Stuck in a bad parish?

[johnstown_johnn]

It is in the Catechism. Must I provide a link to the Catechism? We should all be familiar with it…Catholics, that is.

 

[Joysong]

Yes, please?

I gave you the quotes I found in the catechism, but maybe I’m overlooking something that you have in mind. I appreciate it, if you don’t mind. Here’s the CCC link: scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Carole

 

[Joysong]

Johnn,

It is not my desire to quibble over this, but if this paragraph describing the Precept of the Church is not in line with your previously received instruction … then I think you need to speak with a priest or bishop and have him clarify it for you.

ourladyofhumility.org/sacraments/catholic_beliefs.htm#Precepts%20of%20the%20Church

To lead a sacramental life: to receive Holy Communion frequently and the sacrament of penance regularly- minimally, to receive the sacrament of penance at least once a year (annual confession is obligatory only if serious sin is involved); *. (CCC 1389) – minimally, to receive Holy Communion at least once a year, between the first Sunday of Lent and Trinity Sunday or, for a just cause, at another time during the year. (CCC 1389, 2042)

For the record, I agree with you that reception of Holy Communion is obligatory during the Paschal season of Easter, but confession is NOT, unless there is serious mortal sin.

Could we please get back to topic?

 

[PhilotheaZ]

Johnn,

It is not my desire to quibble over this, but if this paragraph describing the Precept of the Church is not in line with your previously received instruction … then I think you need to speak with a priest or bishop and have him clarify it for you.

Quote:
ourladyofhumility.org/sac…20the%20Church

To lead a sacramental life: to receive Holy Communion frequently and the sacrament of penance regularly- minimally, to receive the sacrament of penance at least once a year (annual confession is obligatory only if serious sin is involved); *. (CCC 1389) – minimally, to receive Holy Communion at least once a year, between the first Sunday of Lent and Trinity Sunday or, for a just cause, at another time during the year. (CCC 1389, 2042)

For the record, I agree with you that reception of Holy Communion is obligatory during the Paschal season of Easter, but confession is NOT, unless there is serious mortal sin.

Could we please get back to topic?

Just a clarification, before getting “back to topic”: the most recent citation above is not from the Catechism itself, but from a parish’s website paraphrasing the Catechism. The Catechism paragraphs cited actually read as follows:
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a3.htm

1389 The Church obliges the faithful to take part in the Divine Liturgy on Sundays and feast days and, prepared by the sacrament of Reconciliation, to receive the Eucharist at least once a year, if possible during the Easter season.221 But the Church strongly encourages the faithful to receive the holy Eucharist on Sundays and feast days, or more often still, even daily.

2042 The first precept (“You shall attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation and rest from servile labor.”) requires the faithful to sanctify the day commemorating the Resurrection of the Lord as well as the principal liturgical feasts honoring the Mysteries of the Lord, the Blessed Virgin Mary and the saints; in the first place, by participating in the Eucharistic Celebration, in which the Christian community is gathered, and by resting from those works and activities which could impede such a sanctification of these days.82

The second precept (“You shall confess your sins at least once a year.”) ensures preparation for the Eucharist by the reception of the sacrament of reconciliation, which continues Baptism’s work of conversion and forgiveness.83

The third precept (“You shall receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least during the Easter season”) guarantees as a minimum the reception of the Lord’s Body and Blood in connection with the Paschal feasts, the origin and center of the Christian liturgy.84

 

[Joysong]

Thanks for printing the entire reference. Your choice of the word paraphrase seems intended to water down the true meaning of the Precept. However, paraphrase or no paraphrase, this is the understanding of the ‘paraphraser’ who is transmitting with a good measure of authority. I doubt they are doing so irresponsibly or casually, relying on personal interpretation. And this was the understanding I have also learned from those in authority (clergy) who know what is required and transmitted that same instruction to me many years ago.

Certainly, if anyone has a problem interpreting the Church’s instruction, you should speak with a priest for your own situation.

Canons §988 - 989 seem rather clear to me that the intent is for serious (mortal) sins. And the directive below addresses the annual requirement for Eucharist, but does not include annual reception of the sacrament of Penance.

Can. 920 §1 Once admitted to the blessed Eucharist, each of the faithful is obliged to receive holy communion at least once a year.

§2 This precept must be fulfilled during paschal time, unless for a good reason it is fulfilled at another time during the year.

I doubt that a person who is seriously intent on living their faith well is going to neglect any portion of this regulation, for they will confess several times a year, and receive the Eucharist often.

May we finally leave this jurisprudence up to those who are trained to know the interpretation … and move on?

 

[Joysong]

I still have the feeling that the previous posts will not completely satisfy or conclude this discussion. The priest in this article seems to be old enough to be “old school” and maybe his words will suffice.

catholicdigest.com/article/how-often-should-i-go-to-confession/1

You obviously are thinking of “confession before Communion,” and you are thinking (correctly) of the Easter season as extending through Pentecost. It is not a mortal sin not to go to confession during the Easter season. Not to go to confession hardly could be sinful at any time. The purpose of confession is to unburden yourself of moral guilt and free yourself from sin. If you are not thus burdened, be grateful, not anxious.

