H
Horton
Guest
I only went to Sunday Mass for a very long time. Even though I had time to go to daily Mass I didn’t have the initiative. Now that I work for my parish it’s easy to get up earlier to make it to Mass before work.
- Status
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Good grief, Eucharist has NOTHING to do with “tomorrow’s sins” or even with “today’s sins” unless your sins are so great that the Catholic Church requires you to go to confession before you receive. Apart from that requirement, we are all sinners all day and all night, and God is here for us anyway.
Eucharist is being with God, having God be part of you.
Seeking God’s forgiveness for sins is a separate concept addressed through a separate sacrament (Confession)
Eucharist also isn’t a way of filling one’s “spiritual emptyness” - if you are feeling spiritually empty then receiving Jesus doesn’t magically “fix” it. You will get some grace to endure or persevere or maybe feel better but it’s not like oh, I feel bad, I’ll go receive Jesus and all better.
Eucharist is not a feel good thing to make me feel better, it’s a sacrament through which the Lord gives me His grace and spends time with me…it might make me feel better or it might just give me the strength to persevere through continuing to feel terrible…it’s like a close personal visit with a very close friend. Your description of it suggests that you don’t have any idea what it is like.
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
Hmm are you serious or coming the raw prawn mate? Wouldn’t contravening Canon Law defeat the purpose?
I reckon you are just coming the raw prawn with me. !
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
That she is!
Tis_Bearself
Patron
From a historical perspective, I seem to recall reading that centuries ago, Catholics did not receive Communion very often and there was even a school of thought that we shouldn’t receive it frequently because it was a “special occasion” thing to do. According to what I read, devotions like the nine First Fridays, where you need to receive Communion on each First Friday of the month for 9 months, were intended in part to encourage the faithful to receive the Eucharist more frequently.
W
Wesrock
Guest
Speaking of history, here is some of what the Catholic Encyclopedia article on “Frequent Communion” says:
It should be noted that in the early Church and in the patristic ages, the faithful communicated, or at any rate were expected to communicate, as often as the Holy Eucharist was celebrated (St. John Chrysostom loc. cit.; Apostolic canons, X; St. Gregory the Great, Dial. II, 23). They received even oftener, since it was the custom to carry away the Sacred Elements and communicate at home (St. Justin, loc. cit.; Tertullian, “Ad Uxorem”, II, v; Euseb., Church History VI.44). This was done especially by hermits, by dwellers in monasteries without priests, and by those who lived at a distance from any church. On the other hand, we find that practice fell far short of precept, and that the faithful were frequently rebuked for so seldom receiving the Holy Communion (see especially St. John Chrysostom, loc. cit., and St. Ambrose, loc. cit.). St. Augustine sums up the matter thus: “Some receive the Body and Blood of the Lord every day; others on certain days; in some places there is no day on which the Sacrifice is not offered; in others on Saturday and Sunday only; in others on Sunday alone” (Ep. liv in P.L., XXXIII, 200 sqq.). Whether it was advisable for the faithful, especially those living in matrimony, to receive daily, was a question on which the Fathers were not agreed. St. Jerome is aware of this custom at Rome, but he says: “Of this I neither approve nor disapprove; let each abound in his own sense” (Ep. xlviii in P.L., XXII, 505 — 6; Ep. lxxi in P.L., XXII, 672). St. Augustine discusses the question at length, and comes to the conclusion, that there is much to be said on both sides (Ep. liv in P.L., XXXIII, 200 sqq.). Good Christians still communicated once a week, down to the time of Charlemagne, but after the break-up of his empire this custom came to an end. St. Bede bears witness to the Roman practice of communicating on Sundays and on the feasts of the Apostles and Martyrs, and laments the rarity of reception in England (Ep. ad Egb. in P.L., XCIV, 665).
