M
momor
Guest
I’m just reposting this because the original thread was about contraception and so far only the Eucharist has been discussed here.
- Status
B
brianwalden
Guest
Momor, you’ve phrased it much more concisely than I did. Because my OP was confusing to people and seemed to initially lead commenters in the wrong direction, I was trying understand exactly how people view receiving communion in a state of mortal sin before moving onto whether or not contraception can be viewed in that same model. But perhaps it’s simpler to follow your question.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Momor, I think you’re perhaps unwittingly driving this into a ‘relativistic’ perspective.
The thing is, for the Eucharist question (first), receiving a valid Eucharist in mortal sin is doing one sin on top of another. The fact that the second sin ‘derives’ from the first sin is irrelevant; they are two separate sins.
Now in the second case, the person comes in with presupposition of mortal sin. While he is not sinning by taking a ‘valid’ Eucharist, he is likewise committing a SECOND SIN. This second sin is not ‘tied’ the way the first one was, but it is an equally serious sin. Catholics are not permitted to receive an ‘invalid’ Eucharist.
Likewise, with the fornication and the marriage contraception.
With marriage, contraception is interfering with a ‘legal’ sexual action in that the persons are married.
With fornication, contraception is interfering with ‘illegal’ sexual actions in that the persons are not married.
But the contraceptive action itself is evil, whether it is done in a ‘legal’ or an ‘illegal’ situation.
Does that make it clear?
The thing is, for the Eucharist question (first), receiving a valid Eucharist in mortal sin is doing one sin on top of another. The fact that the second sin ‘derives’ from the first sin is irrelevant; they are two separate sins.
Now in the second case, the person comes in with presupposition of mortal sin. While he is not sinning by taking a ‘valid’ Eucharist, he is likewise committing a SECOND SIN. This second sin is not ‘tied’ the way the first one was, but it is an equally serious sin. Catholics are not permitted to receive an ‘invalid’ Eucharist.
Likewise, with the fornication and the marriage contraception.
With marriage, contraception is interfering with a ‘legal’ sexual action in that the persons are married.
With fornication, contraception is interfering with ‘illegal’ sexual actions in that the persons are not married.
But the contraceptive action itself is evil, whether it is done in a ‘legal’ or an ‘illegal’ situation.
Does that make it clear?
B
brianwalden
Guest
I’m sorry but I’m not clearly understanding what you’re saying here, if you don’t mind walking me through slowly, could you go back to the previous example:
A. John Catholic skips Mass on Sunday and remains unrepentant for it. This is sin number 1.
B. The next Sunday John receives communion at a valid Mass. This is sin number 2.
C1. The Sunday after that John receives communion at non-Catholic service with an invalid Eucharist. This is sin number 3.
C2. John receives this invalid Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin. Is this sin number 4?
I think we all agree on the three bold conclusions. Tantum, are you saying that statement C2 is indeed a 4th sin? Or are you saying that it’s not a separate sin in it’s own right, but it makes the spiritual damage done by C1 worse (or to use momor’s term, increases the gravity of C1)?
So are you saying that fornication is an illicit yet valid (like a Latin priest using leavened bread to say Mass) conjugal act?
M
momor
Guest
Yes it’s clear, but I think it is your opinion. In both threads I still have not seen what I believe to be formal theological evidence one way or the other; only various opinions, some of which are presented emphatically as fact. So far I think it has only been established that both are sinful. Formal Church teaching has said that contraception is always intrinsically evil within a marriage but has been silent so far on whether the same is equally true in the case of fornication.
Given the intimate relationship to God in the reception of the Real Presence and in marriage I think it is reasonable to speculate that the sins are not as offensive to God when God is not present in a sacramental way at the time of the sin. To think they are of equal gravity seems to me to somehow diminish the importance of the presence of God and the sacrament.
And I think your opinion is just as relativistic when you attempt to create an equality of sinfulness to 2 situations that may not be equal in the eyes of God (or the Church for that matter). It’s just the opposite of how people are generally accused of relativism.
.
And this is only my opinion. I could be wrong. I am not afraid to admit it. To say otherwise could be to lead someone astray who might assume I have the knowledge and authority to make pronouncements and accept my word as truth and I would be very afraid of doing that.
K
kenofken
Guest
The OP’s statement framing communion in terms of the union of male and female and heaven and earth is **THE **most pagan/Kabbalistic thing I have ever heard anybody say on any forum I visit! I don’t doubt that it is a useful paradigm for the discussion of Christian sin…just sayin!
