No Communion until absolution?

[Canvas]

He specifically said to stop watching porn, stop having sex with my gf, and to remove all alcohol from the house, since me and my gf have a problem with it.

Okay, so you have been skipping Mass and living in sin, but you are worried about going to a Mass where most women aren’t veiled?

I’m not going to argue, but if you approve of altar girls, eucharistic ministers, Communion in the hand, etc., then I TOTALLY disagree.

 

[phil19034]

After a lapse of about a year, I went to confession, but priest would not grant absolution until several changes were made in my life as part of my penance,such as attend Mass for the next four Sundays.
Does this mean that I can’t receive Holy Communion until all conditions are met?

You cannot receive Holy Communion until you receive absolution. So it’s not when all conditions are met, it’s when you receive absolution.

God bless and welcome back

 

[thrasher59]

Did I attack you personally? My opinion is my opinion. I started Catholic school in 1964, and can’t recall any school shootings. Getting my life on track is why I’m here, asked the question, and was honest about the severity of my sins. Didn’t expect to have it used against me, so please don’t comment if other than to help.

 

[phil19034]

I’m a few years younger than you and I have been confessing 1 to 3 times a month for the last 3 and a half years since I decided to get right with God, and I’m still too chicken to go to one of those priests.

intestesting… I’ve only been yelled at by OF priests. the FSSP priests have given me solid advice and a fitting penance.

 

[phil19034]

thrasher59:

I forgot to mention the proper dress- Females NEVER wear veils in any Novo Ordo Mass that I’ve been to.

Actually, if you really remember the Mass from childhood, they were probably wearing hats. And since head coverings are not required, perhaps best not to be criticizing the women who are not wearing them —but who are showing up for Mass.

Depends on where the OP was. Some places, lots of women wore hats. Other places, Mantillas were very popular. Where my mother went as a child, they all wore Mantillas.

Where my dad was baptised, they wore Mantillas, but where he received first communion, they wore hats, the tiny circle matillas, mimi veils, and/or shawls

Small Circle Mantillas

Join millions of Catholic women across the ages in devotion to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We offer mantillas and chapel veils handcrafted with soft, supple lace and imported mantillas from Spain and Calais, France. Our veils are of elegance and quality proper for use inside...

www.veilsbylily.com

Mini Starter Veils with Snaps

Perfect for girls 12 and under, this adorable mini starter veil is available in black, off-white and mocha and comes in a half-circle shape and ties behind the neck or under the chin.

www.veilsbylily.com

 

[phil19034]

That was never true. Women were to cover their heads—nothing specific was required. Most women wore hats—some chose mantillas or chapel caps. There was nothing religious or particularly devout about the style of head covering one chose to wear.

Again… depends on the parish and the location.

For example, if you were attending an Italian personal parish (aka national parish) they would have been wearing mantillas, not hats.

 

[JulianN]

Sure. But my point was that “veils” were never required, which the OP took issue with.

 

[phil19034]

Sure. But my point was that “veils” were never required, which the OP took issue with.

it’s a generic term… head covering was what was required, however, veils were the traditional head covering since the time of Jesus. Hats were a relatively modern innovation

 

[thrasher59]

Sorry that I got off topic, last night,and started this. Mea culpa,lol.

 

[JulianN]

Yes, but the OP suggested that women “properly” wore veils, not hats. This was at the point he called the changes to the Mass after Vatican II “abominations.”

 

[phil19034]

Yes, but the OP suggested that women “properly” wore veils, not hats. This was at the point he called the changes to the Mass after Vatican II “abominations.”

It sounds like where he was, hats were not “proper” as it would have been something foreign to his parish. I saw no reason not to give him the benefit of the doubt for that particular comment

 

[CRV]

the FSSP priests have given me solid advice and a fitting penance.

That’s been my experience with them too.

 

[JulianN]

It sounds like where he was, hats were not “proper” as it would have been something foreign to his parish. I saw no reason not to give him the benefit of the doubt for that particular comment

No, what he said was that ‘females’ who were not wearing veils today at the Ordinary Form Masses were not properly attired.

I’m not giving him the benefit of the doubt when he suggests that his personal preferences trump actual Church teaching or when he calls aspects of the Ordinary Form Mass an “abomination.”

 

[po18guy]

Thoughts pop up while reading the sometimes fiery interchanges here. They apply forum-wide, to me first.

Luke 6:37 “Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;

Matthew 12:36-37 I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

This seems literally to be intended to scare hell out of us. However, we must:

Admonish the Sinner - A Reflection on the First Spiritual Work of Mercy - Community in Mission

I wrote last week asking, Whatever happened to the spiritual works of mercy? I also indicated an intent to write on each of them. Here is the first installment: Admonishing the Sinner. The word “admonish” comes from the Latin verb monere meaning to warn, advise, or alert someone to a threat or...

blog.adw.org

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

It sounds like where he was, hats were not “proper” as it would have been something foreign to his parish. I saw no reason not to give him the benefit of the doubt for that particular comment

No, what he said was that ‘females’ who were not wearing veils today at the Ordinary Form Masses were not properly attired.