Strange to say, it was in the Middle Ages, “the Ages of Faith”, that Communion was less frequent than at any other period of the Church’s history. The Fourth Lateran Council compelled the faithful, under pain of excommunication, to receive at least once a year (c. Omnis utriusque sexus). The Poor Clares, by rule, communicated six times a year; the Dominicanesses, fifteen times; the Third Order of St. Dominic, four times. Even saints received rarely: St. Louis six times a year, St. Elizabeth only three times. The teaching of the great theologians, however, was all on the side of frequent, and to some extent daily, Communion [Peter Lombard, IV Sent., dist. xii, n. 8; St. Thomas, Summa Theol., III, Q. lxxx, a. 10; St. Bonaventure, In IV Sent., dist. xii, punct. ii, a. 2, q. 2; see Dalgairns, “The Holy Communion” (Dublin) part III, chap. i]. Various reformers, Tauler, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Vincent Ferrer, and Savonarola, advocated, and in many instances brought about, a return to frequent reception. The Council of Trent expressed a wish “that at each Mass the faithful who are present, should communicate” (Sess. XXII, chap. vi). And the Catechism of the council says: “Let not the faithful deem it enough to receive the Body of the Lord once a year only; but let them judge that Communion ought to be more frequent; but whether it be more expedient that it should be monthly, weekly, or daily, can be decided by no fixed universal rule” (pt. II, c. iv, n. 58). As might be expected, the disciples of St. Ignatius and St. Philip carried on the work of advocating frequent Communion. With the revival of this practice came the renewal of the discussion as to the advisability of daily Communion. While all in theory admitted that daily reception was good they differed as to the conditions required.
The Congregation of the Council (1587) forbade any general restriction, and ordered that no one should be repelled from the Sacred Banquet, even if he approached daily. In 1643, Arnauld’s “Frequent Communion” appeared, in which he required, for worthy reception, severe penance for past sins and most pure love of God. The Congregation of the Council was once more appealed to, and decided (1679) that though universal daily Communion was not advisable, no one should be repelled, even if he approached daily; parish priests and confessors should decide how often, but they should take care that all scandal and irreverence should be avoided (see Denzinger, “Enchiridion”, 10th ed., n. 1148). In 1690, Arnauld’s conditions were condemned. In spite of these decisions, the reception of Holy Communion became less and less frequent, owing to the spread of rigid Jansenistic opinions, and this rigour lasted almost into our own day. The older and better tradition was, however, preserved by some writers and preachers, notably Fénelon and St. Alphonsus, and, with the spread of devotion to the Sacred Heart, it gradually became once more the rule. Difficulty, however, was raised regarding daily Communion. This practice, too, was warmly recommended by Pius IX and Leo XIII, and finally received official approval from Pius X.
newadvent.org/cathen/06278a.htm
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Thanks for that background, Wesrock. I was wondering if the drop-off in Communion was because people felt like they were too sinful or unworthy to receive Our Lord. Looks like that was one of the factors.
U
Usige
Guest
That certainly played a part. I think we go in cycles. The Jansenist views kinda align with my Presbyterian (aka Calvinist) upbringing. We had “communion” maybe 2 or 3 times a year because it was something special and we most certainly weren’t. It was treated almost like the miden servant being invited to eat with the master so that the master could remind him how unworthy he was to dine at the table. Many will point to Luther, Calvin, and other reformers as the source of this idea that we are utterly depraved, but I think they were simply the product of centuries of thought that did not balance the theology of original sin with the theology of Christ’s redemptive act and how it broke the chains of our living death, sin.
I think one of the concerns with frequent communion is the danger that people take it for granted and don’t make an examination of their state. While we shouldn’t feel like the dung carrier who is unworthy to ever approach, we also shouldn’t think that dining with Christ is a right and that we should sit down at table without washing any filth from rolling in the miden heaps.
Strictly speaking none of us are worthy, but that doesn’t mean that we are completely *un]*worthy. I think the swings, the inflection points, come when one aspect is emphasized and then the reason for the emphasis gets lost to memory. Frequent reception of the Eucharist is fantastic, but it should go hand in hand with frequently receiving Reconciliation.
If the majority of people don’t take that to heart I think we will hear more vigorous voices that emphasize our inclination to sin and that many more should refrain from receiving. I know I’ve heard that more often over the last 4 years. While my pastor always links refraining from receiving with unconfessed mortal sin, some will hear “don’t receive as often” and miss the why.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
As is shown by a lot of the posts on CAF, people these days are confused about what “mortal sin” is. I know in my own past I committed sins that very well might have been mortal, however I’m not entirely sure because I did not do them with any great willful plan to turn away from God. Most of the time I was actively praying to God even during the time period when I was engaging in the sinful act and asking His help to make things work out and to remove me from the situation if indeed it was sinful. There are other acts I did during the same time frame that I wasn’t aware were considered serious sin and/or have received mixed messages about depending on who is making the pronouncement. During this whole period of years, I thought about whether to receive Jesus and decided I would continue to do so because I felt I needed Him and needed His help. It wasn’t done in an “oh I don’t care” or not taking it seriously context. It was done because I didn’t want to get that far away from Jesus. My receiving of communion while in possible sin has also been confessed with the same explanation I give here.
