What of sins would you have to have commited to not be able to recieve Communion?

[sidetrack]

I’ve once heard that if you commit sins (whether there mortal or venial I font know) your not suppose to receive Communion until after you confess and do penance for them.Is this true?. Would this apply for reasonably common ones that would likely happen on a weekly basis like someone’s temper getting the best of them?.If all this is true can someone give me a general idea as to what kind of sins make you unable to properly receive Communion.Thank you very much so for your time.

 

[YoungTradCath]

All mortal sins render you unable to receive communion.

A mortal sin: consists of grave matter, committed with full knowledge, committed with full consent.

Mortal sins abound. Infidelity to spouse, receiving the Eucharist unworthily, murder, rape, masturbation, being cruel, divination (trying to, or successfully, contacting spirits), etc.

Venial sins are not as easy to define. If you commit any one of those above sins (or any mortal sin, for that matter), then the sin is instead relegated to the status of venial if not all three of the requirements are met for it to be considered a mortal sin.

There also exist venial sins that, because of their very matter, are not mortal sins, even if they are committed with full knowledge and consent. These are the hardest specific instances of sin to define, and I will not attempt to illustrate them.

So to keep it simple, if you commit a mortal sin, then you may not receive the Eucharist.

 

[jonbhorton]

This is something I’ve been wondering about but wasn’t quite sure how to word it. Thanks for posting.

What about confessing, and then having a mental sin pop in which you don’t want there?

Lust, anger, whatever falls within “mortal” category. Does it then become considered venial since it is only mental and not desired to be acted on anyway? Is it a non-issue if it’s just the old sinful mind doing its thing, so long as we pray that it be removed from our mind and we are granted the grace to not act on it?

I can certainly understand being angry and then murdering someone and not being able to take part in Communion, but, I don’t understand the way to understand things popping in your head post-Confession and pre-Eucharist. Pride, particularly, given its inherent mental nature seems like one where one would either become scrupulous or so flippant as to be repulsive.

To me, sin is sin. I want it all gone forever. I hate the idea of sinning, truly hate it. It sickens me. I sicken me. But if we’re gonna categorize it, I guess I might as well do my best to understand the legalese of it all in regards to the gap between Confession and Communion.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Holy Mother Church graciously makes a distinction between temptation and sin.

The difference can be illustrated like this, as my confessor says: if you feel an urge to steal something from a store, that’s a temptation; if you start looking for the cameras and guards, then it has crossed into sin; if you actually steal something, it’s a sin, and it is unarguably a mortal sin.

We have to remember that we don’t actually have to do anything to commit a sin. Giving into temptation, even if only in the mind, is sin. There is a line, as I illustrated above, though.

 

[jonbhorton]

Holy Mother Church graciously makes a distinction between temptation and sin.

The difference can be illustrated like this, as my confessor says: if you feel an urge to steal something from a store, that’s a temptation; if you start looking for the cameras and guards, then it has crossed into sin; if you actually steal something, it’s a sin, and it is unarguably a mortal sin.

We have to remember that we don’t actually have to do anything to commit a sin. Giving into temptation, even if only in the mind, is sin. There is a line, as I illustrated above, though.

I’m looking totally at the mental. Not physically doing something is easy, with enough will directed in a positive manner. Heck, we can even stop breathing if we truly want to. But again, that’s the mental producing an effect on the physical.

Physical is easy to define, as is the planning for something physical- even if it is not acted on. Purely mental? Not so much.

The mental aspect is what I’m trying to understand, though purely for mental sin. As such, the theft analogy doesn’t really make any sense for my question because it is the planning of the physical sin which constitutes it in such a case. That involves premeditation. I understand that from a legal point of view. I’m looking more at trying to understand how, speaking purely for the analogy, a harmless ride out with friends can turn into a police chase and the entire time I’m screaming, “Let me out!”; I’m not trying to get pinned for accessory to any crime I was not a willing participant of, no matter how long I was in the car and screaming.

I suppose I’ll just have to ask my defense lawyer.

 

[LilyM]

Put it this way - only you can judge whether your thoughts were truly random and uninvited. If they were, you’re fine.

If they weren’t - if, say, you encouraged them by unnecessarily surrounding yourself with things or people that lead you to those thoughts, if you dwell on them with enjoyment rather than doing your utmost to banish them (eg by mentally saying a quick prayer) whenever you become aware of them - then you’ve crossed the line.

 

[sidetrack]

Put it this way - only you can judge whether your thoughts were truly random and uninvited. If they were, you’re fine…] if, say, you encouraged them by unnecessarily surrounding yourself with things or people that lead you to those thoughts,** if you dwell on them with enjoyment** rather than doing your utmost to banish them (eg by mentally saying a quick prayer) whenever you become aware of them - then you’ve crossed the line.

Would watching inappropriate comedy count?

 

[thistle]

sidetrack;8734526**:

I’ve once heard that if you commit sins (whether there mortal or venial I font know) your not suppose to receive Communion until after you confess and do penance for them.Is this true?.

Would this apply for reasonably common ones that would likely happen on a weekly basis like someone’s temper getting the best of them?.If all this is true can someone give me a general idea as to what kind of sins make you unable to properly receive Communion.Thank you very much so for your time.

