Is It Sacramental Abuse to Believe the Eucharist is Only a Symbol?

[lil_user]

f it is the case that 70% of Catholics do not believe in Jesus Christ, in body, blood, soul and divinity, is truly present in the sacred elements the Church leadership has a responsibility to inform them that by receiving it by responding with “Amen” (I believe in Aramaic) they may committing a Grave Sin putting their souls in danger.

But this is already taught in the most basic religious education.

Should we tell Catholics, “if you kill and steal you commit a grave sin”?

Now, do we have a major issue in our hands? Absolutely. Do we need better religious education and especially for adults? Certainly. Does the hierarchy have a responsibility to help fix this? Sure.

Yet we cannot put the blame on the bishop for the disbelief of the flock. More bear responsibility. What of the domestic church? What of our individual responsibility to grow in the faith?

 

[stpurl]

I was brought up that there were only two categories of sin, mortal and venial, not ‘mortal, venial, and grave’. I was taught that if a sin had grave matter objectively but did not have full consent or full knowledge, that made it ‘objective mortal sin but venial in commission’.

I do a lot of reading and I really haven’t seen that this teaching I had has changed. A few times when I have seen the term “grave sin” (usually on the forums) it seems to me to be exactly that, ‘objective mortal but commissioned as venial due to lack of not having all three conditions met’, but it also seems as if a lot of people think that ‘grave sin’ is some kind of ‘middle category’, not mortal, not venial, but ‘in between’. I don’t think that’s correct though.

I personally think it would be a LOT clearer if people stuck to mortal and venial, and didn’t say ‘grave sin’ but said, "sin with grave matter but not meeting the criteria for mortal sin’. Because this so-called ‘grave sin’ is still venial sin. And it’s hard enough getting people to think of venial sin as being anything to worry about, but with a venial sin of grave matter you really should worry. If so many people are committing objective mortal sins of such grave evil but are either not fully knowledgeable or fully in control, shouldn’t we be trying to get them the knowledge and control they need so they STOP COMMITTING THE SIN?

 

[OraLabora]

I was brought up that there were only two categories of sin, mortal and venial, not ‘mortal, venial, and grave’. I was taught that if a sin had grave matter objectively but did not have full consent or full knowledge, that made it ‘objective mortal sin but venial in commission’.

It’s just semantics. A sin, to be mortal, in the current CCC, requires grave matter, full knowledge, and full consent of the will. Otherwise it is a grave sin but with venial culpability. Or an objectively mortal sin, venial in commission.

You and Hopkins are essentially saying the same thing, but the more current language seems less confusing to me.

 

[po18guy]

Poor catechesis.

 

[CRV]

I agree with you @stpurl .

Sins committed are either mortal or venial. A good Examination of Conscience will list sins in both categories ie Mortal and Venial. They also usually state before the list of sins, that for a sin to be mortal 3 things are necessary - the deed or matter + full knowledge + full consent.

So going through the list of Mortal sins an individual knows whether they have committed such a sin with full knowledge & full consent. It is also helpful in that these lists, list what things are objectively mortal sins and thus become subjective sins (thus incurring guilt) when committed with the other two requirements (full knowledge and full consent). And obviously if one lacked either F.K. or F.C., then the sin was venial.

But the lists are helpful in showing the difference between sins that are objectively mortal and objectively venial.

Examination of Conscience by Fr Altier is the first one listed on this page, and the pdf file that opens is free to read, but as they note it is copyrighted so if you want a copy, then one can be purchased from Leaflet Missal Company for $1.25.

 

[stpurl]

And it seems more confusing to me. See, even in your post, "grave sin’. It’s not grave; if it does not have all three components it is venial. it is not a ‘grave venial sin’. Venial sin is venial sin. (rose is a rose is a rose)

I remember a poster from a few years back nearly driving the whole forums crazy with his constant claims about 'mortal, venial, and grave sin".

