Cohabitation and communion

[elliotfc]

I am not so sure about this. There were always lines at the times for confession at the University I attended. Not always something that will be reported as it isn’t really anyones business.

Just like anything personal story, church story, you would see on EWTN is not anyones business? Anything you would read in your diocesan newspaper?

There are lines for confession at my parish, several people deep, heavier during Lent.

I’ve never heard a priest homilize that not enough Catholics receive communion.

By the way I am skeptic by nature, so I am delighted that you are skeptical of the widely held opinion that Catholics in mortal sin are receiving in communion in great numbers.

Again, there are conditions to wether or not a sin is mortal or not. Contraception is of sufficently grave matter but if the person lacks knowledge of it being a sin or uses it with out full consent of their will then it is not a mortal sin for that person. We can never judge if all these conditions are met.

This is the last time I’ll bring this up…I’ll let it go after this.

We can make judgments. You yourself seem to acknowledge that I have done just that. And since I have done just that, it is unreasonable to then say that I can never judge.

Question. Have I judged? If the answer is yes, then it is illogical to sasy that we can never judge, since I can and have done so.

Or, if the answer is no, then I’m not judging anyone, so no big whoop.

Basicly it is without any knowledge. You accuse people of being guilty of something that you have no way of knowing if they are. Limited, imperfect, anecdotal knowledge is not good enough to condemn people which is what you do.

We’re all sinners. Is that a condemnation?

I’m not condemning people to hell. I’m partisan to the opinion that people who die with mortal sins on their record may still embrace the full and eternal that is Christ.

No priest should ever give you such information as it is none of your business what others are doing but I can name a couple who could give you this information if they wanted to.

OK. I’m a big believer in specifics.

You are being cynical by judging with no actual knowledge.

This is too much bluster, I’ll disengage with you now, thanks for the interaction, have a nice one.

 

[jmcrae]

Fine, I yield. It is better to assume that everyone who receives communion is not in a state of mortal sin, and believes in the Real Presence.

This is the best approach to take, actually.

No, I do have that right. Just like I have the right to do anything within my capacity.

You do not have the capacity to read minds and hearts - only Jesus knows for sure. This has nothing to do with free will. We are not free to pass eternal judgments upon each other’s souls. (Which is different than discerning whether the act itself is a good idea or a bad idea. Obviously, contraception and abortion are bad ideas.)

 

[elliotfc]

Actually, my parish is like that, and it’s considered “normal” by everyone who “counts” - it has certainly never been featured on EWTN, whose producers most likely have never even heard of it.

What is the name of your parish?

It will be a great service if you could divulge the name of your parish, as you will change my attitude around completely, plus I can inform literally thousands that their attitudes are, likewise, demostrably false.

I am not overstating this. If there are parishes where just as many people receive the sacrament of reconciliation as the sacracment of communion, this needs to be known. Please tell me the name of your parish, I think it should be spotlighted so false premises can stop being promulgated. Thanks. You can send me a private message if you’d like.

 

[elliotfc]

You do not have the capacity to read minds and hearts - only Jesus knows for sure.

Agreed.

This has nothing to do with free will. We are not free to pass eternal judgments upon each other’s souls.

And have I done that? If not, this is moot, in my opinion.

And if I have, then we are free to pass eternal judgement of each other’s souls.

But that too is moot beacuse I have not been passing judgment on eternal souls, just talking about mortal sin, which I think can be forgiven after physical death.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

You know, Byz, you really need to do a reality check. I hear one or two of the abortionist politicians get applauded when they receive communion. How does that fit in with your judgement theory?

Apples and oranges here.

It is you who needs a reality check if you think this justifies the belief that the majority of those recieveing communion are doing so while in a state of mortal sin.

With these politicians we know they are creating public scandal but we can not know the state of their soul, heck they may have confessed this and plan to change. But even if they haven’t, which I admit none have done so as of yet, that does not mean that the majority of Catholics are guilty of the same thing.

