Bad effects of Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter fred_conty
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sickness and evil are often caused to us through someone else and to someone else through us.

The seven nations of giants have their counterparts in the letters to the seven churches. Jesus has said he will take some of the lampstands away.

He will say “you did not clothe Me (show your fellow Church member not to be crushed by inherited shame), you did not visit Me” and that goes for the fellow Church members even before it goes for the outside poor, literally. This IS the most major state of mortal sin.

If we pray MUCH that the Church in these days will contain MANY members wishing to perform the ministries in Rev 2-3 then we are “discerning the Body”. If not, maybe whole bunches of people that think they’ve got right religion will just plain die out as a group, while the world spends another 38 years in the wilderness.
 
cjforJesus said:
And I will restate my objections.
The verse is open to interpretation and it is not a closed matter. The Catechism is silent in attributing death or illness to receiving the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin.
Remember what Jesus said about the man born blind? Who sinned him or his parents?
The matter is open to interpretation and I think it has more to do with hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
My friend if your suggesting that receiving Catholic Holy Communion in a State of Mortal sin is NOT another; VERY grievous Mortal sin itself; you;re wrong.

Our Catechism:

1457 According to the Church’s command, "after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess serious sins at least once a year." Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession. Children must go to the sacrament of Penance before receiving Holy Communion for the first time.
 
PJM said:
My friend if your suggesting that receiving Catholic Holy Communion in a State of Mortal sin is NOT another; VERY grievous Mortal sin itself; you;re wrong.

Our Catechism:

1457 According to the Church’s command, "after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess serious sins at least once a year." Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession. Children must go to the sacrament of Penance before receiving Holy Communion for the first time.
Click to expand...
I am trying to figure out from my posts how you assumed I believe it is permissible to receive the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin.

The contention is in the original post and that is what we are discussing. Does God cause physical illness and death because someone receives in a state of mortal sin?That is the issue my friend.It is not and has never been a teaching of the Church that death or illness may result from receiving the Eucharist unworthily.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm
 
In order to fan the flames a bit. How many of you know of someone personally that has partook of the eucharist and died either that day or soon afterward(not including say someone on their deathbed)?
My mother goes to mass most Saturday evenings-partakes of communion and does not nor has she for at least several years go to confession. I, not viewing myself as Christian do not partake of communion in any form-real presence or as a symbol.
Both of us have health issues. Is this because we are humans with a body or because she is in mortal sin and I just haven’t a Christian faith?
A protestant lady I once met that had some form of cancer told me that her mother-in-law said she was sick because she was a sinner and had offended god. This lady and her family went to church every Sunday. Probably received communion when offered at that particular church.
The mother-in-law had some form of dimensia. was this because she went to partake of communion at a church that viewed the eucharist as a symbol?
Are our modern day Sodom and gomorahs New Orleans with hurricane katrina, the flooding going on in the Midwest right now? Any time that a flood, earthquake, mudslide, or tsunami hits is it god or only nature? Some say god others say no those days are over god doesn’t need to get our attention in those ways any longer. Is that true or are we simply not getting a message?
 
cjforJesus said:
I am trying to figure out from my posts how you assumed I believe it is permissible to receive the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin.

The contention is in the original post and that is what we are discussing. Does God cause physical illness and death because someone receives in a state of mortal sin?That is the issue my friend.It is not and has never been a teaching of the Church that death or illness may result from receiving the Eucharist unworthily.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm
Click to expand...
So you’re ok with God letting us go to hell for receiving unworthily but you struggle with the idea that God might permit us to get sick from it in order to wake us up to the fact that we need to change–so that we will not be condemned along with the world?

Why is it either or? Why can St. Paul not mean both?

The peace of Christ,
Mark
 
Yeah, cj, I wasn’t saying that it isn’t a matter open for interpretation, but the interpretation is rather plain for a few reasons, which is why people are citing interpreters, because the things they say are compelling, not because they are infallible.

It’s pretty clear that Paul is telling them their sickness and weakness, and a few people’s death, for which the Corinthians had hitherto no etiology, is in fact caused by a punishment from God, i**n this particular case.

If Paul was talking about spiritual weakness and sickess and, um, a spiritual, euphemism for dying, “falling asleep,” which is a euphemism for regular dying, but, whatever, what would he be talking about?
The argument would go like this: Hey, you guys are mortally sinning! Don’t believe me? You’ve seen proof of it! What’s the proof? That you mortally sinned. Oh yon’t believe* that*? I have proof of that: the proof’s that you sinned mortally! Oh, you don’t believe you mortally sinned? Well, you know how I know you did?!
And then the Corinthians are like, “Wait. Wut?” It’s a weird and circular statement.

That’s a little nonsensical. Clearly, in chapter 11 he’s telling them they need to have greater respect for each other and the Eucharist (the Body of Christ is both themselves and the Eucharist), and they’ve seen proof of what not respecting the body of Christ does, in the plain and visible deaths.

The thing that’s got everyone so frustrated is that a few people keep deferring to the absence of infallible church documents as a way to say that they don’t have to think through a passage, in stead of talking about the verse itself and trying to figure out what it means.
 
