Receiving Communion if you reject a Church doctrine?

[yellow8yellowM]

What are the divine consequences of receiving Holy Communion if you reject a Church doctrine or moral precept? For example, you have not used birth control, but you believe that it is okay to use birth control. Or, you have not had an abortion, but have no problem with others having one.

 

[ChibiViolet]

To reject an official Church teaching like that is of grave matter. No one with a mortal sin on their soul is to recieve Jesus. If you can’t understand certain official teachings than you should speak with a priest.

"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, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, 'This is my body which is fore you. Do this in remembrance of me.'f 25In the same way also he took 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.’ 26For 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 concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. **For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.**But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world."–1Corinthians11:23-32

 

[anruari]

This is a very complicated one but I’ll do my best.

“He who eats the Body of Christ unworthily eats condemnation on himself”
(sorry slightly mis-quoted I think)

It is a grave sin to Receive the Eucharist when in a state of Mortal Sin.

There are specific sins which incur automatic de-facto excommunication the moment they are committed. These include procuring an abortion for yourself or some else, or assisting or instructing someone to do so. Depending on circumstances the lifting of that excommunication may be reserved to your bishop or even to Rome.

To reject a church teaching can have a number of consequences.

1. if you know you are rejecting a church teaching, and reject it willingly then you are in a state of heresy. As such you are in a state of grave and possibly mortal sin. you should not be receiving Communion.
2. It is however possible to be in a state of “Invincible ignorance” - you are not guilty because you hold your beliefs in good faith, and are not aware that you are rejecting a mandatory teaching of the church.
3. It is possible that you are not guilty because you do not give deliberate and conscious ascent to being in a state of heresy - you believe your position is right, but would be open to having the Truth explained to you if someone was willing to take the time and able to explain the matter to you in a way you could understand.

I spent years in this third category regarding Marian Theology. I wanted to understand the teaching of the Church but couldn’t, and it conflicted with my understanding of Theology and revealed Truth.

The use of birth control methods and the use of Abortion, (ignoring for now the more controversial possibilities of how some birth control methods work by abortive means) are potentially in 2 separate levels of moral seriousness.

The use of birth control inside a marriage is a sin against the virtue of Chastity, and a refusal to cooperate in Gods Creation. It is a refusal to obey the first commandment given to Adam and Eve “Go Forth and Multiply”.

The acceptance of Abortion is more serious. it is a rejection of the commandment “Thou shall not Kill”.
The person being killed is in the most vulnerable and innocent category of human life, and there is no excuse or mitigation for this evil.

These are not optional or secondary doctrines. If you do not assent to these doctrines you are rejecting God. Thereby you are in a seriously dangerous position. How is it possible for you to enter into his presence if you are telling God that He is wrong and you wont accept his Revealed Truth?
You would have very little chance of being able to accept his salvation if you came face to face with him.

In terms of recieving Communion in this situation: think of this a bit like having marital relations with your wife:

If you are rejecting your wedding vows, and refuse to be properly reconsiled with your wife… outside the home you are going around calling her a slut, a liar and a cheat, but still come home and expect to consumate your marriage you are not only sinning against her in the actions outside the home you are doing it again at home and hurting her more by having those relations with her under false pretences.
The marital act should be “Making Love” that is not possible if you do not have love for that person. it is using them. - another sin again.

Recieving the Eucharist when in a state of mortal sin (rejection of God) is very like this but on a spiritual level. it is "Making Love " to God, while calling him and his Church a liar and a cheat when you are not in his “Bedroom” (the chapel).

 

[R_C]

What are the divine consequences of receiving Holy Communion if you reject a Church doctrine or moral precept? For example, you have not used birth control, but you believe that it is okay to use birth control. Or, you have not had an abortion, but have no problem with others having one.

Other answers are rather comprehensive. I’d just add a comment.

Your reasoning is similar to: I have never murdered, but I think it’s ok to murder.

I mean, there are extremely good reasons for what the Church teaches, since Her teachings are based on the Scriptures and enlightened by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps you want to discuss the matter with your confessor, and start learning what the Church teaches about the things that bother you. “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free”.

