Conjugal Relations & Confection of the Eucharist

[momor]

I would answer this, what does the word “communion” mean to you? The answer is wrapped up in what we call it. It suggests and intimate connection between you, and the your fellow worshipers as well as the celebrant. That is, that you all agree upon theology. This is not the case, regardless of the validity of the institution. This is why we can not, must not concelebrate with those whom reject the Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist.

Communion with Jesus Christ.

 

[DL82]

Yes, to do something with the sinful intent is sinful. I’m wondering about almost the reverse - is the act of contraception sinful regardless of intent. While you’re right that any fruit that comes from debating this question has almost no value to fornicators - no matter what they’re committing mortal sin. I think that exploring this question helps us to better understand the purpose of marriage and why contraception is wrong.

For example, I think most people think like you did in your example and would list fornication as an illicit sex act. But is it really? look at Matthew 19:9, “I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” (please feel free to suggest a better translation than the USCCB’s). Doesn’t Jesus seem to say that fornication is an invalid conjugal act?

I think you are confusing invalid with illicit. There is a danger of gnostic dualism in what you are saying - i.e. without the spiritual significance of marriage, what we do with our bodies can’t be sinful, because we don’t do it with our souls too. That’s a very dangerous, and quite blatant, heresy. Natural law clearly shows that fornication is not an invalid conjugal act, in the way that a protestant communion service is an invalid eucharist. The effect of the eucharist is to make the Holy Sacrifice of Calvary present to us, and if there is no priest, there is no eucharist. The effect of the marital embrace is to be a symbol of the uniting of Christ and his Church, and the creative power of God through procreation. In fornication, the unitive symbol is corrupted, but the creative power is still there.

I suppose what you could argue is that, in a contracepted act of fornication, where there is neither the unitive nor the creative function of sex, the act is actually one of masturbation and not sex, particularly when dealing with barrier methods (I could be more graphic, but trust you can work it out). It’s still a mortal sin, so what’s the point in this distinction? This sounds a bit like the Clinton definition of sexual relations

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Communion with Jesus Christ.

Exactly how do you define “communion with Jesus Christ?” I mean, specifically.

 

[BobObob]

I didn’t mean to steer the thread away from the original topic, but rather to quickly make the point that it isn’t necessarily sinful to partake in protestant services or to receive the bread and wine they merely symbolically distribute. Perhaps this will be the last I’ll talk about it on this thread for the moment, and if people want to continue to talk about it, perhaps someone should start a new thread.

In this instance I don’t think the presence of a valid Eucharist matters. The problem is communion. You are not in communion with them, therefore you cannot make an outward sign that you are.

Bob,

It does indicate it is a sin because of the underlying reason why it is not possible. You say the reason is merely because it is not the body and blood of Chirst (not trying to play down the importance of this), but that isn’t the case…

CCC 1400 says,

“Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation…‘have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness…’ It is for this reason…”

This to me indicates that is is for the reason of them having “ not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness” (not having Christ’s real presence) that “Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible.”

Notice also it doesn’t say churches, it says ecclesial communities. Ecclesial comunities, unlike churches, do not have valid apostolic succession, and thus cannot have valid communion. If a community has a valid Eucharist, it is by definition a church, not an “ecclesial community”.

Rather, the reason is because when you accept communion at any service then you give your full assent to the teachings of that Church.

Attending a service at a protestant “church” (or ecclesial community), or even receiving the bread and wine they admittedly symbolically distribute, would not necessarily be be assenting to the teachings of that “church”, and would not necessarily be sinning. It depends on your reason and intent. If you’re treating it as a substitute for the Eucharist, it would be wrong.

I would answer this, what does the word “communion” mean to you? The answer is wrapped up in what we call it.

I know this was addressed to someone else, but this is how newadvent defines Holy Communion (note capital letters differentiates it from “communion” in lower case):

“By Communion is meant the actual reception of the Sacrament of the Eucharist”

newadvent.org/cathen/07402a.htm

Note that it defines Communion as a sacrament. If an ecclesial community has a communion (lower case) that is merely a symbolic service, it doesn’t fit the definition newadvent gave of Communion (upper case).

