The constant griping about EMsHC use by some

[phil19034]

misstherese:

They were young people and hadn’t been told that if one is in mortal sin they cannot receive the Blessed Sacrament. Many people are actually not told this.

Do Roman Catholics today believe in liturgical absolution, i.e., if you go to Mass, all your mortal sins are forgiven by the prayers said there at Mass?
I read in different places that about 80% or more of all married Catholics in the USA use some form of artificial birth control? Has the rule on artificial birth control been changed or is there liturgical absolution which allows almost everyone to receive Holy communion without going to confession?

Receiving Holy Communion at Mass forgives venial sin. But it doesn’t forgive mortal sin.

The use of birth control is a mortal sin. Any one who uses birth control must go to confession before receiving Holy Communion.

I think there are many Catholics today:

1. incorrectly think the penitential act during Mass forgives them of their mortal sin
2. don’t know that birth control prevents them from receiving communion
3. don’t know the difference between venial and mortal sin
4. don’t think most of the common mortal sins are mortal.
5. think the church doesn’t believe in mortal sin anymore
6. simply were never really taught what Confession is
7. don’t realize they can’t receive communion without going to confession
8. know everything and simply don’t care or disagree with the Church and do what they want
9. know they are not supposed to receive communion so they don’t come to mass (and refuse to go to confession for whatever reason)

 

[misstherese]

No, nothing has changed. Artificial birth control is still considered a sin no matter what.

I have heard that by going to mass, one can be forgiven of venial sins, if they feel in their heart that they do not want to commit them anymore. But mortal sins absolutely need to be confessed before receiving the Blessed Sacrament. I would say people receiving the Blessed Sacrament in a state of mortal sin would have to do with poor catechizing.

 

[misstherese]

incorrectly think the penitential act during Mass forgives them of their mortal sin
don’t know that birth control prevents them from receiving communion
don’t know the difference between venial and mortal sin
don’t think most of the common mortal sins are mortal.
think the church doesn’t believe in mortal sin anymore
simply were never really taught what Confession is
don’t realize they can’t receive communion without going to confession
know everything and simply don’t care or disagree with the Church and do what they want
know they are not supposed to receive communion so they don’t come to mass (and refuse to go to confession for whatever reason)

I definitely agree with this list and I would add that it would boil down to belief in the Real Presence. When one doesn’t actually put in their mind that the bread becomes Jesus, it’s easier to not care as much about preparation. We can be taught about it, but actually realizing during the consecration that that is Jesus up there can totally slip some people’s minds.

 

[Duesenberg]

Do you even realize that you attributed something to me that someone else wrote? Please check next time before hitting the “Reply” soft key.

 

[AlNg]

But mortal sins absolutely need to be confessed before receiving the Blessed Sacrament

Some priests encourage everyone present to come up and receive Holy Communion, which seems to me to be an implicit belief in liturgical absolution.

 

[R_H_Benson]

Some priests encourage everyone present to come up and receive Holy Communion, which seems to me to be an implicit belief in liturgical absolution.

Yes. Consider the added pressure this puts on the Catholics in the pews who are aware that they are not in the state to receive Holy Communion to do so anyway so as to avoid social repercussions. “Father invited everyone to receive! Why didn’t so and so come up?”

 

[the_coppersmith]

Simply noticing something is not sinful or wrong.

Depends on the thoughts that follow the “noticing”. If the thoughts are, as you said, “look at how few people confessing and how many receiving communion…bunch of sinners receiving communion unworthily they must be”, then perhaps there is a bit of an issue at hand. Sin? I don’t know. I’d ask a confessor.

They … hadn’t been told that if one is in mortal sin they cannot receive the Blessed Sacrament.

Then they did not commit any sin at all in receiving the Blessed Sacrament, because, as you know, one needs to be fully aware and deliberately consent to the sin. If they didn’t know, then objectively they did something wrong, but subjectively they are not culpable of anything. I am more concerned about their formators than about them receiving our Lord, who loves them unconditionally.

Do you even realize that you attributed something to me that someone else wrote? Please check next time before hitting the “Reply” soft key.

Aren’t we bossy :crazy_face:

 

[misstherese]

Depends on the thoughts that follow the “noticing”. If the thoughts are, as you said, “look at how few people confessing and how many receiving communion…bunch of sinners receiving communion unworthily they must be”, then perhaps there is a bit of an issue at hand. Sin? I don’t know. I’d ask a confessor.

Not what I said. We are all sinners. When bringing it helps serve a valid point, that young people should be better catechized concerning this issue, it is acceptable for the discussion. I would not say this of others that I have not heard straight from their mouths that they concealed mortal sins in confession. They did know what they were doing.

Is it better to ignore the issue and act like people don’t receive communion in mortal sin? I would think not.

Culpability is a tricky thing and we should always be careful not to invite relativism into Church teaching, but to instead teach first what is right and wrong. What good does teaching culpability do? That there are loopholes around sinning? If the sin was committed, it is much safer to not receive communion.

