Communion after perfect contrition

[Don_Ruggero]

Thank you for this response!

I’m trying to wean the word “heart” from my spiritual vocabulary Actually, that word (and concept) has caused me extreme grief and confusion over the course of my Christian life because, as you stated, it has to do with emotional responses and sometimes, they just aren’t there for me and other times they are. Usually, they are the result of non-spiritual influences (hormones, etc.) and I have found them extremely untrustworthy. Your explanation above gives me great comfort.

You are welcome!

The affective side of the human person is actually very important. I don’t want to understate its importance. We see it, for example, in the French School of Spirituality, which is a spirituality that is quite dear to my own spiritual life and spiritual practices.

My point here though was in distinction to those who were placing such an incredibly high threshold for “perfect contrition” as though it is all but unattainable to ordinary people This is not the mind of the Church at all.

Perfect contrition is a technical term in theology to define a reality that the vast majority of Catholics assert every time they go to Confession and say the standard act of contrition, which I have cited elsewhere. It should not take “a lifetime of hard work to attain, if it can be attained at all.” It is an act of the will and not a moment of emoting. It is choosing God and repenting of sin because God is the Supreme Good and sin is the rejection of God. In perfect contrition, sin is rejected because it has offended God more so than because I will be punished for the sin I committed.

So is it Catholic teaching, then, that a Christian who does not have access to the Sacrament of Reconciliation must have the “heroic degree that marks the saints” of contrition in order to be forgiven by praying directly to God for forgiveness?

Please know I’m not trying to be contrary. These are legitimate questions with huge implications for non-sacramental Christians, of whom I have MANY, MANY friends and family members that I dearly love.

I’m sorry to the OP for hijacking this thread…

What you write about non-sacramental Christians is true for so many of us. But God loves them, too. Even more than we do. And Christ died for them.

The teaching is that those who do not have access to God’s mercy through the sacrament of reconciliation nevertheless do have access to God’s mercy…and as the Church again and again asserts, the Lord is at work. Lumen Gentiium speaks beautifully of the sanctifying elements that exist outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church.

The threshold of perfect contrition applies to all who seek God’s forgiveness who have no access to sacramental absolution…that they are sorrow for their sins because sin has offended God.

The vast majority of Christians who are not Catholic that I have had contact with in my life and work would express their repentance in terms Catholics would see as perfect contrition. God is at the heart of their rejection of sin and turning to Him.

Perfect contrition is meaning what we express when we say: I am sorry “not because I fear the loss of Heaven and the pains of hell but because my sins offended you, my God, who are all good and deserving of all my love.”

Rest assured that relatively few anywhere are called to the exceptional heroism of a Saint Mary of Egypt or a Saint Rose of Lima in terms of a life of heroic and extraordinary penance. That is why they are canonized as saints…because of their exemplary lives. They inspire us as well as pray for us. “Perfect contrition” however is not envisioning us living their lives at their levels of prayer and solitude and detachment from sin and the world.

I would urge you to read Ut Unum Sint. It is a beautiful encyclical by Pope John Paul II on Christian unity. It has inspired me across 20 years. Its title is Latin for “That they may be one”…the prayer of the Lord Jesus at the Last Supper. Authored by a pope who is now a canonized saint, it is a very moving and very personal testimony of the work of the Holy Spirit to bring Christians to unity. His words are very powerful. The link to the document: w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint.html

 

[porthos11]

You are welcome!

The affective side of the human person is actually very important. I don’t want to understate its importance. We see it, for example, in the French School of Spirituality, which is a spirituality that is quite dear to my own spiritual life and spiritual practices.

My point here though was in distinction to those who were placing such an incredibly high threshold for “perfect contrition” as though it is all but unattainable to ordinary people This is not the mind of the Church at all.

Perfect contrition is a technical term in theology to define a reality that the vast majority of Catholics assert every time they go to Confession and say the standard act of contrition, which I have cited elsewhere. It should not take “a lifetime of hard work to attain, if it can be attained at all.” It is an act of the will and not a moment of emoting. It is choosing God and repenting of sin because God is the Supreme Good and sin is the rejection of God. In perfect contrition, sin is rejected because it has offended God more so than because I will be punished for the sin I committed.