I love that something inside you is making you suspect that there is something wrong with thinking that way and receiving the Blessed Sacrament. The words of the Holy Spirit are like whispers that we can hear through His own gifts of auxiliating grace, and to listen to them is a blessing worth of great rejoicing.

 

[Timothysis]

For example, you have not used birth control, but you believe that it is okay to use birth control. Or, you have not had an abortion, but have no problem with others having one.

Actually, it is not a sin to have an opinion that differs from Church teaching as long as you are still obedient to the teaching (do not commit the act) or counsel/encourage others to do it.

 

[ChibiViolet]

Actually, it is not a sin to have an opinion that differs from Church teaching as long as you are still obedient to the teaching (do not commit the act) or counsel/encourage others to do it.

Where did you hear that?

 

[sw85]

Timothysis is right and wrong. One may not “have an opinion” differing from the Church, nor may one “reject a Church doctrine,” and still receive communion worthily. These terms imply an active element, i.e., a willful refusal to assent.

But then I don’t think that’s what he was implying by that. I think he is pointing out, correctly, that one need not like a particular teaching, nor understand it, nor find the rationale for it compelling. He must submit to it, obey it, and not scandalize others by attacking it. But something more than that is required, too, though. He must in humility acknowledge that the Church is always right in matters of faith and morals; that it is charged by God with a mission to teach in His name and is protected by Him from error; and that individual men must never presume to set themselves up against such promises. That where we cannot see the truth of a teaching, it can only be because of a deficiency in ourselves. He must always keep in mind: “Not my will, but Thy will be done.”

 

[yellow8yellowM]

Actually, it is not a sin to have an opinion that differs from Church teaching as long as you are still obedient to the teaching (do not commit the act) or counsel/encourage others to do it.

So you are saying that if somebody believes in their heart that murder is moral, then as long as they don’t actually murder somebody or communicate their opinion to others, then they are not committing a sin?

I think you may be confused with required beliefs with those that have not been deemed required. For example, I don’t believe we have to believe in most post-apostolic miracles.

If your opinion differs in the matters of doctrine or dogma, though, you could be committing the sin of heresy.

 

[Timothysis]

So you are saying that if somebody believes in their heart that murder is moral, then as long as they don’t actually murder somebody or communicate their opinion to others, then they are not committing a sin?

I think you may be confused with required beliefs with those that have not been deemed required. For example, I don’t believe we have to believe in most post-apostolic miracles.

If your opinion differs in the matters of doctrine or dogma, though, you could be committing the sin of heresy.

Let’s try a less extreme example: suppose a woman has the personal opinion that artificial birth control is moral in marriage for the sole purpose of the spacing of children (not as a means to an end to not have children). She is still obedient to the Church’s teaching regarding ABC, however, and never uses it for any reason or purpose. For what could she be deemed “heretical?”

There are and have been many theologians who have had differing opinions in regard to issues taught by the Church. For example, whenever the topic of the morality of lying arises here there are always those who trot out the *you are never free to do evil in order that good may come of it * line, or who spew the Church teaches infallibly that lying is intrinsically evil bit. Saint Augustine teaches that one is never free to tell a lie, though there are many other theologians who say that we may lie when driven to the need. I have never read that the Church has declared those theologians who argue that we may at times lie to be heretics. It is a question of theological opinion/speculation.

Thomas Aquinas’ opinion of the immaculate conception differs from the official teaching of the Church. Should we declare him to be a heretic?

The Catholic Church is not cult that tries to control every little thought and opinion of it’s members. It is helpful to recall the parable of the man with two sons: *“But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first, and said, ‘Son, go work in my vineyard.’ He answered, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he changed his mind, and went. He came to the second, and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but he didn’t go. Which of the two did the will of his father?”

They said to him, “The first.”*

I think this can be neatly applied to the woman in the example. Obedience first.

