Bishops Meeting: Reception & Grave Reason

  • Thread starter Thread starter yinekka
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

yinekka

Guest
From the bishops’ meeting:

*Furthermore, if we are conscious of having committed a mortal sin, we are
obliged to confess it in the Sacrament of Penance with true sorrow and a purpose of
amendment before receiving Holy Communion. If a **grave reason *for approaching the
Eucharist exists and the opportunity for confession is lacking, we are permitted to
receive Holy Communion provided that we first make an act of perfect contrition and
resolve to go to Confession as soon as possible thereafter.24

usccb.org/dpp/Eucharist.pdf

What constitutes ‘grave reason’?:confused: What does it mean that ‘the opportunity for confession is lacking?’ :confused: Do we decide this for ourselves? Am I being cynical when I think that the terms are left deliberately vague so that the document is giving permission for just about everyone to receive Holy Communion while not in the state of Grace should they so desire?

Surely there are some Faithful lawyers in the group who could write the documents without ambiguity.:mad:
 
yinekka said:
Surely there are some Faithful lawyers in the group who could write the documents without ambiguity.
Click to expand...
Don’t blame the USCCB, and by all means, ask a Canon Lawyer, since this restatement seems no more ambiguous than Canon 916 (CIC) and Canon 711 (CCEO) (and I would guess every Canon Lawyer in the USCCB knew that):
Can. 916 Anyone who is conscious of grave sin may not celebrate Mass or receive the Body of the Lord without previously having been to sacramental confession, unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, which includes the resolve to go to confession as soon as possible.
Click to expand...
Canon 711 A person who is conscious of serious sin is not to celebrate the Divine Liturgy nor receive the Divine Eucharist unless a serious reason is present and there is no opportunity of receiving the sacrament of penance; in this case the person should make an act of perfect condition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible.
Click to expand...
tee
 
Believe me I have my concerns with the USCCB, but unless I’m missing something, I think they did good here with their articulation and do not seem to be at odds with Canon Law or lending to any more confusion about what Canon Law says.
 
yinekka said:
From the bishops’ meeting:

*Furthermore, if we are conscious of having committed a mortal sin, we are
obliged to confess it in the Sacrament of Penance with true sorrow and a purpose of
amendment before receiving Holy Communion. If a **grave reason ***for approaching the
Eucharist exists and the opportunity for confession is lacking, we are permitted to
receive Holy Communion provided that we first make an act of perfect contrition and
resolve to go to Confession as soon as possible thereafter.24

usccb.org/dpp/Eucharist.pdf

What constitutes ‘grave reason’?:confused: What does it mean that ‘the opportunity for confession is lacking?’ :confused: Do we decide this for ourselves? Am I being cynical when I think that the terms are left deliberately vague so that the document is giving permission for just about everyone to receive Holy Communion while not in the state of Grace should they so desire?

Surely there are some Faithful lawyers in the group who could write the documents without ambiguity.:mad:
Click to expand...
A soldier before going into combat would probably satisfy the grave reason if there wasn’t time for individual confession. Firefighters, police officers etc going into a dangerous situation might also qualify. Maybe someone going to have an operation or other dangerous medical procedure…

In those cases it is possible that sacramental confession is not possible and general absolution not available for whatever reason. They would probably meet the grave reason definition.
 
This document is very dissapointing.

usccb.org/dpp/Eucharist.pdf

I qoute:

7: “Moreover we should be cautious when making judgments about whether nor not someone else should receive Holy Communion.”

Perhaps the U.S. Bishops need to read the words of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, who wrote in his 2004 memo to the bishops again!

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?RecNum=6041

And I qoute:
  1. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.
  2. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin."
I think that the USCCB is afraid to call a spade a spade.

http://www.usccb.org/dpp/Eucharist.pdf
 
I am not quite sure why these shepherds of the church are so afraid that the modern world might not like what they have to say so they water everything down. Its not like the modern world thinks Bishops are hip anyway. Jeessh.
 
decn2b said:
I am not quite sure why these shepherds of the church are so afraid that the modern world might not like what they have to say so they water everything down. Its not like the modern world thinks Bishops are hip anyway. Jeessh.
Click to expand...
I hope you will realize that the Church is a hospital of sinners. We’re not members of the Catholic Church because the clergy are sinless. We are members of the Church because of the real presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. I strongly encourage you to pray for our Bishops and priests.
 
Our poor Bishops we do need to pray for them. These are men who have dedicated themselves to service of God but many are unfortunately too scared to live it. So they kowtow to the feminist agenda by allowing liturgical abuses, they kowtow to laity who demand to do what they want, they kowtow to the press by not wanting to appear dogmatic and archaic, etc…

It is unfortunate that many have gotten used to not having a backbone and we need to support them. We need to become their backbone, encourage them to do what is right, and act\be Catholic.

In Christ
Scylla
 
Excuse me, but these are our spiritual leaders, and it is for us to look to them for wisdom and guidance. I’m surprised with the disrespect for the hierarchy on these forums.
The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.
Click to expand...
What sort of disrespectful remark is this?:mad: I’m finding these forums to be riddled with attitudes such as these! This is our hierarchy, these are the elite of our priesthood! They are learned men who understand much more than whippersnappers posting on the internet!:mad:
 
WenckebachCath said:
Excuse me, but these are our spiritual leaders, and it is for us to look to them for wisdom and guidance. I’m surprised with the disrespect for the hierarchy on these forums.

