What does catechism paragraph 1111 mean?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JD27076
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JD27076

Guest
Grave reasons for going to communion without confessing include danger of death and serious embarrassment if Communion is not taken. Lack of opportunity to confess includes absence of a confessor, inability to approach the confessor at a scheduled time for the sacrament, and the availability only of a confessor who is known personally and who cannot be approached without embarrassment. (1111)

Serious embarrassment if communion is not taken? … I thought one was suppose to be humble about these kinds of things?

Is Our Lord suppose to be treated as some kind of international reward or something?

I would like some kind of background on this. Thank you.
 
When I look up paragraph 1111 HERE, I get this:
CCC 1111:
Christ’s work in the liturgy is sacramental: because his mystery of salvation is made present there by the power of his Holy Spirit; because his Body, which is the Church, is like a sacrament (sign and instrument) in which the Holy Spirit dispenses the mystery of salvation; and because through her liturgical actions the pilgrim Church already participates, as by a foretaste, in the heavenly liturgy.
Click to expand...
Could you maybe give the section so I could read it in context? Because I can’t seem to find it in the section on the Eucharist.
 
I had a problem of either scruples, or not trusting in the Holy Spirit to guide my conscience. I really don´t believe Catholics going to Priest to ask is this grave or is that grave? They don´t know. Some grave sins are self evident, but some are difinitely in the grey area. Is the Holy Spirit telling you that you haven´t crossed the line yet? Is the Devil putting evil thoughts in your head to ignore your conscience and deny your grave sin? I once confessed what I really considered a venial sin, but told the Priest that I didn´t think it was grave and did receive Communion prior to Confession. He basically said, well at least you know it was a sin, and obsolved me. He later told me it was my conscience that decides, not his. We have to remember, The Lord cannot be deceived nor can He decieve. A priest once told me, that temptation is really the Lord calling me to his supper. Yes I had a priest that once told me for my pennance, do without the Eucarest for a month, voluntarally. I will never confess to this Priest again. I have a recurring sin. Objectively and with prayer I, not any Priest decided the line between Grave and Venial in this particular sin. I trust in the Lord. This doubt could be ,indeed scruples verses Holy guidance. I have one more problem, in that my confessions are not in my native language, and confusion could be evident. I´m going to be in Houston soon and plan to go to confession with a Priest in English. Sort of a second opinion. I don´t want to sin. That´s a good sign. I know the Lord is helping me. That too is a good sign. The general confession, before the Mass was put there for a reason. Not going to Confession, because of embarrasement of your sin, is of the Devil. In short. You weren´t embarrassed to commit your sin in front of God. Why be embarrassed to tell your sin to a man, that is God during your confession. God bless:thumbsup:👍👍
 
JD27076 said:
Grave reasons for going to communion without confessing include danger of death and serious embarrassment if Communion is not taken. Lack of opportunity to confess includes absence of a confessor, inability to approach the confessor at a scheduled time for the sacrament, and the availability only of a confessor who is known personally and who cannot be approached without embarrassment. (1111)

Serious embarrassment if communion is not taken? … I thought one was suppose to be humble about these kinds of things?

Is Our Lord suppose to be treated as some kind of international reward or something?

I would like some kind of background on this. Thank you.
Click to expand...
:hmmm:
Grave reasons for going to communion without confessing (Mortal Sin)

So if you use one of these 2 reasons and TAKE communion without confession you ARE committing a mortal sin.

(This assumes that you are already are with a mortal sin that need confession and try to use the stated as excemptions)

a) danger of death
b) serious embarrassment if Communion is not taken.

And they clarify further all the subsets of cause (b)

“Lack of opportunity to confess includes absence of a confessor, inability to approach the confessor at a scheduled time for the sacrament, and the availability only of a confessor who is known personally and who cannot be approached without embarrassment.”
 
The quote is not from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. From what I could find doing a simple Google search, it is from the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law. I don’t know anything about it, and have not read the surrounding paragraphs, so I cannot comment on what the authors meant.
If anyone actually has the book, maybe that person can answer.
 
