Letter to the faithful on the Notification sent to Speaker Nancy Pelosi

BTW, I do not blame Tiffy or anyone else for thinking that the misnamed "Women's Health Protection Act" would have merely codified the status quo under Roe v Wade. After all, that is exactly how the Mainstream Media has portrayed it in every "news story" they've run. (Or should I say, "fake news story".)

 

Right, it seems like a pretty straight forward proposition.. The Church believes X to be true, and so if someone like Nancy Pelosi wants to be a part of that Church, then she needs to accept that X to be true... There are no ifs or buts about it -- if she doesn't believe, then she doesn't belong

 

It has not been established that she doesn’t accept the Church’s teaching. You’re putting the proverbial cart before the horse.

 

I believe her bishop, who is perhaps in the best position to do just that, has done so.

he carries the crozier for just this purpose

 

Of course I don't have a canoe in this race, however I do get concerned when being part of the Church is narrowed to an ever broadening range of particularities. Membership of the Church is predicated by baptism, and the test applied there are sufficient:

Do you turn to Christ?
Do you repent of Evil?
Will you fight bravely under Christ's banner against Sin, the World, and the Devil?

 

A bishop's ad hoc judgment does not make it so. Declaring and establishing are two different things. By his own admission, he had not spoken to her. Like I said before, we're talking about a thoroughly authoritarian institution here. No due process, no appeal to the consent of lay Catholics regarding the matter; just a decision, made by one man, in isolation from his fellow American bishops.

 

Sure, you can have that opinion, because you’re not subscribing to Roman Catholic teaching. And you are quite probably correct. But she IS, or claims to. That is my point.

 

The archbishop has determined that Pelosi is not repenting of evil.

In the RCC, one who is in serious sin (formerly called "mortal sin") is believed to be separated from God's grace, and therefore spiritually disabled from partaking in the Eucharist. To them it would be "partaking unworthily" in the extreme for a person in mortal sin to partake of the Body and Blood of Christ. Such a person is supposed to police himself/herself and not go forward for Holy Communion, but in the absence of such restraint it is perfectly appropriate and indeed expected for the clergyman, knowing that the person is outside of a state of grace, to refuse Communion.

I seem to recall reading somewhere (an excerpt from the 1662 BCP perhaps? I forget exactly where) that the Anglican Church similarly instructed its clergy to refuse the Eucharist to one who was living in open, known sin. Perhaps that has gone by the wayside over time, but it has value for the person who presumes to pretend he is in right relationship with God while unrepentant of sin, as well as setting an example for the congregants.

(Edit) : I remembered correctly! Here is an article from GlobalAnglican which discusses the issue.

 

Far be it from me to defend the RC’s beyond what I’ve already said , but nevertheless they have a well-developed system of ecclesiastical courts, just as we do… there are plentiful options for due process, appeal, testimony of eyewitnesses and the rest of it, so if Pelosi believes she can withstand a legal process she’s within her rights to initiate an ecclesiastical lawsuit

 

Here is evidence that the Roman Catholic Denomination has a very different understanding of what 'Grace' is, particularly what God's Grace is. They seem to think God's Grace is awarded only to those who keep all the Roman Catholic 'Rules' and requirements of The Law. Those who don't have obviously 'Fallen from Grace', i.e. blotted their copy book, reneged against the RC church, and broken ranks. The RC church then declares GOD to be on it's side and obliged to fall into line with it's pronounced judgments upon sinners, by withholding 'Grace' from them.
.

 

I understand. Your point is well taken.

 

Well said!

 

It's funny that here on an Anglican forum, a lot of posters are concerned about the inner workings of the RCC. As far as I know the
Anglican church doesn't refuse people communion for holding diverse viewpoints. So why support an institution that does? The RCC is a cult, with mind control as its main weapon to enforce its rules. They hold communion hostage so that 'good' RCs will fall in line with the 'group think' of the organisation. A lot of Catholics don't switch to Anglicanism because their brainwashing has convinced them that there is no salvation outside the cult. I escaped, but millions can't - they fear of retribution and hell is just too great.

Anglicans really shouldn't be supporting this kind of mind control, even if they are opposed to choice. Communion shouldn't be a weapon to use against the faithful by holding it hostage. Disgusting.

 

I so much agree with this. The RC denomination has a different and distinctive view of what The Eucharist actually is though, than does the Anglican church.

The reason the Roman Catholics won't allow other denominations to receive RC communion is given by them as being because all other denominations are out of fellowship with the RC church. Until their doctrine falls completely into line with RC doctrine and practice RC's cannot hold communion together with other denominations because they believe to do so would be hypocritically appearing to be 'in fellowship'.