If you have no serious sins to confess, you have no obligation to go to confession. But it is helpful to participate in the sacrament of Reconciliation with reasonable frequency, and this may be what your priest was trying to point out.

 

[Leopard]

The “seal of the confessional” is ONLY
binding on the PRIEST…

This is not correct, but a good case could be made that I wasn’t entirely correct either, so let’s try to clarify.

The seal of confession is binding on ANYONE (if this respondent can shout, so can I ) who hears another person’s sacramental Confession or attempted sacramental Confession (in the case that the priest does not give absolution for any reason). This applies not only to the priest confessor but also to anyone who assists the confessor or penitent during the confession for any reason. These may include a translator if the penitent can not confess in a language sufficiently known by the priest, health care workers if either the confessor or penitent is seriously ill, or any other person doing some necessary work in which he can not avoid hearing the confession, with the knowlege and consent of both the penitent and the confessor.

An example of this is Fr. Damien of Molokai, of whom the story is told that late in his ministry to the lepers when he had leprosy himself, he was the only priest on his island. So when another ship came near, he would go out to it on a boat and find out if there was another priest on board. If so, Fr. Damien would confess his sins to that priest. But as the Captian usually would neither allow Fr. Damien to board his ship, nor for the other priest to leave the ship to go to Fr. Damien’s boat, Fr. Damien had to shout his sins to the other priest who would in turn shout back the words of absolution and Fr. Damien’s penance. While it is often reported that sympathetic Captains would order all of their sailors to the opposite end of the ship to give some privacy, it is most probable that many sailors or passengers overheard Fr. Damien or these other priests, in which case the seal of confession also applied to them.

And finally, the seal of confession also applies to anyone who accidently hears anyone else’s confession, including the OP if she were to have accidentally overheard her mother’s confession. But that’s not what actually happened. The OP’s mother told her about her confession afterward, so the OP wasn’t really talking about anything she heard during her mother’s confession, she was talking about what she heard in their conversation afterward. Technically this is not a violation of the seal of confession even if she had done so without her mother’s knowlege and permission, but in principle one should still treat such “secondhand” knowlege of another’s confession confidetially without that other person’s permission to share this information. Likewise, in principle one should still treat anything that another penitent reports a priest as saying in confession as confidential without both the penitent’s and the priest’s permission to share that information, even though this technically may not be covered by the seal of confession.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

I still have the feeling that the previous posts will not completely satisfy or conclude this discussion. The priest in this article seems to be old enough to be “old school” and maybe his words will suffice.

catholicdigest.com/article/how-often-should-i-go-to-confession/1

You obviously are thinking of “confession before Communion,” and you are thinking (correctly) of the Easter season as extending through Pentecost. It is not a mortal sin not to go to confession during the Easter season. Not to go to confession hardly could be sinful at any time. The purpose of confession is to unburden yourself of moral guilt and free yourself from sin. If you are not thus burdened, be grateful, not anxious.

If you have no serious sins to confess, you have no obligation to go to confession. But it is helpful to participate in the sacrament of Reconciliation with reasonable frequency, and this may be what your priest was trying to point out.

Paragraph 1389 of the CCC. The link you provided denotes during the Easter time the Sacrament of Reconcilliation precede the Eucharist. The Sacrament of Reconcilliation bestows sanctifying grace upon those who participate. It is a requirement of the Easter obligation (at least once a year). :knight1:

 

[johnstown_johnn]

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

With all due respect the translation you presented here is in error.

I hope and pray that this will never become a fixed notion for others.

 

[Joysong]

Ah, Johnn, but the trained priest knows what the meaning of this is, and I would have bet the farm you would not accept it, for that would mean giving up your private opinion. I thank you, for you have confirmed my interior guidance.

The problem is that the ones who need to hear this never would come to this forum and read, since anyone who is confined to the bare minimum is not here looking for inspiration or Church teaching.

The others who may chance to read it don’t care a hill of beans because their devotion goes so much deeper than that, and this Precept does not affect them.

So the bottom line is, a person is free to cling to one’s private opinion solely to win a document interpretation war that concerns nobody whomsoever on this forum. I really don’t want to play that game, and concede you as winner. :bowdown2:

 

[JimR-OCDS]

With all due respect the translation you presented here is in error.

I hope and pray that this will never become a fixed notion for others.

Actually its not my error but yours. The Footnotes in the Catholic Bible confirms it.

Also, read the entire Chapter of 1 Corinthians 11 17:34. Paul was talking about abuses in the Eucharist that factions in the Church at Corinth were involved in. They were treating the Eucharistic as a meal and some were even getting drunk, see verse 20.

So it was also, that there were those who were receiving the Eucharist, without belief or understanding of what they were doing.

This has nothing to do with the case of the OP’s mother and the advice the priest gave her.

In fact, it has been pointed out that we are obligated to receive the Eucharist at least once a year. Perhaps this is why the priest advised her, that she should have received Communion?

Again, it gets back to, what went on between the woman and her confessor, should be kept there.

My guess is that because of the compassion and wisdom of this priest, the woman will continue to receive the sacraments.