And, look, if you read the whole chapter, the gross disrespect for the Body of Christ which causes their unworthiness and then sickness goes deeper thanf somebody forgetting to to go Confession before receiving. So, your gut is not totally off either, but any reading of this where Paul isn’t ascribing an illness as a curse from God is seriously strained.
 
Originally posted by claymcdermott
The thing that’s got everyone so frustrated is that a few people keep deferring to the absence of infallible church documents as a way to say that they don’t have to think through a passage, in stead of talking about the verse itself and trying to figure out what it means.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say “infallible” church documents, but church documents … there is a difference.
I also mentioned Saints, Fathers, Doctors, and catechisms.

Not a wiff of this in any of them as far as I have seen. I only ask for some indication from any of these sources since the subject is quite heavy and has to do with a very important sacrament. In all the sacramental documents from any source I have never seen this said. And all I ask for is for some valid hefty source other than just one voice crying in the wilderness.

We can continue to discuss our opinions but what we need are sources. I don’t know of any, and the question is … does anyone?
 
puzzledtoo said:
In order to fan the flames a bit. How many of you know of someone personally that has partook of the eucharist and died either that day or soon afterward(not including say someone on their deathbed)?
My mother goes to mass most Saturday evenings-partakes of communion and does not nor has she for at least several years go to confession. I, not viewing myself as Christian do not partake of communion in any form-real presence or as a symbol.
Both of us have health issues. Is this because we are humans with a body or because she is in mortal sin and I just haven’t a Christian faith?
A protestant lady I once met that had some form of cancer told me that her mother-in-law said she was sick because she was a sinner and had offended god. This lady and her family went to church every Sunday. Probably received communion when offered at that particular church.
The mother-in-law had some form of dimensia. was this because she went to partake of communion at a church that viewed the eucharist as a symbol? …
Click to expand...
  • we see very little of miraculous occurrences similar to the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira these days as was pointed out above
  • many people take part in the sufferings of Christ and the world and/or suffer relatively random illnesses
  • I understand the Protestant Eucharist even less than the Catholic one but it is likely they mean diffferent things to God technically
  • in any event it is not a matter of superstition to God. Mostly Christians of all churches misunderstand St Paul’s letters in a big way. God is not interested in sacrifice! The fact that it is alleged to be Christ’s (which is real) smacks of an excuse to lose sight of Church and God’s purposes. R for relating is such a dirty word!
 
cjforJesus said:
We are not talking about grace but an act of God whereby he causes the death or illness of someone. That is not grace.

As I stated before you can believe it if you wish but it is NOT part of the deposit of faith.
Click to expand...
The Church does teach that sin is the cause of suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, which it calls temporal punishment.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, “the tinder for sin” (fomes peccati); since concupiscence "is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ."67 Indeed, "an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules."68
 
no fred conty, at a certain point you have to read the text yourself and you yourself have to present positive reasons why you think that the author is trying to say what you think he is.

And, every one is citing authorities on interpretation, who are authorities because they have studied the Bible and speak the original languages, and you want some highly imaginative glossing from a saint - any saint. What about holiness makes you better at reading comprehension?

This is like, a Sola Scriptura guy’s parody of a Catholic position.
 
And guys, the question isn’t whether the Eucharist kills people - it is whether Paul said that in a SPECIFIC CASE illness was a punishment for a SPECIFIC community’s abuses - which he very clearly did, because I can read the Bible itself.
 
claymcdermott said:
Yeah, cj, I wasn’t saying that it isn’t a matter open for interpretation, but the interpretation is rather plain for a few reasons, which is why people are citing interpreters, because the things they say are compelling, not because they are infallible.

It’s pretty clear that Paul is telling them their sickness and weakness, and a few people’s death, for which the Corinthians had hitherto no etiology, is in fact caused by a punishment from God, i**n this particular case.

If Paul was talking about spiritual weakness and sickess and, um, a spiritual, euphemism for dying, “falling asleep,” which is a euphemism for regular dying, but, whatever, what would he be talking about?
The argument would go like this: Hey, you guys are mortally sinning! Don’t believe me? You’ve seen proof of it! What’s the proof? That you mortally sinned. Oh yon’t believe* that*? I have proof of that: the proof’s that you sinned mortally! Oh, you don’t believe you mortally sinned? Well, you know how I know you did?!
And then the Corinthians are like, “Wait. Wut?” It’s a weird and circular statement.

That’s a little nonsensical. Clearly, in chapter 11 he’s telling them they need to have greater respect for each other and the Eucharist (the Body of Christ is both themselves and the Eucharist), and they’ve seen proof of what not respecting the body of Christ does, in the plain and visible deaths.

The thing that’s got everyone so frustrated is that a few people keep deferring to the absence of infallible church documents as a way to say that they don’t have to think through a passage, in stead of talking about the verse itself and trying to figure out what it means.
Click to expand...
It is clear to you but I see differently. We can both have opinions as it is NOT clear and not a traditional or current church doctrine.
It is ONE sentence in one chapter. You must take it in context to understand what St Paul was stressing.
Peace to you.
 