I’m not giving him the benefit of the doubt when he suggests that his personal preferences trump actual Church teaching or when he calls aspects of the Ordinary Form Mass an “abomination.”

I ignored that, on purpose. I was only giving him the benefit of the doubt when he said his parish didn’t wear hats.

 

[po18guy]

Now, as to the OP’s topic. What was it again???

Oh yeah.

1 Corinthians 11:23-30
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

“Some have died”!!! No, I’d rather do whatever it takes to be absolved first.

 

[CRV]

I had thoughts along the same lines earlier…
CCC #2478
“To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.”

The Op is entitled to their opinion that veils are proper for Mass. Back in the day my mother wore a hat, though I think a few ladies wore veils too. Nowadays, it’d be odd to see a lady wearing a hat inside Church, but most people don’t think twice about ladies wearing veils.

And they are entitled to their opinion regarding the use of EMHC, female altar servers, communion in the hand etc. - as we see below - they said they disagreed.

I’m not going to argue, but if you approve of altar girls, eucharistic ministers, Communion in the hand, etc., then I TOTALLY disagree.

And not everyone is blessed to have reverent Ordinary Form Masses that follow the rubrics, to attend Mass at.

Perhaps the OP post at #31 is unfounded, but if that is so, then perhaps the relevant documents could be linked to. Even if the OP has read said documents, whilst they may agree these things are permitted, they may think for various reasons other ways would be/are better. But that’s just there opinion. And their opinion is not binding on fellow Catholics.

The OP also said “To each their own…”

To @thrasher59 . The bottom line is, unless you were absolved of your sins, then no, you can’t receive Communion until you have been absolved of them.

 

[Kima]

Well, you’re not the priest. It might be better if you don’t assume that whatever the priest does for you should be done for all. Priests are trained on these matters, including how to really help people who are trying to escape sinful habits. Sometimes people need and even want that kind of help.

Yes, but neither are you
I just don´t want people to be frightened about Confession because some priest give awfully lengthy penances and makes it seem very tedious. The absolution is based on the intention of doing better, not whether one does or not.

Once again, are you a priest? And even if you’re a priest, are you the priest in this situation?

Canon Law has the final word here, not some random priest. Thinking that one priest´s opinion weights more heavily than the Cathechism is an issue for sure.

However, the priest should treat his penitents like Christ would´ve, and I´m absolutely sure He wouldn´t send a contrite sinner off without forgiveness in order to test him.

At the end of the day, the priest is simply the minister, not the master of God´s forgiveness.

 

[DeniseNY]

e some priest give awfully lengthy penances and makes it seem very tedious.

For what we’re getting in return, I don’t think a lengthy penance is anything to complain about.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Kima:

e some priest give awfully lengthy penances and makes it seem very tedious.

For what we’re getting in return, I don’t think a lengthy penance is anything to complain about.

You quoted out of context.

This is not about the “penance” which is assigned as satisfaction after absolution but rather that the priest has made completing a lengthy period of “penance” a condition for absolution. We allowed this thread to get diverted with whether Sunday obligation can be a “penance” in the special sense, but that is beside the point, which is that it will take at least four weeks for the OP to attend four Sunday Masses.

So, even if the OP attends to all the other matters on the Saturday and Sunday after confession and presents himself for absolution on Monday, contrite and with firm purpose of amendment, he will still be denied, because the priest has ruled that he won’t be absolved until after attending four Sunday masses.

The OP called this (part of) “the penance”. The word is here being used correctly in the more general sense of turning away from sin and amending one’s life. It is also likely to have been the word used by the priest (as indicated in the first post).

And this is emphatically not allowed for the priest to impose, according to both Canon Law and Church tradition.

This is a very old problem which has been pondered within the church since the first centuries, with rigorists demanding hard conditions for re-admission to the church after serious sin, and the decision of the Church has been to the contrary, also since the first centuries and as currently expressed in Canon 980, which is unambiguous.

Can. 980 If the confessor has no doubt about the disposition of the penitent, and the penitent seeks absolution, absolution is to be neither refused nor deferred.

There is no room for pastoral considerations as to the spiritual welfare of the penitent (in the priest’s opinion). The Church has already decided that absolution is best.

…
The absolution is based on the intention of doing better, not whether one does or not.
…
Canon Law has the final word here, not some random priest.
…
At the end of the day, the priest is simply the minister, not the master of God´s forgiveness.

Well said, and this is the teaching of the Church.