Jim

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Ah, Johnn, but the trained priest knows what the meaning of this is, and I would have bet the farm you would not accept it, for that would mean giving up your private opinion. I thank you, for you have confirmed my interior guidance.

The problem is that the ones who need to hear this never would come to this forum and read, since anyone who is confined to the bare minimum is not here looking for inspiration or Church teaching.

The others who may chance to read it don’t care a hill of beans because their devotion goes so much deeper than that, and this Precept does not affect them.

So the bottom line is, a person is free to cling to one’s private opinion solely to win a document interpretation war that concerns nobody whomsoever on this forum. I really don’t want to play that game, and concede you as winner. :bowdown2:

This has gotten so abstract it’s mindboggling. I cannot make out what is bing said above…maybe it’s just me.

The sacrament of Reconciliation is a requirement along with reception of Holy Communion during the Easter time. Whether or not a person has commited a mortal sin. Both sacraments are tied together in this obligation. The Catechism , Paragraph 1389 states this is so irrespective of the author of that article who says differently. The Catechism, obviously, needs to be revisited.:knight1:

 

[Joysong]

My condolences, johnn,

I was not aware you possibly suffered from dyslexia, and that explains everything to me as to why this problem of understanding exists.

If it really bothers you what I meant, couldn’t you have sent me a PM or asked for clarification?

 

[johnstown_johnn]

My condolences, johnn,

I was not aware you possibly suffered from dyslexia, and that explains everything to me as to why this problem of understanding exists.

If it really bothers you what I meant, couldn’t you have sent me a PM or asked for clarification?

A PM? No, I don’t think so. Obviously a “meeting of the minds” seems unachievable given the “running around in circles” we BOTH are in our exchanges. “Dyslexia,” not very nice…:condolensces?" very patronizing. It’s getting too personal and isn’t beneficial to either of us.

What is lost in all of this is the Eucharist and the realization it is truly the Body and Blood of Our Savior and the purging of our imperfections as best we can so to receive Him with a cleansed heart as much as we are able.

In this day and time we are challenged in our Faith. The Eucharist is CENTRAL to our Faith; It is what bonds us to Jesus and thereby gives us passage to eternal life.

There ARE such things as “bad parishes” and there ARE such things as clergy that do not emphasize the Eucharist…(makes me wonder, sometimes, if SOME priests actually have doubt in their hearts of the Transubstantiation).

The last secret of Fatima was that the Church would be infiltrated from below…even one of the apostles “infiltrated” that circle.

Yes, there are indeed bad parishes. It’s a judgment call for us when we see how the Eucharist is regarded. It’s simple enough if our hearts are grateful for this gift of eternal life.

Finally, peace to you and yours. :knight1:

 

[JimR-OCDS]

johnstown johnn

The last secret of Fatima was that the Church would be infiltrated from below…even one of the apostles “infiltrated” that circle.

Did it ever occur to you that the infiltrators might not be the ones you think they are?

“By our love, they will know we are Christians,” not by rigid adherence to religious protocol.

Jim

 

[mangy_dog]

My condolences, johnn,

I was not aware you possibly suffered from dyslexia, and that explains everything to me as to why this problem of understanding exists.

If it really bothers you what I meant, couldn’t you have sent me a PM or asked for clarification?

That is too funny. you really made me laugh, thanks.

 

[mangy_dog]

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:

“Clowns to the left of me - jokers to the right here I am”
“stuck in a bad parish with you”
“stuck in a bad parish with you”

Oh…sorry.

 

[mangy_dog]

A PM? No, I don’t think so. Obviously a “meeting of the minds” seems unachievable given the “running around in circles” we BOTH are in our exchanges. “Dyslexia,” not very nice…:condolensces?" very patronizing. It’s getting too personal and isn’t beneficial to either of us.

What is lost in all of this is the Eucharist and the realization it is truly the Body and Blood of Our Savior and the purging of our imperfections as best we can so to receive Him with a cleansed heart as much as we are able.

In this day and time we are challenged in our Faith. The Eucharist is CENTRAL to our Faith; It is what bonds us to Jesus and thereby gives us passage to eternal life.

There ARE such things as “bad parishes” and there ARE such things as clergy that do not emphasize the Eucharist…(makes me wonder, sometimes, if SOME priests actually have doubt in their hearts of the Transubstantiation).

The last secret of Fatima was that the Church would be infiltrated from below…even one of the apostles “infiltrated” that circle.

Yes, there are indeed bad parishes. It’s a judgment call for us when we see how the Eucharist is regarded. It’s simple enough if our hearts are grateful for this gift of eternal life.

Finally, peace to you and yours. :knight1:

Johnn,

The Fátima secret talks about the “smoke of Satan” entering the church.

C’mon buddy, pick-up your cross and just continue to march…

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Johnn,

The Fátima secret talks about the “smoke of Satan” entering the church.

C’mon buddy, pick-up your cross and just continue to march…

So, then, just what is that “smoke” of Satan?

 

[Indyann]

So, then, just what is that “smoke” of Satan?

IMHO, it is those dissenters, whose intention was to block the inspiration of the Holy Spirit during VII.

People who have promoted schism in the ONE, Holy and Apostolic Church.