Even if you give the cohabitants the benefit of the doubt, there is such a sin called scandal, which is itself a very serious sin. You can’t let that one slide.

Please point to where I said that we should. I think you need to reread my first post. Here it is for you once again.

I was with you until this.

This last bit is very uncharitable and you can in no way know this. You are judgeing where you have no right to judge as you do not know any facts.

As for this woman, you know facts but you can not say that she is committing mortal sin as for a sin to be considered a mortal sin there are conditions that need to be met which you can not truly judge.

But I agree with you 100% that she should not be receiveing communion and I would tell her such seeing that she volunteered the information that she is living in sin.

I was commenting on the OP’s claim that 70 - 80% of those recieveing communion do so with unconfessed mortal sin.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

And if I have, then we are free to pass eternal judgement of each other’s souls.

But that too is moot beacuse I have not been passing judgment on eternal souls, just talking about mortal sin, which I think can be forgiven after physical death.

Interesting set of beliefs. Not what the Church Teaches but interesting none the less.

I can now see why this discussion will yield little as we are working from a set of beliefs. One Catholic and one not.

 

[Diaconia]

This thread is both interesting and disturbing. Interesting to see the exchanges flying back and forth, and disturbing for some of the content in those flying messages.

Perhaps a reminder that charity for all involved is pantamount.

As a deacon at a large suburban parish I can confirm the assertion that the communion lines are WAY longer than the confession lines.

Last week I visited a Serbian Orthodox Church and less than 1/5 of the parishioners received communion at the Divine Liturgy. Someone I visited with said that was typical. To make matters crystal clear, one of the priests called all those who wanted to receive communion up front to listen as he prayed the prayer before communion. He reminded all present of the need to have confessed recently, and fasted since the day before.

A couple of weeks ago in a homily I used the phrase “properly disposed” and a great many of my parishioners stared up to me with a “deer-in-the-headlights” look.

Perhaps we need to gently remind our flocks about receiving our Lord in the Eucharist a bit more often.

To the original question - obviously, parties in a state of ungoing sin and / or scandal should recuse themselves from receiving our Lord until they have made a firm purpose of amendment and received sacramental absolution.

God bless you all,

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Perhaps we need to gently remind our flocks about receiving our Lord in the Eucharist a bit more often.

To the original question - obviously, parties in a state of ungoing sin and / or scandal should recuse themselves from receiving our Lord until they have made a firm purpose of amendment and received sacramental absolution.

Deacon Chris,
I agree with you here except for the “parties in a state of ongoing sin and/or scandal”.

If they are casueing scandal then they most likely will not recuse themselves and it is the place of their pastor to refuse them. As for the “ongoing sin”, that is part of the reminder we must give and that reminder is that no one with unconfessed sin (not just ongoing sin) should not approach.

 

[blessedtoo]

Byz, I think you are being intentionally disagreeable and obtuse. The OP, who has a valid point, is most certainly not passing judgement on anyone’s eternal soul. How absurd of you to assert this. As an old timer, I can testify that back in the day, before the loosey-goosey feel-good homilies of the late 60’ and 70’s, many, many folks remained seated during Communion and the lines at Confession stretched around the Churches. So what do you think has happened in the last 40 years? Have we all achieved sainthood?

You don’t trust statistics but I would suggest that if you took a poll right here on CAF of how many Church going Catholics knew of other Catholics who were actively and openly living in some type of sin (co-habitation, fornication, re-marriage without annulment, active homosexuality) you would be quite impressed by the numbers. I have personally taken folks to Mass with me who were fallen away Catholics attending for the first time in years who willingly and knowingly receive the Eucharist. I have taken active homosexuals with me to Mass who have no qualms about receiving. While the OP may have overstated the number of 60%, I do agree with his premise. There is just no way that a Church of 1000 members has not one sinner among them - especially considering the stats on the many Catholics who don’t adhere to Church teachings.

