Pope Francis quote used by parish to encourage Communion while in a state of mortal sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter vir_fidelis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Even I think the archbishop’s office is off base here, and generally I tend to be more lenient than most.

It’s quite clear: you can’t just say an act of contrition or something for a mortal sin and then go to communion. You need to go to confession first. It looks to me like the archbishop’s office is re-writing church rules single-handedly.

On the other hand, I think some of you are being too harsh in your posts about missing Mass. In this case, I agree with the archbishop’s office: there’s a difference between doctrine and rules. And I personally see a qualitative difference between missing Mass and murder. Both may be classified as mortal sins, but clearly one is far worse than the other. Yes, it’s a “rule” that we should go to Mass on Sunday. On the other hand, if someone doesn’t go to Mass for 10 years, I think we can safely assume it’s not because that person has made a willful decision to go to Hell, it because that person doesn’t think it’s necessary. So one of the elements of mortal sin is missing. Yes, you could quibble about this forever, but I would give them the benefit of the doubt. On the third hand, I wouldn’t tell them to just forget about it and go to communion, I would tell them to go to confession first.
 
mamlukman said:
Even I think the archbishop’s office is off base here, and generally I tend to be more lenient than most.

It’s quite clear: you can’t just say an act of contrition or something for a mortal sin and then go to communion. You need to go to confession first. It looks to me like the archbishop’s office is re-writing church rules single-handedly.

On the other hand, I think some of you are being too harsh in your posts about missing Mass. In this case, I agree with the archbishop’s office: there’s a difference between doctrine and rules. And I personally see a qualitative difference between missing Mass and murder. Both may be classified as mortal sins, but clearly one is far worse than the other. Yes, it’s a “rule” that we should go to Mass on Sunday. On the other hand, if someone doesn’t go to Mass for 10 years, I think we can safely assume it’s not because that person has made a willful decision to go to Hell, it because that person doesn’t think it’s necessary. So one of the elements of mortal sin is missing. Yes, you could quibble about this forever, but I would give them the benefit of the doubt. On the third hand, I wouldn’t tell them to just forget about it and go to communion, I would tell them to go to confession first.
Click to expand...
Maybe if the murderer had gone to Mass every Sunday, he wouldn’t have murdered. You know when you go to confession and talk to the priest you not only get absolution you also get someone who is interested in your problem or rage. Talking you down and seeking a solution is a part of the process sometimes.

I was taught that the Ten Commandments are in descending order of importance with emphsis on God in the First, Second and Third Commandments. If you keep your eye on God by worshipping Him, you probably will not not slip down to commit murder.

If we weren’t taught this, why would there be so many in Church? Unfortunately, after Vatican II, attendance fell off.
 
The Archbishop’s spokesman is replying in a misleading manner. The question was regarding a person that missed Mass for 10 years receiving Communion without Confession. Of course, that person may attend Confession afterward, say, if he were prepared for Confession and Mass had already begun. Sure, he could potentially receive and them immediately after Mass go to Confession, as he had originally intended. Here, the Archbishop’s representative is making case law out of the exception - a terrible precedent. First, explain the NORMAL practice, then give some examples of how there might be some cases where this happens as an extraordinary exception.

It’s no wonder Catholics and Christians in general are so confused.
 
Phemie said:
In my parish of 450 families I’ve never seen anyone in line unless it was a Reconciliation service. On a regular Saturday afternoon I’m usually alone.
Click to expand...
We have people n line, as does another local parish, but usually everybody going to confession is elderly.
 
cargau said:
OK, this is kind of silly.
Click to expand...
What part of what I said was silly?

That deliberately missing mass on Sunday is a mortal sin? #[22 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12759634&postcount=22)

or
is it silly to quote Ecclesiastes 10:2 A wise man’s heart inclines him toward the right, but a fool’s heart toward the left.
c:
According to Wikipedia: “The terms “left” and “right” appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president’s right and supporters of the revolution to his left. One deputy, the Baron de Gauville explained, “We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp.” However the Right opposed the seating arrangement because they believed that deputies should support private or general interests but should not form factions or political parties. The contemporary press occasionally used the terms “left” and “right” to refer to the opposing sides.[9]”
Click to expand...
according to Wiki? Really?

Have you not read wiki’s disclaimers. Please read them. They gurantee nothing in wiki!
Imagine if scripture had such disclaimers. Think about that. Would you even crack the cover of the book? I sure wouldn’t.
c:
Somehow, I believe that Jesus is far more concerned with what is in the heart.

What part of Ecclesiastes 10:2 do you think Jesus disagrees with?

BTW, as a heads up, when Jesus judges you, you don’t want to be on the left.
c:
Each of us is on a journey (hopefully culminating in Heaven) and each of us is at a different point. Maybe the emptiness one has suffered by trying to “go it alone” (no Jesus, Mass, Sacraments, etc) is the way God is calling them. Please consider that it may be possible that the sinner is trying to find their way to God. It should not be through a legalistic minefield.
Click to expand...
legalistic minefield?

when I show from scripture, why deliberately missing mass on Sunday is a mortal sin, #[22 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12759634&postcount=22) , what part of that is a legalistic minefield?