I know you know the difference, but after all those posts of his, and a lot of people who responded in similar ways, I have to say that just judging from those (and these are the people who, by showing up in a forum like this, usually have somewhat more knowledge than the ‘average’ Catholic), people are more confused about sin than ever.

I also think (personally) that part of having this semantics emphasis is to make ‘real sin’, i.e. mortal, appear even harder to commit. Right? After all, if you can have a ‘grave sin’, but it isn’t mortal sin, even though it’s one of those grave things like fornication, masturbation, etc., then most people who might have been thought to be in mortal sin really aren’t! Because it’s so hard to commit mortal sin! Because nobody is really able to ‘fully consent’, right? Because nobody would ever be so stupid or wicked to really ‘spit in God’s eye’, so they never really mean to consent to mortal sin!! And they just aren’t able to know with full knowledge, because nobody ever tells them the whole thing, and we can’t know everything. Blah blah blah. So much effort goes into pretending that people just don’t do these bad mortal sins anymore (and if they do bad stuff, it’s only grave! Not mortal! Nothing to worry about here, folks!)

 

[Brian_K]

The church wrote in plainly: 1 Cor 11:27 “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.”

 

[CRV]

A friend once told me that she’d been told it’s pretty hard to commit a mortal sin. (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I personally think it would be a LOT clearer if people stuck to mortal and venial, and didn’t say ‘grave sin’ but said, "sin with grave matter but not meeting the criteria for mortal sin’. Because this so-called ‘grave sin’ is still venial sin. And it’s hard enough getting people to think of venial sin as being anything to worry about, but with a venial sin of grave matter you really should worry. If so many people are committing objective mortal sins of such grave evil but are either not fully knowledgeable or fully in control, shouldn’t we be trying to get them the knowledge and control they need so they STOP COMMITTING THE SIN?

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes!

This business of “grave sin” and “serious sin” is very confusing to the faithful. We need to return to calling sin “mortal” and “venial” — either a sin is bad enough for you go to hell (mortal) or it is not (venial). Even objectively mortal sins in themselves have to be accompanied by the conditions of sufficient knowledge/reflection, and full consent of the will, otherwise they are only venial.

I also have the concern, as I have stated elsewhere on this forum, that things like lying, stealing, and cheating — while never “OK” or condonable — are getting called “grave”, and if the term “grave” is conflated with “mortal”, then any such sin, committed with sufficient reflection and full consent of the will, is mortal. Using that reasoning, saying you like someone’s hat when you think it is the ugliest thing you’ve ever seen, stealing an ashtray from a hotel room, or copying a single answer off someone else’s school exam, all are sufficient to consign the soul to hell.

Let’s not lose the concept of deliberate venial sin in the midst of all this. That would be a recipe for unbridled scrupulosity.

 

[OraLabora]

And it seems more confusing to me. See, even in your post, "grave sin’. It’s not grave; if it does not have all three components it is venial . it is not a ‘grave venial sin’. Venial sin is venial sin. (rose is a rose is a rose)

No. You misunderstand, I said if it does not have all three components, it is still a grave sin, but the culpability is not mortal.

I’m not making this stuff up. From the CCC:

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”

1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

It’s the teaching that is official, promulgated by a saint, and the one I stick to. It really is simple to comprehend. Grave = serious = potentially mortal (if the other two conditions are met). Gravity refers to the seriousness of the sin, mortality or veniality to the culpability of the penitent.

Less serious sins: always venial sin.
Serious (grave) sins: mortal if the other two conditions are met, venial if not.

 

[thistle]

The question is whether or not it is a sin to misrepresent what one believes about the Eucharist while receiving it, and if so, shouldn’t the Church leadership inform the 70% of Catholics who believe it to be only a “symbol” of the Church as the Body of Christ, that their mortal souls may be in danger?

Can you direct me to the interviews that someone had with 1.2 billion Catholics to come up with this?

