Receiving Jesus in the Eucharist

[Sy_Noe]

My question pertains to the Sacrament of the Eucharist so I am asking it here. And though I strongly believe that Jesus said He would turn no one away who is called, I’m asking this in the context of your faith.

I know about Catholics having to be in a state of grace, free of mortal sin. But I also know mortal sin requires full knowledge that an act is grave and yet still willfully committed.

I know mortal sin must be confessed at least once a year and normally anytime before the Eucharist may be received. I do know the Eucharist may be received if it was impossible to go to confession prior to receiving and a person makes a perfect act of contrition and still goes to confession as soon as possible afterwards.

I know except in very limited instances, non Catholics are kept from receiving because they are not in full communion with the Catholic Church. The USCCB has this resource which provides guidelines for Catholics and non Catholics.

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/guidelines-for-the-reception-of-communion.cfm

But I also know “the Code of Canon Law currently does not recognize that someone can leave the Catholic Church. You might become a non-practicing member, but the Church’s laws consider anyone baptized Catholic to always be Catholic.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12648280&postcount=2

So obviously someone who the Catholic Church claims is always a Catholic is not a non Catholic. In which case I wouldn’t think the requirement to be in full communion would apply since the OCAC person wouldn’t be a non Catholic under Catholic teaching. And of course even the excommunicated are Catholics according to the Catholic Church. They are just told not to receive the Sacraments.

So anyway for a Catholic, the only guidelines I see are the aforementioned… that one can not receive if conscience of mortal sin along with a lack of confession, and the requirement to fast an hr before. Of course since the Mass typically lasts about an hr and the Eucharist occurs near the end, the fasting requirement is easily met.

So why wouldn’t the OCAC person (according to the Catholic Church) who is aware of what the Catholic Church teaches about grave matters and why, but who does not believe it, not be able to receive? If they don’t believe an act is a mortal sin, then they don’t fully know that it is according to the Catholic Church, so they would not be guilty of being in a state of mortal sin and therefore would not be receiving unworthily. Assuming of course that they did believe in transubstantiation, fasted, and were not aware of being excommunicated.

 

[Nita]

…
So why wouldn’t the OCAC person (according to the Catholic Church) who is aware of what the Catholic Church teaches about grave matters and why, but who does not believe it, not be able to receive? If they don’t believe an act is a mortal sin, then they don’t fully know that it is according to the Catholic Church, so they would not be guilty of being in a state of mortal sin and therefore would not be receiving unworthily. Assuming of course that they did believe in transubstantiation, fasted, and were not aware of being excommunicated.

They do “fully know” since they know the Church says it is a mortal sin. They have the knowledge - they are conscious that Our Lord’s Church teaches it is a grave sin (even if they choose not to accept it as such). Therefore, they cannot claim that they don’t know that such an act is a grave/mortal sin.

God does not give us the freedom to determine what is right and what is wrong. That is not what it means to follow one’s conscience. Determining what is right and what is wrong is God’s prerogative. (He reveals it thru His Church - Moses and Jewish religion in OT times; Jesus and Catholic Church in NT times.) We are not allowed to usurp His power. Adam and Eve made that mistake.

 

[Sy_Noe]

They do “fully know” since they know the Church says it is a mortal sin. They have the knowledge - they are conscious that Our Lord’s Church teaches it is a grave sin (even if they choose not to accept it as such). Therefore, they cannot claim that they don’t know that such an act is a grave/mortal sin.

God does not give us the freedom to determine what is right and what is wrong. That is not what it means to follow one’s conscience. Determining what is right and what is wrong is God’s prerogative. (He reveals it thru His Church - Moses and Jewish religion in OT times; Jesus and Catholic Church in NT times.) We are not allowed to usurp His power. Adam and Eve made that mistake.

Thank you and I understand then you’re in the camp that being aware of what the Catholic Church teaches about itself and about mortal sin = “knowing” even if one doesn’t believe it. And you’re not alone in that camp.

But I’ve also been told on CAF that being aware or having knowledge of something does not equal knowledge if one does not believe it. An example given me was if someone taught he was the 2nd Coming of the Messiah, but you don’t believe it. You would know OF what this person is teaching. But not know it since you would not be believing it. And that when the Catholic Church speaks of knowledge it means that you KNOW it. Not that you are merely aware of it.

2 different schools of thought which is why I asked.

And again thank you so much for your response. I appreciate it. God bless.

 

[Gertabelle]

Thank you and I understand then you’re in the camp that being aware of what the Catholic Church teaches about itself and about mortal sin = “knowing” even if one doesn’t believe it. And you’re not alone in that camp.