And BTW: I believe that this, in itself, causes scandal to the Church.

 

[elliotfc]

If anyone cares, I have never, while witnessing the reception and distribution of the Eucharist, wondered to myself how many persons, and which persons, were probably not in the proper state of preparation and grace to receive at that time.

As an intellectual consideration, I make the consideration.

As far as being informed, I’ve heard it argued that as long as you do not accept the Church’s teaching you are essentially ignorant. That, with full understanding as a devout Catholic, you could not possibly reject the teaching…therefore, those who reject the teaching simply do not have full understanding. I may or may not agree with this (OK fine I disagree), but there’s something to that.

The rub being, then, that no one willfully disregards Church teaching, therefore, this OP is absolutely off the mark.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Byz, I think you are being intentionally disagreeable and obtuse.

This is a very convient way to disregard the opinions of those who do not agree with you. If they disagree then they must be doing so intentionally rather than having a valid opinion of their own.

As you have chosen to resort to this there is no way to argue that point with you as you are being just what you have accused me of.

So it is time to move on.

Only one last point though. What does it matter to you what everyone else is doing, regarding confession lines.

That is the point of this discussion, not scandal. The OP raised the point that confession lines are small so in their opinion a large majority of those recieving communion are doing so with unconfessed mortal sin. No comment was made regarding scandal. If you must know, I agree with your comment on scandal but it is up to the pastor and bishop to deal with that, not us.

 

[jmcrae]

And if I have, then we are free to pass eternal judgement of each other’s souls.

You’re just as bad as what you accuse others of. Because you are able to do it, it is permitted?

I am able to murder; does that make murder permissible?

And after all, all of those people are able to receive Holy Communion in the state of mortal sin (if, indeed, they are - you have judged them to be in the state of mortal sin, but we don’t know whether they really are, or not) - therefore, by your reasoning, it must be permitted.

Right?

But that too is moot beacuse I have not been passing judgment on eternal souls, just talking about mortal sin, which I think can be forgiven after physical death.

You are thinking of venial sins.

“Mortal sin” means that they are going directly to Hell without any stop-offs along the way and with no second chances. If you say that people have mortal sin, you are passing the judgement of final damnation upon their souls.

 

[jmcrae]

What is the name of your parish?

Sacred Heart Church in downtown Calgary.

(Not to be confused with either of the other two Sacred Heart parishes in our Diocese, which are in small towns just outside of Calgary.)

Everyone here is welcome to come and visit, if you’re in the area.

 

[blessedtoo]

Only one last point though. What does it matter to you what everyone else is doing, regarding confession lines.

That is the point of this discussion, not scandal. The OP raised the point that confession lines are small so in their opinion a large majority of those recieving communion are doing so with unconfessed mortal sin. No comment was made regarding scandal. If you must know, I agree with your comment on scandal but it is up to the pastor and bishop to deal with that, not us.

It matters to me because of the message it sends to the Catholic in the pew. It matters to me because when I first returned to the Church after a 25 year absence, I did not receive the Eucharist for months because I remembered what I had been taught by the nuns back in the stone age. I remembered that one can’t receive the Eucharist if one has even so much as missed Mass, nevermind the stock-pile of other sins. But after attending Church for a few months and witnessing EVERYONE going to Communion, I thought perhaps I was being unnecessarily harsh on myself, that maybe the rules had changed or perhaps if I just said I was sorry privately to God I would be absolved. Witnessing an entire congregation rising to receive Communion led me to only one conlcusion: surely I could not be the ONLY sinner in the Church, right? If all these folks are entitled to receive (and I can’t imagine they are all sin-free), then surely I too must be entitled? Of course I was ignorant and I quickly understood myself to be seriously mistaken, but I was blessed. What about those who continue to function with this mistaken impression? As I stated before, every fallen away Catholic I brought with me to Mass felt entitled to receive the Eucharist. Where do you think this idea came from?