But if a Catholic knows that he may ‘only’ receive in a Catholic Church, and that the ‘communion’ in a Protestant church is no communion at all and that, as the canon law states, it is neither ‘possible’ for there to be a valid Eucharist to receive and it is implied that it is not valid or licit for him to receive, what do you think that person’s taking indicates?

The person is basically stating, "Yeah the Church says it isn’t a 'real eucharist and I shouldn’t take it BUT since it isn’t real I feel I should do it for whatever reason I want. So I look all ‘warm and fuzzy’. To give a sense of ‘ecumenism’. So I don’t ‘stand out’ among others taking it. Because I figure, meh, we’re all Christians anyway. I don’t have to follow any petty RULES because I am ‘above’ that sort of thing which is only for those who are too weak or stupid to 'think for themselves.'

I don’t see the necessary connection between lack of validity (which ecclesial communities openly admit) and illicit. If you do know of any authoritative Catholic Church rules which states that the bread and wine may never be licitly received at one of these services, I would like to know it. However, the morality of receiving the bread and wine at one of these services would otherwise depend primarily on one’s intent, or perhaps scandal.

If I was going to a funeral or wedding at an ecclesial community, and they for some reason celebrated the “lord’s supper” (which I don’t think they ordinarily would at these services), I would not think it would be a sin to receive the bread and wine since by doing so you wouldn’t be breaking any Catholic Church rule (that I know of) and wouldn’t be making any “statement” regarding the equality of that service with a Mass (since it is only symbolic).

 

[momor]

Gentlemen, if the Church has gone to the trouble to explain that something is not possible, after having likewise (in context) explained that Catholics may only receive licitly from Catholic ministers. . . **just what do you think that it would mean for a Catholic, knowing :
A. A Catholic may only receive the Eucharist from a Catholic minister because:
B. Non-Catholic (Protestant) ministers do not possess the faculty for confection of a valid Eucharist.

To go ahead and ‘take’ the bread and grape juice at a Protestant Church?

How can you think it is not a sin?

What is it then?**

I think (and so do the protestants don’t they) it is nothing more than a symbolic remembrance of the Last Supper, like participating in a play. Showing reverence for the memory of what Christ did and how he came to save us. As I said before I wouldn’t take protestant communion because I think it unecessary to do so. I didn’t realize it was a sin to do so with the right understanding/intent and I still don’t think the quotes that have been used make it crystal clear either. I can see that I have to go to the CCC myself and re-read the whole section.

But if a Catholic knows that he may ‘only’ receive in a Catholic Church, and that the ‘communion’ in a Protestant church is no communion at all and that, as the canon law states, it is neither ‘possible’ for there to be a valid Eucharist to receive **and it is implied that it is not valid or licit for him to receive, **what do you think that person’s taking indicates?

So now implications are OK? I know you don’t show the same tolerance for implication when it comes to contracepting during fornication, i.e. the Church implies it is OK by not directly mentioning it as sinful.

The person is basically stating, "Yeah the Church says it isn’t a 'real eucharist and I shouldn’t take it BUT since it isn’t real I feel I should do it for whatever reason I want. So I look all ‘warm and fuzzy’. To give a sense of ‘ecumenism’. So I don’t ‘stand out’ among others taking it. Because I figure, meh, we’re all Christians anyway. I don’t have to follow any petty RULES because I am ‘above’ that sort of thing which is only for those who are too weak or stupid to 'think for themselves.'

**Me, me, me, I, I, I. I know better, I make my OWN decisisons, I don’t care what the Church says, I don’t wanna know, me, me, me. Whatever I decide is automatically ‘better’ than anything somebody else decided. They aren’t the boss of me, me, me. **

**And that is sin. Disobedience, pride, any combination thereof. **

I am offended at what you are implying. Can’t one question a teaching so as to understand the reason behind it? I think I made a good case for why the sinfullness doesn’t seem reasonable to me. I could be wrong and confused. Didn’t I say so earlier? And you yourself used the word “impled” to explain why it is truth.

