Not allowed Eucharist after confession

[2towers]

This priest was a convert and he understands the persecution a Protestant gets for crossing the Tiber -

Persecution from your former Protestant compatriots or from Catholics? I can imagine the former, but hopefully you got no attitude from Catholics.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

It may be something regarding or confirming if a marriage has taken place at any time? Or take info regarding your personal information and history, so as to prepare your name to be written and placed in that heavenly, eternal, Lambs book of life.

 

[Phemie]

1313 In the Latin Rite, the ordinary minister of Confirmation is the bishop.132 If the need arises, the bishop may grant the faculty of administering Confirmation to priests,133 although it is fitting that he confer it himself, mindful that the celebration of Confirmation has been temporally separated from Baptism for this reason. Bishops are the successors of the apostles. They have received the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders. The administration of this sacrament by them demonstrates clearly that its effect is to unite those who receive it more closely to the Church, to her apostolic origins, and to her mission of bearing witness to Christ.

Can. 883 The following possess the faculty of administering confirmation by the law itself:

1/ within the boundaries of their jurisdiction, those who are equivalent in law to a diocesan bishop;

2/ as regards the person in question, the presbyter who by virtue of office or mandate of the diocesan bishop baptizes one who is no longer an infant or admits one already baptized into the full communion of the Catholic Church;

3/ as regards those who are in danger of death, the pastor or indeed any presbyter.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

CCC
1313 In the Latin Rite, the ordinary minister of Confirmation is the bishop.132 If the need arises, the bishop may grant the faculty of administering Confirmation to priests,133 although it is fitting that he confer it himself,

CCC 1313 applies in all cases such as the OP, to which I was addressing.

Can.883 when canon law gets its authority from the CCC, applies in special circumstances.
a. boundaries of their jurisdiction
b. and those (priest) who are equivalent in law to a bishop, for example,
a Monsignor and not all Priest meet this criterion
c. By virtue of office or mandate which can apply to our OP
d. special circumstances in danger of death
.

Can. 883 The following possess the faculty of administering confirmation by the law itself:

1/ within the boundaries of their jurisdiction, those who are equivalent in law to a diocesan bishop;

2/ as regards the person in question, the presbyter who by virtue of office or mandate of the diocesan bishop baptizes one who is no longer an infant or admits one already baptized into the full communion of the Catholic Church;

3/ as regards those who are in danger of death, the pastor or indeed any presbyter.

I may be guessing, but I don’t believe Canon law supersedes Holy Orders.

 

[FrDavid96]

The reception of already-baptized adults into the Church is reserved to the bishop. For those who need a reference, see RCIA #481

Although some (safe to say most) bishops in the U.S. delegate this to the local pastor, the fact remains that this function is reserved to the bishop–comments by keyboard canonists notwithstanding.

So if the priest says he needs a letter from the vicar general, that is another way of saying that he needs delegation from the bishop before receiving you into the Catholic Church.

Once you become a full member of the Catholic Church, (and after First Communion) then surely, you can receive Communion from any priest.

 

[Inbetweener]

In the reception of converts form which I got to fill in, it says at every reception into the church, Canon law requires the presence of two witnesses whose names and addresses must be properly registered.

My questions are - must these two witnesses be Catholic? Do they need to be present at profession of faith ? As one of my sponsors a sister is abroad preaching.

 

[FrDavid96]

In the reception of converts form which I got to fill in, it says at every reception into the church, Canon law requires the presence of two witnesses whose names and addresses must be properly registered.

My questions are - must these two witnesses be Catholic? Do they need to be present at profession of faith ? As one of my sponsors a sister is abroad preaching.

First and foremost: what country?

I think you are confusing “witness” with “sponsor.”

The practice which has become typical in the U.S. of receiving the already-baptized into the Church at the Easter Vigil Mass is not what was originally intended.

The original rules presumed that reception would take place in a more-or-less private ceremony. So the rule about “2 witnesses” means that it cannot be done entirely in private. So it can’t be done in an empty church with just the pastor and the candidate.

Again, in the U.S. it’s typical for this to be done in front of the entire assembly at Mass. Therefore the rules about witnesses become unnecessary. Yes, the sponsor must be there, and the sponsor is already one witness, whose name is duly recorded. In a situation like this (happening at the Easter Vigil) the second witness simply becomes unnecessary. This isn’t the same thing as a marriage requiring 2 witnesses for validity.

 

[FrDavid96]

…

I may be guessing, but I don’t believe Canon law supersedes Holy Orders.

I have no idea what you’re trying to say with that comment. Can you explain please?

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid96:

OriginalGabrielof12:

…

I may be guessing, but I don’t believe Canon law supersedes Holy Orders.

I have no idea what you’re trying to say with that comment. Can you explain please?

Fr.,

Do you really need to state, “I have no idea what you’re trying to say with that comment”?

Do I “need” to state it? I suppose not.

However, the person who posted it obviously thought it was worth inserting into the conversation.

