Can't take communion

[BlackFriar]

Just curious: the church is trying to protect people by not allowing them to receive communion in objective mortal sin. Would the Lord Himself punish them for not receiving Him worthily? Like, maybe something on the order of striking them with something or other? What would He do, if anything.

This needs a bit of unpacking perhaps.

the church is trying to protect people by not allowing them to receive communion in objective mortal sin.

Who do you mean by “people”? If you mean the communicant then you would be mistaken. Concerns over objective mortal sin and communion are only for everybody else not the communicant. It is a concern for scandal over apparent public denial of a major Church teaching (eg indissolubility).

A specific canon law means the priest must not admit those obstinately in public grave objective sin to Communion. He may allow those he knows to be privately objectively “sinning” to Communion and in fact that is the norm.

It is then the decision of the Communicant re private objective sin whether they should come forward to Communion. There is a different canon law dedicated to this aspect. It simply states that if one is personally “conscious of grave sin” (it does not clarify whether that means objective or just subjective) one may not approach for Communion. Obviously conscience plays a role here.

In short it is nobody’s business but that of the PP and the Communicant. If they are both aware of the situation then God wants us to keep our noses out regardless of the actions permitted or not permitted.

 

[FiveLinden]

Yes, as predicted above, all our poster will get on CAF is theological bickering from untrained amateur laity.

She needs to see her PP on this matter.

Is there a way for laity to become trained and professional?

 

[Entwhistler]

One could get a doctorate in Canon Law. Or a degree in theology from a Catholic institution.

 

[simonjosiah1]

Well people can only seek an annulment for certain circumstances (i.e marriage wasn’t consummated) if the marriage just ended like most marriages do, they can only be divorced.

 

[phil19034]

Just curious: the church is trying to protect people by not allowing them to receive communion in objective mortal sin. Would the Lord Himself punish them for not receiving Him worthily? Like, maybe something on the order of striking them with something or other? What would He do, if anything.

All we have is St Paul’s writings, Old Testament typeology, and the teaching of the Magisterium.

St Paul is clear about this in his writings.

Plus the Old Testament is clear about how people with sin would die if they simply looked inside the Ark of the Covenant. Mary is the new Ark and Jesus is the new Covenant.

So while Jesus didn’t say anything specific- it’s reasonable to assume that there is some kind of “punishment.” Perhaps more time in purgatory for some and hell for others.

The problem with all sin, is that it leads to other sin. Refraining from communion takes humility. But a person who refuses to refrain when the Church has asked them to can be a prideful person. And it is their pride and lack of humility that may seal their fate.

Afterall, it’s not God who sends us to hell, we send ourselves there.

I hope this helps

 

[phil19034]

Well people can only seek an annulment for certain circumstances (i.e marriage wasn’t consummated) if the marriage just ended like most marriages do, they can only be divorced.

I would argue (theological) that what you say is both true and perhaps false at the same time.

Today, there are a large number of people who enter into marriage believing that marriage is not a life long covenant, and that while they hope their marriage lasts - they are open to divorce.

I question if such an attitude and mind set allows the sacrament to take place in the first place.

HOWEVER, I defer to the Magisterium and tribunals.

 

[TheOldColonel]

One cannot desecrate the Eucharist by receiving it in the usual manner. The claim you read is over the top wrong. Though one may be canonically prohibited, receiving is not a desecration of the Eucharist. Neither is the one prohibited due to a marital situation excommunicated. He or she is simply prohibited canonically from receiving.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Concerns over objective mortal sin and communion are only for everybody else not the communicant.

1 Corinthians chapter 11:

A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.

For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.

If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment; but since we are judged by [the] Lord, we are being disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

1 Corinthians, CHAPTER 11 | USCCB

 

[TheLittleLady]

Or one can study these things outside the walls of a university.

 

[BlackFriar]

BlackFriar:

Yes, as predicted above, all our poster will get on CAF is theological bickering from untrained amateur laity.

She needs to see her PP on this matter.

Is there a way for laity to become trained and professional?

“Laity” by definition are not formally trained in theology.

It therefore seems foolish for even less educated lay persons to seek concise and sure Catholic theological advice (let alone on marriage and canon law subtleties) by coming to a Catholic Forum to find that advice.
Surely that is not something that a public Forum can reliably provide.

Such persons are surely best advised to see their PP or Diocesan Tribunal experts.
Asking a formal “apologist” may be helpful - but even then I find the apologists here are not always highly trained priests but rather lay persons with less than comprehensive theology degrees and limited Sacramental pastoral experience.
There are priests on CAF in public areas but they seem to avoid answering these sorts of questions for good reason.