Why must you jump down throats like this and assume the worst intentions? I don’t accept everything as truth that people say here and when something doesn’t make sense or seem reasonable I question it. Especially when it comes from people who have a habit of stating everthing they say as gospel and refuse to admit when they have been shown to be wrong. I don’t do it to be out of agreement with the Church but to understand it.When a person understands the reasoning they can use it to form their conscience and explain the Church teaching to others. It’s akin to giving a person a fish (you say, I accept) and teaching a person to fish.

 

[momor]

Exactly how do you define “communion with Jesus Christ?” I mean, specifically.

By eating and drinking His Body and Blood.

 

[brianwalden]

I think you are confusing invalid with illicit. There is a danger of gnostic dualism in what you are saying - i.e. without the spiritual significance of marriage, what we do with our bodies can’t be sinful, because we don’t do it with our souls too. That’s a very dangerous, and quite blatant, heresy.

I’m don’t think I’m confusing invalid with illicit. Illicit means against the law or rules. Invalid means the thing doesn’t occur. Right?

I’m not saying that without marriage what we do with our bodies isn’t sinful. All fornication is grave sin - it is objectively evil. But I don’t understand why contraception is intrinsically evil in such a situation.

Natural law clearly shows that fornication is not an invalid conjugal act, in the way that a protestant communion service is an invalid eucharist. The effect of the eucharist is to make the Holy Sacrifice of Calvary present to us, and if there is no priest, there is no eucharist. The effect of the marital embrace is to be a symbol of the uniting of Christ and his Church, and the creative power of God through procreation. In fornication, the unitive symbol is corrupted, but the creative power is still there.

I don’t believe that the conjugal act is merely a symbol. There’s a spiritual reality in it. In one sense we’re no more like God than during the conjugal act. I don’t see how fornication in this sense is different from an invalid Eucharist. They may both look exactly the same as a valid act, but they lack something that’s necessary. I don’t think that the fact that procreation can still occur proves that a conjugal act occurred, otherwise making a test tube baby would be a conjugal act.

I suppose what you could argue is that, in a contracepted act of fornication, where there is neither the unitive nor the creative function of sex, the act is actually one of masturbation and not sex, particularly when dealing with barrier methods (I could be more graphic, but trust you can work it out). It’s still a mortal sin, so what’s the point in this distinction? This sounds a bit like the Clinton definition of sexual relations

I’d say that contraceptive sex between two unmarried people isn’t masturbation it’s fornication - that’s a textbook definition. I believe that in nearly every single case contraception, because of the intent of the people using it, increases the gravity of the sin of fornication - but I can’t wrap by head around why the contraception would be a mortal sin in and of itself. You’re not supposed to be procreating in the first place, how can the act of preventing conception be inherently evil in such a case?

 

[momor]

I think you are confusing invalid with illicit. There is a danger of gnostic dualism in what you are saying - i.e. without the spiritual significance of marriage, what we do with our bodies can’t be sinful, because we don’t do it with our souls too.

For the umpteeth time on both threads - it is a sin, sin, sin, sin… to fornicate. The question is is contraception during fornication it’s own separate sin/mortal sin with it’s own consequent punishment? Or is it perhaps not a sin/mortal sin if we are not supposed to be having babies out of wedlock? How do you reconcile extra sin if you fornicate and contracept and extra sin if you don’t? Does that violate Church teaching that opposites cannot both be sin? If so, perhaps the only sin is the fornication.

Don’t you see the difference between fulfilling the demands of a sacrament and activities outside of same? It’s a very serious sin for a married man to be affectionate and romatically/emotionally involved with a woman not his wife because he vowed to cling to only her when they married. The same is not true if a man is not married. He can legitimately be romantically involved with more than one woman as long as no one is being harmed or sinning. I’m not making a pronouncement on what is right and wrong, I am merely offering an argument for the sake of getting to the answer and the reason for same. Heck, there may not even be a formal answer from the Church and folks may be free to ask a priest for guidance without being accused of all sorts of vile intentions.

