My first Charismatic Mass

[ac_claire]

You asked, “Am I being uncharitable?” I believe so, but more so to Our Lord whom you refused to receive in Holy Communion.

It wasn’t a “refusal”…

Given the OP’s state of mind at the time, I think it was wise and prudent for him to make the decision to not receive. Didn’t sound like he was properly disposed (he was frustrated, angry, distracted, etc…), and it’s a much graver sin to receive Communion when you’re not disposed than to opt out. This is what the Church advises us.

 

[Sirach2]

. . . and it’s a much graver sin to receive Communion when you’re not disposed than to opt out. This is what the Church advises us.

Could you explain to me where the church advises anyone to abstain from receiving the Eucharist when they suffer from involuntary distractions? Many times, much against my own will, I am caught in a position where the suffering of these is external and unavoidable. Shall I then avoid this most holy sacrament at a moment when I most need the grace to overcome? Never have I seen this in the lives of saints, that indisposition [whether mild or severe] becomes an excuse to avoid receiving Jesus. After all, He knows how we are suffering, and longs to unite himself with us. I believe this could be the devil’s field day and if he sees that we respond negatively to external stimuli, he will waste no time in setting other snares in our path to keep us from communion.

I don’t believe it is a grave sin to receive when one is trying to dispel anger or frustration. In fact, it is no sinful matter whatsoever, provided the person is “unwillingly suffering them.” How often I have sat in church with toddlers or babies that are so disruptive throughout the entire mass that I miss the homily and have to fight interiorly to stay calm, rather than suggest that parents take them to the cry room. And other such disturbances. The OP is a very devoted soul who anticipated a beautiful liturgy, and I don’t believe the external actions of the celebrant should have caused him to deny himself the joy of intimate union with Christ.

Only two cents, and my opinion. Bottom line, I esteem the Eucharist so highly that I cannot imagine going to a single mass and deliberately failing to receive. I recall not having kept the full hour fast on one occasion, and I did not go to communion, but it bothered me so much that I kept strict watch over this thereafter.

 

[benedictgal]

As others have stated, while the Gloria is typically not used during the week, the Church does call for it during memorials of the Apostles (St. Matthias being one of them) and solemnities. The responsorial psalm should never be abrogated. Ditto for the Agnus Dei.

For a daily Mass, the parts of the Mass hold precedence over any other music. The Gospel Acclamation should be sung; however, the one thing that was done correctly in what the OP reported was that since it was not sung, it was omitted (which should happen anyway). The Sanctus, Memorial Acclamation and the Great Amen should, in theory, be sung, as they belong to the first order of prayers that should be sung during the Mass.

The washing of the fingers is part of the Mass. It is a ritual that should not be skipped. It is the priest’s ritual purifcation before the sacrifice.

Contrary to what some might think, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not some free form exercise in creativity. Unfortunately, there are some movements that seem to think that the Mass is their own personal property to do with as they place. The Holy See has already taken some movements to task over their handling of the Mass.

The Church gives us the prayers and the readings. We need to heed them and read them. As I read the OP’s post, he was denied his right toa properly celebrated Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, free from the stain of abuse.

 

[boatbearer]

It has not yet been determined that serious abuses occurred, since most of the objections that the OP raised were shown to be valid. If he is used to a TLM, this would naturally cause a disturbance in his mind, but this is why I suggested he speak with the Monsignor or another charismatic who is well informed about that form of liturgy. Questions are the best way to open doors to learning and dispel anxiety. I agree with your post the other day, where you said:

Since this mass was following “essential character, regardless of form” it could not be classed as abusive regarding the externals, and thereby be worthy of your leaving. Keep in mind that this celebrant flew in from South Africa, and is not under the GIRM regulations for the US. Here is only one example:

The OP has not clarified whether a “gradual” was substituted lawfully, or if the entire psalm was sung without a response - also lawful. And this is only one of the many things that upset him, which were really not abusive, yet hopefully gave him the necessary instruction so he won’t be alarmed in the future.

