Sacrilege

  • Thread starter Thread starter francis24
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

francis24

Guest
Ca a priest absolve sacrilege hmm i know some sins are only to be absolved by Bishop or pope but how about it?
 
francis24 said:
Ca a priest absolve sacrilege hmm i know some sins are only to be absolved by Bishop or pope but how about it?
Click to expand...
You will find your answer in Graviora delicta. See ewtn.com/expert/answers/cdw_liturgical_abuses.htm#graviora

Under certain conditions, danger of death in canon 976 and those treated in canon 1357,
confessors (priest) may absolve from such censures. You can find the canons on the internet in a variety of locations.
 
cameron_lansing said:
You will find your answer in Graviora delicta. See ewtn.com/expert/answers/cdw_liturgical_abuses.htm#graviora

Under certain conditions, danger of death in canon 976 and those treated in canon 1357,
confessors (priest) may absolve from such censures. You can find the canons on the internet in a variety of locations.
Click to expand...
Does that mean receiving Holy Communion while in a state of mortal sin is not sacrilege?
Isn’t that considered a violation of the species?
 
thistle said:
Does that mean receiving Holy Communion while in a state of mortal sin is not sacrilege?
Isn’t that considered a violation of the species?
Click to expand...
The question pertained to reserved sins. Certainly such an action is sacrilegious in the broad sense and prohibited by canon 916,
However, absolution from this sin is not reserved to the bishop or the Holy See. nor is a canonical censure attached to it. Thus a confessor may absolve from the sin. Remember that not all sin has a canonical penalty attached to it.
I am of the opinion that Lutheranteach was being flippant, and thus no comment is merited.
 
jpjd said:
???
Click to expand...
She takes communion in a Lutheran Church probably about 10 times per year with no hesitation whatsoever and feels it’s purely a matter of conscience and that she is doing nothing wrong. She doesn’t make a show of it, but doesn’t hide the fact if asked. Isn’t that a sacrilege?

c) the forbidden concelebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice with ministers of Ecclesial Communities that do not have the apostolic succession nor acknowledge the sacramental dignity of priestly Ordination;[283]
 
Lutheranteach said:
She takes communion in a Lutheran Church probably about 10 times per year with no hesitation whatsoever and feels it’s purely a matter of conscience and that she is doing nothing wrong. She doesn’t make a show of it, but doesn’t hide the fact if asked. Isn’t that a sacrilege?

c) the forbidden concelebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice with ministers of Ecclesial Communities that do not have the apostolic succession nor acknowledge the sacramental dignity of priestly Ordination;[283]
Click to expand...
No. Forbidden it is to priests to concelebrate with these Ecclesial Communities. Receiving communion in those communities for a layperson (or even a priest who does not concelebrate) is idolatry, not sacrilege.
 
francis24 said:
but dont you know abortion for example must be absolved by the Bishop in the absence of he Pope in your area 🙂
Click to expand...
Removing the excommunication from the sin of abortion is formally reserved to the local Ordinary, however most, if not all priests in the US and Canada have been granted faculties to lift it.
 
not all sins are forgiven or absolved by priest. there is a special case to consider in the height of how grave is a persons’ SINS
 
diggerdomer said:
Where does the Catholic Church teach this?
Click to expand...
“If a penitent be in danger of death, any priest can absolve him, both from reserved censures and reserved sins. In case of reserved censures, if he recover, he must later present himself to the one having special power for reserved censures, unless the case was simply reserved to the pope. As to reserved sins, he need not, as a general rule, present himself again after convalescence. In a case of urgent necessity, when it is not possible to have recourse to the proper superior, an ordinary priest may absolve a penitent, directly from unreserved sins and indirectly from episcopal reserved cases, but the penitent must afterwards apply to the person having power to absolve from the reservation. If there were also papal reservations, either simple or special, the absolution is direct, but in case of special reservations to the pope a relation must be made to the Holy See that its mandates on the subject may be obtained. Ignorance of a censure prevents its being incurred, but moralists dispute whether ignorance of a reservation, with or without censure, excuses from its incurrence. If it be a case with censure reserved to the pope, all agree that ignorance does excuse from it; if reserved to a bishop, it is controverted. Some moralists hold that ignorance excuses from all reservations, whether with or without censure. It is certain, however, that a bishop has authority to declare that ignorance of a reservation does not prevent its incurrence in his diocese.”

from: newadvent.org/cathen/12785a.htm
 
francis24 said:
“If a penitent be in danger of death, any priest can absolve him, both from reserved censures and reserved sins. In case of reserved censures, if he recover, he must later present himself to the one having special power for reserved censures, unless the case was simply reserved to the pope. As to reserved sins, he need not, as a general rule, present himself again after convalescence. In a case of urgent necessity, when it is not possible to have recourse to the proper superior, an ordinary priest may absolve a penitent, directly from unreserved sins and indirectly from episcopal reserved cases, but the penitent must afterwards apply to the person having power to absolve from the reservation. If there were also papal reservations, either simple or special, the absolution is direct, but in case of special reservations to the pope a relation must be made to the Holy See that its mandates on the subject may be obtained. Ignorance of a censure prevents its being incurred, but moralists dispute whether ignorance of a reservation, with or without censure, excuses from its incurrence. If it be a case with censure reserved to the pope, all agree that ignorance does excuse from it; if reserved to a bishop, it is controverted. Some moralists hold that ignorance excuses from all reservations, whether with or without censure. It is certain, however, that a bishop has authority to declare that ignorance of a reservation does not prevent its incurrence in his diocese.”

from: newadvent.org/cathen/12785a.htm
Click to expand...
Ok, that’s from the 1913 (I think) Catholic encyclopedia, which of course has been updated (2003). Anything from current effective Church teaching to support your claim or answer my question?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top