Correction to "MUST receive" thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pro_Domina
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pro_Domina

Guest
I did a bit of consulting on the “MUST receive” thread issue.

The canonists said that they do not know of a requirement based on the scandal probability, though they did said somethings are sort of common sense, but that canon 916 applies in the case of entering unconscious of an impediment in the line but then realizing one. Meaning that the person is not obligated to auto-denounce himself and may receive with the conditions stated.

I don’t know where I learned the scandalous thing, I never doubted it, since the logic is there, but anyhow the canon permits it, but not obliges. Since it does, I would argue that it prevents any weird situations, which in the end, may cause a scandal.
That is already another issue apart from the law.

Though get me clear, it requires that you did not realize when you got in. I am not trying to start a new theological standpoint.
St. Thomas in the the Summa speaks about it being a lesser sin, though obviously the canon, keeping in mind the Churches authority in the administration of the sacraments, declares such and such situations allow for it. .newadvent.org/summa/4080.htm#article4
 
I don’t think you’re operating under the correct definition of the Catholic sin of scandal. Scandal is an act which makes it seem like it is acceptable, okay, or otherwise tolerable to commit sin.

Damaging your own reputation is not scandal.
 
Pro_Domina said:
I don’t know where I learned the scandalous thing, I never doubted it, since the logic is there, but anyhow the canon permits it, but not obliges. Since it does, I would argue that it prevents any weird situations, which in the end, may cause a scandal.
Click to expand...
The logic is not there when one has a proper understanding of what Scandal is according to the Catholic Church.
 
This issue just sounds to me like an excuse to receive communion while knowingly in a state of mortal sin. 🤷 Heaven forbid someone think you aren’t perfect.
 
wynd said:
This issue just sounds to me like an excuse to receive communion while knowingly in a state of mortal sin. 🤷 Heaven forbid someone think you aren’t perfect.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I also think casting judgment on someone for leaving the Communion line is probably more of a sin…
 
Pro_Domina said:
I don’t know where I learned the scandalous thing, I never doubted it, since the logic is there, but anyhow the canon permits it, but not obliges. Since it does, I would argue that it prevents any weird situations, which in the end, may cause a scandal.
That is already another issue apart from the law.
Click to expand...
ok, I understand that you feel strongly about this, but the same point from the other thread still applies-- it is a far, far greater sin to receive the Eucharist when you’re (knowingly) in a state of mortal sin.
 
I get what you are all saying. I see where I went beyond the law. But the law itself permits, not obliges, to allow the person to receive as to not denounce himself.

The scandal thing is a moral thing. As far as canon law, you aren’t forced but you can without guilt if the neccesary conditions are fulfilled.
 
Pro_Domina said:
I did a bit of consulting on the “MUST receive” thread issue.

The canonists said that they do not know of a requirement based on the scandal probability, though they did said somethings are sort of common sense, but that canon 916 applies in the case of entering unconscious of an impediment in the line but then realizing one. Meaning that the person is not obligated to auto-denounce himself and may receive with the conditions stated.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure where you are getting your information about canon 916 – but the “exception” contained in that canon is to permit the celebration of Mass by a priest in mortal sin when it it necessary (that is, for the benefit of the faithful) and there is no other option (i.e., no other priest is available). The rule that a person who is certain he is in a state of mortal sin is prohibited from receiving communion and canon 916 does not permit him to circumvent that.

The issue of scandal is not pertinent to this issue. The moral imperative not to receive in a state of mortal sin far exceeds any possible scandal that might arise out of a person leaving the communion line.

Deacon Ed
 
Dear Rev. Deacon Ed,

Sorry to be blunt, but that is not the only scope of canon 916.

It applies especially to priests, but also the faithful, of course in much more selective circumstances. This is one of them. If you read the “New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law” you will see several parts where canon 916 comes in for situations other than priests.

As I have said before, I am writing this post to separate what I thought was obligatory to what the Church allows according to canon law. In other words retracting the word obligatory to can.