I did except the agnus dei being omitted, and will give the celebrant the benefit of my doubt that it was not intentional.

Re your comment about “crossing the line,” if you failed to understand the intent of my second paragraph, I have nothing further to add.

Thanks again for drilling-down further on this matter. All too often emotion and confusion drive our judgment of liturgies. That not fair to the celebrant and it’s especially not fair to God. The Mass is the absolute least trivial thing we have here on Earth. We need to be extra careful when we judge its celebration.

 

[benedictgal]

Thanks again for drilling-down further on this matter. All too often emotion and confusion drive our judgment of liturgies. That not fair to the celebrant and it’s especially not fair to God. The Mass is the absolute least trivial thing we have here on Earth. We need to be extra careful when we judge its celebration.

But, we also need to be careful to see that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is treated with the utmost dignity, solemnity and respect that it deserves. A point that, I believe, is missing in your posts. It is certainly unfair to God that our highest form of prayer is subject to the idiosyncracies of the celebrant and the liturgical movements who sometimes tend to, as I have experienced it, treat the Mass as their own personal property as opposed to the Church’s prayer.

 

[LindaSK]

Could you explain to me where the church advises anyone to abstain from receiving the Eucharist when they suffer from involuntary distractions? Many times, much against my own will, I am caught in a position where the suffering of these is external and unavoidable. Shall I then avoid this most holy sacrament at a moment when I most need the grace to overcome? Never have I seen this in the lives of saints, that indisposition [whether mild or severe] becomes an excuse to avoid receiving Jesus. After all, He knows how we are suffering, and longs to unite himself with us. I believe this could be the devil’s field day and if he sees that we respond negatively to external stimuli, he will waste no time in setting other snares in our path to keep us from communion.

I don’t believe it is a grave sin to receive when one is trying to dispel anger or frustration. In fact, it is no sinful matter whatsoever, provided the person is “unwillingly suffering them.” How often I have sat in church with toddlers or babies that are so disruptive throughout the entire mass that I miss the homily and have to fight interiorly to stay calm, rather than suggest that parents take them to the cry room. And other such disturbances. The OP is a very devoted soul who anticipated a beautiful liturgy, and **I don’t believe the external actions of the celebrant should have caused him to deny himself the joy of intimate union with Christ. **

Only two cents, and my opinion. Bottom line, I esteem the Eucharist so highly that I cannot imagine going to a single mass and deliberately failing to receive. I recall not having kept the full hour fast on one occasion, and I did not go to communion, but it bothered me so much that I kept strict watch over this thereafter.

1 Corinthians 11: 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.

In order for a sin to be mortal, it must meet three conditions:

* Mortal sin is a sin of grave matter
* Mortal sin is committed with full knowledge of the sinner
* Mortal sin is committed with deliberate consent of the sinner

This means that mortal sins cannot be done "accidentally." A person who commits a mortal sin is one who knows that their sin is wrong, but still deliberately commits the sin anyway.

If I am sitting at Mass, and something happens that makes me angry, uncharitable, etc., and I willingly persist in that feeling, and refuse to let it go, to my way of thinking, all 3 criteria for a mortal sin exist. I would, and have, not received Jesus until I could go to Confession. There is no time and no opportunity to get a second opinion from a priest first. I would rather err on the side of not receiving Communion, than receive without being in a state of grace, thus committing another mortal sin. Our ‘obligation’ is to attend Mass, not to receive Communion, for this very reason.

If something should disturb me in the course of a Mass, and I say a prayer and let it go, then, I will receive Jesus.

It is not for us to presume anyone else’s worthiness to receive Communion. I worry about me. It takes some courage to refrain from going up for Communion when everyone around you goes forward, especially when you have examined your conscience and deemed yourself to be in a state of mortal sin. “What will others think?” It’s not a question of being scrupulous, but of being respectful of the Sacrament. It is a privilege, not a right. We are not simply** entitled** to receive the Eucharist. As Catholics, we should understand our responsibilities before we approach for Communion.

