recieving Communion in a state of mortal Sin

[Vico]

No. A mortal sin is a sin that causes us to forfeit our Sanctifying Grace.

A person in mortal sin has already done that, so he has nothing to loose. Mortal sins cannot be compounded.

It is, however, an offense to the dignity of the Body and Blood, so it should be included in your next Confession.

It is not necessary to be in a state of grace to commit a culpable grace sin that is thereby mortal.1857 For a *sin *to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131
Each instance of a sin has temporal consequences. So for culpable grave sins, if one is committed when there is no sanctifying grace, there are still consequences other than loss of sanctifying grace.

Confession of **grave sins

** CICCan. 988 §1. A member of the Christian faithful is obliged to confess in kind and number all grave sins committed after baptism and not yet remitted directly through the keys of the Church nor acknowledged in individual confession, of which the person has knowledge after diligent examination of conscience.

Can. 989 After having reached the age of discretion, each member of the faithful is obliged to confess faithfully his or her grave sins at least once a year.

 

[Brendan_64]

Blessings are no longer permissible. Agree…

Yet they happen almost universally in almost every parish. I guess it is tricky for a priest when someone presents themselves for a blessing and stands in front of him. Does he simply ignore them or actively tell them to go away? Or just give them a simple blessing, even though strictly speaking he shouldn’t?

Proper disposition is not a reason to refrain from receiving communion. If indisposition is willful, maybe I can agree. But if it is something we endure as a result of things going on in our state of life causing distraction or other emotions, we should receive, in order to obtain strength and grace and to please Our Lord.

That is your opinion, it is not the teaching of our Church that we ought to receive every time unless we are not in a state of grace.

BSt. Faustina had this to say in her Diary:

156 Once, I desired very much to receive Holy Communion, but I had a certain doubt, and I did not go. Jesus suddenly stood by me and said, **"My daughter, do not omit Holy Communion unless you know well that your fall was serious; apart from this, no doubt must stop you from uniting yourself with Me in the mystery of My love. Your minor faults will disappear in My love like a piece of straw thrown into a great furnace. **
Know that you grieve Me much when you fail to receive Me in Holy Communion."

Private revelations (even those that have been approved by the Church) do not constitute Church teaching. Christ was talking specifically to St Faustina, that doesn’t necessarily follow that this applies to everybody else. Although that quote is interesting and has given me food for thought.

However, at least we can agree that a person who is aware that they are in a state of mortal sin ought to remain in their pew and not go up for Communion (and probably avoid blessings as they are superfluous in this context) and ought to get to Confession urgently.

 

[Sirach2]

Yet they happen almost universally in almost every parish.

I disagree, and never see it in my diocese. Since you attend the EF, how would you know? And how would you know what is done all over the 17,000 USA parishes?

Does he (the priest) simply ignore them or actively tell them to go away? Or just give them a simple blessing, even though strictly speaking he shouldn’t?

I have seen priests lovingly pat a parent’s young child when they approach for communion as a gesture of friendliness. I cannot imagine him refusing, if anyone does in fact approach with arms crossed. As I said, I have not seen this in my area.

That is your opinion, it is not the teaching of our Church that we ought to receive every time unless we are not in a state of grace.

How about one of your sources, please?

Private revelations (even those that have been approved by the Church) do not constitute Church teaching. Christ was talking specifically to St Faustina, that doesn’t necessarily follow that this applies to everybody else. Although that quote is interesting and has given me food for thought.

True, but I believe it is Our Lord’s desire to communicate with us in His sacrament, and indisposition due to life’s circumstances is not a practice that anyone should adopt. It is a neglect of grace. Many folks only go once a week, and to refrain from receiving should not be done unless the fast is broken or the person senses he is not in the state of grace.

 

[Vico]

…, we should receive, in order to obtain strength and grace and to please Our Lord.…

I noticed that in the eastern Catholic canon law CCEO this frequent reception is recommended:

Can. 881 §3. The Christian faithful are strongly recommended to receive the Divine Eucharist on these days and indeed more frequently, even daily.