Can. 1111 §1. As long as they hold office validly, the local ordinary and the pastor can delegate to priests and deacons the faculty, even a general one, of assisting at marriages within the limits of their territory.

§2. To be valid, the delegation of the faculty to assist at marriages must be given to specific persons expressly.

If it concerns special delegation, it must be given for a specific marriage; if it concerns general delegation, it must be given in writing.

???

peace
 
I can’t imagine any “grave reason” worth committing a sacrilege by receiving the Eucharist while in mortal sin. Personally, I would refrain from receiving it out of humility and respect for the Body of Our Lord.

Let’s hope that others who read this are not going to believe, therefore, that they can make a perfect act of contrition and go to communion with the idea of confessing later. :eek:
 
The only relevant information on the matter comes from the Canon Law:
Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.
Click to expand...
However I also found this which is quite disturbing as the OP quote is in a Dioscesis Web site:

stleocatholicchurch.org/eucharist.php

There is no way to contact the webmaster to inquire as to why they would put that quote which clearly is NOT consistent with the teaching of the Church.
 
First of all, it’s an explanation of canon 916

Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P39.HTM

The canon mentions 2 conditions
  1. “there is grave reason” to receive Communion
  2. “no opportunity to confess” beforehand
The canon states that both conditions must be met. In other words, this is not “either…or” but “both…and.”

The explanation (#1111) offers some insight on what constitutes “grave reason to receive” and what constitutes “no opportunity to confess”

One obvious reason (for a “grave reason” to receive") is danger-of-death.

Keep in mind that condition #1 requires a “grave reason” to receive Communion. This is a very high standard in canon law. Being embarrassed about not-receiving might be a “reason” but it would have to be a very embarrassing situation indeed to constitute a “grave reason.”

To continue along the direction that the conversation is already going here…

Embarrassment about not-receiving the Eucharist is not itself reason to receive Communion. That’s because only one of the 2 conditions has been met. A person who cannot abstain from Communion without embarrassment cannot (note the negative) receive if there is an opportunity to go to Confession.

Now let’s look at the second condition; no opportunity for confession.

The comments (again that’s #1111) offers insight into what would cause a person to have no opportunity to go to confession; and gives some examples.

One obvious example is the lack of a confessor (ie priest who has the faculties to hear confessions). This can happen in many different ways. In rare circumstances, a priest might have faculties to celebrate Mass, but lack the faculties to hear Confessions. It might be a mission situation where a deacon is conducting a Sunday Celebration in the Absence of a Priest—here, Communion is available, but Confession is not. There are many other possible scenarios where one might be in a position to have the availability of Communion, but not the availability of Confession.

It’s not a simple matter of saying “if there’s a priest to say Mass (or there is opportunity for Communion) then there must necessarily be a priest to hear Confession” even though many readers might have that as a first impression.

Another example given is that the person personally knows the only available confessor-priest but cannot confess to him without embarrassment. For example:
Small parish. The person is a close relative of the priest (the only priest available) but needs to confess some embarrassing sin against the 6th commandment. In such a situation, the 2nd condition would be met (at least according to the interpretation).

Keep in mind, folks, that in canon 916, both conditions must be present.

The commentary is simply giving some explanation and examples of what might constitute the necessary conditions presented in canon 916.
 
JerryZ said:
The only relevant information on the matter comes from the Canon Law:

However I also found this which is quite disturbing as the OP quote is in a Dioscesis Web site:

stleocatholicchurch.org/eucharist.php

There is no way to contact the webmaster to inquire as to why they would put that quote which clearly is NOT consistent with the teaching of the Church.
Click to expand...
Actually, what’s posted on their website is consistent with canon law and the teaching of the Church. If you read the comments here before reading their webpage, that might result in misinterpreting what the website is saying.
 
Fr. David,

If you’re still following the thread, I know personally someone who receives communion, but does not go to mass. He proudly asserts that he can worship God at home. But whenever his mother schedules a mass for his deceased father, this person attends and receives communion.

Q. Do I, knowing this, have an obligation to let the pastor know?
(Please excuse going off-topic, but this has bothered me, since it just happened the other day.)
 