 

[Sirach2]

LindaSK:

If I am sitting at Mass, and something happens that makes me angry, uncharitable, etc., and I willingly persist in that feeling, and refuse to let it go, to my way of thinking, all 3 criteria for a mortal sin exist.

I am really concerned as to why you labeled this a mortal sin, which it is not, due to lack of grave matter. Anger, even anger persisted in willingly, is not a mortal sin, though it can lead to it if one acts maliciously upon that anger. So even if the anger was entertained willingly for a period of time, without personal efforts to dispel it, the fact that it was venial would be no impediment to communion. The only impediment would be one’s nasty disposition, and I can see reasons to refrain from communion in that case - but not because it is a mortal sin.

Remember the condtion in my post? That “the person is unwillingly suffering them [involuntary distractions, anger, frustrations]?” And making efforts to repel these thoughts? They are involuntarily present due to unavoidable circumstances imposed upon oneself. No sin whatsoever. Perhaps an example of a saint might help.
St. Therese of Lisieux:

This Sister began making a strange little noise which resembled the noise one would make when rubbing two shells, one against the other. I was the only one to notice it because I had extremely sensitive hearing. Mother, it would be impossible for me to tell you how much this little noise wearied me. I had a great desire to turn my head and stare at the culprit who was very certainly unaware of her ”click.” However, in the bottom of my heart I felt it was much better to suffer this out of love for God and not to cause the Sister pain. I felt the perspiration inundate me, and I was obliged simply to make a prayer of suffering. However, I searched for a way of doing it without annoyance and with peace and joy, at least in the interior of my soul. I tried to love the little noise which was so displeasing; instead of trying not to hear it (impossible). I spent my prayer in offering this concert to Jesus.

Anyone who is inundated with perspiration is definitely not enduring a mild confrontation, but one that caused her to fight hard against her impulse to show strong disapproval to that Sister.

The last sentence was the essence of my advice to the OP, that he make a communion of reparation and love for what he was suffering. St. Therese most certainly did not refrain from communion in this example, which is only one of many others I could present. I’m having a difficult time understanding why this is so hard for some posters to comprehend, unless they perhaps struggle with a scrupulous conscience???

 

[boatbearer]

I am really concerned as to why you labeled this a mortal sin, which it is not, due to lack of grave matter. Anger, even anger persisted in willingly, is not a mortal sin, though it can lead to it if one acts maliciously upon that anger. So even if the anger was entertained willingly for a period of time, without personal efforts to dispel it, the fact that it was venial would be no impediment to communion. The only impediment would be one’s nasty disposition, and I can see reasons to refrain from communion in that case - but not because it is a mortal sin.

Remember the condtion in my post? That “the person is unwillingly suffering them [involuntary distractions, anger, frustrations]?” And making efforts to repel these thoughts? They are involuntarily present due to unavoidable circumstances imposed upon oneself. No sin whatsoever. Perhaps an example of a saint might help.

Anyone who is inundated with perspiration is definitely not enduring a mild confrontation, but one that caused her to fight hard against her impulse to show strong disapproval to that Sister.

The last sentence was the essence of my advice to the OP, that he make a communion of reparation and love for what he was suffering. St. Therese most certainly did not refrain from communion in this example, which is only one of many others I could present. I’m having a difficult time understanding why this is so hard for some posters to comprehend, unless they perhaps struggle with a scrupulous conscience???

You make some great points. The healing effect of receiving Holy Communion in such a setting would be so powerful. It would be a shame if it was forgone due to a misunderstanding of the requisites for committing mortal sin. Again, a great posting.

 

[Sirach2]

:hug1: Boatbearer, I can’t pass up a chance to publicly send you my appreciation for your support in this thread. You’re such a special person! Thank you!

I did a little searching today, just in case some others doubted that anger is NOT a sin.
Fr. Serpa addressed this specifically in AAA on the forum.