What you write about non-sacramental Christians is true for so many of us. But God loves them, too. Even more than we do. And Christ died for them.

The teaching is that those who do not have access to God’s mercy through the sacrament of reconciliation nevertheless do have access to God’s mercy…and as the Church again and again asserts, the Lord is at work. Lumen Gentiium speaks beautifully of the sanctifying elements that exist outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church.

The threshold of perfect contrition applies to all who seek God’s forgiveness who have no access to sacramental absolution…that they are sorrow for their sins because sin has offended God.

The vast majority of Christians who are not Catholic that I have had contact with in my life and work would express their repentance in terms Catholics would see as perfect contrition. God is at the heart of their rejection of sin and turning to Him.

Perfect contrition is meaning what we express when we say: I am sorry “not because I fear the loss of Heaven and the pains of hell but because my sins offended you, my God, who are all good and deserving of all my love.”

Rest assured that relatively few anywhere are called to the exceptional heroism of a Saint Mary of Egypt or a Saint Rose of Lima in terms of a life of heroic and extraordinary penance. That is why they are canonized as saints…because of their exemplary lives. They inspire us as well as pray for us. “Perfect contrition” however is not envisioning us living their lives at their levels of prayer and solitude and detachment from sin and the world.

I would urge you to read Ut Unum Sint. It is a beautiful encyclical by Pope John Paul II on Christian unity. It has inspired me across 20 years. Its title is Latin for “That they may be one”…the prayer of the Lord Jesus at the Last Supper. Authored by a pope who is now a canonized saint, it is a very moving and very personal testimony of the work of the Holy Spirit to bring Christians to unity. His words are very powerful. The link to the document: w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint.html

I pretty much agree.

I am actually of the mind that both perfect and imperfect contrition can coexist, and that perfect contrition is attained when you say the standard act of contrition, and really, willfully mean it, especially the phrase, “but most of all because you are all good and deserving of all my love.”

I believe perfect contrition can indeed be attained by every single person, even myself, poor sinner that I am.

 

[porthos11]

Also, Fr. Gereon Goldmann, a military chaplain serving German troops in World War II tells of instances where his men lay dying and all he could do as a professed Franciscan (but not yet a subdeacon) was to lead them into an Act of Contrition before giving them Viaticum while they were still alive (the Blessed Sacrament having been obtained, along with the necessary dispensation and faculties, at gunpoint from the Bishop of Patti). He relates the holy deaths of many of these German soldiers, who did not have the benefit of Confession, but still gained salvation through an act of perfect contrition.

 

[josh987654321]

Given the nature of what you write, and also the manner in which you have written it, rather than attempting to answer you in any substantive way in a public forum, I am going to limit myself to saying that these are matters and concerns you are best advised simply to discuss with a confessor and not on the Internet.

I agree.

But in the mean time, I will say: you should be in complete peace over your situation.

Thank you father, I feel at peace over my situation ever since I will try and bring it up at confession at the end of the week, your posts have also greatly helped me too (if though, for some reason I can’t make it, then I will lose peace over my situation knowing Sunday Mass would be imminent and not knowing what to do) I think there is only one thing on my mind at the moment over my situation, which is what my attitude or approach should be in the future. Mainly, if I have sinned and am contrite, but fail to make it to confession before Sunday Mass, is it ever okay to do what I have been doing which is to receive and try to go to confession as soon as possible? or should I be resolute in refraining from receiving the Eucharist until I can go to confession first? I am also worried about this because I have never just sat in the pew before while everyone went up to receive and I know questions will be asked of me and I will be looked at, it’s compounded by the fact that I might have to read and will then be sitting down and not participating, these are just some of my fears, but above all I want to do right by our Lord Jesus Christ and if this is necessary than that is what I will do.

I will also say that two of several of your most important lines are when you say “I don’t know about ‘full consent’ because I don’t want to do it but I know a degree of consent is involved” and “I just don’t know and I want to be right with God but without having read everything, there are many things I don’t know.” That you surely need to say to the confessor as a preface to all the rest.