 

[Sirach2]

I noticed that in the eastern Catholic canon law CCEO this frequent reception is recommended:

Can. 881 §3. The Christian faithful are strongly recommended to receive the Divine Eucharist on these days and indeed more frequently, even daily.

It is also in our Canon.

Can. 898 The Christian faithful are to hold the Most Holy Eucharist in highest honor, taking an active part in the celebration of the most august sacrifice, receiving this sacrament most devoutly and frequently, and worshiping it with the highest adoration. In explaining the doctrine about this sacrament, pastors of souls are to teach the faithful diligently about this obligation.

 

[Brendan_64]

How about one of your sources, please?

No, you were the one who stated that:

“Proper disposition is not a reason to refrain from receiving communion. If indisposition is willful, maybe I can agree. But if it is something we endure as a result of things going on in our state of life causing distraction or other emotions, we should receive, in order to obtain strength and grace and to please Our Lord.”

I am simply pointing out that this is your opinion and not Church teaching. What is my source for citing this as your personal opinion? Well, you posted it. On the other hand if you are claiming that this is indeed not simply your opinion, but is actually Church teaching, then it is you that needs to back this up with a source (personal revelations do not constitute Church teaching). If you are claiming that something is actually Church teaching then it is up to you to back this up and quote actual Church teaching.

To expect me to find a source that says that our Church does not teach something is ludicrous. I’m pretty sure that Vatican will have produced a document aimed at refuting your opinion. The onus is on you to quote the source, as you are now claiming what you have written to actually be Church teaching and not simply your own personal opinion.

 

[steve_b]

Is it a mortal Sin if you receive communion with a mortal sin on your soul?

sort of an interesting question but an honest one.

what is one supposed to do if we aren’t supposed to receive communion with a mortal sin on our soul? do we just get a blessing from the Eucharistic Minister?

Yes.

Mortal sin(s) can be repeated over and over again. That’s why in confession, we are to mention the mortal sin, and how many times we have committed that sin(s) since our last confession.

The sin you describe is a sacriledge. Which is a mortal sin.

sacriledge: in the example you use

“Sacred objects are desecrated by sacrilege whenever something sacred is used for an unworthy purpose. This includes the Mass and the sacraments, along with sacramentals; sacred vessels and church furnishings; and ecclesiastical property. Desecration in each of these areas includes the deliberate invalid reception of the sacraments, simulation of Mass, grave irreverence to the Eucharist; gravely profane use of sacred vessels or vestments; and the unlawful seizure of sacred things or ecclesiastical property. Sacrilege is many times reprobated in Sacred Scripture, notably in the second book of Maccabees and in the writings of St. Paul. Grave sacrilege in the Old Testament was punishable by death, and in the Catholic Church is considered a mortal sin. (Etym. Latin sacrilegium, the robbing of a temple, the stealing of sacred things.)”

 

[Sirach2]

No, you were the one who stated that:

“Proper disposition is not a reason to refrain from receiving communion. If indisposition is willful, maybe I can agree. But if it is something we endure as a result of things going on in our state of life causing distraction or other emotions, we should receive, in order to obtain strength and grace and to please Our Lord.”

I am simply pointing out that this is your opinion and not Church teaching. What is my source for citing this as your personal opinion? Well, you posted it.
To expect me to find a source that says that our Church does not teach something is ludicrous.

If you cannot produce a source other than your own mind and personal belief that it is NOT church teaching, then you ought not to pronounce anything you cannot back up. I am asking again that you prove your statement that the Church teaches we ought not to receive communion unless we have proper dispositions, whatever that means in your thinking … or else clam up. (You have a history of being argumentative without showing sources, Brendan)

I’m pretty sure that Vatican will have produced a document aimed at refuting your opinion.

Then let’s see the beef, ok? I already produced my proof - Canon Law 898. Where’s yours disputing this “Church teaching.”