The Easter Duty for those not in a state of Grace

  • Thread starter Thread starter carefullytread
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

carefullytread

Guest
In the Catechism, we are told
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. But the Church strongly encourages the faithful to receive the holy Eucharist on Sundays and feast days, or more often still, even daily.
Click to expand...
I have heard this described as the “Easter Duty”, although it seems that communing during the Easter Season season isn’t strictly required. The implication from this paragraph is that not taking communing once a year is a sin.

If one is in not in a state of Grace, taking the Eucharist is committing the sin of Sacrilege. What does this requirement mean for, say, remarried people who are banned from receiving the Eucharist? Do they ‘accumulate’ an additional sin every year by not communing? Is this something they should add to their confessions even if they are unable to receive absolution for the sin that keeps them out of a state of Grace?
 
I didn’t think any of the sacraments were available to someone who was excommunicated?
 
I’ve heard on this forum that “Easter Season” runs through until Trinity Sunday. For someone simply not in a state of grace, that’s plenty of time to go to confession and receive. For those who go to confession and Mass regularly, this is not a problem in any case. For those who can’t receive absolution due to irregular marriages, I would say they would not accumulate any additional sin as canon law does not oblige someone to do that which is impossible.
 
Shawnq said:
I didn’t think any of the sacraments were available to someone who was excommunicated?
Click to expand...
Whether or not people in this condition are “excommunicated” (I think this was lifted in the 70s or so in the US, but I’m quoting that from memory so it may be off), common sense would dictate that atleast the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation (Confession) can always be used by those who are excommunicated. How else can they be accepted once again into the Church? 🤷
 
OK…a couple of things.
Shawnq said:
I didn’t think any of the sacraments were available to someone who was excommunicated?
Click to expand...
First of all, not being in a state of grace is not the same thing as being excommunicated. Formal excommunication happens very, very rarely, truth be told.
I’ve heard on this forum that “Easter Season” runs through until Trinity Sunday. For someone simply not in a state of grace, that’s plenty of time to go to confession and receive. For those who go to confession and Mass regularly, this is not a problem in any case. For those who can’t receive absolution due to irregular marriages, I would say they would not accumulate any additional sin as canon law does not oblige someone to do that which is impossible.
Click to expand...
The Easter Season ends on Pentecost. Technically, Corpus Christi and Trinity Sunday are part of Ordinary Time, though they are sort of like “extensions” of the Easter Season, if you will.

Canon law actually doesn’t really have much to say on this matter. It’s more a matter of divine law that we ought not receive any of the five sacraments of the living when conscious of not being in a state of grace.

But, practically speaking, you’re correct with respect to the original post. It’s a precept of the Church to receive the Eucharist at least once a year, preferably during the Easter season. However, we are never bound to the impossible. And again, not to pick on you here, but it has nothing to do with canon law. It’s simple common sense. I know of many people who are in irregular marriages who cannot receive Holy Communion. The Church doesn’t expect them to commit a further sin of sacrilege. Rather, what the Church asks, as any loving mother would, is for them to fix their irregular situation. If that means applying for an annulment (or several, as the case may be, then so be it). In many cases, it simply means having a civil marriage convalidated. The sin is in procrastinating on availing oneself to God’s grace, love, and mercy.
 
buc_fan33 said:
The Church doesn’t expect them to commit a further sin of sacrilege.
Click to expand...
Hi Buc,

I wouldn’t expect the Church would require them to commit Sacrilege. I’m sure that in the ordering of sins, Sacrilege is worse than missing the yearly Eucharist.

My question was more whether one was forced to commit a sin here. Clearly, in such a situation, one should pick the lesser sin and the Church would not counsel otherwise.

I don’t know it would still be a sin nonetheless. It might still require time in purgatory and might still require confession for absolution even if it was unavoidable without correcting the absence of Grace. And, in a sense, one does have choice in the matter because (unless one is under explicit excommunication), it is often possible to right your situation with the Church by, say, moving out from an illicit marriage or living as ‘brother and sister’ and then going to Confession. So, in a way, it is the choice not to fix the original sin that caused the ban from Communion. And it was this choice that resulted in the acquisition of the addition sin of missing the Easter Duty.

I do not know if that’s the correct way to look at it or not.
 
Is one forced to commit a sin? No. By definition, sin is a choice of the will. You can’t be forced to sin against your will. I can’t imagine a scenario where one would have to choose between one of two sins. In this case, the teaching of the church is clear–don’t receive the Eucharist in mortal sin. The precept of the Church assumes that the person is not conscious of being in a state of mortal sin.

As for moving out, sometimes that isn’t possible, especially if children are involved. But, technically, you’re right. Sometimes couples can agree to live as brother and sister.

But as I said in my previous post, the bigger issue is dealing with the irregular marriage situation.
 
