ANOTHER Serious MORTAL SIN QUESTION

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jaypeeto4
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
**But only if you go up there intending to sin by taking it… **

Well, I didn’t “intend” to sin by taking it,
but I was truly confused at the time (last night) as to whether I had even been
validly confirmed. I was upset, a bit angry (that this was suddenly sprung on me,
and on Easter Sunday at the holy vigil to boot), and very confused.

I honestly did not know whether it would be a sin, at least against say, canon law,
for me to have received if I was not validly confirmed. So I kept thinking back to the 1999 Easter Vigil and our RCIA which led up to it.
  1. RCIA was TAUGHT by our former priest (who confirmed me later at Easter)
  2. HE KNEW that I was coming into the church from another church and
    had been baptized in a Presbyterian Church.
  3. HE KNEW that 4 others in our RCIA class were in the same boat.
  4. A couple of months BEFORE Easter, he and us, with others to be received
    into the Church, went to meet the Archbishop at something called
    “the rite of sending”.
  5. We were never told to be confirmed by the Archbishop or any auxiliary bishop.
  6. At the Easter Vigil, only ONE of us was baptized, and
  7. We all received "confirmation’ at the same time after the prayers of confrmation
    were said by the priest for all 4 of us, with the oil of Chrism.
  8. HE THEN gave us, ALL of us, the Eucharist.
  9. He started regularly hearing our confessions of sins.
Which raises another interesting question.
Why are UNconfirmed converts NOT allowed to confess??
I ask because, I did my “lifetime confession” to that Priest, of sins committed after
trinitarian baptism, BEFORE the night of confirmation, and was instructed to do so,
and was absolved.

Back to whether I mortally sinned last night or not, I am still very confused.
I know that there are some trustworthy people on these forums who know about these things. I am really, really, really TICKED OFF that this happened to me ON EASTER SUNDAY especially, and has upset my conscience and RUINED my celebration of Easter. I pray the daily devotion of the “Three Hail Mary’s” to ask Our Lady, morning and evening, to preserve me from all mortal sin that day, and then again, that night. Just before the vigil, I had prayed that very devotion for the evening (you pray it twice a day).

And this still happened.
I cannot go to confession on Easter Sunday, it is not available, and I am very upset right now. I am wondering if I committed a mortal sin, and worse yet, one of sacrilege,
even though it turns out that, OBJECTIVELY speaking, I was INDEED CONFIRMED.
((Our current RCIA director has been a member of the parish since BEFORE I joined, and assured me that our previous priest, and all priests of the archdiocese, had a blanket
permission to Confirm ALL adult converts, including those previously baptized in another trinitarian denomination, but that this permission was revoked, changed, within the past two years by our CURRENT, NEW Archbishop. So under the old rules, I was confirmed.))
— so why is my conscience tormenting me?
Possibly scrupulosity, but also because
  1. I was NOT certain that I had NOT been confirmed validly when I received last night
  2. I was confused that I had POSSIBLY NOT been confirmed validly in 1999, and
  3. So my conscience, while not “certain” that I “Would Be” sinning by receiving…
    …was not convinced utterly that I would NOT be, either.
  4. Thus, in conscience, I was up in the air and frankly, very upset that this dilemma
    …had been sprung on me during the Easter Vigil, for which I had prayerfully prepared.
    There are lots of adult converts at our parish, some I know attended last night, I’m sure,
    who were received under the old rules, and could have been, as I was, thrown into mental and moral confusion by what took place, because this “waiting a few weeks” was NOT required of us. Someone should have explained that any of us confirmed under the old rules had nothing to worry about. He could have done so during the Mass, because he kept taking time to explain parts of the Mass last night to non-Catholic attendees,
  5. You are expected to receive communion at Easter.
  6. Baptized, UNCONFIRMED Catholic Children receive communion regularly,
    …so receiving communion after making a profession of faith EVEN WITHOUT
    …being Validly Confirmed FIRST, cannot be inherently sinful. KNOWING THIS
    …is what made me decide to receive, taking a chance that I might be breaking
    …“the rules.”
  7. But later on, began to wonder if by taking a chance on breaking the rules,
    did I subjectively commit a mortal sin by receiving without 100% Certainty that
    …that I was NOT breaking the rules??
So the issue is my conscience. I WAS validly confirmed. The issue is, because of confusion created by this change in rules, a change that was simply implemented but not announced to us laity who had been confirmed under the old rules, I did not act with a 100% clear conscience. If I sinned, was my sin “venial” or “mortal”??