Since it was made a part of the conversation, I do not see any reason why I should not be able to ask my own question, that the person who posted it explain what it means.

I truly have no idea what that member means. What does someone mean when he says that he does not believe Canon Law supersedes Holy Orders? Does that mean he does believe that Holy Orders supersedes Canon Law? That is one logical way of interpreting it. But is that what the person actually means? And if so, what does that mean in turn? I am a man in Holy Orders. Does this member think that someone like me can then disregard Canon Law because my Ordination gives me that power?

If someone else thinks that I, as a parish priest, by virtue of my Holy Orders, have some authority or power to overrule Canon Law, I have (I feel) a responsibility to clarify that I do not have such powers.

The other possibility is that I am completely misunderstanding the statement altogether.

How can I know if I don’t ask?

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

Canon law sets the boundaries and is subject to change. Holy orders can bind and loose and are not subject to change.

The Church has the power to select a priest to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation. When Canon law states the Bishop is the ordinary minister of Confirmation.

Canon law does not supersede Holy Orders of the bishop.

Question to you FrDavid96. When is a validly baptized person who goes to confession, and then is not allowed to receive the Eucharist at Mass?

 

[FrDavid96]

Canon law sets the boundaries and is subject to change. Holy orders can bind and loose and are not subject to change.

Precisely HOW those Orders are exercised is subject to change, but within certain limits. To illustrate this, there were several changes made to how clerics exercise their Orders from the 1917 to the 1983 Codes.

The Church has the power to select a priest to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation. When Canon law states the Bishop is the ordinary minister of Confirmation.

That is one example of what I stated above. A bishop is the ordinary minister. The Church can decide under what circumstances a priest can be the minister. And the Church does this. More to the point, the Church does this through the act of promulgating canon law.

Canon law does not supersede Holy Orders of the bishop.

What you are apparently missing here is that there is no conflict between canon law and Orders. It is not that one overrules the other. Neither of them work that way, really.

In any case, I don’t see what point you’re trying to make when you say that canon law does not supersede Holy Orders. What exactly do you mean here? I think you tried to explain above, but I still do not understand what you’re trying to convey.

Question to you FrDavid96. When is a validly baptized person who goes to confession, and then is not allowed to receive the Eucharist at Mass?

That’s answered in canon law. There are 3 criteria

1. Properly disposed. After confession usually, but not always, would indicate this. It also means things like not intoxicated or not throwing a temper tantrum in the Communion line.
2. At a reasonable time (Mass is a reasonable time)
3. Not otherwise prohibited by law.

There are all sorts of reasons why #3 might mean that a person is ineligible for Communion at that moment.

If someone has already received Communion at 2 previous Masses that day, such a person is not eligible to receive at the 3rd Mass.

If someone has not observed the Communion fast (with its noted exceptions) he is ineligible.

If someone is under a declared sentence of excommunication or interdict, he is ineligible.

Those are just 3 obvious examples I can recall quickly.

 

[Melchior_1]

On the flip side, you could have sent this to Father David privately. "Hello Father David, I wanted to let you know that I didn’t appreciate the tone you are using with me, and in some of your other posts. Instead, you chose to air your grievances publicly. Yes you can appeal to Proverbs 27:5, however there’s also Matthew 18.

And yes, I’m aware of the irony in myself publicly telling you this.

 

[FrDavid96]

On the flip side, you could have sent this to Father David privately. "Hello Father David, I wanted to let you know that I didn’t appreciate the tone you are using with me, and in some of your other posts. Instead, you chose to air your grievances publicly. Yes you can appeal to Proverbs 27:5, however there’s also Matthew 18.

And yes, I’m aware of the irony in myself publicly telling you this.

For my part, I simply ignored it (and similar comments in other threads). Anyone can read the 2 threads and see for himself what really transpired.

It started here

Validity of Protestant Holy Orders Liturgy and Sacraments

Yes, but those are very few. Most simply ignore the topic altogether. Yes, Orthodox ordinations are valid.

and continued here

Are Orthodox Sacraments Licit? Liturgy and Sacraments

It is rather common knowledge to understand that the Orthodox Church’s Sacraments are valid due to apostolic succession and maintaining the proper form and intention in their rites. However, are the Orthodox Sacraments licit, lawful?

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

Canon law sets the boundaries and is subject to change. Holy orders can bind and loose and are not subject to change.

Precisely HOW those Orders are exercised is subject to change, but within certain limits. To illustrate this, there were several changes made to how clerics exercise their Orders from the 1917 to the 1983 Codes.

In a sense, you have answered your question you posted of mine.

Holy orders are not subject to change. Canon law is subject to change. You answered; “HOW those orders are exercised is subject to change”. Thus canon law does not supersede Holy Orders. Canon law is not ordained by God. Canon law is boundaries declared by the Church to keep her members down the narrow Path and prevent us from falling into error.