That’s a very dangerous, and quite blatant, heresy. Natural law clearly shows that fornication is not an invalid conjugal act, in the way that a protestant communion service is an invalid eucharist.

You’d better be darn sure you know it’s heresy before you go throwing that word around. Heresy is not something you strongly disagree with.

ADDED: To my understanding conjugal relates to marital act so I don’t think your statement makes sense.

The effect of the eucharist is to make the Holy Sacrifice of Calvary present to us, and if there is no priest, there is no eucharist. The effect of the marital embrace is to be a symbol of the uniting of Christ and his Church, and the creative power of God through procreation. In fornication, the unitive symbol is corrupted, but the creative power is still there.

I agree the symbol/meaning of the unitive is corrupted. But, perhaps the procreative power/act is just as corrupted when we leave it open to creation of life outside of marriage? Are you 100% sure that’s what God wants because it’s the direct opposite of what is expected in marriage.? If so, I’d really like you to back that up with something written by a pope or listed in the CCC so I can be sure it’s not just your opinion. Even tho you may be right I don’t think you should be stating it so emphatically without proof.

I suppose what you could argue is that, in a contracepted act of fornication, where there is neither the unitive nor the creative function of sex, the act is actually one of masturbation and not sex, particularly when dealing with barrier methods (I could be more graphic, but trust you can work it out). It’s still a mortal sin, so what’s the point in this distinction? This sounds a bit like the Clinton definition of sexual relations

See above for why I don’t automatically accept your pronouncement.

 

[brianwalden]

Quote:
Originally Posted by crazzeto View Post
I would answer this, what does the word “communion” mean to you? The answer is wrapped up in what we call it. It suggests and intimate connection between you, and the your fellow worshipers as well as the celebrant. That is, that you all agree upon theology. This is not the case, regardless of the validity of the institution. This is why we can not, must not concelebrate with those whom reject the Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by momor View Post
Communion with Jesus Christ.

I think this is a classic case of both/and. To be in communion with Christ is to be in communion with His Church and with the communion of saints. To participate in communion with another group, regardless of whether or not they have a valid Eucharist, is to say you’re in communion with a group other than Christ’s Church.

 

[momor]

I think this is a classic case of both/and. To be in communion with Christ is to be in communion with His Church and with the communion of saints. To participate in communion with another group, regardless of whether or not they have a valid Eucharist, is to say you’re in communion with a group other than Christ’s Church.

You might notice that after this post I specifically refer to the reception of the sacrament as what I am referring to. Kind of like communion with a small ‘c’ = body of Christ, Communion with a capital ‘C’ = the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. Obviously they are both communion but are both of them what we should be talking about here or just 'C’ommunion?

 

[brianwalden]

You might notice that after this post I specifically refer to the reception of the sacrament as what I am referring to. Kind of like communion with a small ‘c’ = body of Christ, Communion with a capital ‘C’ = the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. Obviously they are both communion but are both of them what we should be talking about here or just 'C’ommunion?

I think yes, the act of receiving communion whether at Mass or at a Protestant bread and juice, is a statement about your communion with Christ and his Church.* That’s what I’ve always been taught. I read paragraph 1400 of the CCC that way, but I admit it doesn’t seem to be an airtight case. I would expect there to be an obvious statement about it somewhere but I haven’t been able to find one - everything seems to be more concerned with non-Catholics receiving communion.

• Wow, if I continue down this line of thinking I’m gonna flip my position about contraception.

 

[BobObob]

I couldn’t help but to post again.

I think yes, the act of receiving communion whether at Mass or at a Protestant bread and juice, is a statement about your communion with Christ and his Church.* That’s what I’ve always been taught. I read paragraph 1400 of the CCC that way, but I admit it doesn’t seem to be an airtight case. I would expect there to be an obvious statement about it somewhere but I haven’t been able to find one - everything seems to be more concerned with non-Catholics receiving communion.