If the thoughts are involuntary, (this also goes for sexual thoughts) then there can be no sin. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=347133&highlight=anger

Expressing anger is not necessarily sinful. Anger is an honest emotion. Emotions are like auxiliary generators. They add thrust to our choices, but are not capable of choosing.
If we sin when we are angry it is because of the choice our intellect and judgment have made—not because of the emotion itself.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=231501&highlight=anger

We have witness of Jesus’ anger in Mark 3:5, and certainly he did not sin.

Looking around at them with anger and grieved at their hardness of heart, he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out and his hand was restored.

Obviously, none of us really know what was in the heart of the OP when he became angry, whether it was entertained, or involuntary with attempts to subdue it. That is his call alone, but in the case that it was involuntary, I offered my opinion that he should receive Our Lord.

 

[cheese_sdc]

If someone put a gun to my head and made me go to Charismatic anything, I’d seriously consider taking the shot.

 

[ac_claire]

Sirach, anger can be a mortal sin. It is not inherently one, but it *can *be- that’s the point. Even if the anger and distraction one feels isn’t a mortal sin, it still very well might distract one so much, or push one into such an uncharitable frame of mind that they really don’t feel properly disposed to receive Communion. You simply can’t judge another’s heart and claim that their discernment in this matter is wrong. Yes, we should all strive to manage our emotions and our responses to outside distractions. And yes, if taken too far this kind of discernment about one’s disposition to receive Communion can indicate scrupulosity. But when *not *taken too far, I would call it just having a good conscience.

My husband has declined receiving Communion in similar situations that the OP found himself in, and although I felt bad for him, I really admired his faith in the Sacrament and how serious he takes it. We are NOT required to receive Communion every time we go to Mass. I don’t want to get into an argumentative back-and-forth with you, Sirach, but I just am not sure why you would try to discourage someone from not following their conscience when their conscience is clearly telling them that they aren’t properly disposed to receive the Eucharist

Making a spiritual communion is a great thing to learn how to do. (Sidenote: I was raised Catholic, but not baptised till I was 16 (loooong story) so I spent my entire childhood going to Mass every Sunday and sitting in the pew making a spiritual communion while my cousins and aunts went up to receive actual Communion. It was rough, but over the years it really made me understand how precious and how holy the Eucharist is.)

 

[LindaSK]

Sirach, anger can be a mortal sin. It is not inherently one, but it *can *be- that’s the point. Even if the anger and distraction one feels isn’t a mortal sin, it still very well might distract one so much, or push one into such an uncharitable frame of mind that they really don’t feel properly disposed to receive Communion. You simply can’t judge another’s heart and claim that their discernment in this matter is wrong. Yes, we should all strive to manage our emotions and our responses to outside distractions. And yes, if taken too far this kind of discernment about one’s disposition to receive Communion can indicate scrupulosity. But when *not *taken too far, I would call it just having a good conscience.

My husband has declined receiving Communion in similar situations that the OP found himself in, and although I felt bad for him, I really admired his faith in the Sacrament and how serious he takes it. We are NOT required to receive Communion every time we go to Mass. I don’t want to get into an argumentative back-and-forth with you, Sirach, but I just am not sure why you would try to discourage someone from not following their conscience when their conscience is clearly telling them that they aren’t properly disposed to receive the Eucharist

Making a spiritual communion is a great thing to learn how to do. (Sidenote: I was raised Catholic, but not baptised till I was 16 (loooong story) so I spent my entire childhood going to Mass every Sunday and sitting in the pew making a spiritual communion while my cousins and aunts went up to receive actual Communion. It was rough, but over the years it really made me understand how precious and how holy the Eucharist is.)

God bless,
Linda

 

[Sirach2]

I don’t want to get into an argumentative back-and-forth with you, Sirach,

You will continue to rebut this, because you believe you are right. However, this is “your” and Linda’s own opinion, which may not be well formed.

