F
FrDavid96
Guest
In that sentence, I specifically said the “priest-confessor” so yes. I hear your concerns and that’s a clarification that has to be understood.
Thanks.
May I receive the Eucharist without confession with the priest's permission?
- Status
Thanks.
F
frodosfoot
Guest
Unless you have committed a mortal sin, you may receive the Eucharist and you don’t need permission from a priest.
During Mass, there are at least 3 or 4 opportunities to repent your sins and ask for forgiveness. For instance, in the beginning, “Let us call to mind our sins …” Just before Communion “Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.” Another is “Lord have mercy…”
Of course, none of these replaces the Sacrament of Penance. And if you want to receive the guidance of a priest even outside confession, by all means do so. If you do not feel prepared to receive communion, then don’t.
But don’t deny yourself the the grace and peace you will receive from the Eucharist, just because you haven’t been to confession. God is infinitely merciful, and wants to be with you in the Eucharist. Let him forgive you and go to communion with confidence and peace.
During Mass, there are at least 3 or 4 opportunities to repent your sins and ask for forgiveness. For instance, in the beginning, “Let us call to mind our sins …” Just before Communion “Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.” Another is “Lord have mercy…”
Of course, none of these replaces the Sacrament of Penance. And if you want to receive the guidance of a priest even outside confession, by all means do so. If you do not feel prepared to receive communion, then don’t.
But don’t deny yourself the the grace and peace you will receive from the Eucharist, just because you haven’t been to confession. God is infinitely merciful, and wants to be with you in the Eucharist. Let him forgive you and go to communion with confidence and peace.
F
frodosfoot
Guest
I think some people are missing the words “GRAVE sin.” Not every sin is grave. So confession is not always a requirement before communion.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
VC,
We’ve been chasing our tails here. Today, I realized what the real issue is here.
In the situations we’re talking about, the priest generally says “you may receive Communion if you’re going to confess immediately after Mass” (in whatever words)
In that case, the faithful should accept the priest’s advice/counsel and should receive the Eucharist. However, that does not mean that one must receive. No matter what the other details are, if the priest “permits” it, the person may do so with a clear conscience. Now, if there’s something else standing in the way (like the lack of Eucharistic fast), then one may not receive without at least a minimal “dispensation” from the priest for that other issue. My point here is that if the faithful approach the priest for confession before Mass and the priest denies it, and gives permission for Communion, then one’s conscience is clear in receiving (with regard to the lack of confession). At the same time, one may also decide not to receive, but not in the sense of doubting the pastoral decision of the priest. Looking back on it, I realize now that that was my objection to your #4/5. If the priest says “you may” then no one else should say “you should not.” Had you said “you may choose not to” my reaction would have been different. I’m not trying to parse words, so please take no offense. I’m only trying to clarity.
In “real life” priests will say “you may go to Communion”
On the other hand, if a person’s regular confessor says to an individual “you need to go to Communion” or even “you must” then that person should obey the confessor. That might sound odd, but that’s sometimes necessary when a penitent is being scrupulous. The penitent feels that he cannot go to Communion, but the penitent is misguided, and in fact there is no obstacle to receiving. He’s depriving himself of the graces of the Eucharist, and the confessor may decide that the only way to overcome this is to “compell” the person to receive (again, not because there is a real impediment, but because the scrupulous person insists on making an impediment when there is none.)
J
jmcrae
Guest
I am seeing two misunderstandings in this thread:
First, people are trying to apply this particular priest’s advice to this particular person (a one-time incident) and make a general principle out of it. There is no general principle, here - it was a one-time situation. Nobody reading along here should take that priest’s advice to that one person as if it were advice to themselves - and as I said in my first post on this thread, neither should the person who received the advice take it as general advice - it was a one-time situation.
Second, when someone said that the penitent must follow the priest’s direction, the priest’s direction was not that she should receive Holy Communion, but rather, that she should return directly after Mass to make her Confession. He said that she “may” (not “must”) receive Holy Communion at the Mass, but he did not direct her to do so - what he directed her to do (the thing she had to obey him in) was to return to the Confessional directly after Mass and make her Confession at that time.
Third (and most importantly) we must trust our priests in these kinds of situations. It is only by trusting them that they become trustworthy. If we are in the habit of disobeying them and doing whatever seems right in our own eyes, they start saying outlandish things, because they don’t expect to be obeyed.
But if they see us obeying them (especially if we do some of the outlandish things they tell us to do), they sober up very quickly and start giving us good advice. It is, therefore, much healthier for the whole Body of Christ when we obey our appointed pastors.
