What constitutes "serious embarassment"?

[Anesti33]

Two things to point out about your points.

1. Penance (aka Satisfaction) is not essential to the validity of the Sacrament. A priest may forget to assign, or I may forget to perform, satisfaction, and the sins are still absolved. Makes no difference.
2. In a general confession, it is understood that past sins are brought up again. The priest knows this already. For the sacrament to be valid, new unconfessed sins must still be presented, even venial ones, or the priest cannot confer absolution.

 

[kapp19]

1 - Yes, with qualification.
2 - Says who?

 

[Anesti33]

Says my liturgy & sacraments teacher, Fr. J. E.

 

[kapp19]

Okay, I studied too. It is true that if there really are no sins to forgive, one can’t be forgiven of sins. But this is not quite the point - at least not mine… I want to know about prescripts. Can you cite a major author, or magisterial text, saying that subjective certitude about sins having been forgiven suffices for invalidating the sacrament in such a way that absolution should not be attempted to be given?

 

[Anesti33]

I am not sure where you’re getting “subjective certitude”. It seems that if a formula of general absolution is pronounced by a valid priest with jurisdiction, then there is objective certitude that the sins are forgiven.

 

[kapp19]

Because we are never in a position to know with perfect certainty what the state of our soul is (though some would say in the unitive way that one can be assured - it was a famous debate between John and Teresa, I always forget which had which position - though this is a borderline “special revelation”). Thomas discusses it here: SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The cause of grace (Prima Secundae Partis, Q. 112) (And Trent comes close to the issue as well, though leaves a little room for the Carmelites… See Session VI, can. xvi - final perseverance seems to be distinct from one’s present state of soul, but the point is indicated indirectly at least.)

So, the example I gave was a poor examination of conscience before confession. With general absolution, it’s even clearer that something like this might be the case - failure to have attrition, failure to want to amend one’s life, failure to intend to make individual confession later, etc. You can have moral certitude (what I am calling “subjective certitude”) but there is no 100% guarantee in the normal order of things.

The commoner opinion is that only a special revelation can tell someone the state of his soul with perfect objective certitude, like with St. Dismas on the cross.

-K

 

[Vico]

…

If the penitent is reconfessing sins which have already been absolved, and has no other sins to add, the absolution is prima facie invalid. I just can’t understand why you can absolve and erase someone’s sins in general absolution, but not really.

Part I

The mortal sins were not confessed individually yet in general absolution, so there is no re-confession. However, re-confession is not prohibited, but recommended for sorrow, for example, when only venial sins are confessed.

Absolution given in general absolution is true absolution. The words of Absolution are the form of the sacrament. The matter of the sacrament is contrition, confession, and satisfaction. Just as with perfect contrition, mortal sins are forgiven, contingent upon the intention of individual confession later.

Here are some dogmas of faith to consider:

• The form of the Sacrament of Penance consists in the words of Absolution. (De fide.) D896 Cf. 699
• Absolution, in association with the acts of the penitent, effects the forgiveness of sins. (De fide.)

Council of Trent, Session XIV, Nov. 25, 1551, (from Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma)

896 Furthermore, the holy Council teaches that the form of the sacrament of penance, in which its force chiefly consists, is set down in these words of the minister: “I absolve thee, etc.”; to which indeed certain prayers are laudably added according to the custom of holy Church; yet in no way do they pertain to the essence of this form, nor are they necessary for the administration of the sacrament. The matter, as it were, of this sacrament, on the other hand, consists in the acts of the penitent himself, namely contrition, confession, and satisfaction [can. 4]. These, inasmuch as by the institution of God they are required in the penitent for the integrity of the sacrament for the full and perfect remission of sins, are for this reason called the parts of penance. The reality and effects of this sacrament, however, so far as concerns its force and efficacy, is reconciliation with God, which at times in pious persons and in those who receive this sacrament with devotion is wont to be followed by peace of conscience and serenity with an exceedingly great consolation of spirit. The holy Council, while recording these matters regarding the parts and effect of this sacrament, condemns the opinions of those who maintain that the parts of penance are the terrors of conscience and faith [can. 4].

