What does catechism paragraph 1111 mean?

[PJM]

=FrDavid96;10056477]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.

Thank you Father:thumbsup:

God Bless,
pat /PJM

 

[JerryZ]

And peace to you as well, JerryZ.

I hesitated to belabor this any further, but since Bzkoss posted [see #6] the correct link from the Commentary from our CAF Apologist, Jim Blackburn, I thought it best to exonerate Mr. Blackburn lest anyone misconstrue what he said.

That was yours and my opinion also, Jerry. I did not see any reason to receive just to avoid embarrassment, since one may always go to confession “next week” or make an appointment in the interim. Many people abstain from reception when they have not kept the required fast. Nobody whomsoever would hold an opinion of why John Doe did not receive communion.

I doubt also whether a lot of people nation-wide are reading St. Leo’s website. Most likely, their three priests have given explicit explanations to the congregation about why they posted it, and what is meant by “embarrassment.”

The only remaining question I might ask of you is why you believe this book is “rife” with errors, and how do you know that to be true? We are to guard the reputation of our canon lawyers unless we are certain they are “rife” in publishing errors.

Comments?

Actually they are not “pubblishing errors” but rather dangerous assertions!

Apart from the quote in page 1111 that created this thread there are 2 more that disturbed me:

Page 1110 of this book states: “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.”

Really? Eucharist with no penance? If that is not contrary to Church teaching you tell me.

Also in page 913 we read:
“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”

Really? The CDF made an exageration? What’s next the Pope is not infallible?

In the UK there is a saying:
"Once is chance, twice a coincidence but 3 times is bl***y act of war!

By the way I submitted this thread issue “partaking Eucharist without confession” to a similar forum of the Catholic faith in Rome and the answer I received over there, was pretty much what I expected, that really there is not much that can come near to “inminent death” as a valid reason to partake in the eucharist without prior confession.

 

[Sirach2]

Thanks for feedback, Jerry.

How are you getting this information? You still haven’t said that you do or do not own the book, nor how you know it has no imprimatur.

While I do not doubt the accuracy in printing those two pages, where did it come from? I’m glad the other forum agreed with you, so you can put your mind at rest.

 

[JerryZ]

Thanks for feedback, Jerry.

How are you getting this information? You still haven’t said that you do or do not own the book, nor how you know it has no imprimatur.

While I do not doubt the accuracy in printing those two pages, where did it come from? I’m glad the other forum agreed with you, so you can put your mind at rest.

I had the book but got rid of it for the stated reasons above!

 

[Sirach2]

I had the book but got rid of it for the stated reasons above!

I have to admit that in doing some research, I learned that this Commentary is denounced by Catholic Culture. There seems to be more than meets the eye therein. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

**

 

[JerryZ]

I have to admit that in doing some research, I learned that this Commentary is denounced by Catholic Culture. There seems to be more than meets the eye therein. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

**

May be I am too passionate, if I was a resident of St. Leo they would probably get an earfull from me but alas as I said their website has no way to contact the webmaster, only a phone number.
Also fortunately it seems an isolated instance, could not find any other websites that used that comment.
So as you said, This is my last post on this thread.

Peace be to you.