I have personal experience with this; we had a priest who was not at all respected by his congregation, and one time he happened to be in charge of a Mass for my students. He told one of my students to go and run around in the Church. I don’t know what led up to him saying this to the student, but the student came to me, laughing, and said, “Guess what Father told me to do!” I said, “Well, you know, you must do it, since Father has told you to do it,” and I made him run around the Church. Father came in, horrified, and I said, “How many times around did you want him to do, Father?” He said, “Oh - uh - he can stop now,” so I went over and I told the student, “Father says you can stop now!”
Anyway, the rest of the day, Father was very sober and dignified, and asked the children very politely to do some necessary things, and they obeyed him in everything, and he said it was the nicest children’s Mass he had ever presided over.
First, people are trying to apply this particular priest’s advice to this particular person (a one-time incident) and make a general principle out of it. There is no general principle, here - it was a one-time situation. Nobody reading along here should take that priest’s advice to that one person as if it were advice to themselves - and as I said in my first post on this thread, neither should the person who received the advice take it as general advice - it was a one-time situation.
Second, when someone said that the penitent must follow the priest’s direction, the priest’s direction was not that she should receive Holy Communion, but rather, that she should return directly after Mass to make her Confession. He said that she “may” (not “must”) receive Holy Communion at the Mass, but he did not direct her to do so - what he directed her to do (the thing she had to obey him in) was to return to the Confessional directly after Mass and make her Confession at that time.
Third (and most importantly) we must trust our priests in these kinds of situations. It is only by trusting them that they become trustworthy. If we are in the habit of disobeying them and doing whatever seems right in our own eyes, they start saying outlandish things, because they don’t expect to be obeyed.
But if they see us obeying them (especially if we do some of the outlandish things they tell us to do), they sober up very quickly and start giving us good advice. It is, therefore, much healthier for the whole Body of Christ when we obey our appointed pastors.
I have personal experience with this; we had a priest who was not at all respected by his congregation, and one time he happened to be in charge of a Mass for my students. He told one of my students to go and run around in the Church. I don’t know what led up to him saying this to the student, but the student came to me, laughing, and said, “Guess what Father told me to do!” I said, “Well, you know, you must do it, since Father has told you to do it,” and I made him run around the Church. Father came in, horrified, and I said, “How many times around did you want him to do, Father?” He said, “Oh - uh - he can stop now,” so I went over and I told the student, “Father says you can stop now!”
Anyway, the rest of the day, Father was very sober and dignified, and asked the children very politely to do some necessary things, and they obeyed him in everything, and he said it was the nicest children’s Mass he had ever presided over.
H
Holly3278
Guest
Wow. This thread has gotten to be very confusing for me. I know one thing, I will trust what my priest has said on this issue and what he says is good enough for me.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Wow. This thread has gotten to be very confusing for me. I know one thing, I will trust what my priest has said on this issue and what he says is good enough for me.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Look folks, VC and I have just been having a little intellectual exercise.
Holly: we’ve exchanged a few public posts directly, and I’m sure you understand that VC and I had long since ceased posting about what you personally should do—when you said that you understood the conclusion in an earlier post (and your very recent post confirms that), and as a result, I felt (and I’m sure VC will concur), that there would be no harm in such an academic exchange.
It’s good for Catholics to see healthy dialogue because it helps all of us to understand what we do and why we do it.
Holly: we’ve exchanged a few public posts directly, and I’m sure you understand that VC and I had long since ceased posting about what you personally should do—when you said that you understood the conclusion in an earlier post (and your very recent post confirms that), and as a result, I felt (and I’m sure VC will concur), that there would be no harm in such an academic exchange.
It’s good for Catholics to see healthy dialogue because it helps all of us to understand what we do and why we do it.
H
Holly3278
Guest
Well, I definitely don’t see anything wrong with the academic exchange going on in this thread. You all may continue if you wish.
I, for one, am unsubscribing from this thread since my question has been answered satisfactorily. Thank you Fr. David.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Fr. David,
Thank you for the time and effort you have already invested in this discussion. I am especially edified by your solicitude for the sacred relationship between penitent and confessor. I also appreciate that you have been able to engage with me in thoughtful discussion, or as yourself said an “intellectual exercise”. I’m glad that you’ve seen it that way, and that you’ve recognized my intention not to engage anyone on the merits of what their own particular confessor told them in a particular instance.
In fact, I’m somewhat heartened that Holly has decided to unsubscribe from the thread, as she feels she has received an answer to her original question. Perhaps we could continue the discussion though, because there are one or two points that I’m not entirely clear on. Would you be amenable to that?