… but I just am not sure why you would try to discourage someone from not following their conscience when their conscience is clearly telling them that they aren’t properly disposed to receive the Eucharist.

I have given the example of Jesus Christ becoming angry (without sinning), a saint who was so distraught that she broke out in perspiration, and theological opinions from CAF’s priest/apologist. If these three are not in accord with your “opinion” … then nothing else I say or post will convince you.

For the last time, I will repeat that I simply offered the OP the opportunity to inform his conscience with teachings dealing with involuntary anger outside of one’s control, so that he may not fall under scrupulosity or deprive himself needlessly of receiving the Eucharist. In many of his/our liturgies, situations will often arise that deeply ruffle our feathers, and we will never be free from reacting internally.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

I have attended several Charismatic Masses. Years ago I attended one celebrated by Dominican priests who themselves were not charismatic and the Mass was done reverently and in line with the rubics.

At the most recent ones I found the same things you mentioned. The Mass lasted maybe 15 0r 20 minutes and many prayers were left out. The music was of poor quality and loud.

Although there are many disturbing things with these Masses, I go for the healing part and do know that the Holy Spirit is there. Most of the people who attend are going for the healing of a physical or spiritual condition and I do know that my dauthter was given a spiritual healing. So I have mixed feelings.

I also think that many of the innovations in our OF Masses stem from these Masses. Now they are just accepted as part of the Mass without question by most Catholics in the pew.

Since you live in Orlando, I don’t know for sure but there might be a chance on an Anglican Use parish forming there after the Ordinariates are established. I know an Anglican priest who is coming over to Rome through the Ordinariate resides there if my memory is correct. If one is established, it might take a year or more and you have not found a parish you are comfortable with, try an AU parish. I think you would find them very traditional and reverent.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

Bernedette:

I’ve corresponded with the ACA/TAC Bishop there - I think his whole Diocese is coming over & you’ll see they have a parish in Orlando
ACA/TAC - Diocese of the Eastern United States
theparish.org/html/deus/DEUS.html
Which just happens to be right around the corner from you —
** Cathedral of the Incarnation**
1515 Edgewater Drive, Orlando, Florida
theparish.org/

Even if Alex can’t make his Sunday Communion there just yet, he’ll be able to fellowship there & go to the Bible Studies & St. Dunstan’s Evening Prayer (I think Alex will find this to be a treat).

Something else I could suggest is to check into the Eastern Catholic Churches - I’ve been attending my local Maronite Catholic Church, and the Divine Liturgy is as close to heaven as I think I’ll get on this side… They love the Lord and each other, they’re reverent, and they’re not afraid to let people know how much they love the Lord. The Liturgy the Maronites use is called “The Anaphora of the 12 Apostles” and is the basis for the Liturgy used by the Orthodox it’s so ancient. When sung, you feel as if you’re being placed on the Altar with the bread and the wine… I strongly recommend trying this.

St. Jude Catholic Church - Maronite Rite
5555 Dr. Phillips Boulevard
Orlando, Florida 32819

saintjudechurch.org/
saintjudechurch.org/mass.html
saintjudechurch.org/contact.html

Regarding the situation at the Charismatic Mass - I have a policy that if something bothers me that much, I make an appointment and talk to the priest about it… The Scriptures have told us that’s how were are to deal with such things, and I believe in following that procedure unless Holy Mother Church has laid down another Procedure and requested that that be used.

One of these should fill Alex’s need.
Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Could you explain to me where the church advises anyone to abstain from receiving the Eucharist when they suffer from involuntary distractions? Many times, much against my own will, I am caught in a position where the suffering of these is external and unavoidable. Shall I then avoid this most holy sacrament at a moment when I most need the grace to overcome? Never have I seen this in the lives of saints, that indisposition [whether mild or severe] becomes an excuse to avoid receiving Jesus. After all, He knows how we are suffering, and longs to unite himself with us. I believe this could be the devil’s field day and if he sees that we respond negatively to external stimuli, he will waste no time in setting other snares in our path to keep us from communion.