B
brianwalden
Guest
Are you familiar with JPII’s theology of the body?The OP’s statement framing communion in terms of the union of male and female and heaven and earth is **THE **most pagan/Kabbalistic thing I have ever heard anybody say on any forum I visit! I don’t doubt that it is a useful paradigm for the discussion of Christian sin…just sayin!
B
BobObob
Guest
BTW, I don’t think that receiving the bread and wine at protestant services is automatically a sin at all, just like participation at protestant services isn’t necessarily a sin. It depends on intent.
It would be a sin if you treated that bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ, or as an alternative to the body and blood of Christ. However, if your attendance at a certain protestant service isn’t sinful (it isn’t being treated as an alternative for the Mass), then it would be generally be OK to receive the bread and wine if you are treating it like bread and wine, and not like the Eucharist.
It would be a sin if you treated that bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ, or as an alternative to the body and blood of Christ. However, if your attendance at a certain protestant service isn’t sinful (it isn’t being treated as an alternative for the Mass), then it would be generally be OK to receive the bread and wine if you are treating it like bread and wine, and not like the Eucharist.
B
brianwalden
Guest
I believe you may be mistaken about this. I don’t really know my way around canon law but here’s what I found.
Can. 844 §2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
You may only receive communion from a non-Catholic Church if there’s some grave reason and they have a valid Eucharist (most notably the Orthodox).
The way I’ve always understood it is that the Catholic understanding of communion follows Catholics everywhere they go. So if a Catholic receives communion at a protestant service it’s as if they were saying that they believed everything that Christian community believed. My wife is Presbyterian and I don’t receive communion when I go to her church. I get weird looks sometimes from people who can’t understand why someone wouldn’t take the bread and juice.
B
BobObob
Guest
Can. 844 §2 is talking about the sacrament of the Eucharist, rather than openly non-sacramental, merely symbolic, reception of bread and wine.
B
brianwalden
Guest
CCC 1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders."239 It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."240
B
BobObob
Guest
I don’t see how CCC 1400 indicates that receiving bread and wine at a protestant service is necessarily a sin. To say that “Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible” is much different from saying that it’s necessarily a sin to partake in their commemoration of the Last Supper.
To say that “Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible” IS to say that we cannot celebrate the Eucharist with them in their ceremony because they have no Eucharist (Christ’s real presence in the species of bread and/or wine).
B
brianwalden
Guest
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.
C
crazzeto
Guest
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. More over there are in fact certain protestant churches which do have a valid Eucharist, that is to say it is validly the body and blood of Christ. You will find these in the form of specific Anglican and Lutheran Church (i.e. specific to where certain preists celebrate service) who have valid Apistolic succession. So you can see, the reason is not necessarly due to the institution.
Rather, the reason is because when you accept communion at any service then you give your full assent to the teachings of that Church. For a Catholic to do this at a Church which is neither in communion with Rome, nor has a doctrine and theology acceptable to Rome is a lie to God, which is most certainly a grave sin.
M
momor
Guest
Boy, this is turning into a new topic and I’m finding I am confused about stuff I thought I understood.
I’ve only been to a handful of protestant services in my life; one was a Sunday service by invitation from a friend (and I was curious) and the rest were weddings. I have no intention of going to any Sunday service in the future, except maybe out of curiosity if invited, and I wouldn’t partake in communion if it was offered. However, I would ask a non-Catholic guest of mine at Mass to refrain from partaking in our Eucharist.
Now to the confusion…I can’t see how receiving communion would be sinful (except for possible scandal?) IF I believed it was only a symbolic commemoration of the last supper, therefore I was not communicating with Jesus AND I had no intention of being in communion with the church teachings by doing so any more than by attending and participating in the services. I don’t even seeing it being disrespectful of their communion service if they don’t believe in the Real Presence either.
I’ve only been to a handful of protestant services in my life; one was a Sunday service by invitation from a friend (and I was curious) and the rest were weddings. I have no intention of going to any Sunday service in the future, except maybe out of curiosity if invited, and I wouldn’t partake in communion if it was offered. However, I would ask a non-Catholic guest of mine at Mass to refrain from partaking in our Eucharist.
Now to the confusion…I can’t see how receiving communion would be sinful (except for possible scandal?) IF I believed it was only a symbolic commemoration of the last supper, therefore I was not communicating with Jesus AND I had no intention of being in communion with the church teachings by doing so any more than by attending and participating in the services. I don’t even seeing it being disrespectful of their communion service if they don’t believe in the Real Presence either.