I went to mass in good faith, properly prepared and disposed, and had this dilemma and confusion sprung on me. I did not ask for it, and now I am very upset, and worried,
and cannot get to confession until later in the week at the earliest, and I really don’t want to spend my Easter Sunday, that I had intended to spend in prayer for my own needs and others, in a state of being upset and worried and unable to pray. Plus having “Old Scratch” telling my mind over and over that “you committed a sin of sacrilege” and even half-believing it might be so.
 
Jaypeeto4 said:
**
…
So the issue is my conscience. I WAS validly confirmed. The issue is, because of confusion created by this change in rules, a change that was simply implemented but not announced to us laity who had been confirmed under the old rules, I did not act with a 100% clear conscience. If I sinned, was my sin “venial” or “mortal”??**

Are you just going to keep asking the same question until you get an answer from a priest? But, if he identifies himself as a priest here, how are you going to be sure that he really is a priest? Please, find a priest - not because you actually need an answer from a priest, but because it will save you, and the rest of us, from going round in circles.
Click to expand...
 
Jay: sometimes you’ve just got to step off the merry-go-round/carousel, and stop your head spinning.

Take a breath and trust.

Say some prayers.

On Tuesday go to your Parish and ask them for confirmation of your confirmation 😉
 
Your RCIA director already answered your question – the priest who received you also confirmed you, he had the necessary authorization to do this.
You can easily confirm, by a search on the internet, that priests can be given the authority to confirm the newly-received.

The only reason to continue to question this would be if you have solid, reliable reason to believe that both the priest and your RCIA director are dishonest. Do you? Because if not, the whole thing is completely a non-issue.
 
Jaypeeto4 said:
**

Which raises another interesting question.
Why are UNconfirmed converts NOT allowed to confess??
I ask because, I did my “lifetime confession” to that Priest, of sins committed after
trinitarian baptism, BEFORE the night of confirmation, and was instructed to do so,
and was absolved.**

It is not per se the case.

A validly baptized but unconfirmed convert is ordinarily to confess --the confession happens sometime prior to their formal reception into the Church at the Easter Vigil (etc).

Ordinarily by the way too – a Bishop will give the Priest the ability to Confirm those being received. But a Bishop may decided to confirm them all himself. Certain matters are up to the Local Bishop on how and when they are to be done.
Click to expand...
 
**So the issue is my conscience. I WAS validly confirmed. The issue is, because of confusion created by this change in rules, a change that was simply implemented but not announced to us laity who had been confirmed under the old rules, I did not act with a 100% clear conscience. If I sinned, was my sin “venial” or “mortal”?? **

AND THE REPLY WAS:

**Are you just going to keep asking the same question until you get an answer from a priest? But, if he identifies himself as a priest here, how are you going to be sure that he really is a priest? Please, find a priest - not because you actually need an answer from a priest, but because it will save you, and the rest of us, from going round in circles. **

The top paragraph is to reiterate that I AM NOT HERE questioning the VALIDITY of my
1999 CONFIRMATION. THAT ISSUE is settled. I was Validly Confirmed.
So, for posts 22 through 25, please note that. I was validly confirmed.

My QUESTION, and I am not trying to make ANYONE go around in circles, and I know that priests DO post on here,
is about CONSCIENCE.
BEFORE I found out 100% FOR-CERTAIN, ** after **the MASS, that I had indeed
been validly Confirmed in 1999,
I received communion
BECAUSE I was thrown into confusion DURING the Mass itself.
As I noted in a post above,
it was DURING THE MASS itself that the confusion occured,
and you CANNOT RAISE YOUR HAND during Mass and ask a question,
nor go get or see a priest.
So
It’s about CONSCIENCE AND MORTAL SIN, *** that *** is my question.
Not, Not, NOT whether I was validly confirmed.
I don’t need to go get a certificate. I already know, but I found out AFTER mass ended.
BUT
I was not, during the mass, 100% Positive that I had been validly confirmed,
although I had never ever questioned that in 12 years,
and went ahead and received communion anyway.

The issue and question is: DID I SIN, and if so was it venial or mortal, by receiving communion in a state of 50/50 doubt about whether I had been confirmed?? Because my conscience,
AT THAT MOMENT, was not 100% clear about whether I should or shouldn’t.

That’s my question, folks. NOT WHETHER I have been validly confirmed. I HAVE.
If some of you would read my entire posts, you wouldn’t get upset that I asked the question more than once.
SOME of you misunderstood what I was asking.
I was ****, NEVER here trying to get your opinions of whether I was
validly confirmed!! I already know that I WAS. Okay?