Okay, Thank you.

For the practical side of how you do it: After (or really even before) you have listed your sins, you can simply tell the priest you need to explain a situation. A caring confessor is not rigid, least of all on such a point as when or how you bring up something of deep concern.

Thank you.

If you are more comfortable and wish, you could even print out your post and hand it to him as an introduction to this topic.

I think I would be more uncomfortable doing that.

Believe me, after having heard confessions for decades, people bring concerns and questions in all sorts of ways and at all sorts of points in the confession. A pastoral confessor should not have any problem addressing and helping you through this concern.

Above all, you should not be anxious about the past or your situation. Based on what you have written, I understand your situation, I believe, actually quite well and I trust your confessor will handily help you resolve this concern. Please therefore do take the moment to speak with him as it will also give him insights that will better help him to help you in the context of the sacrament of reconciliation.

God bless you.

Thank you very much Father. This has been greatly appreciated and may God Bless You too.

Thank you again very much.

Josh

 

[ProVobis]

…or should I be resolute in refraining from receiving the Eucharist until I can go to confession first? I am also worried about this because I have never just sat in the pew before while everyone went up to receive and I know questions will be asked of me and I will be looked at, it’s compounded by the fact that I might have to read and will then be sitting down and not participating, these are just some of my fears, but above all I want to do right by our Lord Jesus Christ and if this is necessary than that is what I will do.

The pressure to go up to receive sacramentally can certainly bring on much unnecessary anxiety. I don’t know what can be done about it.

One thing I can say, though, that just because you decide not to receive, it doesn’t reduce your participation in the Mass.

 

[slh3016]

You are welcome!

The affective side of the human person is actually very important. I don’t want to understate its importance. We see it, for example, in the French School of Spirituality, which is a spirituality that is quite dear to my own spiritual life and spiritual practices.

My point here though was in distinction to those who were placing such an incredibly high threshold for “perfect contrition” as though it is all but unattainable to ordinary people This is not the mind of the Church at all.

Perfect contrition is a technical term in theology to define a reality that the vast majority of Catholics assert every time they go to Confession and say the standard act of contrition, which I have cited elsewhere. It should not take “a lifetime of hard work to attain, if it can be attained at all.” It is an act of the will and not a moment of emoting. It is choosing God and repenting of sin because God is the Supreme Good and sin is the rejection of God. In perfect contrition, sin is rejected because it has offended God more so than because I will be punished for the sin I committed.

What you write about non-sacramental Christians is true for so many of us. But God loves them, too. Even more than we do. And Christ died for them.

The teaching is that those who do not have access to God’s mercy through the sacrament of reconciliation nevertheless do have access to God’s mercy…and as the Church again and again asserts, the Lord is at work. Lumen Gentiium speaks beautifully of the sanctifying elements that exist outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church.

The threshold of perfect contrition applies to all who seek God’s forgiveness who have no access to sacramental absolution…that they are sorrow for their sins because sin has offended God.

The vast majority of Christians who are not Catholic that I have had contact with in my life and work would express their repentance in terms Catholics would see as perfect contrition. God is at the heart of their rejection of sin and turning to Him.

Perfect contrition is meaning what we express when we say: I am sorry “not because I fear the loss of Heaven and the pains of hell but because my sins offended you, my God, who are all good and deserving of all my love.”

Rest assured that relatively few anywhere are called to the exceptional heroism of a Saint Mary of Egypt or a Saint Rose of Lima in terms of a life of heroic and extraordinary penance. That is why they are canonized as saints…because of their exemplary lives. They inspire us as well as pray for us. “Perfect contrition” however is not envisioning us living their lives at their levels of prayer and solitude and detachment from sin and the world.

I would urge you to read Ut Unum Sint. It is a beautiful encyclical by Pope John Paul II on Christian unity. It has inspired me across 20 years. Its title is Latin for “That they may be one”…the prayer of the Lord Jesus at the Last Supper. Authored by a pope who is now a canonized saint, it is a very moving and very personal testimony of the work of the Holy Spirit to bring Christians to unity. His words are very powerful. The link to the document: w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint.html

Thank you!