 

[edwest211]

In the 1960s, seeing through walls was not needed The other priests came up because of the words of the priest, the altar boys ringing the hand bells and so on. Mass took a defined period of time - one hour - so it was not hard to tell when it was time for Communion. As people kneeled and stood up at the appropriate times, a bit of noise was made.

 

[the_coppersmith]

Is it better to ignore the issue and act like people don’t receive communion in mortal sin? I would think not.

Either discuss the issue with them or mind your own business Discussing it in public is pointless, and in any case the issue at hand is with formation, not with the communicants who are being criticized unfairly. Also you say they said they had not confessed certain mortal sins. How’s that your business anyways? How do you even know it is true? You are walking into someone’s mind and soul, and that’s delicate business, for trained spiritual directors and for confessors.

Culpability is a tricky thing and we should always be careful not to invite relativism into Church teaching, but to instead teach first what is right and wrong. What good does teaching culpability do? That there are loopholes around sinning? If the sin was committed, it is much safer to not receive communion.

Right and wrong are not like black and white. There are degrees of culpability. What good does teaching it do? Well, it is the truth, and our mission is to teach the truth, not that which we feel comfortable teaching or that which we have decided is right to be taught. We are not the Magisterium. The Church is. And the Catechism is adamant in that there is a huge difference between venial sin and mortal sin, and that ignorance in many cases makes sin venial.

I also find this statement somewhat amusing: “it is much safer not to receive communion”. Are you afraid that lightning will strike you? That God will damn you to Hell? Is that the God of the Catholic faith? I would now mention the difference between servile and filial fear of God, but perhaps it would not be of much use, when our supposed zeal for the holiness of the Blessed Sacrament bends us into building walls around it so that impure hands may not touch it.

 

[Reuben_J]

Duesenberg:

manner in which they handle the consecrated bread”

Laity and religious using such disrespectful terminology in describing the Body of Christ are yet to discover the truth of celebrating the Paschal Mystery.

Jesus, on being tackled by the Pharisees because His Apostles were eating without washing their hands, replied
it is not what goes in the mouth that makes a man unclean, it is what comes from the tongue . Because what comes from the tongue starts in the heart, and truly reflects the heart.

The only respectful, and correct terminology is
The Body of Christ.

What do you truly believe, in your heart?

Then you have to bring it up with the USCCB for the terminology is right from their quote on the EMHC and Eucharist.

 

[Reuben_J]

The only respectful, and correct terminology is
The Body of Christ.

What do you truly believe, in your heart?

Likewise do you know what happen at the consecration during the mass when the bread is consecrated? Probably that is the greatest miracle and which is the heart of Catholic liturgy. I cannot help you if you do not know this but the USCCB definitely uses this language to bring out the message of what’s happening in the mass.

 

[misstherese]

I also find this statement somewhat amusing: “it is much safer not to receive communion”. Are you afraid that lightning will strike you? That God will damn you to Hell? Is that the God of the Catholic faith?

It is sacrilege to receive communion in a state of mortal sin. Sacrilege is a grave sin and could damn someone to Hell, so yes I do worry about this. And I only discuss it because I worry about those in the Church who are not aware of this grave sin. Concealing mortal sin in confession is also grave sin and could damn someone to Hell. I use these examples (but do not reveal the persons identity obviously) to add to my part of the discussion that this does happen. It is not to ruin their reputation.

Yes, culpability should be taught, but teaching first the right and wrongs of the Catholic faith is first and foremost the most important thing. The Catholic faith is based on objective truth and it should be taught that way. Even if we are not aware we are offending God, we still are offending Him. This offense can lessen our relationship with Him, whether we realize it or not.

It does no good for souls to teach culpability and to neglect objective morale.

 

[the_coppersmith]

It is sacrilege to receive communion in a state of mortal sin. Sacrilege is a grave sin and could damn someone to Hell

Ok, deep breath. Bear with me for one second.

Objectively it is sacrilege to receive communion in a state of mortal sin. Agreed.

But if the person doing so doesn’t know it is sacrilege to receive communion in a state of mortal sin, then subjectively they are not guilty of any sin whatsoever.

The intention is very significant. We can’t gloss over it or pretend it makes no difference. Lack of full knowledge or lack of deliberate consent mean no mortal sin, period. That is our faith.

If I run someone over with my car because my breaks suddenly decided not to work, objectively I am culpable of a grave sin, but subjectively I am not guilty of mortal sin because it was accidental.

Concealing mortal sin from the confessor is also very serious because it can invalidate the confession, but there is again the issue of deliberate consent. If a person is deeply ashamed or traumatized or has some other serious reason that keeps them from confessing, that’s one scenario. If the person willfully chooses to hide the sin from the confessor that’s another scenario. But that’s for the confessor to work with, not for us.

The best we can do is encourage our friends, remind them that God already knows our sins, and suggest that perhaps they may write those sins in a piece of paper to hand to the confessor if they are unable to speak up (and then of course destroy the paper).

God is much more gentle with us than we are with one another.

 

[R_H_Benson]

But if the person doing so doesn’t know it is sacrilege to receive communion in a state of mortal sin, then subjectively they are not guilty of any sin whatsoever.