There was no need for “the rest of us” to “go around in circles.”
The person who made that remark (( which is very unkind remark to make to a person
who is suffering, by the way )).

For those who tried to answer my ACTUAL question, thank you very much.
For those who tried to answer, NICELY, what you mistakenly THOUGHT
was what I was asking, thank you too, very much.

For those who launch a gripe at a suffering person, I’m sorry you got irritated,
but A) you mis-understood my question, and
B) there is no Law requiring you to reply to my question anyway, so
C) “I” was not causing ANYone to go around in circles. and
D) re: “go find a priest.”
…Today is Easter Sunday. Churches are jam packed. Priests are not available
…to talk or hear confessions today. I cannot just “go find a priest.”
…Nor could you, by the way, if you found yourself in the same predicament today.

God love you all. Happy Easter.
 
I have a lot of empathy for you.

But my question is, Why do you still have a question, since even if you WERE NOT confirmed in 1999, you could still receive the Eucharist? And your doubt was not toward the validity of the Eucharist but a doubt of an insignificant (at the time) detail, not related to the Eucharist at all?

If the unconfirmed could not receive the Eucharist, neither of my 2 sons could receive, since they have not been through confirmation classes. I myself received many times before I did Adult confirmation.

Please do not let this destroy the peace of your Easter.
 
A person with scrupulosity or scruples will often seek to have a kind of certainty that is beyond what is needful. They can often confuse their scruples with other things etc etc and become quite confused.

Was it perhaps that you --knowing your scruples —made a judgment that you should go to Communion (from your reasoning about it and knowing you struggle with scruples etc. and perhaps from what your confessor may have told you in the past) and so went …but then later the scruples took hold of you again and have caused you all this further pain…and now you are in the midst of such pain and suffering due to them…

It is important for you to have a regular confessor to deal with your scrupulosity if you do not yet have one. What you have discussed basically falls under scrupulosity. It is one of the classic possible ways such can seize one. I understand that this is being a real torture for you at the moment due to the importance of Easter. So it may be a good to ask a Priest to hear your confession (preferably your regular confessor --but if not --then anyone) (but add some other sin too …since there is doubt here…or at least something like "and past sins of X "). I know this can be somewhat difficult – but it is possible perhaps.

Not that I regularly wish to advise those who struggle with scrupulosity to run to confession with every difficulty-- they ought to have a regular confessor and discuss matters with them. They can also ask him to give them some general principles for them to follow due to their scruples --to hold fast to in this sort of disturbance – and to help them act against their scruples. To help them to “despise them” as they used to say…not to argue with them… to dismiss them. Such is very important with scruples. To do so with a firm foot and then turn to God and* let the scruples pass by*.

If you are unable to find a Priest --please make an act of perfect contrition for any possible sin and focus of love of our Risen Lord (actually being there). And then turn your thoughts and prayers etc to the Christ and his Resurrection.

And know that Jesus of Nazareth who is truly Risen – knows you – and your difficulties - and loves you.
 
But my question is, Why do you still have a question, since even if you WERE NOT confirmed in 1999, you could still receive the Eucharist?

Hello to TheRealJuliane !!

Because of “The Rules” and therefore because of CONSCIENCE.
Note: “the rules” AND conscience.

The “rules” do NOT allow a validly-baptized, NON-Catholic adult to receive communion.

I came into the Catholic Church having FIRST been baptized a Presbyterian.

If your children were born to already-Catholic parents and have always been
in some sense “catholics”, they are in a different position from me and from all
who come into the church from ANOTHER church body (Anglican, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, whatever, even if baptized Trinitarian).
The Guidelines, in the Missals,
state that even baptized members of other churches cannot be admitted to Communion, except
if they are Orthodox, although THEY, the orthodox, are “asked to respect the
discipline of their own churches” regarding the Eucharist.
These are right in the Missals, in the Guidelines for Reception of Communion.
The ORTHODOX are “allowed” by the Church to receive, but encouraged to respect the discipline of their own churches.
Members of Protestant Churches are NOT ALLOWED to receive.
I had been a Protestant, a Presbyterian, until 1999, when I was confirmed.
But then, last night, DURING the Vigil, I was thrown into doubt,
for the first time in 12 years, since being confirmed,
as to WHETHER I had been confirmed in 1999 validly!!
I.E., was I still, in the Church’s eyes, a Presbyterian and not allowed to receive???
HAD my priest, in 1999, not followed “the rules” requiring a person
to be confirmed by the BISHOP??