FrDavid96 said:
First of all, it’s an explanation of canon 916

Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P39.HTM

The canon mentions 2 conditions
  1. “there is grave reason” to receive Communion
  2. “no opportunity to confess” beforehand
The canon states that both conditions must be met. In other words, this is not “either…or” but “both…and.”

The explanation (#1111) offers some insight on what constitutes “grave reason to receive” and what constitutes “no opportunity to confess”

One obvious reason (for a “grave reason” to receive") is danger-of-death.

Keep in mind that condition #1 requires a “grave reason” to receive Communion. This is a very high standard in canon law. Being embarrassed about not-receiving might be a “reason” but it would have to be a very embarrassing situation indeed to constitute a “grave reason.”

To continue along the direction that the conversation is already going here…

Embarrassment about not-receiving the Eucharist is not itself reason to receive Communion. That’s because only one of the 2 conditions has been met. A person who cannot abstain from Communion without embarrassment cannot (note the negative) receive if there is an opportunity to go to Confession.

Now let’s look at the second condition; no opportunity for confession.

The comments (again that’s #1111) offers insight into what would cause a person to have no opportunity to go to confession; and gives some examples.

One obvious example is the lack of a confessor (ie priest who has the faculties to hear confessions). This can happen in many different ways. In rare circumstances, a priest might have faculties to celebrate Mass, but lack the faculties to hear Confessions. It might be a mission situation where a deacon is conducting a Sunday Celebration in the Absence of a Priest—here, Communion is available, but Confession is not. There are many other possible scenarios where one might be in a position to have the availability of Communion, but not the availability of Confession.

It’s not a simple matter of saying “if there’s a priest to say Mass (or there is opportunity for Communion) then there must necessarily be a priest to hear Confession” even though many readers might have that as a first impression.

Another example given is that the person personally knows the only available confessor-priest but cannot confess to him without embarrassment. For example:
Small parish. The person is a close relative of the priest (the only priest available) but needs to confess some embarrassing sin against the 6th commandment. In such a situation, the 2nd condition would be met (at least according to the interpretation).

Keep in mind, folks, that in canon 916, both conditions must be present.

The commentary is simply giving some explanation and examples of what might constitute the necessary conditions presented in canon 916.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clearing that up. I was unaware that it applied to lay people as well. And of course both conditions must be met. 👍
 
FrDavid96 said:
Actually, what’s posted on their website is consistent with canon law and the teaching of the Church. If you read the comments here before reading their webpage, that might result in misinterpreting what the website is saying.
Click to expand...
So in other words if I go directly to their web page NEVER having been to this website and conclude that it is OK for me to go and partake of the eucharist (In mortal sin without going to confession first) because I would feel “Serious embarrassment” if I did not take comunion is OK as long as I make an act of contrition and pledge to go to confession at the nearest opportunity is what the Church teaches???

I guess “serious embarrassment” trumps Sacrilege
Correct?
 