 

[thistle]

So you are saying that if somebody believes in their heart that murder is moral, then as long as they don’t actually murder somebody or communicate their opinion to others, then they are not committing a sin?

I think you may be confused with required beliefs with those that have not been deemed required. For example, I don’t believe we have to believe in most post-apostolic miracles.

If your opinion differs in the matters of doctrine or dogma, though, you could be committing the sin of heresy.

That is not what is being said.

Lets use the examples of murder, abortion, and artificial birth control. If you believe the Church teachings on these are wrong and you reject those teachings then you commit a sin of grave matter and may not receive Communion. You do not have to commit murder, have an abortion, or use ABC to have committed a sin. Rejecting the Church teaching is the sin and in the case of infallible teachings like these three examples it would be heresy.

 

[R_C]

Interestingly, the OP posted a very helpful statement:

you may be confused with required beliefs with those that have not been deemed required.

Such a broad question, indeed, is confusing - better to address each issue individually, for some beliefs are essentials, others may not be.

With regards to St. Thomas Aquinas, he lived a few centuries before the “Ineffabilis Deus”, and we may presume without fear of being mistaken that he would have immediately conformed his opinion with that of the Church - otherwise yes, the very papal bull Ineffabilis Deus spells out the ipso facto sanctions that he would have received.

Your point is rather interesting, though: she does not believe, but she is still obedient. The virtue of obedience in this case is truly her salvation. However, allow me to quote the words of St. Faustina Kowalska regarding this wonderful virtue:

Jesus says; “Obedience. I have come to do My Father’s will.…]” I understood that our efforts, no matter how great, are not pleasing to God if they do not bear the seal of obedience… I understand, O Jesus, the spirit of obedience and in what it consists. It includes not only external actions, but also one’s reason, will and judgment. In obeying our superiors, we obey God.

I believe the following quote from the first letter of the apostle John still hold valid for the Church today as it did in the past:

We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us.

 

[JM3]

What are the divine consequences of receiving Holy Communion if you reject a Church doctrine or moral precept? For example, you have not used birth control, but you believe that it is okay to use birth control. Or, you have not had an abortion, but have no problem with others having one.

Code of Canon Law

Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121

1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

• by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
• by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
• by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
• by protecting evil-doers.

 

[Fan_of_Trent]

Let’s try a less extreme example: suppose a woman has the personal opinion that artificial birth control is moral in marriage for the sole purpose of the spacing of children (not as a means to an end to not have children). She is still obedient to the Church’s teaching regarding ABC, however, and never uses it for any reason or purpose. For what could she be deemed “heretical?”

There are and have been many theologians who have had differing opinions in regard to issues taught by the Church. For example, whenever the topic of the morality of lying arises here there are always those who trot out the *you are never free to do evil in order that good may come of it * line, or who spew the Church teaches infallibly that lying is intrinsically evil bit. Saint Augustine teaches that one is never free to tell a lie, though there are many other theologians who say that we may lie when driven to the need. I have never read that the Church has declared those theologians who argue that we may at times lie to be heretics. It is a question of theological opinion/speculation.

Thomas Aquinas’ opinion of the immaculate conception differs from the official teaching of the Church. Should we declare him to be a heretic?

The Catholic Church is not cult that tries to control every little thought and opinion of it’s members. It is helpful to recall the parable of the man with two sons: *“But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first, and said, ‘Son, go work in my vineyard.’ He answered, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he changed his mind, and went. He came to the second, and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but he didn’t go. Which of the two did the will of his father?”

They said to him, “The first.”*

I think this can be neatly applied to the woman in the example. Obedience first.

Obedience first - to the Catholic Faith. It’s all or nothing. The woman in the example is committing a grave sin. She is holding a belief contrary to Church teaching. ABC is a means to an end, always.

 

[Timothysis]

Obedience first - to the Catholic Faith. It’s all or nothing. The woman in the example is committing a grave sin. She is holding a belief contrary to Church teaching. ABC is a means to an end, always.