The confusion occured during LAST night’s Easter Vigil. Note carefully this:
A WEDDING was also performed during last night’s VIGIL Mass.
A Catholic woman married a FORMERLY Anglican man, who HAD JUST COMPLETED
RCIA, but who ALSO has to “go see the Bishop in a couple of weeks and be confirmed by the Bishop” (as our priest last night explicitly said, EXPLICITLY noting, though very nicely and kindly, that this RCIA-completed Groom WOULD NOT BE receiving the Eucharist, because of that,
but that the wife WOULD BE ((and she did, and he didn’t)).
So, “the rules” are, NOW, in MY diocese, that if you are from ANOTHER body, and the Groom last night WAS Anglican, and are coming into the church, you cannot receive communion UNTIL the bishop HIMSELF has confirmed you.

NOW, those adults who came from NO other church,
and WHO WERE BAPTIZED LAST NIGHT at the vigil, and there were several,
WERE confirmed, yes confirmed, right then and there, by our priest,
and GIVEN communion.
Those adults from OTHER churches, even though having completed RCIA, like the Groom,were given a blessing, but NOT confirmed, and were instructed NOT to receive the Eucharist until they go to the bishop in a few weeks and he has to confirm them first.

So this too, plus the fact that our priest last night refused communion to
the groom who had ALSO just completed RCIA, and would not confirm him himself,
added to my confusion OF CONSCIENCE over what to do.

REMEMBER, the issue is NOT whether I was validly confirmed in 1999 anymore,
it is ONLY whether I mortally sinned by
receiving communion last night
when I was, AT THAT MOMENT, not CLEAR in conscience as to what I should or
should not do.

EVEN THOUGH I now KNOW, 100%, that I was validly confirmed in 1999,
and “the rules” do not apply to people like me ((the change was made about two years
ago or less)),
I was NOT positive **at the moment that I received ** that I SHOULD receive.

My question is, did I sin, MORTALLY, when, at the moment of receiving communion,
I was not positive that I was not “breaking the rules.”??
((Otherwise, other than that sudden confusion, exacerbated by the way the Groom
…was denied communion, as were the other RCIA-Completed Adults at last night’s vigil,
…other than that, I had no conciousness of any unconfessed grave sin)).

For a few minutes there, I was wondering, and received communion wondering,
whether I was ACTUALLY a Catholic, officially.
I’m wondering whether THAT was a mortal sin, to receive when suddenly
thrown into doubt and confusion about my official status as a Catholic.

Again, please note,
the question is **Did I mortally Sin **by being not 100% certain, in conscience, that I was actually a member of the Catholic Church???

I have no doubt, NOW, about my status. I AM officially a Catholic.
The question is
Did I mortally sin when, for a few minutes, when I received communion,
I was not 100% sure IN CONSCIENCE that I had officially become Catholic in 1999??

The “matter” is serious matter: the body and blood of the Lord,
which those STILL Protestant are NOT allowed to receive.
 
Jay:

So if a scrupulous person thinks they sin even if objectively the act they perform is not a sin, have they sinned?

No.
 
Jaypeeto4 said:
My head started spinning. What is THIS??? I thought. 4 of the adults I was confirmed with were received having been baptized in other churches, and were never,ever told that we had to later go to the Bishop to be confirmed in order to receive first communion.
I thought, what is going on here??? DoesTHIS mean that I was not validly confirmed, and the past 12 years have been a great big show??
I had a sudden rush of mixed emotions, like, should I receive communion tonight,
if I am not confirmed, to my surprise, after all??? But then I thought, no, that’s not a sin,
because kids who are baptized as babies receive communion from the age of 7 and up and are NOT confirmed, so receiving communion without being confirmed is not a sin.
Or is it? Maybe? NO, it CAN’T be, I’ve been receiving for ages. I was reallly confused with a jumble of thoughts, and COULDN’T “raise my hand” in the Mass and ask a question. But I was really wondering whether I was validly confirmed now, after 12 years, and should I receive communion?? I would never desecrate the body of Christ, but I reasoned that since unconfirmed, baptized-only 7 year olds receive the Eucharist regularly, and they aren’t sinning, I would receive at this Vigil, BUT, I was then going to find out THIS NIGHT if my 1999 confirmation was valid, or did my priest back then do something wrong and FAIL to have us properly confirmed by the bishop??? ((none of us was EVER told to go see the bishop for Confirmation, and the priest knew we had been baptized in other churches, and gave us communion that very night, and always thereafter,but what if he had been wrong???)) I was truly confused and more than a bit angry, too.
But I said, darn it, I believe I was confirmed, I have operated on that principle for 12 years, and I’ll receive tonight therefore, and if it does turn out I’m not confirmed, then I’ll confess and arrange to be validly confirmed and won’t receive a eucharist again, if I’m told not to, until I AM confirmed by the bishop.
SO I received. I’m wondering if it was a sin to do this
Click to expand...
Good grief !