All of this is way in the distant past now, and everything has been confessed, and I am not doing any questionable things now, so whether it was or wasn’t a “mortal sin” is a moot point. But I tend to think that if someone is actually motivated enough to worry about whether the sin they committed is mortal, then in most cases they haven’t actually committed one. It’s the people who just don’t give a hoot who are committing the mortal sins. I could be all wrong here but if so that just further illustrates the confusion of people who are basically trying to live a good life.
U
Usige
Guest
TLDR;
You are right that there is much confusion out there on sin. We need to find a better way to teach people how to identify sin and, more importantly, root it out.
The final thing is I think we have tended to over emphasize mortal sin. Not that we make too much of it, but rather that we tend to dismiss venial sin as negligible or unimportant. If there needs to be better teaching on sin, I think it needs to go beyond “is this mortal or not”, but rather needs to talk about the fact that all sin is a poison to the soul. One kills quickly, but attachment to venial sin is actually much more incipient.
We’d do much better helping people by detaching from venial sin than simply focusing on mortal sin. It’s why I wish that more was done to promote and support confession of venial sins. Just like we could prevent many life threatening illnesses with regular exercise and checkups, the same with frequent reception of reconciliation and the Eucharist.
You are right that there is much confusion out there on sin. We need to find a better way to teach people how to identify sin and, more importantly, root it out.
That might be the case most of the time, but I think as we move into deeper relationship with Christ our reflection on our actions can unearth times that we justified our actions when we suspect it might be sinful. In those cases we need to understand the motivation. While I would say my motivation is rarely to distance myself from God, they are rarely driven by Love of God, but rather Love of Self. There is always the danger of developing a scrupulous nature (as distinct from the illness of scrupulousity), but without reviewing the things that lead us to sin it can become difficult to grow in holiness.
One of the problems is we tend to teach sin as a list rather than teaching people the principles and how to apply them. Humans in general want a check list and it becomes easy to say “the list says don’t eat green things; but this is really pale green, almost yellow and it smells so good I think I’ll be okay”. Without knowing why you shouldn’t “eat green things” you let other biases sway your conduct. The same thing happens with sin. People can start looking for loopholes to satisfy their desires without asking if it’s what God desires; there is often a disconnect between sin and following God’s will. It’s not that I think people don’t care, but rather that we are not conditioned to ask “is this for love of God or love of self?” Not saying everything boils down that easily, but saying that we need to be aware of our hidden motivations; the doors we don’t guard that let’s Satan whisper to our soul.
The final thing is I think we have tended to over emphasize mortal sin. Not that we make too much of it, but rather that we tend to dismiss venial sin as negligible or unimportant. If there needs to be better teaching on sin, I think it needs to go beyond “is this mortal or not”, but rather needs to talk about the fact that all sin is a poison to the soul. One kills quickly, but attachment to venial sin is actually much more incipient.
We’d do much better helping people by detaching from venial sin than simply focusing on mortal sin. It’s why I wish that more was done to promote and support confession of venial sins. Just like we could prevent many life threatening illnesses with regular exercise and checkups, the same with frequent reception of reconciliation and the Eucharist.
F
Faith1960
Guest
I was going to say this, too. Yes, no more than twice, and it has to be at Mass.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
This is a really good point. But when people are trying to figure out if something is “mortal sin” it seems like they’re always looking to the legal rule, like the Catechism, or some application of the 10 Commandments. Like you said, humans like a checklist and I guess they like black and white rules. However, it’s easier for me to say, “Regardless of whether I am confused about the level of sinfulness of this, I’m willing to give it up because I love God”, in other words make the sacrifice regardless of level of sin, than to say, “I’m giving this up because Rule XXX interpreted by Father X or CAF Poster Y says it’s a sin, even though maybe Father A or CAF Poster Z says it isn’t.”
I’d really like to see more emphasis on doing things out of love of God and one’s neighbor and less on “going down the checklist”. I never see these sorts of “is it a loving act?” or “can you make a sacrifice of your personal pleasure for God?” type questions on “examinations of conscience”. Oh well.
I like the idea of those sacraments as a sort of preventive care for your soul…like brushing your soul (similar to brushing your teeth) and having regular checkups with your spiritual “doctor”.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I agree with you. Not everything that is permissible is conducive to our growth in holiness. We don’t spend a lot of time discussing that.
