Saturday, May 2, 2020

Cardinal Sarah: "Nobody Has the Right to Stop a Priest from Giving Communion or Hearing Confession"

Leader of the Vatican Congregation for Worship criticizes restrictions on Church life through excessive corona protection measures - "Nobody has the right to stop a priest from giving communion or hearing confession"

Vatican City (kath.net/KAP) Cardinal Robert Sarah, head of the Vatican Congregation of Worship, has criticized restrictions on Church life through excessive corona protective measures. In an interview with the Italian daily "Compass", he said on Saturday: "Nobody has the right to stop a priest from giving Communion or hearing confession." He doesn't think much of online Masses in times of crisis. This leads to a wrong direction, also the priests. "You have to look at God - not at a camera," said the cardinal.

Considerations to distribute the Hosts in the services in plastic bags for hygiene reasons were strictly rejected. "No, no, no - that's absolutely impossible. God deserves respect. You can't put him in a bag." That is "total madness". The Eucharist must be treated with dignity. "We are not in the supermarket," said Sarah, speaking of "absurd" ideas. Holy Communion was not the subject of negotiations. 

The fact that public services are currently not possible in many places should not lead to "profane" acts, said the curia cardinal. Despite all the difficulties, every believer still has the opportunity to ask a priest for communion. 

Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com

AMDG

32 comments:

Aqua said...

Huh! A Catholic!

God’s Law is above Man’s law. And when God comes down to meet us, especially in Holy Communion, Man’s law is irrelevant.

James said...

Unfortunately, in real life.
If you can even find a priest, he will refuse you Holy Communion, except in tiny pockets of the country.

Ana Milan said...

Pity he didn't say this before the Vatican clampdown on Easter.

Anonymous said...

Of course asshole Pope Bergoglio sides with the Italian government, not his own bishops who are starting to rebel against him. He'd rather hand out money to transsexual prostitutes living on the street, destitute for lack of "customers" due to the Coronavirus.
That shows clearly his priorities.....not the Catholic Church, holiness, tradition, the Mass and the sacraments, but rather assisting sexual deviants and perverts living and promoting mortal sin. This story is all over the news now, and reaction of Catholics is extremely negative (to use polite language).

Damian Maalliapalli

Constantine said...

There has not been a True Liturgy of Propitiation since 1969. The New Mass is a Sunday Liturgy designed to simply fulfill Mass obligation. Cardinal Sarah, as good and pius a heart that he has, still does not get it.

John Seipso said...

The Cardinal will reach retirement age next month. I doubt Pope Francis will extend his commission in which case he will be free to join the Latin Mass circuit in North America and parts of Europe.
I doubt he will retire to Guinea and spend his retirement in simple pastoral ministry among the neediest of his own people. However, he might surprise.

Aqua said...

@John Siepso: The neediest of all people are the Catholics who have been deprived of Christ, or are sacrilegiously given Him in a To Go Bag, or through their car window in a parking lot. And we are starving. There is famine in the a Catholic land.

Cardinal Sarah serves Christ and His Flock best by doing precisely what he is doing - safeguarding our Sacramental Lord and His Liturgy in which we meet Him.

“I am the vine, you are the branches. He that abides in me, and I in Him, the same bears much fruit: for without me, you can do nothing”. (John 15:5)

We must have Christ, or we are dead. And the charity of dead men avails nothing.

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

The good cardinal is wrong. Vatican Two changed doctrine in D.H. and professed that the state does have authority over the Church.

https://akacatholic.com/the-states-authority-over-the-church-since-when/#comment-67913

John Seipso said...

What doctrine was changed in Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanae? Note that doctrines change and develop all the time. It's dogma that is fixed. All dogma is doctrine but not all doctrine is dogma.

As for the State having authority over the Church, one needs to be careful to distinguish between genuine religious liberty and the Church's responsibility to comport itself as an honest citizen in Society.

Anonymous said...

True! So Cardinal Sarah where are the priests willing to do this? Only the SSPX is saying Holy Mass and giving out Holy Communion. In the late 1960's lots of radical priests got arrested and photographed on the cover of Newsweek for their cult of Marxism. Cardinal Sarah why not give out Holy Communion in Rome tomorrow and dare the cops to arrest you? The TV optics wouldn't be good for Jorge or his creepy pal Prime Minister Conte. UIOGD

Aqua said...