** First of all, you HAVE shifted the focus of this question, now, to … **
Jaypeeto4 said:
I received communion BECAUSE I was thrown into confusion DURING the Mass itself. As I noted in a post above,
it was DURING THE MASS itself that the confusion occured,
and you CANNOT RAISE YOUR HAND during Mass and ask a question,
nor go get or see a priest…Because my conscience,
AT THAT MOMENT, was not 100% clear about whether I should or shouldn’t.

**Ya know, you have already answered your OWN question here. As Strawberry, and triumph have tried to explain to you … :

from the Catechism. It is MORE than obvious that a brief confused moment did not : … -->>**

1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God’s mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:

When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner’s will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

A priest is not going to help you. Only you and God can determine whether the 3 requirements were met. It is abundantly obvious they were NOT, as if your are “confused”, that (obviously) means, there was no “deliberate consent”.

So the question arises…“what is going on here” ? YOU have ruined YOUR OWN Easter celebration…the kind of professional you need is not a priest…:

**Surrexit Christus Spes mea,
Et gloriam vidi resugentis. **
Click to expand...
 
Hi Bookcat, thanks for your post about my scruples.

Confirmation is very important.
Something I did not mention in the Thread,
and was part of the reason for my doubts about my confirmation,
was the Liberalness and dissidence, of
my previous priest, who confirmed me.
Namely, I would not put it past that man
to violate the church’s rules on purpose.
He thinks that the church’s rules are only valid if HE agrees with them, or if they are defined infallible.
Even THEN, he thinks he has leeway with them.
Example: back when the Vatican was ordering that American Catholics KNEEL during the Consecration,
he, DELIBERATELY went against that loudly-trumpeted Vatican rule, and ORDERED us parishoners to STAND during the Consecration.
When the Vatican ORDERED us to
STOP using Liturgical Dancers, he DELIBERATELY sought out liturgical dancers and INCORPORATED liturgical dancing, deliberately disobediently, in our parish’s liturgies.
DURING RCIA classes, when Pope JPII declared the issue of Women’s Ordination forever CLOSED,
this priest insisted that THE POPE did indeed, despite his saying he had no right to ordain women, indeed has the right to Ordain women and that JP II was “wrong” and that John Paul II “did not have a clue what Vatican II was REALLY trying to accomplish.” I was appalled, and even though I was a catechumen, I privately chided him for those, and other disrespectful remarks that he made about the Pope and the magisterium and about the pre-Vatican2 liturgy, which at one point, IN RCIA class itself, he mocked the way the priest used to hold the consecrated host WAY up in the air during the old tridentine Liturgy. He was, and remains in his new parish, a breath-taking character, often deliberately disobedient, so THAT, my knowledge of his often deliberate disobedience,
led me to wonder if, by confirming us himself in 1999,
he was violating “the rules” again, causing US to have been NOT VALIDLY confirmed.

Again,
I learned, AFTER mass, that in this case, he (my former, disobedient priest) was obeying
the rules, which at THAT time,
allowed him to confirm adult converts who had been previously members of protestant churches.
Those rules were changed, under 2 years ago.
What my current priest did last night,
in NOT confirming exProtestant adults, and not allowing
them to take communion,
surprised me, confused me, and caused me to at least venially violate my conscience.
Had he simply announced that this new practice was
a change in rules by OUR local bishop,
I would not have been put in this position.
Our bishop, to be frank, should have told ALL his priests to
announce this at EVERY Easter Vigil Mass in EVERY parish, so as to avoid this horrible conflict of conscience, for those of us received into the church as adults FROM other churches and previously baptized.

The new policy ONLY applies to people baptized as adults, in the name of th Trinity, in OTHER, Protestant, bodies. Even though they have completed RCIA.

Those adults, last night, who ALSO completed the SAME RCIA classes, but who were BAPTIZED last night,
NEVER having been members of a protestant church,
were allowed to be confirmed right then and there, and allowed to receive communion.

That was very
confusing and surprising.
They should have been instructed to announce the new policy at the Vigil Mass, because THAT is when people will get confused if they, like me, were confirmed as adults who had previously been baptized validly but in PROTESTANT churches. This confusion, and my troubled conscience,
need not have happened,
nor any possible at least venial sin against conscience been committed by me. It need not have happened.
Next time, as I told someone else,
I will NOT receive the Eucharist, even at Easter,
when such a doubt arises,
until AFTER the mass, until AFTER I have spoken with someone who knows the answer.
Then, I will insist that someone give me communion.

