Those in communion line MUST receive communion or cause scandal

[Pro_Domina]

Whoever says going up for a blessing is not a sin is quite a lay person.

You are OBLIGATED to recieve Holy Communion if you get into the line. Even if you remembered you are in mortal sin or that you ate something or whatever, you cannot not recieve, you are obligated to do so. It is a sin of scandal is you don’t.

Now I would like to argument on the suggestions of doing a spiritual communion in mortal sin… But that is another fight.

 

[Light_Seeker]

You are OBLIGATED to recieve Holy Communion if you get into the line. Even if you remembered you are in mortal sin or that you ate something or whatever, you cannot not recieve, you are obligated to do so. It is a sin of scandal is you don’t.

Huh?

You’re saying if you’re in line, realize that you are in mortal sin, to recieve the Eucharist anyway?

I don’t think so.

 

[puzzleannie]

Whoever says going up for a blessing is not a sin is quite a lay person.

You are OBLIGATED to recieve Holy Communion if you get into the line. Even if you remembered you are in mortal sin or that you ate something or whatever, you cannot not recieve, you are obligated to do so. It is a sin of scandal is you don’t.
.

this is completely wrong
provide the church document that makes this claim, please, before binding burdens to lay on the shoulders of others

 

[Light_Seeker]

Yes, because it is a sin of scandal, so the church commands to recieve, as the person did not enter the line knowledgable at the time, yet leaving the line could cause problems.

You are wrong.

It would be a sin of scandal to receive in mortal sin. Not to leave the communion line.

 

[Corki]

Yes, because it is a sin of scandal, so the church commands to recieve, as the person did not enter the line knowledgable at the time, yet leaving the line could cause problems.

Another thing is staying behind. No one has to know why you did not go. I mean it is usually a syntom of the obvious, but it is not enough, so it is not properly a scandal.

A priest is an exeption permitted, in a situation where he is schedueled to celebrate and he cannot find a replacement, he cannot just not celebrate. He is allowed to do an act of contrition conditioned on that he will procur confession ASAP.

This is a misrepresentation of the sin of scandal. Scandal is given when, by your actions, you may lead someone to believe that it is ok to commit a sin. A known public sinner receiving Communion is a classic example of giving scandal. One can never give scandal by chosing NOT to receive Communion. In fact, the example one gives is not scandalous but the opposite. It is not a sin to admit you are not worthy or disposed for Communion, even publically.

 

[Pro_Domina]

Auto-denouncing a non-public sin IS A SCANDAL!

Making it clear you are not worthy for communion is a scandal.

Staying on the bench does not make it clear.

Getting into the line and then leaving makes it quite clear.

Scandal is not only leading another to sin by making them think it is right, but also depriving them of the support in spiritual life because the Church is also a visible society, so when one sins it can weaken the strength others have. If I kill someone, I will lower the concept of security and perhaps even lessen others rejection to it. The same with scandal. “Oh if she did it, than who doesn’t?”

 

[Light_Seeker]

Making it clear you are not worthy for communion is a scandal.

Staying on the bench does not make it clear.

Getting into the line and then leaving makes it quite clear.

Please provide canon, scriptural, or CCC reference on this.

Staying in line & receiving when in mortal sin is another sin. Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

[Seatuck]

Please provide canon, scriptural, or CCC reference on this.

Staying in line & receiving when in mortal sin is another sin. Two wrongs do not make a right.

I’d like to see a reference as well.

 

[Pro_Domina]

It is not two wrongs. The situation was not maliciously started.
It was not the original intention.

But here is one that I know it is easy to find, since it is in a confession manual.

If a priest has a penitent that says, “Father I poisoned the wine for the mass” The priest can ask him to correct the problem, but if the other cannot without damaging his reputation, the priest must go and celebrate that mass and die a myrtr.

That is objectively suicide. Yet the right that the people have not to be scandalized is greater than the life of the priest.

The same in our situation. Once he is in the line, he publicaly acted in a manner that demonstrates he is disposed to recieve commmunion. Leaving the line means he is not disposed. This is different from staying on the pew, since it is not an obligation to recieve at every mass. I have sometimes assisted 9 masses in a day. I could only recieve in two. Others don’t have to worry why I did not get up to recieve. But if I did, I cannot go back, even if I remember that this would be exceeding the limit placed by canon 917.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

this is completely wrong

I agree, competely wrong.

 

[Ilroy]

It is not two wrongs. The situation was not maliciously started.
It was not the original intention.

But here is one that I know it is easy to find, since it is in a confession manual.

If a priest has a penitent that says, “Father I poisoned the wine for the mass” The priest can ask him to correct the problem, but if the other cannot without damaging his reputation, the priest must go and celebrate that mass and die a myrtr.

That is objectively suicide. Yet the right that the people have not to be scandalized is greater than the life of the priest.

The same in our situation. Once he is in the line, he publicaly acted in a manner that demonstrates he is disposed to recieve commmunion. Leaving the line means he is not disposed. This is different from staying on the pew, since it is not an obligation to recieve at every mass. I have sometimes assisted 9 masses in a day. I could only recieve in two. Others don’t have to worry why I did not get up to recieve. But if I did, I cannot go back, even if I remember that this would be exceeding the limit placed by canon 917.

And yet you still have given zero proof that what you are claiming is indeed actual teaching of The Catholic Church. Throwing your opinion out there means absolutely zip, especially when asked for official documentation from Holy Mother Church, and you ignore each and every request for same. Please give us the official Church document, or stop making this claim.

