B
Bluegoat
Guest
Sorry I didn’t get to this last night, once I got the kids in bed I was too tired for writing anything substantial.
Bluegoat;7904455:
I wouldn’t have thought rigid was the right word in any case. I mean, the least rigid would be to say, don’t bother at all unless you want to, but that is obviously a bad plan. If the person is well formed, and has some personal insight and gumption, it would probably be fine either way, because he’ll go when it is appropriate. The problem if a person is left to himself is that he may either become too lax, or to legalistic, and no one will realize it and be able to offer guidance. And how many can say they always have enough self-insight to know what they need?In the Latin CC, I believe the individual person has the responsibility to determine this. In light of that (as I think about it) I see that the Eastern/Oriental Tradition has the possibility of being perceived as rigid.
This doesn’t seem to be the message people are getting. Just start a thread on hear asking if it is ok to do this and I suspect you will get a lot of the opposite answer. Of course they may be wrong, I’m not sure, but it speaks to what people understand is correct.I’ve spoken to several Latin Catholic priests who have told me this is the norm in the Latin CC.
happen, though I’m pretty sure the Latin Catholic position is that one should not be deprived of the Eucharist if one has the opportunity to partake of the food of immortality, as it will be your best aid in avoiding future sin.I’m not positive what you say cannot
I don’t know either. It seems rare in any case.
You have a good understanding of the Latin CC teaching on this. I’m impressedUnfortunately I have been told of by Catholics for suggesting this several times.
About what, that he was in danger of hell if he died and hadn’t gone to confession because his priest told him to only go once a month? That’s impossible to believe. Ask any priest in the Latin Church (or ask an apologist here in CAF), and they will tell you that if a person is sincerely repentant and does not have the opportunity to go to confession before he dies, then his sins are indeed forgiven and he’s not going to Hell.I was simply saying that he had a very strict, black and while view of what was a mortal sin, and what wasn’t, and so the priest had to be wrong. And the majority agreed with him.Or is it the idea that if he died in a state of mortal sin he was in danger of Hell? If so, why would you think that was an individual issue since this is what the Latin CC teaches?
cont.