What sort of disrespectful remark is this?:mad: I’m finding these forums to be riddled with attitudes such as these! This is our hierarchy, these are the elite of our priesthood! They are learned men who understand much more than whippersnappers posting on the internet!:mad:
Click to expand...
It is a quote from St. John Chrystostom I believe…

I think the Saint meant to highlight that even the clergy cannot escape the net of Satan. Especialy the powerful Bishops.
 
Actually I would be more afraid to receive Holy Communion in a state of Mortal sin without going to confession before reception.

It is such a shame many Catholics including the ones who wrote the latest Canon Law and the USCCB feel differently.

Ken
 
kleary said:
Actually I would be more afraid to receive Holy Communion in a state of Mortal sin without going to confession before reception.

It is such a shame many Catholics including the ones who wrote the latest Canon Law and the USCCB feel differently.
Click to expand...
Oh my. :eek:

:twocents: When I find *myself *at odds with the legitimate authorities of the Church, I think it more likely to be a shame that *I *feel differently than they… :ehh:

tee
 
bones_IV said:
This document is very dissapointing.

usccb.org/dpp/Eucharist.pdf

I qoute:

7: “Moreover we should be cautious when making judgments about whether nor not someone else should receive Holy Communion.”

Perhaps the U.S. Bishops need to read the words of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, who wrote in his 2004 memo to the bishops again!
Click to expand...
Though employing the first person plural, I think the context of the paragraph is clearly referring to we-the-faithful, not we-the-bishops. ( :twocents: And I think it probably is better for we-the-faithful to remain cautious in such judgement)

See also this sentence and accompanying footnote from the Introduction to the document:
In the following series of questions and answers, we wish to affirm clearly what the Church believes and teaches concerning the Eucharist and the reception of Holy Communion. We also wish to provide a clear affirmation as to who may receive Holy Communion within a Catholic Eucharistic celebration.3
…
3 This document is directed to the Catholic faithful in general. As such, it does not intend to provide specific guidelines on the interpretation and application of canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law, which states: “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion” (*Code of Canon Law, Latin-English Edition *[CIC] [Washington, DC: Canon Law Society of America, 1998]). See also CCEO, cc. 711 and 712.
Click to expand...
So the document is directed to the faithful, rather than the bishops.

On the other hand, if they do not intend specific interpretation of Canon 915, what’s the point? :confused:

tee
 
The more I think about this the more confused I get about the USCCB…why does it need to issue these documents? Are there any checks in place to make sure such documents do NOT conflict with ‘official’ church teaching - I’m in no way saying they do or that is their intent, but if anything could be perceived incorrectly, shouldn’t Rome first review/approve for accuracy and clarity?

Could these documents give the impression that we are first under the authority of the U.S. Bishops (as a body) in this country instead of us utimately being under the authority of the **Pope and Magisterium? **
 
I dont get the point of Bishop’s councils at all. Voting and such. Why cant the Primate have actual power again?
 
yinekka said:
From the bishops’ meeting:

Furthermore, if we are conscious of having committed a mortal sin, we are
obliged to confess it in the Sacrament of Penance with true sorrow and a purpose of
*amendment before receiving Holy Communion. If a **grave reason ***for approaching the
Eucharist exists and the opportunity for confession is lacking, we are permitted to
receive Holy Communion provided that we first make an act of perfect contrition and
resolve to go to Confession as soon as possible thereafter.24

usccb.org/dpp/Eucharist.pdf

What constitutes ‘grave reason’?:confused: What does it mean that ‘the opportunity for confession is lacking?’ :confused: Do we decide this for ourselves? Am I being cynical when I think that the terms are left deliberately vague so that the document is giving permission for just about everyone to receive Holy Communion while not in the state of Grace should they so desire?

Surely there are some Faithful lawyers in the group who could write the documents without ambiguity.:mad:
Click to expand...
They are worded that way because it is the responsibility of the diocesan Bishop to teach this in his diocese. What is “Grave Reason”? Using the teaching of our Bishop we each do need to make that decision for ourselves. For instance I generally think of Grave reason as being: I won’t have the opportunity to receive Holy Communion again for several months or I’m going into combat and may not come back.

What does it mean that 'the opportunity for confession is lacking? A priest only comes around once every three months. I only visit populated areas once every few months.
 
What about when living in a town where it’s almost impossible to go to confession? There are two Catholic parishes where I live. In the first parish, confession is only offered AFTER Mass, and then only if one asks the priest before Mass to hear one’s confession after Mass. (Regularly scheduled confession is once in Advent and once in Lent.) I’ve also tried to make an appointment during the week to have one of the two priests hear my confession, but was told that the priests do not take appointments to hear confessions (maybe it gets in the way of their tee times). This parish sends the message that confession is a big bother for the priests and really not that important anyway; just sin and receive the Eucharist.

The second parish is on the campus of a large university. Confessions are offered on Saturday, which is traditional. However, confession is suspended and not heard IF the university has home sports events on Saturday, which is often. So, rooting for the local football team is more important than God’s grace and the salvation of one’s soul (I didn’t find that doctrine in the Catholic Catechism last time I checked).

Owing to the large numbers of parishioners who receive Communion at each Mass, where confession is as scare as the sacrament in the local First Baptist Church, I feel in the minority–I guess I’m the only sinner in the crowd who is in need of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. I’ve even started to sway towards Luther’s views on imputed righteousness by faith just to feel some peace of soul.
 
40.png
Caesar:
Why cant the Primate have actual power again?
Click to expand...
Because the United States doesn’t have a primate. If we had one, tradition would give the seat to the Cardinal Archbishop of Baltimore.

Power? Do you want the primate to send marching orders? What’s wrong with synods and conferences of bishops? In fact, it was the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore which helped produce the Baltimore Catechism, the work so revered by so many here.

John
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top