Help please - Cannon 916

  • Thread starter Thread starter SCGiants
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SCGiants

Guest
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.

Am I understanding this correctly that since I am in grave sin by being married civilly to a divorced woman that I/we cannot attend Mass? I know it seems pretty clear that the answer is NO but I’ve been told 3 different answers and nobody answered this in the ask the apologetic forum - please help.
I don’t want opinions - I want fact and if that is it is OK to celebrate Mass ( I know I cannot partake in Holy Communion) then where are you getting that from when the Cannon says I cannot celebrate Mass.
Thanks a ton!!
 
You are misreading the code. The part about “celebrating Mass” applies to the clergy, not the laity. Even though you are in mortal sin, you are most welcome to participate in the Mass - you cannot receive Holy Communion until you are absolved.
 
SCGiants said:
Am I understanding this correctly that since I am in grave sin by being married civilly to a divorced woman that I/we cannot attend Mass?
Click to expand...
No, you are not understanding the canon correctly. The celebrant of the Mass is the priest. A priest is not to celebrate the Mass while in a state of mortal sin unless there is a grave reason.
SCGiants said:
I don’t want opinions - I want fact and if that is it is OK to celebrate Mass ( I know I cannot partake in Holy Communion) then where are you getting that from when the Cannon says I cannot celebrate Mass.
Click to expand...
The problem lies in your understanding of the word “celebrate”, which does not mean what you seem to think it does.
 
SCGiants said:
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.

Am I understanding this correctly that since I am in grave sin by being married civilly to a divorced woman that I/we cannot attend Mass? I know it seems pretty clear that the answer is NO but I’ve been told 3 different answers and nobody answered this in the ask the apologetic forum - please help.
I don’t want opinions - I want fact and if that is it is OK to celebrate Mass ( I know I cannot partake in Holy Communion) then where are you getting that from when the Cannon says I cannot celebrate Mass.
Thanks a ton!!
Click to expand...
First of all, I have actually studied Canon Law as part of a theology degree. And although this particular question did not come up in class, I think I am in a position to give you an answer that is not simply in the realm of personal opinion.

My first impression when reading Canon 916 is that the specific phrase “is not to celebrate Mass” refers to a priest. I checked the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (Paulist Press), and although it did not concretely say, “this means the priest”, its elaboration on the phrase “unless there is a grave reason” was solely in reference to a priest making the decision as to whether or not to offer the Mass.

The restriction concerning refraining from receiving Communion is in regard to all Catholics, ordained or laity.

In light of all this, a Catholic who is not in a state of grace (in the context of the situation you described) may (and should) attend Mass but should refrain from receiving Communion.
 
In fact, one must attend Sunday Mass, whether or not in a state of mortal sin. To omit one’s Sunday obligation is yet another mortal sin. However, one should not receive Holy Communion at Mass until one has been absolved.
 
Canon 916 is for priests. They have obligation to say mass, and in the mass to receive the Eucharist. Laymen have obligation to attend Mass is Sunday, but no obligation to receive the Eucharist.

One living in sin have the grave obligation to reconcile his status, confess his sins, and with clear soul receive the Eucharist. Not before the reconciliation.
 
laszlo said:
Canon 916 is for priests. They have obligation to say mass, and in the mass to receive the Eucharist. Laymen have obligation to attend Mass is Sunday, but no obligation to receive the Eucharist.

One living in sin have the grave obligation to reconcile his status, confess his sins, and with clear soul receive the Eucharist. Not before the reconciliation.
Click to expand...
Actually, the canon applies to both.

If the canon applied only to priests, nothing but “A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass* without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess;**” *would have been necessary, since reception of Communion is a given for the celebrant.

The second part of the sentence ***"or **receive the body of the Lord " *applies to all who would normally be allowed to receive Communion. There is no separate canon forbidding the laity from receiving Communion when conscious of grave sin.
 