But I’ve also been told on CAF that being aware or having knowledge of something does not equal knowledge if one does not believe it. An example given me was if someone taught he was the 2nd Coming of the Messiah, but you don’t believe it. You would know OF what this person is teaching. But not know it since you would not be believing it. And that when the Catholic Church speaks of knowledge it means that you KNOW it. Not that you are merely aware of it.

2 different schools of thought which is why I asked.

And again thank you so much for your response. I appreciate it. God bless.

Regarding knowledge of grave sin, this is what the Catechism says about it:

1859*** Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

Regardless of what random strangers on CAF say about this, the official teaching of the Church is what counts. Rejecting Church teaching (I.e., saying “I know what the Catholic Church teaches, but since I don’t believe it I don’t have to follow it”) would be considered hardness of heart.

 

[Trident_H]

Why can’t a guy who was born in a family. But stormed out in a huff. And then sort of randomly showed up years later. On the front stoop. Why can’t that guy invite himself in for Thanksgiving? Without first confessing an apology to his parents? I don’t know Sye. Maybe he can. Maybe he can go right ahead. Even help himself to seconds. But I’m thinking dessert won’t get served until he leaves. Because he’s part of the family all right. Just not a respecting part. He’s in the main. But not really back to full membership status. He’s not really showing that level of commitment.

Peace Sye.

-Trident

 

[Phemie]

I’ve read all the posts and I’m still trying to figure out what OCAC stands for.

 

[liturgy96]

Once a Catholic, always a Catholic. I guess. I was checking one of the early posts here.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

They do “fully know” since they know the Church says it is a mortal sin. They have the knowledge - they are conscious that Our Lord’s Church teaches it is a grave sin (even if they choose not to accept it as such). Therefore, they cannot claim that they don’t know that such an act is a grave/mortal sin. …

Sy Noe uses the term “grave matter” which it has been established in other threads is not identical with “mortal sin”.

Sy Noe’s question is about what is believing in the light of the events of life that have landed us into this moment. I haven’t finished scanning Sy Noe’s previous posts but I don’t assume this member is closed-minded.

Please realise that the Catholic Church hasn’t given people like Sy Noe and me any truth about the life of Christ within, the action of the Holy Spirit, what grace is outside of sacraments. (When it tried it got flak and changed its mind.)

A tiny minority that were apparently well catechised are taking for granted that the vast majority have to get on with life as it is lived and are left with genuine questions. Most of you folks need to backtrack way way back to get started on answering us.

I know that it has got to do with the life of Christ within, the action of the Holy Spirit, what grace is outside of sacraments in the light of our individual story but before I could be equipped to articulate it for good folks like Sy Noe, the setup collapsed so I don’t have those tools. If somehow we are drawn to church, we still need the details filling in properly, so that we can really see, whether and how all the details ADD UP.

In another post I’ll try and give examples I’ve observed. If you folks have got an existential faith then you can let people like us see.

If we can’t find out what these things mean in practical experience in matters not involving sex we will never be able to tell Sy Noe anything useful. Has anyone had to beg God for a roof over their head or a meal, or is it “all right Jack”?

“It’s not about what it’s about.”

The world’s bishops don’t know that a synod about evangelising is about evangelising. If a Church is adamant on bestowing Catholic identity on us it is obligated to evangelise and catechise us, properly.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Regarding knowledge of grave sin, this is what the Catechism says about it:

Regardless of what random strangers on CAF say about this, the official teaching of the Church is what counts. Rejecting Church teaching (I.e., saying “I know what the Catholic Church teaches, but since I don’t believe it I don’t have to follow it”) would be considered hardness of heart.

Thanks Gertabelle. Although I’m not sure how we determine if what a person does not believe jumps right into them hardening their heart (If we were God, yes I’d say we would know), but this certainly helped me a lot in seeing what is in CCC about it.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Why can’t a guy who was born in a family. But stormed out in a huff. And then sort of randomly showed up years later. On the front stoop. Why can’t that guy invite himself in for Thanksgiving? Without first confessing an apology to his parents? I don’t know Sye. Maybe he can. Maybe he can go right ahead. Even help himself to seconds. But I’m thinking dessert won’t get served until he leaves. Because he’s part of the family all right. Just not a respecting part. He’s in the main. But not really back to full membership status. He’s not really showing that level of commitment.

Peace Sye.

-Trident

I do hear ya. And I suppose it might depend on if the parents invite him in for the full meal or not. But I’m just curious is Jesus’s RP in the Eucharist considered just dessert? Or is He the main part of the feast?

Peace be with you as well!