Thank you and God bless,
VC
Thank you for the time and effort you have already invested in this discussion. I am especially edified by your solicitude for the sacred relationship between penitent and confessor. I also appreciate that you have been able to engage with me in thoughtful discussion, or as yourself said an “intellectual exercise”. I’m glad that you’ve seen it that way, and that you’ve recognized my intention not to engage anyone on the merits of what their own particular confessor told them in a particular instance.
In fact, I’m somewhat heartened that Holly has decided to unsubscribe from the thread, as she feels she has received an answer to her original question. Perhaps we could continue the discussion though, because there are one or two points that I’m not entirely clear on. Would you be amenable to that?
Thank you and God bless,
VC
L
LilyM
Guest
So you think that if a priest counsels couples that abortion or ABC is fine, that couple is perfectly OK, even when they are aware of the Church documentation that teaches the precise opposite, to disobey the Church and Christ’s teaching to which their erring priest is in opposition?I am seeing two misunderstandings in this thread:
First, people are trying to apply this particular priest’s advice to this particular person (a one-time incident) and make a general principle out of it. There is no general principle, here - it was a one-time situation. Nobody reading along here should take that priest’s advice to that one person as if it were advice to themselves - and as I said in my first post on this thread, neither should the person who received the advice take it as general advice - it was a one-time situation.
Second, when someone said that the penitent must follow the priest’s direction, the priest’s direction was not that she should receive Holy Communion, but rather, that she should return directly after Mass to make her Confession. He said that she “may” (not “must”) receive Holy Communion at the Mass, but he did not direct her to do so - what he directed her to do (the thing she had to obey him in) was to return to the Confessional directly after Mass and make her Confession at that time.
Third (and most importantly) we must trust our priests in these kinds of situations. It is only by trusting them that they become trustworthy. If we are in the habit of disobeying them and doing whatever seems right in our own eyes, they start saying outlandish things, because they don’t expect to be obeyed.
But if they see us obeying them (especially if we do some of the outlandish things they tell us to do), they sober up very quickly and start giving us good advice. It is, therefore, much healthier for the whole Body of Christ when we obey our appointed pastors.
This sort of ‘pay, pray and obey’ attitude is precisely why JP2 told us laity in paragraphs 183 and 184 of Redemptionis Sacramentum that we have not just a right but a ‘most serious duty’ to correct our priests when they introduce (whether by order or merely by permission, one would presume, RS makes no distinction) abuses into the Mass.
Obedience in all things that are not sinful should be the rule, of course, but it is PRECISELY matters of sin that the OP’s instance brings up, how can reception of Communion without Confession NOT be an issue of sin? And of course (some) of the issues that RS deals with are also - and in such cases it would seem that we have a duty to correct a priest who would PERMIT (as the priest is potentially doing in the OP’s case) as well as counsel sin.
Priests, holy as they are and with greatest possible respect to all, including you Fr David, are human beings - and like all human beings, are WAYYY more often likely to construe obedience for approval and assent and be spurred on to CONTINUE the wrong teaching, belief or behaviour, than to be moved to any sort of change by it.
Your case, jmcrae, is absolutely the exception and not the norm nor any sort of justification for obedience in matters of possible or actual sin.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Absolutely. But I’m travelling this week and might not have internet access. If I don’t respond for a while, please be patient.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Ok, thank you very much.
I’d like to start by making sure I understand more clearly the parameters of what we are discussing. I know we both agree that we are not discussing any actual individual’s confession, just to make that explicit.
With that said, I’d like to re-examine and clarify the starting position of our discussion. I noticed in a another thread, here, you said this:
FrDavid96 in another thread:
Could you elaborate on the relationship between the first portion of your post (“Unless one is conscious of mortal sin. . .”) and the latter portion of your post (“welcome to receive communion.”)? Is the consciousness of mortal sin on the part of the penitent a limiting factor in approaching communion in this scenario? How do these two statements relate? Does the invitation of the priest supersede the first portion of your post, or do they someone work in conjunction, or does the first portion supersede the later invitation?
I hope my question is somewhat clear. Please allow me to clarify if it is not.
Thank you, and safe travels!
VC
J
jmcrae
Guest
This always comes up in hypotheticals, but I have never heard of such a thing in real life. Most of the priests I encounter don’t even know what ABC is, never mind go up to someone or take someone aside and say, “You know, you (your wife) really need(s) to get on the pill.”