juno24 said:
The quote is not from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. From what I could find doing a simple Google search, it is from the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law. I don’t know anything about it, and have not read the surrounding paragraphs, so I cannot comment on what the authors meant.
If anyone actually has the book, maybe that person can answer.
Click to expand...
Also found out that this commentary in particular bears no Imprimatur and apparently is rife with issues I quote:
footnote on page 913 in reference to canon 749 on Infallibility attacks ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS when it says: “the statement by the CDF [Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] of October 28, 1995, that the teaching to the effect that the Church has no authority to confer priestly ordination on women requires the definitive assent of the faithful since `it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium’ is an** exaggeration**” Classifying the authortative interpretation of the CDF on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis as being an ‘exaggertion’ is going well beyond the bounds of judicial commentary and now enters the realm of theological dissent. Cardinal Ratzinger’s Responsum ad Dubium (10-28-95) made it clear that while Ordination Sacerdotalis itself was not an EX CATHEDRA statement (like the papal document MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS of Pius XII defining the dogma of the Assumption of Mary in 1950), nevertheless the TEACHING (doctrine) that only baptized males can be ordained (deacons, priests and bishops) IS infallible as it has been a consistent element of the ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM. “All members of the faithful are required to give their assent to the teaching stated therein.” The Commentary continues in the footnote to attack the infallibility of the teaching when this is not a canonical issue, rather it is obviously doctrinal and the proper authority (CDF) has made a definitive ruling, not the CLSA.
Click to expand...
Canon 752, according to the new Commentary “leaves room for dissent.” This is based on the mistranslation of OBSEQUIUM by the Commentary. Ironically, the translated text in the same book reads “religious SUBMISSION of intellect and will” must be given to the authentic Magisterium (as opposed to an ASSENT of faith required of infallible teachings) whereas the commentary below the translated text keeps translating OBSEQUIUM not as SUBMISSION but as “RESPECT” or “DEFERENCE”. Austin Flannery, OP, had no problem using SUBMISSION for OBSEQUIUM when he translated LUMEN GENTIUM #25 upon which canon 752 is based.
Click to expand...
Also:
Another of many examples of an underlying agenda is shown in Book Four as well as Book Three. Canon 914 explicitly and unequivocally mandates First Penance BEFORE First Communion, yet the Commentary (p. 1110) suggests "“if the parents, who have the primary responsibility for the child’s catechesis, should determine that their child is not yet ready for first penance but is ready for first communion, the child should not be denied the right to the sacrament.” If that is not encouraging the faithful to oppose the law, what is it? Certainly not orthodox teaching or canonically licit behavior.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that they are trying to deceive the laity as the book itself is very similar to the Catechism by printing it in the same colour and style.
 
JerryZ said:
So in other words if I go directly to their web page NEVER having been to this website and conclude that it is OK for me to go and partake of the eucharist (In mortal sin without going to confession first) because I would feel “Serious embarrassment” if I did not take comunion is OK as long as I make an act of contrition and pledge to go to confession at the nearest opportunity is what the Church teaches???

I guess “serious embarrassment” trumps Sacrilege
Correct?
Click to expand...
No my friend.

If you “go directly to their website…and conclude that it’s OK for me to …partake…” then that means that you misunderstood what the website is saying.

Please read canon 916 again, then read my explanation. After that, go to the parish website again and re-read what they’re saying. You might come away with a different impression. Please note that the website does say that both conditions (from canon 916) must be met. Could they say it more clearly? Perhaps yes; but that doesn’t change the fact that they are indeed saying it.

Here’s what the parish website says

A person who is conscious of having committed a grave sin is not to receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a serious reason and there is no opportunity to confess.

Now, here’s what canon 916 says

Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

As I read it, there’s no substantial difference between the two. The only difference is that the website removes the reference to a priest celebrating Mass (which could cause confusion.) The two quotes are almost word-for-word.
 
FrDavid96 said:
No my friend.

If you “go directly to their website…and conclude that it’s OK for me to …partake…” then that means that you misunderstood what the website is saying.

Please read canon 916 again, then read my explanation. After that, go to the parish website again and re-read what they’re saying. You might come away with a different impression. Please note that the website does say that both conditions (from canon 916) must be met. Could they say it more clearly? Perhaps yes; but that doesn’t change the fact that they are indeed saying it.

Here’s what the parish website says

A person who is conscious of having committed a grave sin is not to receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a serious reason and there is no opportunity to confess.

Now, here’s what canon 916 says

Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

As I read it, there’s no substantial difference between the two. The only difference is that the website removes the reference to a priest celebrating Mass (which could cause confusion.) The two quotes are almost word-for-word.
Click to expand...
And I agree totally with what the Church says in both of those statements but that site (A Dioscesis web presence) states:

serious embarrassment if Eucharist is not taken

As valid cause! Can you really infer that embarrassment is akin to death threat?

That quote was taken verbatim from a dubious Canon Law commentary fraught with issues as stated in my previous post.
I mean they advocate in that same book that a child can take first comunion without first making confession.
What’s next?
 
JerryZ, Father David has been rather patient in trying to help you, but you are not doing as he asked. Did you read his explanation? How is it that you can still question a clear directive as this?

The canon mentions 2 conditions
  1. “there is grave reason” to receive Communion
  2. “no opportunity to confess” beforehand
The canon states that** both conditions must be met**. In other words, this is not “either…or” but “both…and.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top