Any Catholic who has reached the age of reason is culpable for knowing that they may not receive Holy Communion in the state of mortal sin. This is very basic. It doesn’t take formation. It takes a 30 second glance at the Catechism. There is no excuse for an adult Catholic to be ignorant of the fact that he may not receive Holy Communion in the state of mortal sin.

The intention is very significant. We can’t gloss over it or pretend it makes no difference. Lack of full knowledge or lack of deliberate consent mean no mortal sin, period. That is our faith.

They are culpable for having a lack of full knowledge about a basic tenet of the Faith. This culpable ignorance leads them to commit culpable sacrilege against the Blessed Sacrament.

 

[the_coppersmith]

Any Catholic who has reached the age of reason is culpable for knowing that they may not receive Holy Communion in the state of mortal sin. This is very basic. It doesn’t take formation. It takes a 30 second glance at the Catechism. There is no excuse for an adult Catholic to be ignorant of the fact that he may not receive Holy Communion in the state of mortal sin.

I reached the age of reason a while ago, made my first confession in third grade, then stopped practicing the faith for a long time. Went through RCIA without ever touching the Catechism. Someone did mention about not receiving communion if conscious of mortal sins. A year later I bought my first Catechism. Guess what? I still didn’t know I was bound to go to mass on Sundays. Maybe something distracted me during RCIA when the formator mentioned it. Maybe I didn’t quite understand that it was a duty binding under pain of mortal sin. My confessor was very amused when the topic came out in a conversation. I had been receiving communion for a while, and had missed a lot of Sunday masses due to family pressure and other personal issues I don’t need to disclose. He made it very clear that I was not guilty of mortal sin or sacrilege, but that from that point on I was fully knowledgeable and thus had no excuse (other than the lawful reasons) to miss Sunday mass. There are many excuses for not knowing certain “basic” things. Family, formators, and basic lack of resources are some of them. Sometimes we need to get off the high horse and be a bit compassionate.

They are culpable for having a lack of full knowledge about a basic tenet of the Faith. This culpable ignorance leads them to commit culpable sacrilege against the Blessed Sacrament.

How are they culpably ignorant if they are attending RCIA? They are doing the best they can. Nobody is born knowing, my friend.

Why are so many so bent on pinning the sin of sacrilege on people who did not know what they were doing?

Why are so many so bent on pinning sins on others, period?

 

[Reuben_J]

R_H_Benson:

They are culpable for having a lack of full knowledge about a basic tenet of the Faith. This culpable ignorance leads them to commit culpable sacrilege against the Blessed Sacrament.

How are they culpably ignorant if they are attending RCIA? They are doing the best they can. Nobody is born knowing, my friend.

Why are so many so bent on pinning the sin of sacrilege on people who did not know what they were doing?

Why are so many so bent on pinning sins on others, period?

That (culpable ignorance) is new to me. What is certain is that ignorance is a mitigation for mortal sin. The Catechism uses the word ‘invincible ignorance’ and such person can be saved without knowing Christ through a fault not of his own.

You are right. Mortal sin has to be grave matter and committing it willfully and intentionally knowing it as such. God is merciful that His mercy really searches our hearts. It is for this reason that we can never know if a person is in hell unlike those who are in heaven (which we can reasonably know).

 

[Augustinian]

Any Catholic who has reached the age of reason is culpable for knowing that they may not receive Holy Communion in the state of mortal sin. This is very basic

Not every Catholic is as informed as they should be, but it goes beyond that. Non catholics in attendance may not realiize the rules either, and might consider it bad form and a major social faux pas to refuse to receive.

 

[misstherese]

It really just comes down to who is not teaching these people correctly and the persons heart. If the person was basically non practicing, not even attempting or caring to understand some of the basic tenets of faith, including preparation for communion, willful ignorance can come into play if the person were to receive communion without first going to confession.

If someone is not aware of it through no fault of their own, and are trying to learn the faith and do things right, then they would most likely not be guilty of mortal sin.

Of course God is much more pleased if someone genuinely searches for Him and will show compassion for those who may make mistakes along the way.

 

[R_H_Benson]

If someone is not aware of it through no fault of their own

That is the key. “Through no fault of their own”. But, as I pointed out in my previous post, a Catholic who is of the age of reason and is unaware that receiving Holy Communion in the state of mortal sin is an act of sacrilege is necessarily guilty of culpable ignorance (AKA “vincible ignorance”). He is obligated to know that he may not receive Holy Communion in the state of mortal sin. It is the same in the civil law. One cannot plead ignorance of a basic law and expect to be let off the hook. Imagine a defendant saying: “Your honor, I’m sorry that I murdered that person, but I didn’t know that murder was illegal.” We have to consider God’s laws and the laws of the Church in a similar manner. As Catholics, we are obligated to know what constitutes a mortal sin. If we do not, then we are culpable for that ignorance. I’m not denying that legitimate ignorance can indeed diminish or even remove culpability entirely. But, in this case, there is no possibility for legitimate ignorance.