This attitude to the meaning and effect of communion clearly shows the RC church's notion that communion is a distinctive badge of authenticity of church membership and RC 'rule keeping' orthodoxy, rather than a sharing of the followers of Christ in the unifying spirit of Christ, (even in Christ's disciple's sinful and ignorant state). Communion should be a means of Grace to each individual, not a reward for the RC church's estimation of the state of grace of any particular individual. It is a communication with Christ, not a badge of authentic Roman Catholic Exclusivity. Any 'diversity of views or conduct', within any individual disciple will be dealt with by Christ himself, (though perhaps through a whole local church membership in some cases), not just by a single, possibly bigotted, gatekeeping RC bishop.
.

 

Excellently put, @Tiffy. As a RC I was told it was not good to attend services in other churches and not to receive communion in them if I did go to one because it wasn't the "Real Presence" that we received in the RCC. They pretend to be ecumenical when it suits them to appear open and conciliatory, but the real truth is that they still don't believe anyone outside the RCC is going to heaven because, after all, no one else goes to a "real" Mass with the "Real Presence". And since non-RC Christians don't have "real" confessions either, they can't be in a state of grace when they die. The best they can hope for is purgatory, so RCs will pray for those in purgatory but they know that only they can go straight to heaven, and only if they die in a state of grace by fulfilling and following all the rules of the cult.

Not all RCs believe this but they also don't show how they really feel because to do so would damn themselves in the eyes of the church. My sister-in-law was raised in the RCC but doesn't go to Mass every sunday (a sin), had her tubes tied after two children (a sin), doesn't go to confession (a sin because she is basically in a state of mortal sin already according the the church). But if she does goes to Mass, say at Christmas or something, she still receives communion, although according to the rules, this puts her even further into sin because she doesn't confess before going and one isn't allowed to receive unless in a state of grace. She knows this is hypocrisy but she just can't throw off the life-long conditioning she had in the cult, so she stays a member of the church even though she doesn't believe in all its rules anymore. The RCC rules through fear, like every cult.

If I ever felt that the Anglican church tried to rule this way, I would leave it just as I left the RCC. Christ is my judge, not some cult leaders.

 

Should the Roman Catholic church be now regarded as a political organisation?
.

 

No, or at least not for the reason suggested (that they banned a Democrat from communion). The Abp's action was not a political action but a spiritual and church discipline action. If Pelosi were a Republican who supported abortion, I'm sure this still would have been done. The Abp. did this because he sees her in a state of serious sin (by RC standards at the least) and, worse still, encouraging others to likewise sin.

 

Well, I agree mostly with what you say, but let's remember that withholding the Eucharist is considered appropriate within Anglicanism. Let's suppose for example (getting away from the highly charged question of abortion) that a member were openly adulterous and encouraging other Anglicans to commit adultery, perhaps even saying that it shouldn't be considered sinful. Would it be proper and wise for the clergy to serve that person the Eucharist after trying beforehand to explain and exhort the person concerning the serious sinfulness of the person's actions? Would you expect the priest to let the entire congregation see that person receiving the Body and Blood of Christ as if in splendid, intimate fellowship with our Lord? I should hope not! Among other things (real and symbolic), the Eucharist is emblematic of a right relationship between God and man, but a person who receives while unrepentant of gross sin is not in right relationship with God at that point in time.

What I'm saying is:
(1) withholding the sacrament is not unique to the RCC
(2) withholding the sacrament is appropriate at times, including in Anglican churches
(3) the manifest quirks and errors of RC theology do not negate the general validity of the practice.

Christ is my judge, too, but if I'm doing something very wrong in front of my church, something that could lead others astray in their walk of faith, I do deserve and expect my rector to correct me! Privately at first, but if I continue in my error, publicly. (And if I leave the church in a huff, determined never to return, it is my loss and not the church's, because I would be the unteachable one with the problem!)

 

Church discipline does not equal mind control.
Pro-life does not equal "opposed to choice." Can you respect pro-lifers' honest perception and belief that ending a human life is not legitimately subject to "choice" because ending a human life is a horrible sin? We may disagree on the details concerning whether the unborn child is a human life and a "person", but please respect our sincere desire to honor God.

By golly, we pro-lifers might be wrong. Maybe, just maybe, God does not consider the unborn child a "person" or a "human being" until the time of "viability" (even though viability changes as medical science advances, which implies that God's will is held hostage to human invention... but whatever!). Yet we must ask: what if we are not wrong? What if by some chance God does consider the unborn child a human person from the moment of conception? Shall we gamble on that? Should we go on hoping and expecting that, if we happen to have assumed wrongly, God will just say, "Oh well, no big deal, what's a few million killings of helpless unborn people in the grand scheme of things? You didn't know, so bless your loving hearts and foolish heads." I mean, doesn't it make sense to err on the side of caution when human lives potentially could be at stake?

Please allow me to pose one more question and suggest a thought. Do you believe that a woman who aborts her unborn child is doing so because she believes getting rid of her baby is God's will? I suggest that 99+% of women who abort do so out of selfishness, their motivation being "what do I (the woman) want?" They're not asking God for permission or anything. They couldn't care less what God wants! Scripture speaks to this: "...whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." (Rom. 14:23)

 

Should Planned Parenthood now be regarded as a political organization?