 

[peter26]

He was incorrect.

See the Teaching of the Church…

I had a word with Father about this after Mass today. He is sure this is correct and says he was taught this in seminary. This time he did add “if it is impossible for the person to get to confession, then they can receive and confess afterwards.” He promised to check on this however. Are we sure that this is incorrect?

 

[Vico]

I had a word with Father about this after Mass today. He is sure this is correct and says he was taught this in seminary. This time he did add “if it is impossible for the person to get to confession, then they can receive and confess afterwards.” He promised to check on this however. Are we sure that this is incorrect?

Note that this applies to priests who celebrate, and all the faithful who receive. Priests must receive when they celebrate the Mass, however, what grave reason is there for the faithful? Communion* increases* sanctifying grace, so one already has a state of sanctifying grace when properly disposed for reception.
CIC (Latin Canon Law)
Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous 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 resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

 

[ProVobis]

I had a word with Father about this after Mass today. He is sure this is correct and says he was taught this in seminary. This time he did add “if it is impossible for the person to get to confession, then they can receive and confess afterwards.” He promised to check on this however. Are we sure that this is incorrect?

See post 32. Fr. Don Ruggero covered the applicable canon laws and catechism.

Personally, the only “grave reasons” I see is perhaps being the last hour of the Easter duty season and one has yet to receive during that time, or pressure from a parent, which then puts the onus on them. I hear these things do happen. Otherwise there seems to be nothing gained from receiving sacramental communion without sacramental confession, if you’re in the state of mortal sin.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I had a word with Father about this after Mass today. He is sure this is correct and says he was taught this in seminary. This time he did add “if it is impossible for the person to get to confession, then they can receive and confess afterwards.” He promised to check on this however. Are we sure that this is incorrect?

What Father said is what I was taught a very long time ago, it is what is taught in the seminaries I have been a visitor to and it is what I myself taught in the intervening decades in my own classes. It is the application of Canon 916, from the 1983 code, as well as the application of the interpretation by either the conference of bishops and/or the diocesan bishop.

You are in the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham…Monsignor Newton can confirm for his priest, or for you directly, that this is the practice for the Ordinariate – and that resolves the matter for the priest and for you just as the interpretation of the norms by my own bishop made clear how “grave reason” with the other norms are to be understood and applied; the decision of my bishop definitively resolved how I was to pastorally apply this measure.

As I said in my previous post “grave reason” as it is defined in the commentary for the code of canon law could not be read as something “so extreme as to be almost never occurring”.

 

[peter26]

Thank you for the (name removed by moderator)ut father, it seems like its more complicated than I imagined.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Thank you for the (name removed by moderator)ut father, it seems like its more complicated than I imagined.

It actually really isn’t that complicated. Normally, though, when help is needed, it is done one on one…either with one’s confessor or with one’s parish priest and it is not debated in a public forum. In this case, you have the directive of your parish priest.

 

[thinkandmull]

I had a discussion today about allowing divorced Catholics to communion. The thing is, does not canon law allow Eastern Orthodox to receive under certain conditions? Also, if we cannot know for sure if we are in a state of grace (Trent), then we all go to communion not knowing if will be a good action. If we don’t commit sacrilege by taking this chance every Sunday, how are we to judge divorced Catholics?

 

[slh3016]

I had a discussion today about allowing divorced Catholics to communion. The thing is, does not canon law allow Eastern Orthodox to receive under certain conditions? Also, if we cannot know for sure if we are in a state of grace (Trent), then we all go to communion not knowing if will be a good action. If we don’t commit sacrilege by taking this chance every Sunday, how are we to judge divorced Catholics?

I thought the issue was divorced AND remarried Catholics

Divorce can be forgiven by the priest in confession but one who divorces and remarries without an annulment and who continues to have relations with his/her civil spouse is where the issue is :sad_yes:

 

[thinkandmull]

Is it true that the Pope approve of them being allowed communion?

 

[Vico]

Is it true that the Pope approve of them being allowed communion?

