Pope Francis: if you are in a state of mortal sin, you cannot receive Communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Imdaman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I found it interesting that that was said in the greeting to the Polish pilgrims (it was not said in the main address or in the other greetings). After an audience, the Pope usually says a little bit in each language of the various pilgrimages there. He said this in Polish. The Poles have defended this doctrine more than other groups in the context of recent controversies.
 
Last edited:
Yes I understand what you are getting at and it maybe that he frames what his says for different audiences. THe beauty of today’s tech is that he isn’t able to say something without the whole world knowing what he said. I guess this is treasure and a curse. In this case it is good. Mainly because it (in a round about way) answers the core reasoning behind the Dubia questions.
 
Imdaman said:
I imagine this goes for adultery also.
Click to expand...
Do you have a clear understanding of the diff between:
  1. Engaging in grave matter
  2. Venial culpability re engaging in grave matter?
  3. Committing (personal) mortal sin?
  4. Contracting a state of mortal sin?
  5. Objective mortal sin versus personal mortal sin.
  6. The requirements for receiving public Communion - which is not one and the same with being in a state of sanctifying grace?
If these all sound pretty much the same to you I can understand why you believe all putative adultery banns all sinners from Communion. In fact you are mistaken, just as AL indicates.
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
  1. Engaging in grave matter
  2. Venial culpability re engaging in grave matter?
  3. Committing (personal) mortal sin?
  4. Contracting a state of mortal sin?
  5. Objective mortal sin versus personal mortal sin.
  6. The requirements for receiving public Communion - which is not one and the same with being in a state of sanctifying grace?
Click to expand...
  1. Committing adultery.
  2. Committing a grave sin under circumstances that mitigate one’s responsibility, such as not realizing that sex after divorce and remarriage is adultery.
  3. Committing adultery after one is informed it is adultery.
  4. Being culpable for one’s adulterous acts.
  5. Adultery is objectively a mortal sin. As explained in (2), not all instances of mortal sin come with full culpability.
  6. One cannot receive communion publicly if it gives scandal to others. That is, if one gives the appearance of being in a state of mortal sin.
Now, regarding (2) and (5), culpability is mitigated by ignorance. That excuse, however, does not extend to rejecting the truth. If a person is truly ignorant of the fact that sex after remarriage is adulterous he may not be culpable, but then, after being informed of the doctrinal teaching on the matter rejects it, ignorance no longer mitigates his responsibility. Rejecting an unpleasant truth does not excuse one’s behavior.
 
Ender your name wasn’t Imdaman when I last looked.

And given that you disagree with AL and the Argentinian interpretation that suggests your unusual interpretations above are also in error.

Perhaps I have you confused with another poster but I believe your stance was some esoteric legalistic argument that Pope Francis’s private letter of approval of the Argentinian interpretation was to be disregarded as it was private - even if true and truly revealing what Pope Francis meant in his Apostolic Exhortation. As if the matter were some artificial court case where a judge could arbitrarily decide what reality is or is not.

Well we now know how well that argument fared given his private letter is now part of the official Magisterial recorded documentation on the matter.

Set positions are never a substitute for the gift of reason that God gave us. Likewise I suggest with your stumbling arguments above.

BTW culpability before God and responsibility before man seem to be two very different things.
 
Last edited:
I guess there are places with enough priests to do this sort of thing. I don’t know of any.
 
BlackFriar said:
And given that you disagree with AL and the Argentinian interpretation that suggests your unusual interpretations above are also in error.
Click to expand...
Which part(s) of his interpretation are unusual? Could you rephrase them to present the usual interpretation?
 
I am surely welcome to ask a question of a particular person on a public forum to understand his/her thinking on what I regard as a misunderstanding?
And you are equally welcome to be a voyeur in that process, surely it isn’t a conjugal moment that needs to be conducted in private. You might even learn a new trick, as might I, as might we all.
 
Last edited:
Might have been quicker to answer my post! 🤔, which was:

Which part(s) of his interpretation are unusual? Could you rephrase them to present the usual interpretation?

Of course, you are free not to answer.
 
Hello BlackFriar!

Although I’m pretty sure I agree with you on your numbered distinction between engaging in grave matter, venial culpability re engaging in grave matter, etc., I (like other posters) would like to see you go into a bit more detail. I’m not seeking to attack your argument, but to further understand what it is you’re getting at. If you’d rather PM me about it, I wouldn’t mind that.
 
No, it’s not surprising that the Pope would confirm Tradition that those in a state of mortal sin cannot receive Holy Communion. The question is, what constitutes mortal sin, and how are we to determine who is in such a state? Of course we all know the three conditions for a mortal sin to be contracted; but how can we determine if someone (other than ourselves) has actually met these three conditions?
 
I’m not sure why this is even news.
Of course people in a state of mortal sin should go to Confession first before receiving.
And if they’re not sure if they’re in a state of mortal sin, the correct thing to do is discuss it with one’s confessor.
Nothing has changed about this.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
how are we to determine who is in such a state? Of course we all know the three conditions for a mortal sin to be contracted; but how can we determine if someone (other than ourselves) has actually met these three conditions?
Click to expand...
Unless “we” refers to priests hearing confessions, “we” don’t go around determining whether other people have committed a mortal sin or not. It’s not our place to do so, it’s the confessor’s role to do so. “We” can advise the person that their sin could possibly be grave but that they should go to confession to discuss it, just as “we” might advise a person having chest pains that they could possibly be gravely ill/ in danger of death and they should go to the hospital or to their doctor.
 
If they’re not sure that they’re in a state of mortal sin, then doesn’t that automatically mean that they’re not, considering that one of the requirements for a sin to be mortal is sufficient knowledge?
 
Isn’t this exactly what Pope Francis is trying to get at in AL when he talks about the process of discernment with someone living in an irregular situation?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top