For those who understand this passage, Ecclesiastes 10:2 it speaks volumes!
 
I sent the following response to the Archbishop’s office:

It is doctrine and, as such, is contained in The Catechism of the Catholic Church starting in paragraph 1385:

1385 To respond to this invitation we must prepare ourselves for so great and so holy a moment. St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience: “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.”218Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion. (1457)

Another key paragraph is 1457:

1457 According to the Church’s command, “after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess serious sins at least once a year.”56Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession.57 Children must go to the sacrament of Penance before receiving Holy Communion for the first time.58 (2042, 1385)

I am not suggesting that all doctrine equates to a dogma such as you imply below. Since this is contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I do believe this qualifies it to be doctrine and a matter of faith and morals, and not a mere discipline.
 
As the original poster, I want to reply to a few themes that have arisen on this thread.

First, my intent was not to take a swipe at the parish. I’m sure it is a nice place to worship and that they are doing a great job with outreach to the community (both Catholics and non-Catholics). I admire what they are doing.

Second, the intent of the title “encourage Communion while in a state of mortal sin” is a statement of fact. They are encouraging all Catholics, without further qualification, to receive Communion in direct response to the question about not going to mass or confession in years. I am not judging anyone’ here. The facts add up: no mass for years PLUS no confession for years EQUALS, at best a grave condition that requires sacramental reconciliation before receiving Communion. Period. I’m not making this stuff up.

Third, it is absolutely irresponsible for a parish website (and now the Archbishop’s office) to be so misleading on this point. This is way different than correcting a fellow layperson on a doctrinal matter. This is an entire parish office and an archdiocesan office that has the responsibility to teach truth, not distort it. They are contributing to scandal, and thus also committing sin themselves.
 
vir_fidelis said:
As the original poster, I want to reply to a few themes that have arisen on this thread.

First, my intent was not to take a swipe at the parish. I’m sure it is a nice place to worship and that they are doing a great job with outreach to the community (both Catholics and non-Catholics). I admire what they are doing.

Second, the intent of the title “encourage Communion while in a state of mortal sin” is a statement of fact. They are encouraging all Catholics, without further qualification, to receive Communion in direct response to the question about not going to mass or confession in years. I am not judging anyone’ here. The facts add up: no mass for years PLUS no confession for years EQUALS, at best a grave condition that requires sacramental reconciliation before receiving Communion. Period. I’m not making this stuff up.

Third, it is absolutely irresponsible for a parish website (and now the Archbishop’s office) to be so misleading on this point. This is way different than correcting a fellow layperson on a doctrinal matter. This is an entire parish office and an archdiocesan office that has the responsibility to teach truth, not distort it. They are contributing to scandal, and thus also committing sin themselves.
Click to expand...
Next time you visit our fair city and need to go to Mass, may I humbly suggest:

fssp.la/

They are new here, and doing good work as well, and you will not find the controversy that troubles you with them. God bless you.
 
christofirst said:
Next time you visit our fair city and need to go to Mass, may I humbly suggest:

fssp.la/

They are new here, and doing good work as well, and you will not find the controversy that troubles you with them. God bless you.
Click to expand...
I’m not personally troubled by this. I attended mass at St. Monica after reading the FAQ. I would still attend mass at St. Monica in the future. The FAQ is misleading, and is likely scandalizing people, and I am doing my duty as a Catholic to let them know. I am surprised by the archibishop’s office’s response. I will probably go up the ladder on that one too.
 
TimothyH said:
The OP is not supposed to name individual parishes.

Banned Topic List
19. Identifying individual parishes, clergy, or hierarchs as “unfaithful to the Magisterium”, guilty of “liturgical abuse”, or otherwise engaged in unacceptable or unpopular practices, based on personal “knowledge” or opinion

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2363943&postcount=6

-Tim
Click to expand...
Well, technically this is not personal knowledge but a public statement. Just sayin.
 
TimothyH said:
The OP is not supposed to name individual parishes.

Banned Topic List
19. Identifying individual parishes, clergy, or hierarchs as “unfaithful to the Magisterium”, guilty of “liturgical abuse”, or otherwise engaged in unacceptable or unpopular practices, based on personal “knowledge” or opinion

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2363943&postcount=6

-Tim
Click to expand...
It’s not based on personal knowledge. I am citing a public website. I have also purposefully kept the name of the individual from the archbishop’s office out of this.
 
steve_b said:
What part of what I said was silly?

That deliberately missing mass on Sunday is a mortal sin? #[22 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12759634&postcount=22)

or
is it silly to quote Ecclesiastes 10:2 A wise man’s heart inclines him toward the right, but a fool’s heart toward the left.

according to Wiki? Really?

Have you not read wiki’s disclaimers. Please read them. They gurantee nothing in wiki!
Imagine if scripture had such disclaimers. Think about that. Would you even crack the cover of the book? I sure wouldn’t.