On the other hand, I’ve been standing right there in the room when a priest told someone to do one thing, and she did the precise opposite (because it was the thing she wanted to do), and later when I asked her why she did that, she claimed that she had asked the priest and the priest had instructed her to do it.
It just seems so extremely unlikely, therefore, that a priest is telling people to use ABC (although I can certainly believe that people are claiming that their priest told them to do that).
But yes, in the incredibly unlikely event that your priest actually tells you to commit a sin, you are absolutely free to folow your well-formed conscience, and disobey him.
Father David has already provided an excellent explanation, and I don’t feel qualified to improve upon it, other than to say that the priest, if he is the pastor of a parish, is the guy in charge of the administration of the Sacraments in that particular building, and we are to follow his prudent judgment.
H
hamburglar
Guest
Even if the “priest-confessor” advises one to sin, it is still Christ? I thought in persona Christi referred to the action of a priest while celebrating a SACRAMENT, such as “This is My Body,” “This is … My Blood,” and the absolution in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Pastoral advice outside the confessional is not a Sacrament, nor part of one.
Please correct me if my understanding of this is incorrect.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Hamburglar,
Ordination “enables” a priest to act in persona Christi. No doubt, when the priest is hearing confessions or consecrating the Eucharist, he is in persona Christi, but that does not mean that these are the only times. A priest MAY be *in persona Christi *when he elsewhere exercises the priestly offices of sanctifying, governing and teaching. There is no absolute answer to that. To take an extreme example, when a pastor writes a check to pay the light bill, he is exercising his power of governance in his parish, but we would not use the term *in persona Christi *in that instance. However, if a priest is preaching the Gospel (outside of Mass) to a group of potential converts to the faith, might he be in persona Christi at that moment? Yes, he certainly might be, because ordination has “enabled” him to be.
In the Eucharist, we see the miracle of transubstantiation, where the substance of bread is gone and the substance of Christ’s body has wholly replaced it.
In ordination, we see an ontological change in the soul of the priest, imparting to it a certain character. But the humanity of the priest still remains.
As an analogy, think of it as transubstantiation versus consubstantiation. (Don’t jump on me folks, it’s just an imperfect analogy!!!)
The humanity of the priest remains, and that means that the priest himself is certainly capable of sinning (even while administering a Sacrament). If a priest does indeed advise someone to sin, it is not Christ who is acting, but the human priest acting against Christ. A priest is enabled to be in persona Christi, which means he still has free will to reject that potential and choose “not to be enabled” when he chooses to sin.
For another analogy, think of Sacred Scripture. God is the ultimate author, but He worked through imperfect human instruments. If the human author “got something wrong” say for example counting the number of soldiers in a battle, that is the imperfection of the human author showing-through. The same can happen in confession. The human priest can be wrong, and sometimes is.
But all of that said, it doesn’t change the fact that when a priest advises someone on a Sacrament, he is exercising his priestly offices of sanctifying, governing and teaching (in fact, all 3 in the hypothetical case that we’re talking about on this thread), and the Christian Faithful should trust the decision of the priest, rather than seek out ways to contradict him.
L
LilyM
Guest
Father, I’m going to pour out my heart here, so bear with me.
I think I speak for most of us when I say that we would like nothing better than to be able to trust implicitly the decisions our priests make and the advice they give us in the confessional - it would be a huge weight off our shoulders and a huge load off our minds. And believe me when I say that we are NOT, for the most part, seeking out ways to contradict them.
Rather it is a distressingly large percentage of priests who prove themselves untrustworthy and* themselves* contradict the faith they profess. And not just in minor details analogous to the historical aspects of scripture, but fundamentals of the faith.
Too many, it seems, are flat out contradicting even crystal-clear church teaching and centuries-old Traditional belief. They openly advocate or advise use of artificial birth control, they proudly support womens’ ordination and gay rights, they knowingly and openly continue to commune pro-abortion politicians even though the church has clearly requested them not to … and the list goes on.
Such priests do nothing to sanctify, and nothing to properly govern or teach. If so many are in essence abdicating their priestly office outside the confessional, how on earth can we trust that they can or will adequately do the job within?
Or to use your analogy of scripture, you trust it because in the fundamentals it is consistently on message. Would you trust it if in one book it said ‘homosexuality is intrinsically wrong and disordered and its practice is not to be condoned’ and in another book said ‘well, it’s not really wrong to sleep with people of the same sex - we can’t REALLY help who we’re attracted to and we ARE all sexual beings after all’?
THAT is the sort of schizophrenic message we get far too often from our priests - and we are, unsurprisingly, very confused and often very wary as well, as a result.
- Status