If you must know, I agree with your comment on scandal but it is up to the pastor and bishop to deal with that, not us.

And I agree that it is not my responsibility to “judge” the disposition of anyone’s soul. It is up to the pastor and bishop. However, it is certainly within my purvue to observe, reflect, and even question why things are the way they are.

 

[KatieD]

Well said.

I can tell you that until hearing the two recent homilies from our priests, I hadn’t heard the issue of confession and reception of Holy Communion in years at my parish. We finally have a couple of priests who aren’t afraid to tell us what we need to know. (And of course, they received the predictable scowling and nasty comments from some.) Our previous priests never bothered to talk about this. I imagine that many are ignorant, but I also know that many disregard and ignore the Church’s teaching because they disagree with the Church about what constitutes a mortal sin.

 

[Marian_Carroll]

**INTERMISSION:
**
Your charitable interchange with each other is encouraged. Please continue to address post content eliminating presumptive judgments upon/about individual posters in the thread. It may be helpful to pause and review:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=132852

Please refrain from requesting on the public boards, that others provide you with personal data. You may if you wish, contact them by private mail understanding that the other poster may or may not choose to provide you with the information.

Ref: Post 4 - Banned Topics
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=17511

1. Solicitation of personal information (e.g.,age, income, or location), beyond that freely offered by members through inclusion in their public profiles

Your cooperation in giving due consideration to the above will help keep this thread open.

 

[elliotfc]

You’re just as bad as what you accuse others of. Because you are able to do it, it is permitted?

No, but it’s like how marijuana is by and large not permitted, yet millions of people smoke up.

I am able to murder; does that make murder permissible?

If you’re an abortionist, sure.

And after all, all of those people are able to receive Holy Communion in the state of mortal sin (if, indeed, they are - you have judged them to be in the state of mortal sin, but we don’t know whether they really are, or not) - therefore, by your reasoning, it must be permitted.

Sort of.

I think it would be…overtly scandalous…if priests were to refuse to give communion to the majority of persons in line to receive communion, even if the desire to do so was there, which I doubt to be so.

I think priests accept the fact that, in their minds, a good number, if not majority, of persons are receiving communion when they have not prepared themselves to do so. This is my opinion, I am not obsessed with it nor do I glory in it and if I’m wrong praise God for that.

“Mortal sin” means that they are going directly to Hell without any stop-offs along the way and with no second chances. If you say that people have mortal sin, you are passing the judgement of final damnation upon their souls.

If mortal sin is actually so defined (I suspect not…); a sin that is dependent upon the result (i.e. going to hell); then I clearly don’t know what mortal sin means, and should not use the phrase.

I’ll do some independent research on this one.

Defining sins based on eternal result…seems kind of bizarre…but if that’s how it is defined, whaddamygonnadoboudit.

 

[elliotfc]

Sacred Heart Church in downtown Calgary.

(Not to be confused with either of the other two Sacred Heart parishes in our Diocese, which are in small towns just outside of Calgary.)

Everyone here is welcome to come and visit, if you’re in the area.

I’m going to place a call, maybe I can interview your pastor, I’m always look for subjects to write about. Thanks!

 

[jmcrae]

I’m going to place a call, maybe I can interview your pastor, I’m always look for subjects to write about. Thanks!

Go for it. He likes getting his name in the papers.

 

[elliotfc]

=“Mortal sin” means that they are going directly to Hell without any stop-offs along the way and with no second chances. If you say that people have mortal sin, you are passing the judgement of final damnation upon their souls.

newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm

The link is the encyclopedia entry on sin, section III is mortal sin.

Go 20% down the link.

Nowhere does it mention Hell of eternal judgment.

Now, if God was bound by a dictionary definition of mortal sin, then mortal sin would be greater than God, or, God would be compelled to act in a predetermined way by what is defined to be mortal sin.

Second, mortal sin, if it had an necessary eternal result. ought to be called immortal sin. No?