According to some theologians, receiving communion unworthily, is so serious that there is NO PENANCE in this life sufficient to make up for it.
Surprising? Some of those who have said that, are canonized Saints.
I kind of doubt that they were being scrupulous in this matter.

And Paul said that if it’s in any way against your conscience,
i.e., not of faith, it is a Sin.
He didn’t specify whether it’s a MORTAL sin, or a VENIAL
sin, if it is only against your conscience, so I really
need to know.
I cannot contact a priest today, as the churches are packed and there are no confessions, and everyone wants to chat with “Father” today, being Easter, and get their picture taken with him.
Contacting a priest, or confessing today, is impossible
for me to accomplish.
Believe me, I would LOVE to.
Love to you and a blessed Easter to you !!!
Jaypeeto4
 
So the question arises…“what is going on here” ? YOU have ruined YOUR OWN Easter celebration…the kind of professional you need is not a priest…:

Mr. Firestone,
your remark is grossly uncharitable. especially that last statement.
How dare you.

For your information, I DO see a psychiatrist, though not for matters concerning
unworthy reception of the eucharist due to a conflict of conscience.
My psychiatrist is an agnostic who is also jewish and though a super-nice man,
does not understand spiritual things.

The focus of this thread has always been my conscience and did I sin
when it was not 100% certain that I would NOT be sinning.

I’m sorry if, by the way I word my posts, some of that does not come through clearly.

I did not ruin my own Easter. A new policy was implemented,
I was confirmed in 1999, and as I noted in my reply to BookCat’s much more charitable reply to me,
I was confirmed BY a priest who often deliberately disobeyed “the rules” as he feels that “the vatican” and “John Paul II” in particular, do not have the right to make rules that he does not like. So that was part of the reason I was wondering whether he, my former priest, had confirmed us himself in 1999 AGAINST the rules.
I had forgotten to mention his frequent deliberate disobedience to church authority
being part of the reasons for my doubts and troubled conscience
over this matter
in my previous posts.

I did not “shift the focus” of anything.
When a person is suddenly and unexpectedly thrown into conffusion,
your mind becomes a jumble of conflicting thoughts
this way and that way.

It was very insulting of you to make that last remark, and gratuitously so.
You do not know me, and determining that I need professional help,
and saying so publicly, and the snide way you said it,
is extremely insulting
and a behavior unworthy of a Christian.

So that you, and others who publish such gratuitous remarks publicly
to a hurting person, learn never to do this again,
I hope that someday you are hurting badly, come here to post serious questions,
and get snide remarks telling you to go see a shrink. You won’t like it, and
maybe you won’t do such things again after you experience for yourself such a public,
gratuitous humiliation at the hands of Christians you trust on a public forum.

I do receive professional help. For OTHER issues.
You can’t discuss spiritual, doctrinal, eucharistic, confirmation issues,
and confusion surrounding them,
with a secular psychiatrist. And over 95% or more of them are secular and unbelievers.
 
triumphguy said:
Or just check your RCIA certificate 😉
Click to expand...
Exactly–if you were confirmed, you would have received a certificate. I would suggest, as other posters have, that you speak with your priest. Having said that, you can’t unknowingly commit mortal sin–that is the main thing that makes a mortal sin mortal–full knowledge and consent. You can’t flagrantly subvert God’s will accidentally.

I would suggest you speak with your priest. Until then, you should presume that you have been validly confirmed, because that is your understanding. This is when most RCIA candidates are confirmed–at the Easter Vigil Mass. Also, you don’t need to be confirmed to receive the Eucharist. Your understanding that you were fully received in the Catholic Church at the Easter Vigil Mass is the correct one until someone tells you otherwise.
 
Confirmation is very important.
Something I did not mention in the Thread,
and was part of the reason for my doubts about my confirmation,
was the Liberalness and dissidence, of
my previous priest, who confirmed me.
Click to expand...
Next time, as I told someone else,
I will NOT receive the Eucharist, even at Easter,
when such a doubt arises,
until AFTER the mass, until AFTER I have spoken with someone who knows the answer.
Then, I will insist that someone give me communion.
I would suggest you speak with a priest before making that decision. You really can’t “insist” on being given Communion outside of Mass.
According to some theologians, receiving communion unworthily, is so serious that there is NO PENANCE in this life sufficient to make up for it.
Surprising? Some of those who have said that, are canonized Saints.
I kind of doubt that they were being scrupulous in this matter.
And Paul said that if it’s in any way against your conscience,
i.e., not of faith, it is a Sin.
He didn’t specify whether it’s a MORTAL sin, or a VENIAL
sin, if it is only against your conscience, so I really
need to know.
Click to expand...
But you know that you did not sin in receiving Communion, and that there was no reason to believe so. I hope you find a good spiritual director who can help you with your scruples. It takes time and a lot of work to overcome them (as far as is possible), but it is well worth the effort.
 
