hear what you say. However I doubt if you as a layman will ever have to deny anyone communion; but I would suggest that you might possibly have to advise someone that going to communion when in a state of mortal sin just makes matters worse. It is rather like kissing someone at the same time as being hostile to them – think of Judas.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>