Now you see why I asked - I got both answers.
I have the 8 volume complete set of cannon (Gratianus 2nd edition 2004) including the Code of Cannon Law Annotated - in that it says “This cannon refers to any person who administers or receives the sacrament.” and elaborates further into that about Holy Communion but saying nothing at all about celebrating Mass. Now does “celebrate Mass”
and “attend Mass” mean the same thing or does “celebrate” mean as in a priest performing the Mass. That is the question at large here.
One priest in my area said “until recently you would have had to leave after the homily but not anymore”.
I looked everywhere and never came across that teaching - before or after - to me it wouldn’t make sense to be able to change something as drastic as this without wide-spread knowledge but then again who knows anymore.
See it’s a long story how I got to be in this position to begin with but my wife is going through the annulment process for the past 2 years. I certainly don’t want to add anymore grave sin to my plate that I can help if possible. Now I understand that not going to Church on Sunday is a grave sin but does that only pertain to when I am supposed to be going to Mass? Am I not supposed to be going now since I am in grave sin already with Cannon 916 forbidding me? If so then would attending Church add more grave sin?
Even if it would be grave sin to or not to go to Mass at all is even questionable until I know the answer to this question. I see both teachings - which do I adhere to? It’s not “grave” sin until I know for certain I am committing a sin or not! :eek: (I need a icon of a smiley banging it’s head against a wall here lol).
PLUS (…and this one makes me wonder even more) …every week for the past few years in both Catholic Churches in my area my wife and I are the only ones NOT going to Communion - everyone else in the Church (besides children too young yet) goes to Holy Communion. That made me wonder what else may have changed because when I was a kid who was going to Church all the time at BEST it was only 60-70% of the people who actually received communion - the rest couldn’t due to sin and not confessing yet so they would park their arse in the pew like we do. No more though. I never seen all members take Communion like I do today so something else has changed too obviously that I am not aware of (because I also see them chew the Eucharist which used to be a major no-no). Matter of fact people look at my wife and I oddly because we stay seated.
Understand my confusion a bit better now? Even though I am not a fan of him personally - I feel like Michael Moore who wrote the book “dude! where’s my country” -except with my wife and I it’s “dude! where’s my Church?” 😃
I feel so lost today when I walk into a Church for other reasons also but I don’t want to change the subject. THAT my friends I will leave for another conversation elsewhere.
 
Canon 916 tells you to refrain from receiving Communion, that’s all.

You have to go to Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation. That’s a precept of the Church and applies to all Catholics. Being in a state of mortal sin does not release you from your obligation to attend Mass.

If you are in a state of serious (mortal) sin, you cannot receive Communion. That’s canon law and applies to everyone. And it applies whether Communion is during or outside of Mass.

We, the laity, assist at Mass or attend Mass or go to Mass but the priest (or bishop) celebrates Mass.

Now, you say
every week for the past few years in both Catholic Churches in my area my wife and I are the only ones NOT going to Communion - everyone else in the Church (besides children too young yet) goes to Holy Communion. That made me wonder what else may have changed because when I was a kid who was going to Church all the time at BEST it was only 60-70% of the people who actually received communion - the rest couldn’t due to sin and not confessing yet so they would park their arse in the pew like we do. No more though. I never seen all members take Communion like I do today so something else has changed too obviously that I am not aware of
Click to expand...
What has changed is society and the sense of sin and the lack of attention to what IS sin. That’s not a good thing. We see fewer priests talking about the existence of sin and the need for confession and that’s not a good thing either. You are aware that you are in sin and not going to Communion. That’s a good thing.

You also say
(because I also see them chew the Eucharist which used to be a major no-no)
Click to expand...
Well, some of us were taught that it was a no-no but the Church has not taught that. It’s a pious practice, to be sure, but Jesus said “Take and eat” and eating involves chewing. The only reason we were able to refrain from chewing was because we used hosts so thin they melted easily. In many parishes today, the use of thick, whole wheat hosts makes that practice difficult. The use of homemade bread, as we see in other parishes, makes it impossible, you have to chew or you choke.
 
In addition to the loss of the sense of sin, one practical thing has changed that increases the number of those receiving Communion at every Mass. The period of fasting before Communion was first decreased to three hours and now it is but one hour, which basically means if you’re not eating in the car, you’ve made the fast.

And there is a head-banging smilie! :banghead: Just click on “More” to see them all.
 
Brian my dear brother, the only confusion is the one you are creating.

You can and are obligated to attend Mass whether you are in a state of grace or not. You are laity and you do not celebrate Mass, so the first part of the canon does not apply to you.

The other items in your post about the number of people receiving communion, chewing the host, etc. have been dealt with in other posts which you can find using the search function.