Originally posted by claymcdermott
no fred conty, at a certain point you have to read the text yourself and you yourself have to present positive reasons why you think that the author is trying to say what you think he is.
Click to expand...
Then from this we may just throw out history, Fathers, Doctors, Catechisms, Church documents, Tradition, because all we need is our own personal interpretation of Scripture?

And I have read the text, and I have presented my own positive reasons. But that is not what the OP is about.
 
fred_conty said:
As far as I am aware, nothing in the CCC says that a person will get physically sick or physically die if the Eucharist is received apart from being in grace.

I haven’t read that much of the Fathers and Doctors of the church to be any authority, but I would think that I would have had some indication of this from them because this is rather newsy of itself.

I haven’t read it in any kind of catechism.

And I don’t know of any Church documentation that has touched on this. So actually if it isn’t taught in the Eucharistic theology, then this would lead one to believe it dosen’t exist.

And that is what makes me suspicious that it is only about spiritual sleep and spiritual sickness.

And of course anyone is welcome to take another point of view since it has never been settled by the Church.
Click to expand...
I agree that what the whole passage is warning about is spiritual sickness and spiritual death.
I had actually never even heard of Dr Hahns statement or that interpretarton of the verse ,but was amazed at how many theologians interpret it as physical death and illness.
 
cj, putting the sentence in context actually makes it clearer that it’s about physical death, which I have tried to point out already - but whatever, as you said, you have a “gut feeling.”

It really bothers me that there is an apparent assumption that every sentence of the Bible which lacks a long history of exegesis in the Church from hierarchs (priests aren’t good enough) is totally esoteric and impenetrable to those only armed with an understanding of the genre, original language, and author’s other work - and the belief that the Bible is* not *so impenetrable means rejecting all Tradition - because explaining what’s happening in the Bible at a very superficial plot-events level is the role of Tradition apparently.

Also, I might point out, the unwillingness to give an actual argument for why the Bible is saying what it is supposed to say that is based on the specific text itself is to reject Tradition, because it is to reject that Tradition is supposed to make any sense.

But you guys are right - this isn’t the point of the OP, so I leave the convo at this point.
 
I will continue especially in light of posts 49 and 52 of this thread to “be not afraid” for my actions or inactions regarding the eucharist as it is said Christ taught at least several times(I believe) in the gospels.
 
claymcdermott said:
cj, putting the sentence in context actually makes it clearer that it’s about physical death, which I have tried to point out already - but whatever, as you said, you have a “gut feeling.”

It really bothers me that there is an apparent assumption that every sentence of the Bible which lacks a long history of exegesis in the Church from hierarchs (priests aren’t good enough) is totally esoteric and impenetrable to those only armed with an understanding of the genre, original language, and author’s other work - and the belief that the Bible is* not *so impenetrable means rejecting all Tradition - because explaining what’s happening in the Bible at a very superficial plot-events level is the role of Tradition apparently.

Also, I might point out, the unwillingness to give an actual argument for why the Bible is saying what it is supposed to say that is based on the specific text itself is to reject Tradition, because it is to reject that Tradition is supposed to make any sense.

But you guys are right - this isn’t the point of the OP, so I leave the convo at this point.
Click to expand...
[31] But if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. [32] But whilst we are judged, we are chastised by the Lord, that we be not condemned with this world. [33] Wherefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. [34] If any man be hungry, let him eat at home; that you come not together unto judgment. And the rest I will set in order, when I come.

Peace to you. It is about spirituality not the physical body. Read the ENTIRE chapter to get the true context.

And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.
 
CJ, sying read the “ENTIRE” chapter is a little obnoxious with the all caps. And, I am gonna go out on a limb here and say that I have made a more in depth study of Corinthians than you have, so I have read the whole book.

But, I think this isn’t going to be productive because I have absolutely no idea why you think the passage you cited is relevant to the question of whether your gut feeling is correct. So, we may as well be speaking different languages, and I won’t hijak the thread any more than we already have.

Anyway, it doesn’t matter all that much, honestly. The point of the physical death’s occurrence in Paul’s interpretation is to illustrate what is happening at a spiritual level, so, whatever, you’re not totally wrong.

But it is important and what does matter is that you be aware that God does kill people via miracle in the New Testament. Three people in Acts off the top of my head. And of course, then there was that time when Paul himself calls on God to blind a magician in Acts! So, just keep in mind that physically punishing people with sickness for their sins and as an illustration that what they did was sinful, is something God does in the New Testament.

I only mention it because I am worried that a consensus seems to be developing that is just not Biblical, and it’s a bigger deal than the question raised in the OP
 
cjforJesus said:
I agree that what the whole passage is warning about is spiritual sickness and spiritual death.
I had actually never even heard of Dr Hahns statement or that interpretarton of the verse ,but was amazed at how many theologians interpret it as physical death and illness.
Click to expand...
Not suprising given that the Catechism lists “suffering, illness, death,” as the consequences of sin. (CCC 1264)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top