If your own question is sincere then take a comprehensive degree in theology and canon law.
But really, those here on CAF with those sort of qualifications are usually well aware of their limitations and would likely offer exactly the same advice to a poster with very specific pastoral questions/needs. A forum is not the place to go with specific real world theological or medical needs.

 

[BlackFriar]

BlackFriar:

Concerns over objective mortal sin and communion are only for everybody else not the communicant.

1 Corinthians chapter 11:

A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.

For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

I am unsure as to the point of your quote.
If you are using Corinthians to support your inaccurate view (“the church is trying to protect people by not allowing them to receive communion in objective mortal sin”) then you are still mistaken.

This quote does not say what you want it to say. As stated above this quote is about a personal decision as to whether to approach Communion by the Communicant herself. Just as Canon 916 states:

Anyone conscious of grave sin may not receive Communion…

It is not the Priest’s role to enforce this. It is a decision by the Communicant herself with her conscience.

But what you are trying to say is covered by Canon 915 which outlines the public responsibilities of the Priest:

Those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Communion.

So it is fairly clear that when you say “…not allowing them to receive communion in objective mortal sin” you have mixed these two different Canons up as contributors often do on CAF.

For in fact those in “objective mortal sin” are not the same as those “in manifest grave sin”. Manifest means “public”. In other words the priest only has a responsibility to stop those who are publicly known to be in objective sin. If it is private, even if the priest knows, he should allow them to come to Communion for they may be non culpable.

If they are culpable the priest has no obligation to stop them if the grave matter is private. However this is where Canon 916 kicks in. If the person herself is conscious that they are culpable of an objectively grave matter then they need to go to confession first.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Those who partake when in grave sin do further damage to themselves.

 

[BlackFriar]

Of course.

That was not what you originally said though, hence my clarifications above.

We must always be careful to distinguish grave personal sin from grave objective sin.

 

[TheLittleLady]

I simply quoted the Scriptures that state that it is dangerous for those in grave sin to partake. Period.

 

[BlackFriar]

I simply quoted the Scriptures that state that it is dangerous for those in grave sin to partake. Period.

You appear to have forgotten what you actually said:

the church is trying to protect people by not allowing them to receive communion in objective mortal sin.

You were mistaken.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Excommunication protects the person from greater sin.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

 

[phil19034]

Asking a formal “apologist” may be helpful - but even then I find the apologists here are not always highly trained priests but rather lay persons with less than comprehensive theology degrees and limited Sacramental pastoral experience.

I just want to make a point about lay theologians… there are a good number of them who are well trained with Master, S.T.L., Ph.D. And S.T.D. degrees

Many priests are even taught by them, plus MOST priests do not have Theology degrees. Some do, but many don’t.

All priests in the United States earn a Master of Divinity and a Master of Arts in Philosophy (plus a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy if they go to the seminary straight out of college).

Some priests also have the OPTION of earning a Masters degree in Theology (M.T.S. or M.A.) while still in the Seminary or after they are ordained.

Academically, some lay people do receive similar training in theology (which is why some lay people are professors at seminaries). And some lay people might even have better training / knowledge in specific subjects. However, priests typically receive/have a more well-rounded education, not specialized in anything unless they go for a Ph.D.; STL and/or STD

I have seen just as many bad lay theologians as there have been bad ordained theologians (like the priest theologians who convinced the Kennedy family that they could be Catholic & pro-choice)

God Bless

 

[BlackFriar]

???
You seem to have gone off on a tangent if you are responding to my post.

 

[BlackFriar]

I don’t disagree with you.
Regardless, specific and difficult questions on marriage and sacramental issues are best taken to the pastor concerned. CAF cannot helpfully engage such questions.

 

[guanophore]

“Laity” by definition are not formally trained in theology.

I don’t think this is the case. In fact, there are a great many lay persons who have had theological training. Some of them pursued Holy Orders and did not complete the process, for whatever reason. Advanced theological degrees are available to laity now in many areas. The Catholic Apologists on Immaculate Heart and Relevant Radio are amazingly well equipped. They are not ordained, and are not in a position to teach on behalf of the Church, but they are well acquainted with the doctrines of the faith, and some even with canon law.

coming to a Catholic Forum to find that advice.

Surely that is not something that a public Forum can reliably provide.

There sure seems to be a plethora of Catholic advice here! As well as non-Catholic. But i agree with you, an internet forum has limits, and pastoral cases should go to a pastor.