Sirach -

To answer your Question - That is what the Sacrament of Confession is For. If I’m NOT “In love and Charity with my neighbor”, then I need to abstain from the Sacrament that declares to God, and to the world, that I am “In love and charity with my neighbor”, and I need to find the nearest Confessor and to offer this to God in the form of Confession. St. Paul is very clear in 1 Corinthians 11 that those who receive the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord unworthily sin against the Body and Blood of the Lord and eat and drink judgment on themselves. :stretcher:

As St. Paul said we are to judge ourselves before taking this Sacrament, that is what I’ll do and what I suppose the OP did… The Greek Fathers in the Philokalia said there are situations where I should be righteously angry over my own sins and over how I’ve allowed them to come into my life, esp. when it comes to those sins which are “Besetting Sins”. Scripture & Tradition both allow that there are even situations where I need to be righteously angry over injustices perpetrated on the innocent by the powerful or by Heresy and Schism and by how these lead the sheep astray or by abuses inside the Church against the Lord and against His sheep.

None of these seem to have happened here… The OP, Alex Luciano, was angry because he didn’t like what he thought were abuses… Things which he thought made the Mass Illicit. In such a case, if I were unable to concentrate on the Lord because of my anger, I would also have to Abstain - Simply because I would not be properly disposed to receive the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords, the Creator of the Universe, the Lamb slain from the Foundation of the world and He who died and Rose again, Who is, Who was and Who is to come…

There really should be no argument here… We all know that allowances are made for the Daily Mass, but it still needs to be treated as the Liturgy of the Church, not the Priest’s Private Liturgy. It doesn’t matter where he comes from, The GIRM gives us certain norms we as Catholics should be able to rely on… So that the Liturgy of the Word includes certain things, even on Tuesday, and the Liturgy of the Eucharist includes certain things, even if the priest is a Jesuit from Sri Lanka.

If the priest didn’t conform to those, the OP has every right to make an Appointment with the Priest and to ask the priest why he excluded those things. He has a right to bring a witness, if he wants. I don’t believe charges should be made against priests here, but people need to be able to come here and say what happened and ask for advice… And, NOT have someone telling them that they misunderstood what the priest did or that what the priest did was OK by someone who wasn’t there who doesn’t know them from Adam…

I don’t think the OP came here for an argument - He wanted to know where to go and what to do… This is where Alex at least used to go to talk things out - I’m sure after this exchange he’s not the only one reconsidering whether that’s such a wise thing to do…

And, I’ve read your first reply to Alex - I really do wish people would put themselves in the shoes of the other person, or see themselves as the recipient of some of what they say, before hitting the POST button.

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[Adonia]

CDNowak,

I believe my posts were addressed to Alex, and I’m finding it problematic that you intervened to upbraid me with your moderator hat, especially when I pointed out my true meaning when I adopted his own word “uncharitable.” If that is not good enough, and if you seek an argument, you won’t find it in me, as I said before. You are entitled to your opinion, but not to rephrasing my words to make them appear more “libelous.” These were not my words. This is my last post with you. Kindly end this nonsense.

Even though your posts were “addressed to Alex”, may I be so bold as to ask is: Is this not a forum where anyone can comment to anyone about anything that is written? You then have the ability to respond without having to “upbraid” the person who you accused of upbraiding you. Isn’t that so?

 

[Sirach2]

Traditional Ang:

St. Paul is very clear in 1 Corinthians 11 that those who receive the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord unworthily sin against the Body and Blood of the Lord and eat and drink judgment on themselves.

How easily one may take this scripture out of context. “Unworthily” needs to be defined as a state of mortal sin, not an indisposition. None of us know the OP’s state of mind, whether he was in rage and hatred, or simply fighting an involuntary emotion of anger, but in the case of the latter, he was worthy to receive communion and ask Our Lord’s help and grace to properly deal with the matter.

I don’t know how many more of these posts I need to cite to convince you and others that this is NOT a mortal sin, and may not even be a sin at all.