 

[Light_Seeker]

If a priest has a penitent that says, “Father I poisoned the wine for the mass” The priest can ask him to correct the problem, but if the other cannot without damaging his reputation, the priest must go and celebrate that mass and die a myrtr.

That is objectively suicide. Yet the right that the people have not to be scandalized is greater than the life of the priest.

So administer a cup of death? I don’t think so.

From responses to the Summa Theological:

If it be discovered that the wine has been poisoned, the priest should neither receive it nor administer it to others on any account, lest the life-giving chalice become one of death, but it ought to be kept in a suitable vessel with the relics: and in order that the sacrament may not remain incomplete, he ought to put other wine into the chalice, resume the mass from the consecration of the blood, and complete the sacrifice.

Again, please provide reference.

 

[Pro_Domina]

For starters, the Church is not the US. It does not have people permanently making up laws for no reason. There is no need to make positive laws for things Catholic doctrine teaches.

I know this from my studies. Where is the exact source, it disapears in the list of books I’ve read, which does not exist.

But a thing I can state from the top of my head is that canon 916 allows for special circumstances to recieve without prior sacramental confession.

I am really conservative, so I assure you it is not a progresivist thing.

Some facts from history:
These situations did not happen in the past.

First off, daily communion is a new concept in practice. The faithful did not recieve as often. Second, when they did, it was kneeling at the rail.

Now they do, because of changes in the practices. But the concept remains.

You got into the line to recieve. If you leave, it is because there is a reason that has changed your mind. Others don’t know what is the reason, but they know it changed. That is enough to cause scandal. God and the faithful have the right not to be scadalized.
You entered that line without wrongful intentions. Your memory brought back an impediment. You can’t leave, so you must do an act of contrition and recieve.

Now staying on the bench is another thing. No intention was manifested. Though it is prudent not to sit in the front eh.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

abd

 

[Light_Seeker]

For starters, the Church is not the US. It does not have people permanently making up laws for no reason. There is no need to make positive laws for things Catholic doctrine teaches.

I know this from my studies. Where is the exact source, it disapears in the list of books I’ve read, which does not exist.

What you suggest, leaving line causes a scandal, is NOT what Catholic doctrine teaches. Our doctrine does teach that we must prepare ourselves and examine our conscience. But we are talking about standing in line, when it dawns on you you are not worthy, then leave. This is not a scandal. An embarrassment perhaps, but definitely not a scandal.
Pro Domina:

But a thing I can state from the top of my head is that canon 916 allows for special circumstances to recieve without prior sacramental confession.

YEs it does. But canon 916 does not apply to leaving the communion line.
Pro Domina:

I am really conservative, so I assure you it is not a progresivist thing.

As am I.
Pro Domina:

Some facts from history:
These situations did not happen in the past.

First off, daily communion is a new concept in practice. The faithful did not recieve as often. Second, when they did, it was kneeling at the rail.

Now they do, because of changes in the practices. But the concept remains.

All of this is true. But has nothing to do with the topic.
Pro Domina:

You got into the line to recieve. If you leave, it is because there is a reason that has changed your mind. Others don’t know what is the reason, but they know it changed. That is enough to cause scandal. God and the faithful have the right not to be scadalized.
You entered that line without wrongful intentions. Your memory brought back an impediment. You can’t leave, so you must do an act of contrition and recieve.

Again, this may be an embarsment, but it is not a scandal. Recieving only because you got in line, then think you can’t get out of line when you realize you’re not worthy to recieve, is wrong thinking, has no basis in our Canon, Scripture, CCC, or any Chrurch teachings (and you cannot prove by reference), and would be committing a grave sin by recieving when not having the required dispositions.

 

[Newbie2]

Good grief.

There is no such requirement as proposed by the OP.

Where ***does ***this stuff originate?

OK, let’s play along. What if you’re on the end of the pew, not intending to take communion, and you get up to let people out and someone thinks that you’re getting in line then…violla!..you sit down again. Instant scandal. Not.

As long as we’re creating a silly scenario, we might as well examine all the crazy variations, no? (heavy on the sarcasm, for effect)

 

[Pro_Domina]

It is an embarrasment. Sure. But also a scandal.

What is your first thought if a person infront of you leaves the communion line and sits right back down?

Don’t try to sweet your response.

And who says that the canon does not apply?

Remember that the legislator is the only one who can interpret the law.

 

[jc-servant]

**2284 **Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

The above is the definition from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Pro Domina,
You might want to reflect on what you are doing in telling people that it is OK to receive the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin. Doe the part about “he may even draw his brother into spiritual death” sound relevant to you?

If you are really a Catholic, then you should know that for anyone to receive the Eucharist while they are not in a state of grace is a “grave offense.” For a Catholic who should know better and who does it anyway, we jump right over to the “spiritual death” that results from mortal sin. Encouraging people to commit sin is the exact definition of scandal laid out in the catechism.

Here is a link to a free, searchable, online version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, so that you can look up official teachings of the church and stop proclaiming false teachings as truth. If you are in fact someone who thinks of himself as Christian and you are only here to bait Catholic Christians, you might want to reflect on the fact that the Bible teaches the same thing about causing scandal as the CCC.

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[ac_claire]

With all due respect, the OP has presented one ridiculous idea after the other in this thread with absolutely nothing factual to back them up. Why continue the debate? It’s almost akin to feeding the trolls at this point.

 

[theistgal]

What is your first thought if a person infront of you leaves the communion line and sits right back down?

Perhaps (as has happened to me a couple of times),they’d just checked the time and realized it had not quite been an hour since they’d eaten breakfast, and thus decided they’d best not receive.

Granted, they should have thought of that before actually getting into line, but hey, better late than never.

Scandal factor: -3.