914 Can. 4. If anyone denies that for the full and perfect remission of sins there are three acts required on the part of the penitent, as it were, the matter of the sacrament of penance, namely contrition, confession, and satisfaction, which are called the three parts of penance; or says, that there are only two parts of penance, namely the terrors of a troubled conscience because of the consciousness of sin, and the faith received rom the Gospel or from absolution, by which one believes that his sins have been forgiven him through Christ: let him be anathema [cf. n. 896 ].

 

[Vico]

…

Part II

“Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused. [Council of Trent]” - Catechism 1459. Note also the full effects of the sacrament, given in the Catechism:

1496 The spiritual effects of the sacrament of Penance are:
- reconciliation with God by which the penitent recovers grace;
- reconciliation with the Church;
- remission of the eternal punishment incurred by mortal sins;
- remission, at least in part, of temporal punishments resulting from sin;
- peace and serenity of conscience, and spiritual consolation;
- an increase of spiritual strength for the Christian battle.
Council of Florence
699 The fourth sacrament is penance, the matter of which is, as it were, the acts of the penitent, which are divided into three parts. The first of these is contrition of heart, to which pertains grief for a sin committed together with a resolution not to sin in the future. The second is oral confession, to which pertains that the sinner confess integrally to his priest all sins of which he has recollection. The third is satisfaction for sins according to the decision of the priest, which is accomplished chiefly by prayer, fasting, and alms. The words of absolution which the priest utters when he says: Ego te absolvo etc., are the form of this sacrament, and the minister of this sacrament is the priest who has either ordinary authority for absolving or has it by the commission of a superior. The effect of this sacrament is absolution from sins.

 

[Norseman82]

Two things I did not see mentioned (if they were, please correct me) are whether the OP is stil a minor and/or if he/she still lives at home. Two options:

1. Go to a different Mass than your family.
2. Michael Voris once suggested to have a small bite to eat before Mass so you can simply and truthfully state that it was a matter of breaking the Eucharistic fast. (Of course, this may only work once and may not work if your family is going to time you with a stopwatch).

Another option: ask that the Mass your family attends be offered for the conversion of those who gossip about people not receiving the Eucharist.

 

[TK421]

I’m almost positive that criticizing/openly judging somebody for not receiving Communion objectively constitutes grave sin (it would be like tempting somebody to commit fornication or adultery, or tempting somebody to skip Mass), which is mortal sin with full knowledge and consent. So, in that respect, I’m very sorry for anybody who is in this situation. One grave sin doesn’t justify another grave sin though, so the person should pray to God for a solution to that problem and for relief from the people abusing them.

 

[Vico]

Two things to point out about your points.

1. Penance (aka Satisfaction) is not essential to the validity of the Sacrament. A priest may forget to assign, or I may forget to perform, satisfaction, and the sins are still absolved. Makes no difference.
2. In a general confession, it is understood that past sins are brought up again. The priest knows this already. For the sacrament to be valid, new unconfessed sins must still be presented, even venial ones, or the priest cannot confer absolution.

Absolution, in association with the acts of the penitent, effects the forgiveness of sins. (De fide.)

The absolution already given in general absolution has effect then if the disposition is correct (which includes the intention to individually confess), and another absolution later has no effect for those sins already absolved. The individual confession is to complete those things needed for the sacrament.

 

[melvfe]

I’m not a minor but am disabled, so I have to live at home with my parents and family. Can’t go to a different Mass because the churches in my area are not wheelchair-accessible in general.

I’ll consider the offering of Mass option that you provided! (Though pretty sure they’ll know it’s me HAHA)

 

[TheLittleLady]

Another option: ask that the Mass your family attends be offered for the conversion of those who gossip about people not receiving the Eucharist.

The Church is not going to announce such, have the mass said for a private personal intention. The prayers are powerful, commentary not so much

 

[HomeschoolDad]

a child had an over-bearing or even abusive parent who would berate the child for not receiving or for committing a mortal sin.