@ John Seipso:

DOCTRINE

Definition

Any truth taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful. The truth may be either formally revealed (as the Real Presence), or a theological conclusion (as the canonization of a saint), or part of the natural law (as the sinfulness of contraception).

In any case, what makes it doctrine is that the Church authority teaches that it is to be believed. this teaching may be done either solemnly in ex cathedra pronouncements or ordinarily in the perennial exercise of the Church's magisterium or teaching authority.

Dogmas are those doctrines which the Church proposes for belief as formally revealed by God. (Etym. Latin doctrina, teaching.)

Ref: CatholicCulture.org

Doctrines develop over time - true. Develop: “grow or cause to grow and become more mature, advanced, or elaborate”.

Doctrines change over time - not true. Change: “alter, vary, modify, make different”.

John Seipso said...

Try 'Tametsi' promulgated by the Council of Trent which changed Catholic doctrine on the necessary conditions for the celebration of valid Catholic marriage; try Pius XII's 'Divino Afflantu Spritu' that changed the restrictive teaching of Lamentabli and Pascendi by acknowledging and authorizing the modern forms of literary, form and historical criticism thereby opening up the study of Catholic biblical and theological investigations; try Pope Pius XII changes to the 'unchangeable' ceremonies of Holy Week; try Pope Pius XII's change to what essential matter and form of the Catholic sacrament of Holy Orders.
That's a start for your contemplation.

Aqua said...

John Seipso: Go back and look again. What you call “change” is actually “develop”.

You can tell the difference because one is cross referenced to Sacred Tradition from which it grows. The other (like Amoris Laetitia) is not.

Valid Magisterial documents are all sourced and in full non-contradictory accord.

Otherwise .... we’re just making stuff up day to day.

John Seipso said...

You're not correct at all. The examples I gave were clear breaks with the teaching of popes before Pius XII. Everything about the modern methods of biblical interpretation endorsed by Pius XII was a clear break from the ambit condemnations in both the Syllabus and other papal teaching especially Pius X.

BTW, what part of 'Amoris Laetia' are you suggesting is not within the Catholic Tradition?

Aqua said...

@ John Seipso:

TAMETSI DECREE
Definition

A ruling (1563) of the Council of Trent on matrimonial law. It stipulated that any marriage that took place outside the presence of a parish priest or his representative and two witnesses would be null. Places where priests were not available were excepted, and it was not binding where the laws of Trent were not promulgated. It was extended almost universally in a modified form by the Ne Temer decree (1908) of Pope Pius X. This is development, not change.

Not sure about the others. I notice they are all under Pope Pius XII. Expand on the *change* therein, unsupported and opposed by previous Magisterial Doctrine.


Aqua said...

John Seipso, Whatever is against Sacred Tradition, “breaks”, is not valid Catholic Teaching. To the extent these examples are, it renders them invalid Catholic Doctrine..

“Change” (revolution) is Protestant.
Development (growth) is Catholic.
Revelation closed on the Island Of Patmos with the death of St. John.
The Magisterial authority of the Church is to deliver *that Word* intact and whole to every generation. Not even an angel from heaven can change it.

A “break” is something to be greatly feared for a Catholic. Not familiar with your examples, but if you are correct in demonstrating “breaks” and ruptures, then that is very bad. Coming as they (allegedly) did, just prior to the Pontificate of Pope John XXIII and the avalanche of Vatican II revolution - mutually acknowledged by all sides - I guess I would not find that too surprising. Especially if unlawful changes to Holy Orders themselves affected the current set of Cardinals and senior Bishops, most responsible for this Vatican II Novus Church mess.

The fact that it has happened, does not demonstrate that it is willed by God that it *should* happen.

John Seipso said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
John Seipso said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Aqua said...

From SSPX - “Catholic principles; Some guiding texts in today's crisis

6. Church teaching cannot change:

Revelation, constituting the object of Catholic Faith, was not completed with the apostles (Condemned by St. Pius X, Lamentabili, Dz 2021).

Further, by divine and Catholic Faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed....

Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding... definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable (Vatican I, Dz 1792; 1800; 1839).“

- end quote -

It is a defining Catholic feature, that where there is deviation there is error. The greater the deviation, the greater the error. Any deviation is fatal - such as admitting sodomites to communion (AL), or admitting the equality of all religions with the Roman Catholic Faith; or proposing that the TLM of Pope St. Pius V can be abrogated.

John Seipso said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Tancred said...

Gaybrielle, I don't care if he's commenting to you.

You're a vile slandering lowlife like the various ecclesiastical figures you defend here, and I don't want you around. That's all.

Why don't you start your own Gnostic Church blog?

John Seipso said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Aqua said...

This latest is just gross:

“The Lord died for all. And also for people who do not believe in Him or are of other religions: He died for everyone. That does not mean that proselytism must be done: no. But he died for everyone, He justified everyone.” (Jorgé Bergóglio - homily at Mass this morning to those unfortunates in attendance).

Heresy flows from him in a constant stream. Many don’t even notice it because it has become so normal.

It proves my point - that if you deviate just a micrometer from Truth, it is fatal to your soul.

It proves my other point, that we just all make the decision of Arbp LeFebvre - accept all that is true from the “Conciliar Church” and reject all that is false, even when the (titular) Pope and Bishops in union with him demand you accept. That may be a very difficult and costly choice indeed - as it was for him (God rest his soul).

It is Magisterial Sacred Tradition we submit to, all a Catholics, especially the Pope who is responsible to deliver it Intact and Entire to the living and those yet to come.

+++++

Tancred, appreciate the space to comment here. I respect anyone who sustains a daily blog, especially those like yours with informative, useful, relevant content. I don’t do that myself. Perhaps I should, but six special needs kids at home pretty much excludes that. It would be irresponsible. Decisions to block or not are at the host’s sole discretion ... and I respect it.

My personal opinion on John Seipso, fwiw, I have no illusion of convincing him or others like him. Been there many times before. I personally find the challenge illuminating for myself to think about my belief in a way I might not have without the challenge. Gets me outside of my “closed loop”.

Again, thanks for the space.

Tancred said...

Dear Aqua, no acrimony directed at you. I appreciate your charity, which is to instruct the ignorant and admonish sinners and appreciate your commentary. It's just that for too long, this modernist demon flies in here to accuse people by name of various crimes, like using illegal drugs, or to otherwise slander them, so I'd just prefer not to give him a platform at all.

Peace!

Aqua said...

In further reference to all the error that surrounds us - (deleted commenter John Seipso states this started with Pope Pius XII and thus change and alteration of Tradition is therefor part of the new Magisterium) - here is a great SSPX reference to connect current problems to the constant teaching of the Church (which is the unchangeable Magisterium) to get practical answers to pressing questions.

https://sspx.org/en/catholic-principles

I became Catholic for this. *I do not want to make up my own answers*. Nor do I want a new a Church every day forever - a new flavor for every mood. I want Truth.

God gave us Apostles to guide us into all Truth. The Kingdom of God is an Hierarchy with the Holy Trinity at its summit. The Hierarchy is not limited by time. All of it is true, simultaneously, across time - not just the living, especially not the living if they have departed from All Truth. The Church in its entirety, and in its unity teaches me, us just as it did the Ethiopian Eunuch to the Queen’s Court in Acts 8: 30 And when Philip had run up, he heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

And as with the Ethiopian Eunuch, you know Truth when you see it because Grace leads us to those waters.

John Seipso said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Aqua said...

@ John Seipso: Ya gotta respect the host. It’s his blog.

JS said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Aqua said...

@ John Seipso: As to Amoris Laetitia ... I’ll let the Dubia answer that question (asked 1,324 days ago).

The Dubia

1: It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?

2: After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia (304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 79, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?

3: After Amoris Laetitia (301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (Matthew 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, “Declaration,” June 24, 2000)?

4: After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 81, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?

5: After Amoris Laetitia (303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 56, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?

Five simple questions, sourced in Sacred Tradition. Shouldn’t be too hard to carve out some time to give yes and no answers to Cardinals of the Church, you would think.

John Seipso said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
John Seipso said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
JS said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.