However, I think that is a difficult thing to implement on an anonymous online forum. As soon as you get a poster that responds to a “Is this a sin?” question with an answer of “even if it’s not, just stop doing it,” you’ll get another poster come along to point out that it’s not technically a sin in all circumstances.
And, really, without knowing each other personally, it’s hard to gauge what is the better approach in each instance.
On the one hand, the person asking the “Is this a sin” question could be someone who suffers a debilitating case of scrupulosity (a forum like this is a natural place for such people to come). And so the advice to “just give it up anyway” places a significant burden of conscience on them such that they then feel significant guilt for doing something that is not intrinsically wrong.
On the other hand, the person asking the question could be someone who is severely spiritually lax who is just looking for some reaffirmation that it’s no big deal so they can go back to living their comfortable, never-have-to-go-out-of-my-way-to-do-anything-for-anyone life with a clear conscience.
That’s what I try to keep in mind when I see those posts. Sometimes, it is somewhat obvious which camp a person falls in, but not always. And even if it appears obvious to us, we may not be correct because we’re really just going from a post (or maybe a handful of posts). Indeed, I’ve seen threads where different posters make opposite assumptions about the OP in this regard. And conflict ensues. :slapfight:
In general, it is definitely a vastly overlooked point that we ought to be striving to act out of love for God and neighbor rather than simply following a rule book. How to interject that into any given thread, though, is not always sufficiently clear. At least, not to me. Until I master that whole “reading souls” thing.
U
Usige
Guest
That’s really kind of where I landed. For me I try to take heed of feelings of unease about something I did. If I feel a twinge of guilt that’s a sign to me that I need to ask if what I did was wrong and if it’s yes or maybe, then why I did it. That is not to say all twinge indicated complicity in sin, but I do find it helps me understand if I’m headed over the edge of a cliff of just walking parallel to it, a mere step away.
To your point, I try not to get wrapped up in “is this venial or mortal” so much as trying to understand what moves me to commit any sin. Regardless if it is venial or mortal I cannot stop it without identifying why. If I can do that then it is easier to identify other choices I could make that are more pleasing to God. Someday, I even hope to have success in this course.
I think the closest I’ve seen is in the Ignatian examine; often called the Discernment of Spirits. It is not exactly the same thing but does seek to look at why we did good or ill. The funny thing is I learned more about it from a priest of the Oblates of the Virgin Mary, Fr Tim Gallagher, than I did from the couple of Jesuits that tried to explain it to me. Go figure.
I am not really geared towards Ignatian Spirituality, but I have been trying to tie the concept together with St Bernard of Clairvaux’s 4 degrees of love. Those are:
1st Degree: Loving Yourself For Your Own Sake (Selfish Love)
2nd Degree: Loving God for Your Own Blessing (Dependence on God)
3rd Degree: Loving God for God’s Own Sake (Intimacy with God)
4th Degree: Loving Yourself for God’s Sake (Being United with God’s Love)
Getting beyond the first two can be very difficult, but I do find it is easy to “operate” at the 2nd and 3rd degrees when I go to daily Mass. I’d love to say it has banished all acts of selfish love, but alas it has tempered it more than eliminated it. Regardless, I appreciate that it has helped me move from spiritual infancy to something more like spiritual adolescence.
Heck, I’m still struggling to read my own soul so I’ll let you take the lead on doing it via the internet.In general, it is definitely a vastly overlooked point that we ought to be striving to act out of love for God and neighbor rather than simply following a rule book. How to interject that into any given thread, though, is not always sufficiently clear. At least, not to me. Until I master that whole “reading souls” thing.
I try to assume that people are asking about sin in all honesty. I don’t seem to frequent the “is this a sin” threads much, but like you I think we have to be careful if we see a question that seems obviously sinfree to us as being a sign of scruples. It is obvious if someone asks 10 times a day that they need more help than we can provide, but I’ve also seen people use the “S Word” in replying to someone’s first post. Many people are simply poorly catechized and truly don’t know.
As you point out, the difficulty can be in the yes, no, maybe debates that go on. There is certainly a level of discernment that a person needs to go through, but so often the answers come out in cacophony that likely confuses people more than they help. It’s not that the answers are all wrong, but often are aimed at answering people with different levels of understanding. It’s one area I wish we, as community, could be more clear about. We rarely just answer the base question before people start piling on modifiers that may or may not be relevant. I know I am just as guilty as others here.
- Status