 

[steve-b]

The Catholic Church believes that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. Literally! Therefore, when a communicate receives the bread and wine from the priest or extraordinary minister, the response “Amen” which means in Aramaic, “I believe” is testifying to one’s agreement in the belief of the Church in Transubstantiation. If the communicate believes it is nothing more than a “Symbol” are they in a state of sin by misrepresenting what they believe about the Eucharist, as well as by receiving it.

It’s serious sin to discount taking the Eucharist in any way. HERE

That said

It’s also serious sin to give that same reverence to mere bread and wine from a source that can’t validly ordain, and consecrate, therefore, no change in the bread and wine occurs.

 

[CRV]

It stuns me being an extraordinary minister of the Eucharist how many people don’t reply anything after saying the Body of Christ or the Blood of Christ. Some people just bow. Some people don’t say anything and just grab it from me. I have spoken to my priest about how this bothers me. It isn’t like I am saying Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam. Amen for them like this is the Extraordinary Form. Didn’t anyone younger than 60 learn to say Amen as a reply to the words The Body of Christ when they were kids?

I know. It’s sadly too common not to hear anyone say Amen. At one place where I was sacristan, this came up and so Father instructed myself and the other sacristan to loudly say Amen, when we received. Felt awkward, but after this only a few others said Amen out loud. I guess (hopefully) most others say Amen mentally.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

This is a hypothetical question. We don’t have to worry about this non-existent person’s state of mind since we’re making it up already. Good grief.

 

[Divine3]

O my gosh! Of course it was a question. I didn’t need to see the
It is a good question too.

 

[Vico]

… If the communicate believes it is nothing more than a “Symbol” are they in a state of sin by misrepresenting what they believe about the Eucharist, as well as by receiving it.

Catholic belief is in the substantial presence. See Council of Trent Session XIII

Canon II. If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

With regard to “the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick” the faithful are to hold Catholic belief in them:
CIC (Latin Canon Law)

Can. 844 §4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

Can. 899 §1 The celebration of the Eucharist is an action of Christ himself and of the Church. In it Christ the Lord, through the ministry of the priest, offers himself, substantially present under the appearances of bread and wine, to God the Father, and gives himself as spiritual nourishment to the faithful who are associated with him in his offering.

Can. 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.

1 Corinthians

29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

 

[GiftofMercy]

This is a hypothetical question. We don’t have to worry about this non-existent person’s state of mind since we’re making it up already. Good grief.

First off, your written tone is insulting.

secondly nowhere in the OP is it stated this is a hypothetical question. And if it were, we would still have to consider the dichotomy between full belief and some doubt.

The Catholic Church believes that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. Literally! Therefore, when a communicate receives the bread and wine from the priest or extraordinary minister, the response “Amen” which means in Aramaic, “I believe” is testifying to one’s agreement in the belief of the Church in Transubstantiation. If the communicate believes it is nothing more than a “Symbol” are they in a state of sin by misrepresenting what they believe about the Eucharist, as well as by receiving it.

The question is whether or not it is a sin to misrepresent what one believes about the Eucharist while receiving it, and if so, shouldn’t the Church leadership inform the 70% of Catholics who believe it to be only a “symbol” of the Church as the Body of Christ, that their mortal souls may be in danger?

I trust this helps in understanding.
Good day to you.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

If I listened to half the people on CA I’d think it was nearly impossible to commit a mortal sin and that it’s better not to be Catholic so you’d remain ignorant.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

Is that what you say about any statistic you see?

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

I only just learned to say amen before taking communion on the tongue at Novus Ordo masses. I knew the people standing and taking it in the hand said amen, but no instructions were ever provided in RCIA for those who wanted to kneel and receive on the tongue and I’ve only been to two ordinary form masses since I was confirmed. The priest just puts it on my tongue when I open my mouth without waiting for an amen. I’d personally prefer you guys saying Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam. Amen. It seems more meaningful…and the communicant doesn’t need to reply while sticking his tongue out.