Stuck in a bad parish?

[water]

Thanks, but I have more than enough lukewarm friends and acquaintances.

I’ll just keep on .

Keep in mind, some of these people may need you as a friend or acquaintance. Maybe they have no friends or acquintances that are not lukewarm.

That is true. Also one should not think he will not learn anything from those people. Indeed, they might help bring the worst out of you; this is when you know more about yourself when dealing with others.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

mediatrixx

I doesn’t sound like you’re in a bad parish at all. You do sound like you might be a little too scrupulous though.

The priest telling your mother that she should not have stayed away from communion, is probably because what she confessed were not mortal sins.

Remember, to commit a mortal sin, three conditions must be met.

One, the sin must be grave in nature.

Second, it must be committed with full knowledge. What does full knowledge actually mean? Is it just that I told you that it was a mortal sin, therefore you now have full knowledge? No, it means you have been taught by the Church and have full understanding of the seriousness of the sin.

Third, it must be committed freely. This means that you committed the sin freely, while knowing the seriousness of the sin.

The forth is my condition. Only confession to a priest can help you determine, if you are in grave mortal sin.

If a person is called to receive the Eucharist, they should not stay away, unless they know, they are in grave mortal sin.

So, the priest advice to your mother, it is very probable that she was not in grave mortal sin all this time, and should not have stayed away from receiving the Eucharist, if she felt called to receive.

It sounds like your rejecting a wise compassionate priest. Pray about it, before you jump to a conclusion.

Jim

 

[fin]

That is true. Also one should not think he will not learn anything from those people. Indeed, they might help bring the worst out of you; this is when you know more about yourself when dealing with others.

Thanks, Cathryn and water. What you’ve said is very true. As I’ve said in a previous post , I’m around people who are not religious and such, but I do learn from them too.

I’m hungry for zealous people to be around with, since that’s what’s lacking right now. I really admire people who are also in similar situations, yet maintain their faith and values. I find it very difficult.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

I’m really worried that the church I go to is not orthodox enough. I’ve only been going for a few months now, and there is no other Catholic church near me that I could attend. Lately a few things have bothered me about this particular one.

When I started going to confession, I advised my mother not to take the eucharist until she went too. I did the same–I only took it after going to confession for the first time in a long time. When I finally got my mom to come to confession with me, the priest told her she should not have waited for the eucharist, that she should always take it.

This frightens me. I really admire this priest and I have met one wonderful friend in particular who is very devout, but I’m worried. I live in an area where there are not a lot of devout people. Church is kind of a social activity it seems. Something that is just “done” for appearances. For example, when there was a football game last week, the church was nearly deserted on Sunday morning.

Am I in a bad parish? Should I do anything? I would hate to leave over something like this since I love this church already and the classes I’m taking there. What would you do?

The priest here mentioned is in grave error; so grave he encourages others into committing SACRILEGE. St. Paul has warned that “(paraphrasing)…anyone who receives the Body of Christ (Eucharist) UNWORTHILY is Guilty of the Blood of Christ…” From this passage the word “SACRILEGE” was born. If one should die with a sacrilege deliberately committed that person, if gone unrepentant, is separated from God for all eternity.It is that grievious.

The priest knows better since he has gone through seminary and theology. He has NO excuse. His attitude towards the Eucharist says it all.

There is NO arguing that the Eucharist (Christ) is CENTRAL to our Faith and I can safely assume this priest does NOT believe in the actual Presence. Not to believe is heresy and NOT of God or His Church. He may have a nice demeanor but he is not in the Light.:knight1:

The priest should be confronted because he leads others into sacrilege. This is UNHOLY!

 

[water]

Thanks, Cathryn and water. What you’ve said is very true. As I’ve said in a previous post , I’m around people who are not religious and such, but I do learn from them too.

I’m hungry for zealous people to be around with, since that’s what’s lacking right now. I really admire people who are also in similar situations, yet maintain their faith and values. I find it very difficult.

Keep praying my friend. I could understand your desire for meeting other people whom you can really spend hours talking, learning and sharing faith with each other. I recently find a very good friend that we can spend time together to talk about our faith. I have learned much from him, and I am like 12 years older than he is.

At this Legion of Mary group, we have people coming from other parishes. You could certainly look around your city to see if there is any group that you could join. It doesn’t have to be Legion of Mary, but it would be awesome if you could find this group.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The priest here mentioned is in grave error; so grave he encourages others into committing SACRILEGE. St. Paul has warned that “(paraphrasing)…anyone who receives the Body of Christ (Eucharist) UNWORTHILY is Guilty of the Blood of Christ…” From this passage the word “SACRILEGE” was born. If one should die with a sacrilege deliberately committed that person, if gone unrepentant, is separated from God for all eternity.It is that grievious.

The priest knows better since he has gone through seminary and theology. He has NO excuse. His attitude towards the Eucharist says it all.

There is NO arguing that the Eucharist (Christ) is CENTRAL to our Faith and I can safely assume this priest does NOT believe in the actual Presence. Not to believe is heresy and NOT of God or His Church. He may have a nice demeanor but he is not in the Light.:knight1:

The priest should be confronted because he leads others into sacrilege. This is UNHOLY!