In the Sacrament of Confirmation, because the Bishop is the ordinary minister of Confirmation as stated by canon law. The Bishop in possession of valid Holy Orders can assign a priest to administer the sacrament of Confirmation.
It is here where canon law does not supersede Holy Orders. Although canon law may include, add and does stipulate to an agreed action of the Bishop. Canon law does not set a precedence over Holy Orders. Holy Orders has dictated canon law as a guide for her members to follow., who would come after a canon law has been established by the Church who exercises her divine keys. Here canon law has no divine keys to make law or ordain. From the latter example, canon law does not supersede Holy Orders. We are speaking here about the sacramental economy.

Your post to my question has answered the OP, thank you for your answer.

Peace be with tyou

 

[Melchior_1]

He has customized his account settings not to receive private messages; I can only wonder why.

Off the top of my head, there’s some people inherently don’t like priests, and could harass them privately… There’s also the possibility of being swarmed with questions just because he’s a priest. Both would be perfectly benign reasons for a pirest to have that setting enabled.

 

[FrDavid96]

Canon law sets the boundaries and is subject to change. Holy orders can bind and loose and are not subject to change.

Precisely HOW those Orders are exercised is subject to change, but within certain limits. To illustrate this, there were several changes made to how clerics exercise their Orders from the 1917 to the 1983 Codes.

Saying that Orders overrules Law just makes no sense. The two concepts don’t work that way.

The sentences that you are writing just don’t make any logical sense. Therefore I can’t understand what point you’re trying to make.

I am trying to understand what you mean. I am really trying here.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

Saying that Orders overrules Law just makes no sense. The two concepts don’t work that way.

The sentences that you are writing just don’t make any logical sense. Therefore I can’t understand what point you’re trying to make.

I am trying to understand what you mean. I am really trying here.

Let’s not change the terminology. I did not post “Orders overrules law”, which does not make sense to me.

I am posting that canon law when it comes to the sacramental economy does not supersede Holy Orders.
For example; Canon law cannot and does not administer a sacrament.
Holy Orders administers a sacrament. Simply repeated, canon law does not supersede Holy Orders.

I mentioned this to an earlier poster, who gave me the impression that canon law supersedes the bishop who is ordinary minister of the sacrament of confirmation. Because the poster listed a canon law indicating a priest can administer the sacrament of confirmation “at any time”. I disagreed. Only during special circumstances.

Although canon law may stipulate that a priest can administer the sacrament of confirmation. The priest is not the ordinary minister of Confirmation When it is the bishop who delegates to the priest when a priest can administer the sacrament of confirmation.

Just because a canon law item may indicate a priest can perform the sacrament of Confirmation. That canon law does not supersede the bishop who is the ordinary sacrament of confirmation.

I mentioned Holy Orders because both a bishop and a priest can administer the sacrament of confirmation.

Canon law does not supersede or divide what God has joined together in Holy Orders.

I hope that helps clarify my position for you with respect to the other poster who responded to my post.

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid96:

Saying that Orders overrules Law just makes no sense. The two concepts don’t work that way.

The sentences that you are writing just don’t make any logical sense. Therefore I can’t understand what point you’re trying to make.

I am trying to understand what you mean. I am really trying here.

Let’s not change the terminology. I did not post “Orders overrules law”, which does not make sense to me.

I am posting that canon law when it comes to the sacramental economy does not supersede Holy Orders.
For example; Canon law cannot and does not administer a sacrament.
Holy Orders administers a sacrament. Simply repeated, canon law does not supersede Holy Orders.

I mentioned this to an earlier poster, who gave me the impression that canon law supersedes the bishop who is ordinary minister of the sacrament of confirmation. Because the poster listed a canon law indicating a priest can administer the sacrament of confirmation “at any time”. I disagreed. Only during special circumstances.

Although canon law may stipulate that a priest can administer the sacrament of confirmation. The priest is not the ordinary minister of Confirmation When it is the bishop who delegates to the priest when a priest can administer the sacrament of confirmation.

Just because a canon law item may indicate a priest can perform the sacrament of Confirmation. That canon law does not supersede the bishop who is the ordinary sacrament of confirmation.

I mentioned Holy Orders because both a bishop and a priest can administer the sacrament of confirmation.

Canon law does not supersede or divide what God has joined together in Holy Orders.

I hope that helps clarify my position for you with respect to the other poster who responded to my post.

I still don’t understand what you mean. I think I’m simply not going to understand your meaning, so I’ll refrain from asking you to explain it further. Thanks for trying though.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

Your welcome Fr.David96

You having the mind of Christ, may view my small mind undertakings here as foolish.

Yet, my Catholic faith sustains me in all things.

Peace be with you

 

[FrDavid96]

Your welcome Fr.David96

You having the mind of Christ, may view my small mind undertakings here as foolish.

Yet, my Catholic faith sustains me in all things.

Peace be with you

No. I would not say that at all.

I simply don’t understand what you mean.