 

[Sy_Noe]

Once a Catholic, always a Catholic. I guess. I was checking one of the early posts here.

Yes. I thought everyone knew that. But maybe it’s more of an American acronym. I do see you’re from the Philippines and Phemie from Canada. But you guessed right.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Sy Noe uses the term “grave matter” which it has been established in other threads is not identical with “mortal sin”.

Sy Noe’s question is about what is believing in the light of the events of life that have landed us into this moment. I haven’t finished scanning Sy Noe’s previous posts but I don’t assume this member is closed-minded.

Please realise that the Catholic Church hasn’t given people like Sy Noe and me any truth about the life of Christ within, the action of the Holy Spirit, what grace is outside of sacraments. (When it tried it got flak and changed its mind.)

A tiny minority that were apparently well catechised are taking for granted that the vast majority have to get on with life as it is lived and are left with genuine questions. Most of you folks need to backtrack way way back to get started on answering us.

I know that it has got to do with the life of Christ within, the action of the Holy Spirit, what grace is outside of sacraments in the light of our individual story but before I could be equipped to articulate it for good folks like Sy Noe, the setup collapsed so I don’t have those tools. If somehow we are drawn to church, we still need the details filling in properly, so that we can really see, whether and how all the details ADD UP.

In another post I’ll try and give examples I’ve observed. If you folks have got an existential faith then you can let people like us see.

If we can’t find out what these things mean in practical experience in matters not involving sex we will never be able to tell Sy Noe anything useful. Has anyone had to beg God for a roof over their head or a meal, or is it “all right Jack”?

“It’s not about what it’s about.”

The world’s bishops don’t know that a synod about evangelising is about evangelising. If a Church is adamant on bestowing Catholic identity on us it is obligated to evangelise and catechise us, properly.

Thanks Vic and God bless you on your journey.

 

[Nita]

Sy Noe uses the term “grave matter” which it has been established in other threads is not identical with “mortal sin”.

That is correct. We often have a tendency to incorrectly use them synonymously.
For those unaware of the difference between the two:The terms mortal, deadly, grave, and serious applied to sin are synonyms, each with a slightly different implication.
**Mortal and deadly **focus on the effects in the sinner, namely deprivation of the state of friendship with God;
**grave and serious **refer to the importance of the matter in which a person offends God.

(from Fr. John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary
catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=34987 ) So, “grave matter/sin” is something we can all have knowledge of. It’s a matter of studying Scripture and Church teaching to learn which acts constitute “grave matter”.
But “mortal sin” involves judging the guilt of a soul - whether the effects of their committing an act that was grave matter produced deadly/mortal effects in their soul. This is knowledge we cannot learn; it is knowledge that God has.

We can and should be able to** judge **whether an action is something which constitutes grave matter/sin. But we **cannot judge **the consequences (guilt/degree of guilt/…) it has in the soul of the one who committed the grave matter/sin.

 

[Trident_H]

I do hear ya. And I suppose it might depend on if the parents invite him in for the full meal or not. But I’m just curious is Jesus’s RP in the Eucharist considered just dessert? Or is He the main part of the feast?

Peace be with you as well!

Oh. Jesus is dessert alright. He’s the thing we’re waiting to get. At the end of the ‘meal’. At the end of Mass. You bet Sy.

But I mean help yourself to the rest of the stuff. Come on in. Take a seat. Sing and get your blessing. Everyone’s always glad to see you show up.

Peace Sy.

-Trident

 

[Nita]

…Please realise that the Catholic Church hasn’t given people like Sy Noe and me any truth about the life of Christ within, the action of the Holy Spirit, what grace is outside of sacraments. (When it tried it got flak and changed its mind.)

I’m sorry to have to say that I know how true your statement is. Some years back, I taught CCD (for about 6 years total in 3 different parishes). The materials we were given were terrible – no doctrinal content, … The last year I taught 11th graders who had gone through 8 years of Catholic grade school and were in their 3rd year of high school CCD. They had never heard of “mortal sin” OR “grave sin”.

A tiny minority that were apparently well catechised are taking for granted that the vast majority have to get on with life as it is lived and are left with genuine questions.

I was blessed to have been one of those who were well catechized. The Baltimore Catechism was still in use when I went through Grade School. In those days I would say the vast majority in the U.S. were well catechized. I do apologize for those times when we make false assumptions about poster’s knowledge of the faith, and as a result may make responses that seem curt or uncharitable.