This is a mistranslation of the Scripture. What Paul is saying is that anyone who receives without believing in the true meaning of the Eucharist, i.e. the real presence of Christ, commits sacrilege.

Keep in mind that the information is third hand. We actually don’t know what words the priest spoke to the OP’s mother. What we have is thrd hand information. Either way, its between her confessor and herself. My guess is the woman, after going to confession to this priest, will now receive the Eucharist.

We should all praise God for her blessing!

Jim

 

[johnstown_johnn]

The air has to be cleared in this case with those that experienced the “false and egregious advice.” Third hand…sure! But this is a Forum in the exchange of Catholic perspective. Even if this is a vague recollection the subject is worthwhile.

There are experiences of irreverence to the Eucharist that are far too numerous to count and it is good that this thread opens a discussion on our perceptions of the Eucharist.

We know some priest and bishops will give the Eucharist to high-profile abortion supporters…and some will give Communion to known unbelievers. I recall Bill Clinton (an unbeliever) and as high-profile as one can be was given Communion at a Mass for the Dead.

The priest knew who Clinton was…everyone did…and still was given Communion. This is an outrage. So the topic at hand is not unseemly.

There are indeed priests that do NOT believe in the Real Presence…some bishops too. I can’t help get the notion that as we speak, in this day and time, the Church is undergoing attack from Satan and a “separation” is taking place.

Third hand is still admissible as a topic discussion. :knight1:

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The air has to be cleared in this case with those that experienced the “false and egregious advice.” Third hand…sure! But this is a Forum in the exchange of Catholic perspective. Even if this is a vague recollection the subject is worthwhile.

There are experiences of irreverence to the Eucharist that are far too numerous to count and it is good that this thread opens a discussion on our perceptions of the Eucharist.

We know some priest and bishops will give the Eucharist to high-profile abortion supporters…and some will give Communion to known unbelievers. I recall Bill Clinton (an unbeliever) and as high-profile as one can be was given Communion at a Mass for the Dead.

The priest knew who Clinton was…everyone did…and still was given Communion. This is an outrage. So the topic at hand is not unseemly.

There are indeed priests that do NOT believe in the Real Presence…some bishops too. I can’t help get the notion that as we speak, in this day and time, the Church is undergoing attack from Satan and a “separation” is taking place.

Third hand is still admissible as a topic discussion. :knight1:

Now you’ve gone off on a tangent that has nothing to do with the thread.

.

Jim

 

[johnstown_johnn]

OK, then you can get it back on topic.

 

[Leopard]

Oops. My mom and I typically talk to each other about this stuff. We’ll stop if it’s a problem…

It is not a problem for you to talk about this privately with each other, if you so choose, but you should not reveal any details you may know about another’s confessions to any other third party without that person’s specific permission. Since you have no way of knowing what other third parties may be reading information published on the internet, it is impossible to get your mother’s specific permission for you to share this information with every person who might possibly read it.

Now, if you choose to publish information about your own confessions, that is your business and you are permitted to do so. Likewise, your mother may herself publish information about her own confessions if she chooses to discuss them with the world, but you should not do so.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

It is not a problem for you to talk about this privately with each other, if you so choose, but you should not reveal any details you may know about another’s confessions to any other third party without that person’s specific permission. Since you have no way of knowing what other third parties may be reading information published on the internet, it is impossible to get your mother’s specific permission for you to share this information with every person who might possibly read it.

Now, if you choose to publish information about your own confessions, that is your business and you are permitted to do so. Likewise, your mother may herself publish information about her own confessions if she chooses to discuss them with the world, but you should not do so.

The bottom line is that the priest gave advice that is unholy. For anyone who receives Holy Communion while still in mortal Sin commits a sacrilege. For a priest to say that receiving Communion regardless of one being in that state of sin commits a sacrilege himself PLUS urging others to disregard the preparation of one’s soul to receive the Body of Christ.

This is false teaching from a supposedly man of God. He is in danger of losing his immortal soul. It would be an act of Charity to advise him of his erroneous and dangerous “invitation” to receive regardless of one’s state of soul. It (advice) is unholy.
:knight1:

 

[JimR-OCDS]

johnstown johnn

The bottom line is that the priest gave advice that is unholy.

So you know more about was said in the confessional than the priest does?

For anyone who receives Holy Communion while still in mortal Sin commits a sacrilege.

Where was mortal sin presented by the OP ?

For a priest to say that receiving Communion regardless of one being in that state of sin commits a sacrilege himself PLUS urging others to disregard the preparation of one’s soul to receive the Body of Christ.

He didn’t say that. This is your speculation of what he said.

This is false teaching from a supposedly man of God. He is in danger of losing his immortal soul.

Please put down your stones. You know practically nothing about this priest. For all you know, you’re condemning a saint.

You need to go back and read the gospels and get an understanding about God’s mercy and forgiveness.

Jim

 

[johnstown_johnn]

: Read the original post. Assumptions can be made (albeit hypothetical) that the mother had not gone to confession for a long time…let us say it was more than a year, maybe 2, 3 or more years. That means the obligatory act of Confession and Communion during the Easter time has not been maintained.