**Jay:

So if a scrupulous person thinks they sin even if objectively the act they perform is not a sin, have they sinned?

No. **

Hi Triumphguy, thanks for the comment above.
Problem is, brother, many times over the years I sinned on purpose (though NEVER regarding the eucharist!!) and was UNscrupulous in many ways.

Now I am being told I am “scrupulous” because I worry over certain, select,
very serious things???

I don’t worry or fret over occasional cussing (even though it’s wrong, and I don’t want to cuss), or even saying, without planning to, things like “Oh my god!” – even though there are people right here on the forums who will accuse you of Blasphemy for saying “Oh my god” even without planning to say it.
So, I don’t worry about occasional cussing, so am I really all that scrupulous?

I worry about things that involve serious matter.
The other stuff, I don’t sweat, because we are all impefect and ARE
going to make mistakes AND even sin deliberately, venially, sometimes.
That is, unless we have already attained a heroic degree of sanctity,
like folks like Pier Giorgio and Padre Pio and Maria Goretti had, IN this life.
The Body and Blood of the Lord are indeed serious matter.

So while I agree with you that a person suffering from a pathological scrupulosity is not
sinning even IF he thinks he is,
I am not certain that I suffer from any pathological scrupulosity. Again,
I do not sweat the small stuff, and I’ve read that truly “scrupulous” people DO,
and they do so to the extreme. They confess EVERYTHING. My priest has told us
that they even FIND THINGS to confess, way beyond a legit “examination of conscience.”

And Paul, inspired by the Spirit, did tell us that sinning against one’s conscience,
doing something that is not of faith, is a sin. That is infallible scripture, not me, speaking.
What I don’t know is kif Paul meant if the sin is mortal or venial.

I am going to talk to a priest as soon as I can,
because unlike YOUR kind-toned comments, some of the “brothers” on this thread
are being peronally rude and insulting, as if my having a trouble conscience
is something that THEY have a moral right to be irritated by.

Again, there is no LAW requiring these insulting people to reply to my posts,
so if they can’t be kind to a hurting person, and have come here to self-righteously
B***CH me out for being worried, then I warmly invite them to
reply to someone ELSE’s posts and leave ME alone.
If they have nothing kind and constructive to say, then kindly take
their rudeness to another thread and reply to other people’s threads,
and hopefully, with a modicum of common courtesy.

I would NEVER reply to a HURTING person
the way that some of these people have replied to me in this thread.
They should be deeply ashamed.
And I can be very sarcastic sometimes, and the moderators have called me on the
carpet for it too, but NEVER have I been so to a person with a hurting, troubled conscience, even if I personally think he or she is over-reacting.
 
Hi BookCat,
thanks for all your comments and thoughts, very much.
Thing is, my priest (who does not know me THAT well) thinks I am scrupulous about some things at least.
And some of you folk (not all of you) on CAF think I may be scrupulous.
I am not sure, personally.

(( Yes, I know, a Crazy Person usually thinks he is Perfectly Sane, even
…much MORE sane than those who warn him that he is Crazy!!, LOL ))

By the way, being under Psychiatric care for other reasons, and knowing how MUCH
mental problems hurt, thru personal experience, I am allowed to make the above
remark, so to speak. Just as those who suffer from dwarfism are allowed
to make light of it, but those of us who do not, are not.

As I have told others,
for years I was largely not scrupulous at all on many things, not even in the GOOD way. I would commit mortal sins knowingly and repent nearly every time, but fall again over and over, and sometimes not fall but JUMP. Those things, I have stopped doing (with God’s help), but had a horrific traumatic experience that I never expected, from 2009 through 2010, which caused me to unwillingly harm my conscience for months, albeit wishing such were not the case the whole time, and praying for divine aid the whole time, and
that has left me with P.T.S.D. now. PTSD is really, really bad, something I don’t wish
on anybody, even if they’ve hurt me or done me wrong ((Post-Traumatic-Stress-Disorder is PTSD)).

Anyway, I’m not sure that I suffer from the pathology of being scrupulous, BECAUSE,
unlike your typical scrupulous person,
I do NOT sweat the “small stuff” like occasional cussing, gossiping, JUSTIFIABLE (though still not right) Detraction (against a person who is actually malicious, even though it would be MORE moral to NOT talk about this malicious person), etc.