Most of you folks need to backtrack way way back to get started on answering us

I know that it has got to do with the life of Christ within, the action of the Holy Spirit, what grace is outside of sacraments in the light of our individual story but before I could be equipped to articulate it for good folks like Sy Noe, the setup collapsed so I don’t have those tools. If somehow we are drawn to church, we still need the details filling in properly, so that we can really see, whether and how all the details ADD UP.
…

Again, for you or for any others who lost out on being catechized properly and need to start almost at the beginning, I’d suggest starting right there – at the beginning.
Here is a link to the Baltimore Catechisms (Part 1, 2, and 3 links at the bottom of the page) sacred-texts.com/chr/balt/
The format for all 3 is question and answer. Answers are concise.
Catechism 1 (early grade school years) Part 1
Catechism 2 (middle grade school years) Part 2
Catechism 3 (junior high grade school years) Part 3

They are not written in childish language.
And they build; what was taught in Catechism 1 is repeated and integrated into Catechism 2, and both of those into Catechism 3.

Here is a link to Catechism 4 which has more in depth commentary. I believe it was meant primarily for the teachers. If something in one of the earlier catechisms is unclear, you may want to check that question out in this one to see if it gives more information on it. cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/baltimore/bintro.htm

After that my suggestion would be to read the first part of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It’s based on the Apostle’s Creed. Go slowly. And when you’re ready to go further, begin the next major section on the sacraments - “Part Two: The Celebration of the Christian Mystery”. You’ll find that what you learned from the Baltimore Catechisms was a good preparation.

And always, if you have questions that you can’t find answers for, ask them here on the forum if you don’t have a priest or instructor you can go to.
God bless you in your journey.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Oh. Jesus is dessert alright. He’s the thing we’re waiting to get. At the end of the ‘meal’. At the end of Mass. You bet Sy.

But I mean help yourself to the rest of the stuff. Come on in. Take a seat. Sing and get your blessing. Everyone’s always glad to see you show up.

Peace Sy.

-Trident

I understand your point if it is that the Sacrament is received near the end of the Mass. The problem I see with comparing the receipt of the Body and Blood of Jesus to dessert is that “The Holy Eucharist is the most important of the seven sacraments.”

catholic.com/tracts/who-can-receive-communion

And while the pumpkin pie topped heavily with whipped cream may be my favorite part of my Thankgiving meal which I will share with my family (even though we may disagree on any number of things) here in the US next mo, I know full well the dessert is not the most important part of any meal for my health. The protein found in the entree (in my scenario it will be the turkey) and the vitamins in the veggies are more important than the dessert.

 

[Sy_Noe]

But “mortal sin” involves judging the guilt of a soul - whether the effects of their committing an act that was grave matter produced deadly/mortal effects in their soul. This is knowledge we cannot learn; it is knowledge that God has.

We can and should be able to** judge **whether an action is something which constitutes grave matter/sin. But we **cannot judge **the consequences (guilt/degree of guilt/…) it has in the soul of the one who committed the grave matter/sin.

And yet the Catholic Church appears to me to do just that when it says in CCC 846 the Catholic Church is “necessary for salvation” and a person “could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.”

A person can very well be aware of how the Catholic Church regards itself yet not believe it. However if I understood correctly, earlier you and Gertabelle both suggested a person fully knows something if they know or are aware of what the Catholic Church teaches.

So if someone is aware the Catholic Church teaches it is necessary for salvation but does not believe it and therefore does not remain or enter, the Church judges that the person could not be saved.

No different than when the Catholic Church says if a person dies in what it believes to be mortal sin, they go to hell. Yet only God knows what is in a person’s heart and of their understanding of what is mortal sin. Or if someone who never missed Mass in their life suddenly dies this afternoon after having intentionally missed one Mass today for the first time. I trust in God’s mercy and love far more than for Him to condemn this person to hell and not look at the totality of the person’s life. And for only Him to know, not just what they are aware of, but to know their heart and what they believe and truly know.

 

[Trident_H]

I understand your point if it is that the Sacrament is received near the end of the Mass. The problem I see with comparing the receipt of the Body and Blood of Jesus to dessert is that “The Holy Eucharist is the most important of the seven sacraments.”

catholic.com/tracts/who-can-receive-communion

And while the pumpkin pie topped heavily with whipped cream may be my favorite part of my Thankgiving meal which I will share with my family (even though we may disagree on any number of things) here in the US next mo, I know full well the dessert is not the most important part of any meal for my health. The protein found in the entree (in my scenario it will be the turkey) and the vitamins in the veggies are more important than the dessert.