But, then again, it is not really about other people, is it? It is not about the number who receive or how they chew the host, is it? It is about you and your relationship with God. Take your wife and go to Mass, you are not only welcome but God expects to see you there.
 
Yes…such is referring to the Priest!

As for you…yes you have an obligation to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation…

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P55.HTM
 
SCGiants said:
Now you see why I asked - I got both answers.
I have the 8 volume complete set of cannon (Gratianus 2nd edition 2004) including the Code of Cannon Law Annotated - in that it says “This cannon refers to any person who administers or receives the sacrament.” and elaborates further into that about Holy Communion but saying nothing at all about celebrating Mass…
Click to expand...
At this time it seems that delving a bit deeper into the formulation of Canon 916 is in order. According to the* New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law* (Paulist Press), the current Canon 916 is “a composite of canons 807 and 856 of the 1917 code, is based on Tridentine doctrine.”

I don’t have a copy of the 1917 code, and I am not sure if it was ever translated into English. My own Latin skills are excessively lacking, but fortunately Google helps with these various endeavors.

According to this online source
mercaba.org/Codigo/1917_0720-0869.htm,
Canon 807 from the 1917 Code states:

Can. 807. Sacerdos sibi conscius peccati mortalis, quantumvis se contritum existimet, sine praemissa sacramentali confessione Missam celebrare ne audeat; quod si, defciente copia confessarii et urgente necessitate, elicito tamen perfectae contritionis actu, celebraverit, quamprimum confiteatur.

According to the Google Latin translator, this says:
“The priest who is conscious of mortal sin, how contrite that he should think of, without previously having been to sacramental confession would dare to not to celebrate Mass, but if it, defciente of the confessor, and abundance of an urgent case, however, elicited act of perfect contrition, should celebrate, let him confess as soon as possible.”

Obviously Google needs a little editing here, but clearly it is a statement about specifically a priest (“sacredos”) who is conscious of having committed a mortal sin.

And Canon 856 from the 1917 Code states:

Can. 856. Nemo quem conscientia peccati mortalis gravat, quantumcunque etiam se contritum existimet, sine praemissa sacramentali confessione ad sacram communionem accedat; quod si urgeat necessitas ac copia confessarii illi desit, actum perfectae contritionis prius eliciat.

Google’s translation:
“No one is which the conscience of mortal sin it weighs down, no matter how much it was he himself should think of a broken, without having made their sacramental confession, to let him come near holy communion, but if it urgent the necessity and the supply of confessors be wanting to them, an act of perfect contrition before they are elicited.”

Once again, Google is in need of a little editing here (but still better than the other two online translators I used), but I think we can still get the essence of what is being said.

In light of all this, the 1917 foundation for the current Canon 916 backs up my interpretation of it I presented in my last post.
 
TheDoctor said:
You are misreading the code. The part about “celebrating Mass” applies to the clergy, not the laity. Even though you are in mortal sin, you are most welcome to participate in the Mass - you cannot receive Holy Communion until you are absolved.
Click to expand...
And thats the kicker really. Because a celebrant must receive for the Mass to be valid, therefore if they are not in a state of grace, they should not celebrate. The laity in no way is obligated to receive therefore they can attend and not receive.
 
If you check out the wording in some of the canons surrounding #916, you’ll notice they use the word “celebrate” in connection with the priest who is offering the Mass. (#'s 900 p 2; 902; 903; 904; 905; 906; 907). Then if you go on to the Canon #917, when speaking of laity, the term used is “participates”, not “celebrate”.
 
Thank you to everyone - I attended this mornings Mass and have been on Sundays -and I will continue to do so. By what you have shown me it seems to imply only to Priests about not celebrating - I am simply attending. Thanks again I would have been really shook if I couldn’t attend Mass either - it’s bad enough I cannot partake in Holy Communion - prayerfully that will change this year. 👍
 
SCGiants said:
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.

Am I understanding this correctly that since I am in grave sin by being married civilly to a divorced woman that I/we cannot attend Mass? I know it seems pretty clear that the answer is NO but I’ve been told 3 different answers and nobody answered this in the ask the apologetic forum - please help. Thanks a ton!!
Click to expand...
you cannot celebrate Mass if you are not a priest. Anyone can attend Mass, but as the canon states, cannot receive the body and blood of the Lord without sacramental confession except as the paragraph explains.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top