A scrupulous person, I am told, sweats EVERYTHING, and confesses everything under the sun and even LOOKS for stuff to confess.
There are little old ladies who are scrupulous who confess using the wrong color thread
to sew a cuff on a pair of slacks, for example. Poor dears.

I do not fall into that category.

Have a blessed Easter.
Love,
Jaypeeto4
 
Jay, the Church clearly teaches that the validity of a sacrament is not dependent upon the personal holiness of the minister.

Dear agnestherese,
thanks for the reply!! As for the above, I know that.
Otherwise, I would believe that all that priest’s eucharists were invalid,
which they were NOT, despite his disobedient, habitually so, behavior.

I wasn’t wondering if my 1999 confirmation was invalid due to the former
priest’s holiness or lack thereof.

What bothered me was that I did not know
that what happened at last night’s vigil
was a CHANGE in our Diocesan rules, a RECENT change.

I thought that this happened, last night, because this had probably ALWAYS
been the rule,
and that our former priest might have deliberately broken those rules,
and Confirmed us himself, in violation of those rules.

I did not know for sure that,
until a couple of years ago, actually less than that long,
that all priests in our diocese
had the right
to personally CONFIRM
previously-baptized adults
who were baptized in OTHER denominations.

Although I did not know that, I had always ASSUMED that the priest
had the right to personally confirm ANY adult, because, frankly,
we have ONE archbishop, ONE retired auxiliary bishop,
and over 130 parishes which receive new members at the Easter Vigil.

What I saw last night
caused me to wonder
if my ASSUMPTION that priests
in 1999, when I was confirmed,
had the right to confirm
already-baptized
adult former members of other denominations
was a wrong assumption.

Do you now see?

My former priest was so deliberately disobedient
in so many areas, with such brazen-ness,
that I actually was afraid, when I received communion,
that he might have
disobediently
confirmed us himself in 1999,
and that
therefore
our confirmations by him, may have been INVALID, null, and void.*****

**** “He who is unfaithful in what is least, is unfaithful in what is much”
so says scripture,
so my temporary worry during the mass, and my sensitive conscience over it,
were NOT utterly without foundation,
as is usually the case in a matter of scruples.
 
My former priest was so deliberately disobedient
in so many areas, with such brazen-ness,
that I actually was afraid, when I received communion,
that he might have
disobediently
confirmed us himself in 1999,
and that
therefore
our confirmations by him, may have been INVALID, null, and void.*****
Click to expand...
The CCC says this:

Ex opere operato: by the very fact of the action’s being performed
IV. THE SACRAMENTS OF SALVATION
Click to expand...
1127 Celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that they signify. They are efficacious because in them Christ himself is at work: it is he who baptizes, he who acts in his sacraments in order to communicate the grace that each sacrament signifies. The Father always hears the prayer of his Son’s Church which, in the epiclesis of each sacrament, expresses her faith in the power of the Spirit. As fire transforms into itself everything it touches, so the Holy Spirit transforms into the divine life whatever is subjected to his power.
Click to expand...
1128 This is the meaning of the Church’s affirmation that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: “by the very fact of the action’s being performed”), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that "the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God." From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.
Click to expand...
My emphasis…

Hope this helps.👍
 
Jaypeeto4 said:
**
Again, please note,
the question is **Did I mortally Sin ****by being not 100% certain, in conscience, that I was actually a member of the Catholic Church???

I have no doubt, NOW, about my status. I AM officially a Catholic.
The question is
Did I mortally sin when, for a few minutes, when I received communion,
I was not 100% sure IN CONSCIENCE that I had officially become Catholic in 1999??

The “matter” is serious matter: the body and blood of the Lord,
which those STILL Protestant are NOT allowed to receive.

And I would still say to you…Trust.

You were not doubting the sacrament. You were doubting your worthiness to receive it. Whether the reason was that you thought you might not be validly confirmed, although you have no reason to truly suspect this, OR that you had confessed but may have missed some sin, that remained unabsolved (I worry about this myself sometimes), it comes from the same place in our brains, or maybe it’s Satan trying to drag us away from the Lord who will give us strength.

Trust, my dear brother in Christ. You did not sin. You did not doubt the Eucharist. You had a moment of panic. You now know that you are confirmed and that you are worthy to receive. All is well.

p.s. I can understand why you panicked - if your priest has a history of being untrustworthy in this matters, then it would be only natural to wonder, “Hm, maybe he was doing something wrong when he confirmed me.”
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top