What part of Ecclesiastes 10:2 do you think Jesus disagrees with?

BTW, as a heads up, when Jesus judges you, you don’t want to be on the left.

legalistic minefield?

when I show from scripture, why deliberately missing mass on Sunday is a mortal sin, #[22 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12759634&postcount=22) , what part of that is a legalistic minefield?

For those who understand this passage, Ecclesiastes 10:2 it speaks volumes!

There are many sources that back that up. You may do well to research a claim before you post it. What’s silly is the claim that our current understanding of right and left as it relates to political and philosophical thought can be traced back to the verse you cited. While that may be a very nice verse, it has nothing to do with conservative vs. liberal.

What I mean regarding a legalistic minefield is that one should be free to come to the banquet if their heart leads them. Look at Luke’s gospel 6:1-10…

a While he was going through a field of grain on a sabbath, his disciples were picking the heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands, and eating them.b
2
Some Pharisees said, “Why are you doing what is unlawful on the sabbath?”
3
c Jesus said to them in reply, “Have you not read what David did when he and those [who were] with him were hungry?
4
[How] he went into the house of God, took the bread of offering,* which only the priests could lawfully eat, ate of it, and shared it with his companions.”d
5
Then he said to them, “The Son of Man is lord of the sabbath.”

6
e On another sabbath he went into the synagogue and taught, and there was a man there whose right hand was withered.
7
The scribes and the Pharisees watched him closely to see if he would cure on the sabbath so that they might discover a reason to accuse him.f
8
But he realized their intentions and said to the man with the withered hand, “Come up and stand before us.” And he rose and stood there.g
9
Then Jesus said to them, “I ask you, is it lawful to do good on the sabbath rather than to do evil, to save life rather than to destroy it?”
10
Looking around at them all, he then said to him, “Stretch out your hand.” He did so and his hand was restored.

Honoring the Sabbath is the law. Jesus does not abolish the law but I sense that he is more concerned with the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law as the Scribes and Pharisees thought. Somehow, I think the Archbishop and the Pope both agree…
Click to expand...
 
cargau said:
There are many sources that back that up. You may do well to research a claim before you post it. What’s silly is the claim that our current understanding of right and left as it relates to political and philosophical thought can be traced back to the verse you cited. While that may be a very nice verse, it has nothing to do with conservative vs. liberal.

What I mean regarding a legalistic minefield is that one should be free to come to the banquet if their heart leads them. Look at Luke’s gospel 6:1-10…

a While he was going through a field of grain on a sabbath, his disciples were picking the heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands, and eating them.b
2
Some Pharisees said, “Why are you doing what is unlawful on the sabbath?”
3
c Jesus said to them in reply, “Have you not read what David did when he and those [who were] with him were hungry?
4
[How] he went into the house of God, took the bread of offering,* which only the priests could lawfully eat, ate of it, and shared it with his companions.”d
5
Then he said to them, “The Son of Man is lord of the sabbath.”

6
e On another sabbath he went into the synagogue and taught, and there was a man there whose right hand was withered.
7
The scribes and the Pharisees watched him closely to see if he would cure on the sabbath so that they might discover a reason to accuse him.f
8
But he realized their intentions and said to the man with the withered hand, “Come up and stand before us.” And he rose and stood there.g
9
Then Jesus said to them, “I ask you, is it lawful to do good on the sabbath rather than to do evil, to save life rather than to destroy it?”
10
Looking around at them all, he then said to him, “Stretch out your hand.” He did so and his hand was restored.

Honoring the Sabbath is the law. Jesus does not abolish the law but I sense that he is more concerned with the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law as the Scribes and Pharisees thought. Somehow, I think the Archbishop and the Pope both agree…
Click to expand...
Jesus is referring to doing good on the sabbath was considered “work” by the pharisees. Obviously it is not.

To your other point,

Taking the Eucharist in mortal sin

CCC 1457

Can someone who has committed a mortal sin receive … scroll to the answer
Who Can Receive Communion? | Catholic Answers scroll to the answer
 
What does that have to do with anything? Honoring the Sabbath is law, receiving Communion free from sin is law.

The spirit of honoring God in the Sabbath is fulfilled in charity to the hungry and Jesus Himself is honored in this particular circumstance. The spirit of honoring a person is not fulfilled when you tell them they are not fully participating unless they receive communion while outside grace. There are many other ways of participating in the life of the Church.
 
SyroMalankara said:
What does that have to do with anything? Honoring the Sabbath is law, receiving Communion free from sin is law.
Click to expand...
In context to the question I was responding to, It has to do with, The pharisees considered even charity to be work and that (charity) also was NOT to be done on the sabbath. Obviously Jesus straightened them out on this.

Yes, receiving communion free from mortal sin is a teaching of the apostles, ergo a teaching of Jesus. And if disobeyed, has huge consequences to the soul
 
My comment was responding to cargau, but somehow followed your response.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top