Must we recieve Communion at Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dnar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pakesh said:
A lot of people wouldn’t be going to communion if what you said was true. If you are nursing a grudge, that makes the sin worse. The fact is everyone has venial sins on their soul when they receive communion (unless they just walked out of the confessional).
Click to expand...
Yes, everyone has venial sins on their soul, but not all of our venial sins are ALSO direct hurts against our brother, such as an argument with one’s husband (the example given earlier).

Just to repeat myself, I’m not saying that you MUST not receive if you have such a venial sin on your soul. The Church has said you may. I’m just saying it isn’t a bad thing if you don’t, and it is far from being an insult to Our Lord given what He said on the topic, as I quoted earlier.
I think ultimately, something is going on in the soul of the OP that he/she needs to work through in regards to what is in their heart about the Eucharist-just my opinion.
Click to expand...
So are you of the opinion that Father Serpa is right - or those people who say one MUST receive if one is in a state of grace, that one is insulting Our Lord if not?

St Joan of Arc is on record as receiving at most once a month, possibly as little as once a year. This was not at all unusual for people in her time - in fact the rule about yearly communion came about because people commonly weren’t receiving even once a year.

Yet there’s no suggestion that St Joan EVER had any mortal sin on her soul, or that she was EVER not in a state of grace. So that’s an awful lot of communions she could have made, but didn’t. Do you think she was insulting Our Lord every one of those Sundays she didn’t receive?
 
LilyM said:
there’s no suggestion that St Joan EVER had any mortal sin on her soul, or that she was EVER not in a state of grace.
Click to expand...
Which doesn’t mean that she wasn’t sometimes in a state of sin and needing reconciliation.
 
aspirant said:
And receiving the Eucharist is a means of reconciliation for these. Why would anyone not want that? :confused:
Click to expand...
Because sometimes, as Jesus said (and not just at those times when we are in mortal sin) it’s better to FIRST reconcile with our brother, and only THEN to approach Him in communion.

It’s not that I ever don’t want God’s reconciliation in Communion, I always do, even when I’m in mortal sin. It’s just that sometimes sacramental Confession has to come first, and similarly at other times I might feel a need to first seek reconciliation with my brother.

Remember Jesus only mentioned Zacchaeus being saved AFTER Zacchaeus attended to his need to make restitution to his brothers and offered to repay those whom he had cheated? I see Communion as sometimes being the same - sometimes it’s a good idea to make restitution, seek peace with our brothers, first.
 
LilyM said:
For three weeks out of every single month of her life at a minimum?
Click to expand...
How often was the sacrament of reconciliation practically available to her? Among people who have few chances to receive that sacrament, this is a real possibility.
 
Pakesh said:
I just don’t understand why someone would not have the desire to receive our Lord when they are able to …
Click to expand...
Why doesn’t everyone go to confession when they see the red light on the confessional door? (Forgiveness of sins by a priest is in Scripture.) Why doesn’t everyone pray in front of the Blessed Sacrament every time he or she goes to Church? (Holy of Holies is also in Scripture.) Maybe we insult God by not taking advantage of these opportunities at every chance we get as well? And those are activities which don’t require you to be in a sin-free state.
 
Pakesh said:
If you are nursing a grudge, that makes the sin worse. The fact is everyone has venial sins on their soul when they receive communion (unless they just walked out of the confessional).
Click to expand...
Are you some kind of scholarly moral theologian to make this claim? Once I didn’t receive because the priest refused to distribute communion. Am I going to Hell for that?
 
ProVobis said:
Are you some kind of scholarly moral theologian to make this claim? Once I didn’t receive because the priest refused to distribute communion. Am I going to Hell for that?
Click to expand...
I am no scholar, but anger is one of the deadly sins and my point is that holding intense anger leads to hatred and an ever spiraling descent. That was my point. Also, I don’t think it’s an insult to not receive-I really don’t know. But to single out types of venial sins and saying their worse than other venial sins seems very odd. A venial sin is a venial sin when it comes to the disposition of receiving communion.
 
ProVobis said:
Are you some kind of scholarly moral theologian to make this claim? Once I didn’t receive because the priest refused to distribute communion. Am I going to Hell for that?
Click to expand...
Of course not, and that’s reducing the discussion to the absurd:rolleyes:. The question is about receiving when you have the chance. In your example, you didn’t have the chance.
 
ProVobis said:
So if I were to steal a dollar from the collection plate, communion will forgive me for that? I think that rule needs to be reworded.
Click to expand...
I don’t know…if it is a mortal sin, then of course not. But the teaching of the Church is clear-The Eucharist wipes away venial sins.
 