C
crazzeto
Guest
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.
Now just going to say, a friends wedding at a protestant service (for instance)… Is not necessarly sinful.
D
DL82
Guest
I think I see what you are saying - St Thomas Aquinas says something to the effect that, for an act to be sinful, it suffices that it either be actually sinful OR be thought to be so - so, for example, if I choose not to go to Mass on a Sunday in direct defiance of the Church, then realise that it was actually Saturday, I’m still guilty of the sin of deliberately trying to defy the Church’s teaching, even if I haven’t materially done anything wrong.
So what you’re saying is:
The Mass really is- - You think the Mass is- - You receive HC in a state of mortal sin because-
Valid - - Valid - - You have sinful intent
Invalid - - Valid - - You have sinful intent
Invalid - - Invalid - - You know it’s just bread
In the last case, you are still committing a mortal sin, just a different mortal sin, that of attending an invalid Mass, the same goes for the Marriage case:
The sex act is- - You think the sex act is- - You use contraception because-
Licit (marriage) - - Licit - - You are holding back
Illicit (fornication) - - Licit - - You are holding back
Illicit - - Illicit - - You know the act is already immoral
This seems to me like a fairly irrelevant quibble over whether, when committing one mortal sin (fornication), you also commit an additional mortal sin when using contraception.
It doesn’t seem that this really gets us anywhere.
So what you’re saying is:
The Mass really is- - You think the Mass is- - You receive HC in a state of mortal sin because-
Valid - - Valid - - You have sinful intent
Invalid - - Valid - - You have sinful intent
Invalid - - Invalid - - You know it’s just bread
In the last case, you are still committing a mortal sin, just a different mortal sin, that of attending an invalid Mass, the same goes for the Marriage case:
The sex act is- - You think the sex act is- - You use contraception because-
Licit (marriage) - - Licit - - You are holding back
Illicit (fornication) - - Licit - - You are holding back
Illicit - - Illicit - - You know the act is already immoral
This seems to me like a fairly irrelevant quibble over whether, when committing one mortal sin (fornication), you also commit an additional mortal sin when using contraception.
It doesn’t seem that this really gets us anywhere.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
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?
If the Catholic is taking the stuff out of ignorance, that is one thing (though of course, as intelligent beings we are responsible for knowing our faith and this is something basic that we should know. In the legal field, if there is something that a ‘reasonable average person should know’, and one is ‘ignorant’ of it, one may still be found culpable of wrong, because "ignorance of the law is no excuse.’
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.'
**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. **
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?
If the Catholic is taking the stuff out of ignorance, that is one thing (though of course, as intelligent beings we are responsible for knowing our faith and this is something basic that we should know. In the legal field, if there is something that a ‘reasonable average person should know’, and one is ‘ignorant’ of it, one may still be found culpable of wrong, because "ignorance of the law is no excuse.’
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.'
**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. **
B
brianwalden
Guest
CCC 1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders."239 It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."240
Yes, the phrase Eucharistic intercommunion can be a little misleading, but I don’t think Eucharistic means strictly a valid Eucharist. When you look at the context eccclesial communities (not churches) is used throughout - it’s obvious that the groups being talked about here are Protestants who don’t have apostolic succession, therefore don’t have a priesthood, therefore don’t have a valid Eucharist. The phrase Eucharistic intercommunion doesn’t really make sense in context if refers only to real Churches with a valid Eucharist.
I’ve always been taught that Catholics can not receive Protestant communion. I’m surprised that it’s hard to find this explained more clearly. I googled around and paragraph 1400 of the Catechism was the clearest I could find - does anyone have a better source.
Yes, the phrase Eucharistic intercommunion can be a little misleading, but I don’t think Eucharistic means strictly a valid Eucharist. When you look at the context eccclesial communities (not churches) is used throughout - it’s obvious that the groups being talked about here are Protestants who don’t have apostolic succession, therefore don’t have a priesthood, therefore don’t have a valid Eucharist. The phrase Eucharistic intercommunion doesn’t really make sense in context if refers only to real Churches with a valid Eucharist.
I’ve always been taught that Catholics can not receive Protestant communion. I’m surprised that it’s hard to find this explained more clearly. I googled around and paragraph 1400 of the Catechism was the clearest I could find - does anyone have a better source.
B
brianwalden
Guest
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?
- Status