If a Catholic has to be ‘forced’ to approach the sacraments once a year, why is he even in the Church? Surely approaching the sacraments should be a regular occasion of joy.
 
eamonnroma said:
If a Catholic has to be ‘forced’ to approach the sacraments once a year, why is he even in the Church? Surely approaching the sacraments should be a regular occasion of joy.
Click to expand...
There was once a time when regular, even weekly or monthly, reception of Communion was not the norm. This law was put in place during that time to encourage the faithful to receive more often than was the current practice.

I’m glad it’s still ‘on the books’ as it encourages (‘forced’ is your word) the faithful to re-examine their lives and go to Confession in preparation for their required yearly Holy Communion. To live in a perpetual state of mortal sin is a dangerous state, indeed.
 
carefullytread said:
Hi Buc,

I wouldn’t expect the Church would require them to commit Sacrilege. I’m sure that in the ordering of sins, Sacrilege is worse than missing the yearly Eucharist.

My question was more whether one was forced to commit a sin here. Clearly, in such a situation, one should pick the lesser sin and the Church would not counsel otherwise.

I don’t know it would still be a sin nonetheless. It might still require time in purgatory and might still require confession for absolution even if it was unavoidable without correcting the absence of Grace. And, in a sense, one does have choice in the matter because (unless one is under explicit excommunication), it is often possible to right your situation with the Church by, say, moving out from an illicit marriage or living as ‘brother and sister’ and then going to Confession. So, in a way, it is the choice not to fix the original sin that caused the ban from Communion. And it was this choice that resulted in the acquisition of the addition sin of missing the Easter Duty.

I do not know if that’s the correct way to look at it or not.
Click to expand...
This seems kind of silly. It’s their Christian duty to correct their “irregular” situation and receive during the Easter season. I see no reason why it should not be a sin to miss it, though maybe less of a sin than receiving while not in a state of grace. The remarried couple remains living in a sinful situation, giving scandal, and doing the marital act out of a valid union. Shouldn’t’t we be concerned about those sins instead of whether they accumulate one more by persisting in this?

Perhaps I could phrase this more mercifully and tactfully, but it’s not the Church imposing an extra unfair sin, here.
 
Mary_Ellen said:
There was once a time when regular, even weekly or monthly, reception of Communion was not the norm. This law was put in place during that time to encourage the faithful to receive more often than was the current practice.
Click to expand...
That time wasn’t too long ago. When I was kid (I’m 60), most people in attendance at Sunday Mass did not approach the altar for communion on most Sundays, here in America.

My understanding is that Pope Pius X at the dawn of the 20th century, opened up communion to the people, and that in previous centuries, it was out of the ordinary for even devout Catholics to receive more than 4 times a year. I was reading a while back as to why Presbyterians ordinarily only have quarterly communion, the explanation was that this was the general practice of the people in Scotland before Presbyterianism (when they were all Catholic) to only receive 4x a year, and they just retained the idea.
 
Kielbasi said:
That time wasn’t too long ago. When I was kid (I’m 60), most people in attendance at Sunday Mass did not approach the altar for communion on most Sundays, here in America.

My understanding is that Pope Pius X at the dawn of the 20th century, opened up communion to the people, and that in previous centuries, it was out of the ordinary for even devout Catholics to receive more than 4 times a year. I was reading a while back as to why Presbyterians ordinarily only have quarterly communion, the explanation was that this was the general practice of the people in Scotland before Presbyterianism (when they were all Catholic) to only receive 4x a year, and they just retained the idea.
Click to expand...
Father can correct me if I am mistaken, but reception of the Holy Eucharist didn’t become a rare occasion for Catholics until Jansenism reared its head in the Church in either the 16th or 17th century. The effects of that heresy (a God of justice sans mercy, that few are saved, that no one is ever worthy to receive the Holy Eucharist etc.) lasted for centuries. That’s why the Carmelite nuns in the monastery with St. Therese thought her so odd - she discovered by reading scripture that Our Lord is truly a merciful Father and not a tyrant waiting to punish everyone like most of the other nuns in the monastery thought.
 
Wesrock said:
This seems kind of silly. It’s their Christian duty to correct their “irregular” situation and receive during the Easter season. I see no reason why it should not be a sin to miss it, though maybe less of a sin than receiving while not in a state of grace. The remarried couple remains living in a sinful situation, giving scandal, and doing the marital act out of a valid union. Shouldn’t’t we be concerned about those sins instead of whether they accumulate one more by persisting in this?

Perhaps I could phrase this more mercifully and tactfully, but it’s not the Church imposing an extra unfair sin, here.
Click to expand...
Hi Wesrock,

I am not asking whether it is unfair. I don’t think ‘fair’ is even relevant to the question of Canon law. The law is the law, fairness doesn’t enter into it.

I’m definitely not asking whether the Church counsels someone not in a state of Grace to take the Eucharist. Obviously they don’t.

My question is more specifically whether there is or is not additional sin acquired by violated the Easter Duty beyond the sin that one acquires that puts one out side of Grace.

Certainly, being in an irregular marriage, being excommunicated for being a heretic, etc. are all grave sins. But does one acquire an additional sin that requires Confession by not completing one’s Easter Duty because of the lack of Grace?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top