1. I said that the woman held a personal opinion that abc was moral for the spacing of children in marriage, NOT as a means to an end to never have children.
2. The woman holds a personal opinion that, while not in line with Church teaching, does not influence her to put into action such opinion, nor does she advise others to do it. While her opinion is at odds with the Church, she remains obedient to its teachings. How is this a sin?
3. St. Raymund of Pennafort maintained that it was allowable to tell a lie when driven by necessity. He never recanted his position. The Church teaches that a lie is an intrinsically evil act. Is St. Raymund in a state of grave sin for holding an opinion contrary to Church teaching?

 

[Timothysis]

I don’t like posting long quotes but I think it is justified since it relates to this topic. This is from Ronald L. Conte Jr., Roman Catholic theologian and Bible translator:

"5. theological opinion

The false dichotomy — Church teaching or personal opinion — is often associated with the further claim that, if an idea is merely personal opinion, it is of little or no value; it should be ignored or rejected, so that we believe only Church teaching. For personal opinion might contain error. There is so much wrong with this concept, I hardly know where to begin.

Let’s begin with dogma, an infallible teaching of the Magisterium, and one that every Catholic admits is a dogma: the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. If you quote the infallible definition itself, what you have is a single sentence. Fine. But if you were to write about the Immaculate Conception, if you were to teach this dogma in an article of even modest length, you would necessarily need to make statements that are not dogma. You would be giving your personal interpretation and opinion on the broader meaning of the dogma and its relationship to the rest of the body of teachings of the Faith. For all the truths of the Faith are interrelated, they are like one truth, they are like one Word uttered by God.

And if personal theological opinion is harmful or useless, then why have Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II both written and published books of private theology? They could spend that time issuing one infallible dogma after another. Why? because the Faith is based on the infallible AND the non-infallible AND the fallible.

Without personal interpretation and opinion, the teachings of the Faith, even the infallible dogmas cannot be understood or taught or discussed or lived. Without theological opinion, the truths taught by the Magisterium would be unreachable. We could see them at a distance, but we would not be able to take them into our minds and hearts and lives.

Whoever speaks as if we should only believe Church teaching, and should reject or severely deprecate pious opinion, is a hypocrite. For all such persons do in fact use personal opinion to understand and live the teachings of the Church. Certainly, personal theological opinion is fallible. But it is also absolutely necessary and indispensable in this life if you wish to live the Faith gifted to use by Jesus Christ."

http://ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/is-it-church-teaching-or-personal-opinion/

 

[yellow8yellowM]

I don’t like posting long quotes but I think it is justified since it relates to this topic. This is from Ronald L. Conte Jr., Roman Catholic theologian and Bible translator:

"5. theological opinion

The false dichotomy — Church teaching or personal opinion — is often associated with the further claim that, if an idea is merely personal opinion, it is of little or no value; it should be ignored or rejected, so that we believe only Church teaching. For personal opinion might contain error. There is so much wrong with this concept, I hardly know where to begin…

So can you bring this back into the context of birth control?

In my mind, you can having differing opinions on birth control, but none of them can be against Church teaching. For example, you are allowed to believe that it is not selfish to space births by three years if you only make minimum wage. But you cannot believe that in order to space those births it is moral to use birth control pills.

You can have an opinion on the details of the Assumption of Mary. Some believe believe she died, some believe she went straight to Heaven before death. But you MUST believe that she was Assumed.

 

[yellow8yellowM]

I think a better original post may have been:

“When does incredulity or doubt turn into the mortal sin of heresy?”

 

[thistle]

I think a better original post may have been:

“When does incredulity or doubt turn into the mortal sin of heresy?”

CCC 2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

 

[Timothysis]

So can you bring this back into the context of birth control?
.

sigh…birth control was simply an example to the bigger question of personal opinions vs. Church teachings. Substitute any issue you wish and the substance of the discussion is the same. I thought the example of murder was too extreme (what person could arrive at the conclusion that murder is morally justified?), hence my example of birth control.

 

[Timothysis]

CCC 2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

And the interpretation of this entry can lead to as many different paths as the number of people discussing the issue. So which one is correct?