Such parents do indeed exist. Children don’t get to pick the families they’re born into.

For an extreme example, think of the mother in the film and novel Carrie.

 

[Minks]

You would have a good case that this would be “serious embarrassment” as envisioned by the commentary alluded to. I’ve not done an exhaustive study of the issue, however. You might try looking around the standard commentaries for more explanations, including commentaries on the 1917 Code which help explain the 1983 Code’s meaning as well.

For what it’s worth, I don’t receive at most Masses I attend - for multiple reasons on those occasions (distraction, fatigue, needing to leave soon afterward, not having prepared well, maybe having eaten recently, and also maybe preferring to confess more closely to reception)… I really think Pius XII got it, well, basically wrong when he encouraged “frequent Communion” the way he did. We see the fruits all over - including in your case.

Hmmmmm. What an interesting recounting of Church history!

The problem arose not during the reign of Pius II, when frequent confession was both encouraged and available, but a few years later (well after his death) following the “I’m okay, your’re okay, EVERYbody’s okay—do whatever feels good” era began.

The mere idea of “serious embarrassment” is pablum.

 

[kapp19]

I do not dispute that - but I stand by what I said. Without the rhetorical “opening” from Pius XII, the onslaught would likely at least have been lessened. It was a disposition, not a cause.

I suppose you are free to be sarcastic and cynical, but at least make distinctions…

 

[HomeschoolDad]

kapp19:

You would have a good case that this would be “serious embarrassment” as envisioned by the commentary alluded to. I’ve not done an exhaustive study of the issue, however. You might try looking around the standard commentaries for more explanations, including commentaries on the 1917 Code which help explain the 1983 Code’s meaning as well.

For what it’s worth, I don’t receive at most Masses I attend - for multiple reasons on those occasions (distraction, fatigue, needing to leave soon afterward, not having prepared well, maybe having eaten recently, and also maybe preferring to confess more closely to reception)… I really think Pius XII got it, well, basically wrong when he encouraged “frequent Communion” the way he did. We see the fruits all over - including in your case.

Hmmmmm. What an interesting recounting of Church history!

The problem arose not during the reign of Pius II, when frequent confession was both encouraged and available, but a few years later (well after his death) following the “I’m okay, your’re okay, EVERYbody’s okay—do whatever feels good” era began.

I can envision a scenario where, without being conscious of mortal sin, and even having fasted, someone might just not see themselves as in the frame of mind, or recollected enough, to receive communion. This would say nothing about the state of their soul, just “not being in the mood”. I’ve done this myself. I know there is such a thing as ex opere operato grace, but still, there are times when “it just doesn’t feel right”. I hope nobody would ever develop scruples over something like this.

 

[Minks]

I do not dispute that - but I stand by what I said. Without the rhetorical “opening” from Pius XII, the onslaught would likely at least have been lessened. It was a disposition, not a cause.

I suppose you are free to be sarcastic and cynical, but at least make distinctions…

The obvious distinction is that “the onslaught” didn’t begin until several years AFTER the death of Pope Pius XII. His advocacy of frequent communion to nourish the soul and fortify free will was coupled with the liturgy in effect AT THAT TIME. It was others, who changed customs and parts of the liturgy, who created the opportunity for the parishioner’s perception of communion shaming, not Pope Pius XII. Communion shaming was a non-issue; it didn’t exist.

Communicants almost always had the opportunity to receive absolution during confession on Saturday afternoon. In many parishes they also had opportunity for confession during Sunday morning. Parishioners maintained total, not partial, fasts from midnight until after the mass in which they had received the Body and Blood of Our Lord.

Pope Pius XII didn’t initiate the changes that now permit the problems being discussed. Those problems result from changes made by others, years after his death. It was those changes that invited the idea that others might be communion shaming, not Pope Pius XII.