This is a grave sin of omission and must be confessed. To receive Communion without confessing would be a sacrilege. :knight1:

 

[JimR-OCDS]

: Read the original post. Assumptions can be made (albeit hypothetical) that the mother had not gone to confession for a long time…let us say it was more than a year, maybe 2, 3 or more years. That means the obligatory act of Confession and Communion during the Easter time has not been maintained.

This is a grave sin of omission and must be confessed. To receive Communion without confessing would be a sacrilege. :knight1:

Doesn’t mean she committed mortal sin and its only up to her confessor to determine and advise, not people on an internet website.

Jim

 

[Joysong]

Read the original post. Assumptions can be made (albeit hypothetical) that the mother had not gone to confession for a long time…let us say it was more than a year, maybe 2, 3 or more years. That means the obligatory act of Confession and Communion during the Easter time has not been maintained.

You are not in agreement (though maybe innocently) with Church teaching. It is my understanding that confession at Easter time is not obligatory unless the person has committed a mortal sin and has not been to the sacraments since last Easter. It only obliges those who are not in the state of grace, in order to remain in good standing as a Catholic. Hence, the term, Easter duty.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

You are not in agreement (though maybe innocently) with Church teaching. It is my understanding that confession at Easter time is not obligatory unless the person has committed a mortal sin and has not been to the sacraments since last Easter. It only obliges those who are not in the state of grace, in order to remain in good standing as a Catholic. Hence, the term, Easter duty.

The sacrament of Penance has graces in and of itself. Venial sins should be confessed after a year because if gone that long they accumulate and one is not at their purist after a year. It is obligatory to receive Communion during the easter time.

The First Saturday Promise of Our Lady of Fatima has a proviso:
That for each of the five First Saturdays
that person shall go to the Sacrament of Penance before receiving Commuion and recite the rosary as well.

The sacrament of Penance is mandated irrespective if one has NOT fallen into Mortal Sin. It is a requirement. Same goes for Easter duty. :knight1:

 

[Joysong]

Dear Johnn,

I believe it is harmful to project your interpretation in a public forum when you have no supporting documentation. Can you provide the source for your statement that indicates it is the Church’s teaching? Meanwhile, here is the basis for my post from both Canon Law and the CCC:

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P3G.HTM

Can. 988 §1 The faithful are bound to confess, in kind and in number, all grave sins committed after baptism, of which after careful examination of conscience they are aware, which have not yet been directly pardoned by the keys of the Church, and which have not been confessed in an individual confession.

§2 The faithful are recommended to confess also venial sins.
[Note: *recommended

, not mandatory.]

Can. 989 All the faithful who have reached the age of discretion are bound faithfully to confess their grave sins at least once a year.

And this agreement from the CCC:

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.”

1458 Without being strictly necessary, confession of everyday faults (venial sins) is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church. Indeed the regular confession of our venial sins helps us form our conscience, fight against evil tendencies, let ourselves be healed by Christ and progress in the life of the Spirit. By receiving more frequently through this sacrament the gift of the Father’s mercy, we are spurred to be merciful as he is merciful.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

that’s the problem you don’t have any knowledge of mortal sins of another person, nor should you even be speculating.

The “seal of the confessional” is ONLY
binding on the PRIEST.
He had better not DARE blab what you tell him.

You, however, are not obligated to NOT discuss your
mortal sins with a close confidante, friend or relative,
though given people’s tendencies to slip and reveal things,
I would advise against it. But it was no sin for your mom to tell
you her sin or weakness. And if the priest gave her UNorthodox advice, she should

1. first, lovingly confront him about it and show him where
   he erred.
2. if he is indeed in the wrong, and reacts with a smart-alecky
   attitude of “I don’t care WHAT the CHURCH teaches,
   “I” am going to teach what I darn well please” (( and I had
   a priest do that kind of thing after he
   advised me to GO COMMIT FORNICATION !!! ))
   if that’s the case you have a problem priest and
   should write a CONFIDENTIAL letter to the Bishop of your diocese, being as detailed as possible. After having done that,
   pray fervently that God will resolve the situation for His Glory and for the benefit of all the godfearing Catholics who could be contaminated by his bad teachings/attitudes.

Love,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Dear Johnn,

I believe it is harmful to project your interpretation in a public forum when you have no supporting documentation. Can you provide the source for your statement that indicates it is the Church’s teaching? Meanwhile, here is the basis for my post from both Canon Law and the CCC:

And this agreement from the CCC:

Thank you for the Canons you display here. But as I read them neither of them address the Easter Duty mandates. So, if you can show a Canon that tells us that Easter duty does not require penance and Communion…I’ll stand corrected.

While it is STILL December 25…Merry Christmas to YOU and ALL the posters on this Forum. :knight1:

 

[Joysong]

Uh-uh, Johnn,

Since I am not the one with the problem of understanding, I’m still waiting for you to show us the teaching of the church that supports your statement, as I have already done.

I already know what “I” believe, and I don’t plan to change it because you ‘say’ it isn’t so, especially without a source document, which is …?