No. Familiaris consortio,1981 is the definitive statement from St. Pope John Paul II:*e) Divorced Persons Who Have Remarried
*
84. Daily experience unfortunately shows that people who have obtained a divorce usually intend to enter into a new union, obviously not with a Catholic religious ceremony. Since this is an evil that, like the others, is affecting more and more Catholics as well, the problem must be faced with resolution and without delay. The Synod Fathers studied it expressly. The Church, which was set up to lead to salvation all people and especially the baptized, cannot abandon to their own devices those who have been previously bound by sacramental marriage and who have attempted a second marriage. The Church will therefore make untiring efforts to put at their disposal her means of salvation.

Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.

Together with the Synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life. They should be encouraged to listen to the word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts in favor of justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God’s grace. Let the Church pray for them, encourage them and show herself a merciful mother, and thus sustain them in faith and hope.

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”[180]

Similarly, the respect due to the sacrament of Matrimony, to the couples themselves and their families, and also to the community of the faithful, forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry. Such ceremonies would give the impression of the celebration of a new sacramentally valid marriage, and would thus lead people into error concerning the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage.
By acting in this way, the Church professes her own fidelity to Christ and to His truth. At the same time she shows motherly concern for these children of hers, especially those who, through no fault of their own, have been abandoned by their legitimate partner.

With firm confidence she believes that those who have rejected the Lord’s command and are still living in this state will be able to obtain from God the grace of conversion and salvation, provided that they have persevered in prayer, penance and charity.
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio.html

 

[Vico]

I had a discussion today about allowing divorced Catholics to communion. The thing is, does not canon law allow Eastern Orthodox to receive under certain conditions? Also, if we cannot know for sure if we are in a state of grace (Trent), then we all go to communion not knowing if will be a good action. If we don’t commit sacrilege by taking this chance every Sunday, how are we to judge divorced Catholics?

To avoid scandal and sacrilege, it is not necessary to have the certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, about the state of grace that one has. What is necessary is to have a reasonable moral certainty as to the present state of the soul. Fr. Edward McNamara (Zenit) wrote: “In order to know this with reasonable moral certitude, the person must not be aware of having committed any grave sin that has not been confessed or of not being in a situation which would normally preclude being able to receive the sacrament such as, for example, an irregular marriage not recognized as valid by the Church.”

CIC Canon 915 has instructions for the clergy that “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.”

 

[thinkandmull]

Although John Paul II there says “the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture”, I am not convinced yet that this is an absolute rule. It admits that “there is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned” and speaks of “those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing”. If a Protestant can sometimes be admitted to a sacrament even though he persists in certain heresy, why cannot a remarried Catholic as long as they truly seem to be in good faith?

 

[Vico]

Although John Paul II there says “the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture”, I am not convinced yet that this is an absolute rule. It admits that “there is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned” and speaks of “those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing”. If a Protestant can sometimes be admitted to a sacrament even though he persists in certain heresy, why cannot a remarried Catholic as long as they truly seem to be in good faith?

1. Objective sin and subjective sin are important distinctions because of the influence of invincible ignorance. For Protestants to receive communion, in certain situations, meeting these conditions isnecessary:

CIC 844 / CCEO 6714. If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians who do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed.

This shows the conditions for reception of sacrements by Reformation Christians by non-Catholics are

• danger of death, or, other grave necessity,
• the norms of the diocesan bishop, or, the conference of bishops are complied with
• cannot approach a minister of his or her own community
• asks on his or her own for it
• manifests Catholic faith in the sacraments
• properly disposed.

1. For Catholic remarried while a bond remains (this means without Catholic approval), the couple are not to enjoy marital relations, but live in complete continence.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church elaborates:1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” 158 The Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities.

Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.

**1651 **Toward Christians who live in this situation, and who often keep the faith and desire to bring up their children in a Christian manner, priests and the whole community must manifest an attentive solicitude, so that they do not consider themselves separated from the Church, in whose life they can and must participate as baptized persons:

They should be encouraged to listen to the Word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts for justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God’s grace. 159

158 [⇒ (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_PWC.HTM#GOSP.MAR.10.11) Mk 10:11-12.
159 FC 84.​

 

[thinkandmull]

The sacrament of Penance is different from Communion