Being angry is not sinful or a sin, it is a human emotion. What you do with that anger can be however. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1273992&postcount=6

As for the rest of your post, I have no comment.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please refrain from making personal comments about each other’s posts, people. Remember, charity in all things. Thank you everyone.

 

[ac_claire]

You will continue to rebut this, because you believe you are right. However, this is “your” and Linda’s own opinion, which may not be well formed

I’m rebutting what you’ve said because it doesn’t make sense to me, period. Not because I believe I am RIGHT and have decided that nothing will change my mind…

I have given the example of Jesus Christ becoming angry (without sinning), a saint who was so distraught that she broke out in perspiration, and theological opinions from CAF’s priest/apologist. If these three are not in accord with your “opinion” … then nothing else I say or post will convince you.

I’m not sure exactly what opinion it is that you think we hold…

Convince me of what? That anger isn’t always sinful? Who said that anger was inherently sinful? *Nobody * has said that it was, least of all me. However, anger *can be *sinful, and can lead to grave sin just as much as any other strong emotion. Would you deny that?

I don’t think that anyone needs to be convinced that anger can be righteous or outside one’s control. I haven’t seen anyone refute that.

All I am saying is that if the OP judged that his anger/distraction made him ill-disposed to receive the Eucharist, you have absolutely no business telling him that he’s wrong. You are not his confessor. Period.

 

[LindaSK]

I’m not sure exactly what opinion it is that you think we hold…

Convince me of what? That anger isn’t always sinful? Who said that anger was inherently sinful? *Nobody * has said that it was, least of all me. However, **anger *can be ***sinful, and can lead to grave sin just as much as any other strong emotion. Would you deny that?

I don’t think that anyone needs to be convinced that anger can be righteous or outside one’s control. I haven’t seen anyone refute that.

All I am saying is that if the OP judged that his anger/distraction made him ill-disposed to receive the Eucharist, you have absolutely no business telling him that he’s wrong. You are not his confessor. Period.

“…if the OP judged that his anger/distraction made him ill-disposed to receive the Eucharist, you have absolutely no business telling him that he’s wrong.”


“anger *can be *sinful, and can lead to grave sin just as much as any other strong emotion.”

Your examples of St.Therese of Lisieux and Jesus in the Temple were examples of people who consciously chose not to persist in their emotions. If you choose to hold onto anger, envy, hatred, etc., however, that constitutes grave matter. Our priest has been very clear in making that distinction. It isn’t that anger is inherently sinful. As scripture tells us, Jesus got angry. Jesus was without sin. However, Jesus did not stay angry. Speaking from my own personal experience, the 2 times I refrained from receiving the Eucharist were occasions when I held onto my anger and just could not let it go. So, the Sacrament I needed, under these circumstances, was the Sacrament of Confession before approaching for Communion. My priest was in agreement. I also discussed the situations with him, which was extremely helpful, as well as being the right thing to do.

“The Church also tells us that the sins of anger, blasphemy, envy, hatred, malice, murder, neglect of Sunday obligation, sins against faith (incredulity against God or heresy), sins against hope (obstinate despair in the hope for salvation and/or presumption that oneself can live without God or be saved by one’s own power) and sins against love (indifference towards charity, ingratitude, and/or hatred of God) also constitute grave matter. This list of grave sins, is based on Jesus Christ’s interpretation of the gravity of the Ten Commandments. Grave sins can be classed as sins against God, neighbor and self, and can further be divided into carnal and spiritual sins (CCC 1853).”

• Finally, the capital sins are also considered grave matter. These sins are vices and are defined as contrary to the Christian virtues of holiness. They are pride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth (acedia).

Note from the author: For those of you who do not understand why these particular sins are of grave matter, I would suggest that you refer to the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas. He does an excellent job of explaining why these sins are of grave matter, and also explores the counter-arguments and objections that some people have regarding these grave sins.*

saintaquinas.com/mortal_sin.html