The fact that it will most probably cause a scandal however minimal, which everyone here says is no one else’s problem and that scandal is only giving bad example.
Well theology and especially moral theology has a lot of parenthesis, not because it is lax, but because it is complex because souls are complex. There are things more than just your basic definition. If not the Summa is a waste of time because the catechism already exists.
 
Pro_Domina said:
Dear Rev. Deacon Ed,

Sorry to be blunt, but that is not the only scope of canon 916.

It applies especially to priests, but also the faithful, of course in much more selective circumstances. This is one of them. If you read the “New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law” you will see several parts where canon 916 comes in for situations other than priests.

As I have said before, I am writing this post to separate what I thought was obligatory to what the Church allows according to canon law. In other words retracting the word obligatory to can.

The fact that it will most probably cause a scandal however minimal, which everyone here says is no one else’s problem and that scandal is only giving bad example.
Well theology and especially moral theology has a lot of parenthesis, not because it is lax, but because it is complex because souls are complex. There are things more than just your basic definition. If not the Summa is a waste of time because the catechism already exists.
Click to expand...
No, this is not about the nuances of moral theology. The point is that the small possibilty of scandal caused by someone leaving the Communion line is nowhere near as serious a sin as that same person receiving the Eucharist while knowingly in a state of mortal sin. Do you understand?
 
Pro_Domina said:
I get what you are all saying. I see where I went beyond the law. But the law itself permits, not obliges, to allow the person to receive as to not denounce himself.

The scandal thing is a moral thing. As far as canon law, you aren’t forced but you can without guilt if the neccesary conditions are fulfilled.
Click to expand...
In the first place, why would someone risk heaping on another mortal sin by making a sacrilege of Holy Communion if they are in a state of grave sin?

Consider what St. Paul wrote in his First Letter to the Corinthians (which also has the distinction of recording the first instance of liturgical and sacramental abuse):
26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come. ***27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. ***
Click to expand...
Therefore, the answer to your question comes from no less than St. Paul, himself.
 
I don’t know how to stress this enough!!!

I am writing this post to correct a previous statement that stated that the law requires a person to receive once inside the line.

There is, from what I have searched, no such law, nor a commentary sustaining the moral obligation to do so.

SO THE SCANDAL THING IS JUST AN OPINION THAT I NO LONGER HOLD AS OBLIGATORY!

NOW I AM SHOWING THAT THE LAW PERMITS A PERSON TO RECEIVE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, LIKE ENTERING THE LINE WITHOUT BEING CONCIOUS OF AN IMPEDEMENT, BUT THEN REALIZING OF ONE IN THE LINE. THE PERSON IS NOT OBLIGATED TO DENOUNCE HIMSELF PUBLICALLY. THEY CAN RECEIVE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS STIPULATED.

GOT ME?
 
Pro_Domina said:
I don’t know how to stress this enough!!!

I am writing this post to correct a previous statement that stated that the law requires a person to receive once inside the line.

There is, from what I have searched, no such law, nor a commentary sustaining the moral obligation to do so.

SO THE SCANDAL THING IS JUST AN OPINION THAT I NO LONGER HOLD AS OBLIGATORY!

NOW I AM SHOWING THAT THE LAW PERMITS A PERSON TO RECEIVE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, LIKE ENTERING THE LINE WITHOUT BEING CONCIOUS OF AN IMPEDEMENT, BUT THEN REALIZING OF ONE IN THE LINE. THE PERSON IS NOT OBLIGATED TO DENOUNCE HIMSELF PUBLICALLY. THEY CAN RECEIVE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS STIPULATED.

GOT ME?
Click to expand...
Got you?

Yes we got you that you have interpreted the law to say this, but do we disagree with your interpretation.

The Law will never allow a person to commit a mortal sin. The Law, as pointed out by Deacon Ed only applies to a priest celebrating Mass when in mortal sin and there is no one else to do so.

We know Deacon Ed’s credentials, how about you give us yours so that we can see why we should take your interpretation over Deacon Ed’s.
 
