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

[CRV]

I get it. But I think that the poor catechesis since the 1970s has had a lot to do with matters. Prior to that time, Catholics knew what were mortal sins because they also knew that to commit one a person did so with full knowledge that it was, and did it of their own free will. It was just simply understood and known. Whereas today, there are a lot of practicing Catholics who do not know the Catholic Faith and haven’t even read the Catechism! (Thinking of people I know, and so don’t know the Faith).

There is also a tendency nowadays I think to not state things as such because people don’t always see things as being stated objectively, rather it is always assumed to be subjectively. It’s gotten to the point where it has to be stated as such lest people are offended and assume they are being judged. imo, there is also a fear of judging the sin as people assume one is judging the person - hence we see “you shouldn’t judge!”

But don’t go into what is formal or material sins - that just confuses people even more. Things that were once taught and therefore understood, no longer are. No wonder there is confusion.

 

[DBRANDT]

I took the author of the post at face value without impugning any of their motives for doing so. It’s certainly a valid question in my mind, and one that every Catholic should strive to accept on faith. Cradle Catholic friends and relations are quick to blame what they may see as inadequate teaching by the Church. My personal feeling, no, you were taught the basic doctrines as a child, but you’re an adult now, and adults are responsible for their own education.

 

[lil_user]

at EF Mass a lot of times where people do reply amen, part of me just wants to shake my head since you aren’t supposed to.

Actually, there’s no rule stating what the congregation should or should not do in the EF. If you wish to reply “Amen” and then receive the Holy Eucharist on the tongue, it’s up to you. But the prayer is meant for the cleric to say, not requiring any assent on the part of the communicant. And St. Francis de Sales does recommend silence from the “Agnus Dei” until reception of Holy Communion, if I recall his advice correctly.

 

[lil_user]

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.

You are assuming the communicant has full knowledge of what it means to say Amen and deliberately consents to saying it even though he/she doesn’t mean it. Which is more likely of the following?

Someone says “Amen”…

(a) because that’s what you’re supposed to say

(b) because that’s how you close a prayer

(b) because it means “I believe” in Aramaic and it is therefore a testimony of my agreement in the belief of the Church in Transubstantiation.

 

[HopkinsReb]

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)

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.

It’s a venial sin involving grave matter. It’s not a separate category of sins in between mortal and venial.

I realize this is what you’re saying; just trying to put it more precisely.

Didn’t realize how much of a storm this would stir up, but this is CAF.

 

[stpurl]

LOL yes, “Contentious arguers forum”

 

[Uback]

I wonder why . most people do not know what was decided at the counsel of Trent.
If you don’t believe. You are anathema. Kicked out!

 

[Bataar]

If someone is at a Catholic church and they are there to worship nothing more than a piece of bread then they would be committing the sin of idolatry which is very grave.