That’s not necessarily true. The proper reception of the sacrament of Holy Communion can only be done if you are a member of the Catholic Church. The reception of the bread and wine in a symbolic service can be a statement about your affiliation with that “church”, but it it isn’t necessarily so.

The following helps explain why Non-Catholics are usually not admitted to Holy Communion (although there may be exceptions I guess):

“'Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law. . . . ’
…
Another reason that many non-Catholics may not ordinarily receive Communion is for their own protection, since many reject the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Scripture warns that it is very dangerous for one not believing in the Real Presence to receive Communion: ‘For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died’ (1 Cor. 11:29–30).”

catholic.com/library/Who_Can_Receive_Communion.asp

 

[crazzeto]

I think this is a classic case of both/and. To be in communion with Christ is to be in communion with His Church and with the communion of saints. To participate in communion with another group, regardless of whether or not they have a valid Eucharist, is to say you’re in communion with a group other than Christ’s Church.

Percisly, this becomes very evident when you stop and think about what, exactly it is that the Church is. Is it anything less than the very (mystical) Body of Christ? How can you say you’re only participating in communion with Jesus and not his Body? This is why “concelebrating” with a Protestant (regardless of institution) is a sin.

 

[DL82]

I think this is a classic case of both/and. To be in communion with Christ is to be in communion with His Church and with the communion of saints. To participate in communion with another group, regardless of whether or not they have a valid Eucharist, is to say you’re in communion with a group other than Christ’s Church.

I wonder if the ‘both/and’ analogy also helps us understand the original question with regard to marriage. I have heard it said with reference to NFP that, when offering themselves to one another during the infertile times, a couple are saying ‘this is my body for you’ - a symbol of Christ’s love for His one beloved, the Church, and during the fertile times, adding ‘this is my blood for all’, a symbol of the love of neighbour shared by all members of Christ’s body. In the act of fornication, a person is really saying ‘this isn’t my body for you’ because they’re not really giving themselves wholly to the other, and in contracepting, they are also saying ‘this isn’t my blood for all’, by not allowing a child to be born. Is it one sin or two? Like the two elements invalidly consecrated, or the two dimensions of communion broken by receiving in mortal sin, it’s probably too closely connected to call.

 

[BobObob]

brianwalden;6729721:

I think this is a classic case of both/and. To be in communion with Christ is to be in communion with His Church and with the communion of saints. To participate in communion with another group, regardless of whether or not they have a valid Eucharist, is to say you’re in communion with a group other than Christ’s Church.

Percisly, this becomes very evident when you stop and think about what, exactly it is that the Church is. Is it anything less than the very (mystical) Body of Christ? How can you say you’re only participating in communion with Jesus and not his Body? This is why “concelebrating” with a Protestant (regardless of institution) is a sin.

This is kind of getting at the salvation outside the Church issue. Even though prtestants aren’t fully part of the Church, they are part of the Church and the Mystical Body of Christ by baptism, whether they hold to all the truths of the Catholic Church or not:

CCC 1267 “Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ… Baptism incorporates us into the Church…”

This is why protestants may be saved (non-baptised individuals may be saved b y baptism of desire). Thus, other baptized Christians not fully in the Catholic Church are also members of Christ’s Body.

Treating a protestant service as an equal with the Mass would be a sin, but one isn’t necessarily doing this by participating at a service.

 

[JButky]

I think yes, the act of receiving communion whether at Mass or at a Protestant bread and juice, is a statement about your communion with Christ and his Church.* That’s what I’ve always been taught. I read paragraph 1400 of the CCC that way, but I admit it doesn’t seem to be an airtight case. I would expect there to be an obvious statement about it somewhere but I haven’t been able to find one - everything seems to be more concerned with non-Catholics receiving communion.

• Wow, if I continue down this line of thinking I’m gonna flip my position about contraception.

Ecclesia in Eucharistia (46)

Catholics may not receive communion in those communities which lack a valid sacrament of Orders.

Joe B