Pro Domina,

I’ve been in that exact situation, where I got in line then was reminded of a serious sin. In my situation I was too ashamed to leave the line and instead rationalized that I would “think about it when I had more time” even though it was very clear that my conscience was convicting me and I should not have received. I regret those times so much.

Are you perhaps rationalizing this because you don’t have the courage to leave the line?

Are you perhaps leading weak people like me astray and into sin, because of your attempt to rationalize?
 
Neil_Anthony said:
Pro Domina,

I’ve been in that exact situation, where I got in line then was reminded of a serious sin. In my situation I was too ashamed to leave the line and instead rationalized that I would “think about it when I had more time” even though it was very clear that my conscience was convicting me and I should not have received. I regret those times so much.

Are you perhaps rationalizing this because you don’t have the courage to leave the line?

Are you perhaps leading weak people like me astray and into sin, because of your attempt to rationalize?
Click to expand...
Neil,
Nice point. Now this would be a true case of causing Scandal.
 
It is not a personal thing. I try not to be distracted when I am going to receive Our Lord, preparing before hand and then at least ten minutes of thanksgiving. I am not bragging, just trying to disassociate your claim and my arguement.

Canon 916 does not say to who the canon applies to. It says what situations. Though if you use common sense, you will reach the conclusion that only priests celebrate and they MUST receive if they celebrate, so the second part is obviously pertaining to a person NOT CELEBRATING, therefore your priest only arguement is not valid. I am not argueing that this is a free way to communion for people in mortal sin. Not at all. I am saying that this canon would permit a person to receive if they get into the line without realizing of an impediment. It does not incur another mortal sin, but it is still probably a sin because of lack of preparation. St. Thomas says that in the Summa, that not all situations are as grave as simply going up to receive knowing you are in sin.

I am not saying they can get off the pew when they know it.

And this canon is not only for mortal sin, but rather any impedement, like the fast.

Another thing is that I would like to remind you that if you get a doubt in the line, doubts that arrise from a previous idea of innocence do not suffice for considering yourself in sin.
In dubia pro reo. Doubts that arrise are usually scrupulous in nature, because it can’t be a mortal sin if you realize later on, because it misses the conditions.

Are you going to say that I need to show you my degree as well for this one?
 
Again, in response that receiving the Eucharist in mortal sin cannot be placed over anything here is another example.

A priest saw a person looking at some immoral things and cursed before the mass and then he presents himself for communion at mass where there was not other priest so no confession. The priest knows the other is in mortal sin, but cannot deny him the communion because the right to a good reputation. Another thing is a well known sinful woman. Canon 220 demonstrates this.

So reputations do play a part. Quoting the Bible and straight up saying no it can’t be is not always the right reaction. I am not trying to lax anything up. It is just like I said, moral theology is a complex thing.
 
You’re still wrong. You’re attatching way too much importance to this “right to a good reputation,” which I’ve never even heard about until you came on here. You have presented some Canon law, but it fails to back up your claims.
 
Pro_Domina said:
Again, in response that receiving the Eucharist in mortal sin cannot be placed over anything here is another example.

A priest saw a person looking at some immoral things and cursed before the mass and then he presents himself for communion at mass where there was not other priest so no confession. The priest knows the other is in mortal sin, but cannot deny him the communion because the right to a good reputation. Another thing is a well known sinful woman. Canon 220 demonstrates this.

So reputations do play a part. Quoting the Bible and straight up saying no it can’t be is not always the right reaction. I am not trying to lax anything up. It is just like I said, moral theology is a complex thing.
Click to expand...
If a priest 100% knows a person in the Communion line is in a state of mortal sin he not only can but must refuse to distribute to that person. To say the priest must let that person receive is just a ridiculous statement to make. To receive in a state of mortal sin is sacrilege (another mortal sin) and the priest through cooperation would also be committing a mortal sin.
I agree with all the posters in that you have not provided any documentary evidence to back up your claims. For some unknown reason you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about this but you are WRONG!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top