Yeah. Well buddy. You’ve taken this analogy a bit too far. I mean Jesus didn’t come down and claim to be the world’s pumpkin pie. Or the frosting on top. Or whatever. I mean He said He was the bread of life. So yeah. My little 5 minute idea will fall apart the minute we start getting too deep on it. It was just a nudge. Just a sort of explanation that only took a second to fling. If you want deep stuff you’ll need to give me a bit more time.

But I don’t think we need that. I think you’re a smart guy. I think you know it’s rude to storm out of something. And then expect to just storm back. With no consequences. Even if you might be welcome. By everyone. So that’s about it.

Peace Sy. Keep thinking. And don’t eat all the pie. Share it a bit.

-Trident

 

[Nita]

And yet the Catholic Church appears to me to do just that when it says in CCC 846 the Catholic Church is “necessary for salvation”

Going into what this means is a topic all its own, and really should be another thread. I won’t go into it here because it would sidetrack the topic of the thread you have going here.

and a person “could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.”

“Knowing” here does not mean just hearing or reading what the Church says about itself, it means “knowing” it as true - knowing in your mind, heart, intellect that the Catholic Church is true. To reject what one “knows” is true is VERY risky indeed.
“I am the…truth…, no one comes to the Father but by Me.” (John 14:6

A person can very well be aware of how the Catholic Church regards itself yet not believe it.
…
So if someone is aware the Catholic Church teaches it is necessary for salvation but does not believe it and therefore does not remain or enter, the Church judges that the person could not be saved.

As noted above, being “aware” of how the CC regards itself is not the same as “knowing”.
The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that everyone who is aware/hears that the CC “teaches it is necessary for salvation but does not believe it…” will not be saved.

However if I understood correctly, earlier you and Gertabelle both suggested a person fully knows something if they know or are aware of what the Catholic Church teaches.

I think what Gertabelle and I have assumed is that the post is about someone who does truly “know” in his heart (and believe) that what the Church says about itself is true. Of course, part of what the Church says about itself is that it’s teachings are true (doctrine) and authoritative (binding).

No different than when the Catholic Church says if a person dies in what it believes to be mortal sin, they go to hell. Yet only God knows what is in a person’s heart and of their understanding of what is mortal sin. Or if someone who never missed Mass in their life suddenly dies this afternoon after having intentionally missed one Mass today for the first time. I trust in God’s mercy and love far more than for Him to condemn this person to hell and not look at the totality of the person’s life. And for only Him to know, not just what they are aware of, but to know their heart and what they believe and truly know.

The Catholic Church teaches that we cannot judge the soul; ONLY GOD CAN DO THAT. We don’t even know whether Judas died in the state of mortal sin. I know of no Catholic teaching that says a specific person is in hell. What the Church can do is to state objectively that if one dies in the state of mortal sin, they will be condemned.

The Church does teach us which acts are “grave” matters that can become mortal sins if we knowingly, and willfully do such acts. That we can lose salvation if we die without repenting of those acts. The Church warns us; but it does not judge the state of one’s soul. These teachings are motivated by love - true concern for our eternal wellfare.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Going into what this means is a topic all its own, and really should be another thread. I won’t go into it here because it would sidetrack the topic of the thread you have going here.
“Knowing” here does not mean just hearing or reading what the Church says about itself, it means “knowing” it as true - knowing in your mind, heart, intellect that the Catholic Church is true. To reject what one “knows” is true is VERY risky indeed.
“I am the…truth…, no one comes to the Father but by Me.” (John 14:6

As noted above, being “aware” of how the CC regards itself is not the same as “knowing”.
The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that everyone who is aware/hears that the CC “teaches it is necessary for salvation but does not believe it…” will not be saved.

I think what Gertabelle and I have assumed is that the post is about someone who does truly “know” in his heart (and believe) that what the Church says about itself is true. Of course, part of what the Church says about itself is that it’s teachings are true (doctrine) and authoritative (binding).

The Catholic Church teaches that we cannot judge the soul; ONLY GOD CAN DO THAT. We don’t even know whether Judas died in the state of mortal sin. I know of no Catholic teaching that says a specific person is in hell. What the Church can do is to state objectively that if one dies in the state of mortal sin, they will be condemned.

The Church does teach us which acts are “grave” matters that can become mortal sins if we knowingly, and willfully do such acts. That we can lose salvation if we die without repenting of those acts. The Church warns us; but it does not judge the state of one’s soul. These teachings are motivated by love - true concern for our eternal wellfare.

So being aware of what the Catholic Church says is grave and could result in mortal sin is enough to truly have full knowledge even if they do not believe it and so do not know it in their heart, mind and intellect, or deep within their soul? But being aware of something else the Catholic Church says is not enough to know? The definition of “know” seems to be a tricky thing to, well, know.