Other distinctions of that era during the lifetime of Pope Pius XII include the utter silence and concentration upon the Mass, with thoughts centered upon the altar and the ultimate consecration of the sacred host, followed by prayer and meditation, usually with bowed head, until after all communicants had received—much in contrast to today’s environment in which people look around while singing during the entire distribution of communion. The entire duration of Mass involved oneness with Christ with no opportunity to think of other things, whereas today’s procedures allow much opportunity for extraneous thoughts.

Perhaps trumping these other distinctions, from the time a child received his First Confession and First Communion, he alone was responsible for his relationship with Christ. Parents provided the opportunities and encouragement, as well as admonitions, but children understood that their ultimate heaven or hell destination depended upon a stain-free soul at death, and getting it that way was their own responsibility, which included adhering to Communion rules in effect at that time.

The more they matured, the more they understood that their salvation was their first responsibility, and what others thought wasn’t on their radar. Their relationship with Christ was paramount. Their only go-between in that relationship with Christ would be priests; they learned to pay no attention to what others might think. The atmosphere was one in which people could live and let live, with no worry of being skewered if they didn’t receive communion.

 

[Minks]

Minks:

kapp19:

You would have a good case that this would be “serious embarrassment” as envisioned by the commentary alluded to. I’ve not done an exhaustive study of the issue, however. You might try looking around the standard commentaries for more explanations, including commentaries on the 1917 Code which help explain the 1983 Code’s meaning as well.

For what it’s worth, I don’t receive at most Masses I attend - for multiple reasons on those occasions (distraction, fatigue, needing to leave soon afterward, not having prepared well, maybe having eaten recently, and also maybe preferring to confess more closely to reception)… I really think Pius XII got it, well, basically wrong when he encouraged “frequent Communion” the way he did. We see the fruits all over - including in your case.

Hmmmmm. What an interesting recounting of Church history!

The problem arose not during the reign of Pius II, when frequent confession was both encouraged and available, but a few years later (well after his death) following the “I’m okay, your’re okay, EVERYbody’s okay—do whatever feels good” era began.

I can envision a scenario where, without being conscious of mortal sin, and even having fasted, someone might just not see themselves as in the frame of mind, or recollected enough, to receive communion. This would say nothing about the state of their soul, just “not being in the mood”. I’ve done this myself. I know there is such a thing as ex opere operato grace, but still, there are times when “it just doesn’t feel right”. I hope nobody would ever develop scruples over something like this.

Anything is possible, of course.

During the years when an unblemished soul was promoted as being absolutely essential for reception of Holy Communion, the obliging frequent Confession allowed the priest insight to those struggling with tendencies toward being overly scrupulous, and allowed him the opportunity to intercede in the confessional box and through appointments.

During those years, “scruples” in everyday usage was synonymous with “standards,” as in “Have you no scruples?” or had to do with general morality. People who worried more than their peers about doing the right thing were jokingly, but lovingly, referred to as worrywarts. They weren’t scornfully castigated, nor were they spoken to derisively, nor contemptuously.

I never, ever, heard the term “scruples” as meaning anything else until after arriving at CAF in 2008. I’m always appalled by the horrid manner in which overly conscientious and genuinely good Catholics who are striving to attain holiness are spoken to extremely harshly, as though they are guilty of having plotted and perpetrated a particularly heinous sin.

Over-scrupulosity is a legitimate concern, but I’ll never understand why normally decent Catholics think Christ approves of their scathing comments to fellow Catholics who, although misguided, are only trying to become more pleasing to Him.

 

[kapp19]

I can envision a scenario where, without being conscious of mortal sin, and even having fasted, someone might just not see themselves as in the frame of mind, or recollected enough, to receive communion. This would say nothing about the state of their soul, just “not being in the mood”. I’ve done this myself. I know there is such a thing as ex opere operato grace, but still, there are times when “it just doesn’t feel right”. I hope nobody would ever develop scruples over something like this.

Well this is the whole thing isn’t it… Unfortunately the text is no longer online, but somewhere in his magnificent Three Ages of the Spiritual Life, Garrigou-Lagrange explains the need for a growth in charity between receptions of Holy Communion… or else it is like one is confirming his own backsliding. I will have to go dig up the reference…