LilyM said:
But if you invite your children to dinner they may say ‘it’s not that I don’t need your nourishment, just that I’m unshowered, unshaven, wearing dirty/torn clothing - besides which I’m in a really foul mood today and would be terrible company for you through no fault of yours, so can we take a rain check just for today?’

Would you really prefer that your children come to you as I’ve described above? Or would you say ‘if that’s the case, it would do you good to shower, shave, rest, take some time out, so let’s have dinner tomorrow instead?’

Remember what Jesus said about the Eucharist - that anyone who is aware of anything he has against his brother (and a bad argument with your husband is exactly that) must leave the gift at the altar, reconcile with his brother and only then come back.

Sure sounds to me like He’s saying that you shouldn’t receive with something like an argument with your husband on your soul, even if it may not be a mortal sin.
Click to expand...
No argument here :)… But I did say…in a state of Grace. Then I would be insulted for them to say…take your nourishment and…well…you know.

And as far as refusing to receive with a venial sin on your soul. That’s what an Act of Contrition is for. And it doesn’t have to be of the rote variety. Just a couple of words of sorrow…and then apologizing to your spouse. 🙂
 
Pakesh said:
I don’t know…if it is a mortal sin, then of course not. But the teaching of the Church is clear-The Eucharist wipes away venial sins.
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on if your taking the money because you’re hungry or because you want a beer.
 
Pakesh said:
A lot of people wouldn’t be going to communion if what you said was true. If you are nursing a grudge, that makes the sin worse. The fact is everyone has venial sins on their soul when they receive communion (unless they just walked out of the confessional).

I think ultimately, something is going on in the soul of the OP that he/she needs to work through in regards to what is in their heart about the Eucharist-just my opinion.
Click to expand...
I hope that there is nothing but good things going on in my soul. I am going to try to be the most faithful Catholic that I can be…I am already trying this, but I won’t be ‘officially’ catholic until April 3.

1389 The Church obliges the faithful to take part in the Divine Liturgy on Sundays and feast days and, prepared by the sacrament of Reconciliation, to receive the Eucharist at least once a year, if possible during the Easter season.

After studying the catechism, I was trying to live by it, and I just took it wrong that I would be insulting our Lord if I did not receive communion at every Mass in the state of grace, when the catechism was clear that we only had to receive once a year.
 
I don’t understand the examples used in this thread.

All the proposed sins which might keep one from receiving communion seem to me to be more serious venial sins. Such sins would be good candidates to keep a person from being properly disposed to receive.

But I thought the point of this discussion was to address the case of people who DID NOT have such serious venial sins.
 
aspirant said:
How often was the sacrament of reconciliation practically available to her? Among people who have few chances to receive that sacrament, this is a real possibility.
Click to expand...
She lived in the court of the King of France, where all the most prominent clerics of the country ALSO lived. She served with the armies of France, which at all times had chaplains available for the soldiers (in fact before the battle of Orleans she ordered all the soldiers to confess and receive Communion, so clearly there were enough chaplains around that they were able to do so).

At least until her arrest and imprisonment. And then she was under trial by a Church court where she was daily questioned by whole panels of clerics.

At all these times she would’ve had basically unlimited opportunities to pull one or another priest aside and ask them to hear her confession if she’d been in need.
 
SMHW said:
I don’t understand the examples used in this thread.

All the proposed sins which might keep one from receiving communion seem to me to be more serious venial sins. Such sins would be good candidates to keep a person from being properly disposed to receive.

But I thought the point of this discussion was to address the case of people who DID NOT have such serious venial sins.
Click to expand...
Nope, the point of the discussion was to address people who were in a state of grace. A state of grace means having no MORTAL sin on your soul. One can have even serious venial sins and still be in a state of grace.

Otherwise people with serious venial sins would be barred from communion and required to undergo sacramental confession before receiving communion, just as people are when they are in a state of mortal sin.
 
LilyM said:
Nope, the point of the discussion was to address people who were in a state of grace. A state of grace means having no MORTAL sin on your soul. One can have even serious venial sins and still be in a state of grace.

Otherwise people with serious venial sins would be barred from communion and required to undergo sacramental confession before receiving communion, just as people are when they are in a state of mortal sin.
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand that being in a state of grace means no mortal sins.

But I don’t think Fr. Sherpa was imagining people who were not properly disposed because they were smoldering from arguments with family members right before Mass.
 
LilyM said:
She lived in the court of the King of France, where all the most prominent clerics of the country ALSO lived… At all these times she would’ve had basically unlimited opportunities to pull one or another priest aside and ask them to hear her confession if she’d been in need.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t assume that. There are many priests where I live, far more than many places in the U.S., and even my opportunities for reconciliation are not “unlimited.” There are many other questions than numbers of priests, like how available these priests made the sacrament.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top