Sorry but are you serious? You are a Catholic and you are telling us you did not know that if you commit a mortal sin you must not receive Communion until you have been to Confession??
Is that really what you are saying or have I misunderstood you?

 

[TradAvenger]

I’m not trying to get pinned for accessory to any crime I was not a willing participant of, no matter how long I was in the car and screaming.

In the example you describe, this would not be a mortal sin. Remember that to be a mortal sin, there must exist these three conditions: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. A lot of people get hung up on the first condition without considering the second two. If you’re not a willing participant in the crime, it’s not a mortal sin, period.

That’s not to say that you should not have frequent recourse to sacramental Confession. Frequent Confession (through which our mortal sins are forgiven), along with Communion (through which our venial sins are forgiven), fasting and prayer (through which our defenses against sin are built up) are recommended by virtually all the saints as the best way to grow in sanctity.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

All mortal sins render you unable to receive communion.

A mortal sin: consists of grave matter, committed with full knowledge, committed with full consent.

Mortal sins abound. Infidelity to spouse, receiving the Eucharist unworthily, murder, rape, masturbation, being cruel, divination (trying to, or successfully, contacting spirits), etc.

Venial sins are not as easy to define. If you commit any one of those above sins (or any mortal sin, for that matter), then the sin is instead relegated to the status of venial if not all three of the requirements are met for it to be considered a mortal sin.

There also exist venial sins that, because of their very matter, are not mortal sins, even if they are committed with full knowledge and consent. These are the hardest specific instances of sin to define, and I will not attempt to illustrate them.

So to keep it simple, if you commit a mortal sin, then you may not receive the Eucharist.

Good answer but I would make one small correction. Instead of saying;

Mortal sins abound. Infidelity to spouse, receiving the Eucharist unworthily, murder, rape, masturbation, being cruel, divination (trying to, or successfully, contacting spirits), etc

I would say;

Grave matter abound. Infidelity to spouse, receiving the Eucharist unworthily, murder, rape, masturbation, being cruel, divination (trying to, or successfully, contacting spirits), etc

Because these are not mortal sins with out all three conditions present.​

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

Sorry but are you serious? You are a Catholic and you are telling us you did not know that if you commit a mortal sin you must not receive Communion until you have been to Confession??
Is that really what you are saying or have I misunderstood you?

Go easy on them. Given the terrible catechisis these days, I believe him.

 

[thistle]

Go easy on them. Given the terrible catechisis these days, I believe him.

Okay I can understand someone may not be aware of all Church teachings but not to know that you need to confess mortal sins before receiving Communion I honesty find that part hard to believe although I admit its not impossible.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Okay I can understand someone may not be aware of all Church teachings but not to know that you need to confess mortal sins before receiving Communion I honesty find that part hard to believe although I admit its not impossible.

Hey, I did RCIA, and it was taught by a very nice couple, but they knew very little about the faith. I didn’t know what a mortal sin was, much less that it rendered you indisposed to receive communion, until I started my internet forays into the world of cyber-Catholicism.

 

[thistle]

Hey, I did RCIA, and it was taught by a very nice couple, but they knew very little about the faith. I didn’t know what a mortal sin was, much less that it rendered you indisposed to receive communion, until I started my internet forays into the world of cyber-Catholicism.

Really? My RCIA class was excellent.

 

[jonbhorton]

Really? My RCIA class was excellent.

Aside from the obvious of what you said, what exactly are you implying, if anything?

That because your RCIA class was excellent, his experience was too and he doesn’t see it, or he must otherwise be mistaken?

Or should we just take it at face value as you saying this has not been your experience?

Not arguing, just trying to clarify.

 

[thistle]

Aside from the obvious of what you said, what exactly are you implying, if anything?

That because your RCIA class was excellent, his experience was too and he doesn’t see it, or he must otherwise be mistaken?

Or should we just take it at face value as you saying this has not been your experience?

Not arguing, just trying to clarify.

What part of my RCIA class was excellent do you not understand?
The other poster had a bad experience. I had a good experience.
Are you trying to provoke confrontation between the other poster and me?

 

[jonbhorton]

What part of my RCIA class was excellent do you not understand?
The other poster had a bad experience. I had a good experience.
Are you trying to provoke confrontation between the other poster and me?

No, I was trying to understand what you meant. If it was literal (which it was), or if it was challenging via passive means since you did not expound.

It is my understanding that RCIA, while universal in that it exists, is not universal in the breadth of what it must cover, nor are there necessarily safeguards in place to make sure those goals are met adequately, or even properly. Were it not the case, such stories would either not exist or be provable lies. Alas, a sad truth which is, indeed.

I’m sincerely glad you had a good RCIA experience.

 

[fred_conty]

I would think that to understand what a mortal sin is would be very elementary
in a RCIA class. It is one of the most important and primary items we absolutely
need to know as Catholics. If that class wasn’t clear on that topic then someone
of importance should be notified so that this situation is corrected.

My best guess is that this was not the case in that class (I hope). Somewhere
there was miscommunicatiion or a misunderstanding about this truth. And I would
recommend going to the parish priest and have this explained in a way that
will be clear. This is very very important to be certain about this.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

No, I was trying to understand what you meant. If it was literal (which it was), or if it was challenging via passive means since you did not expound.

It is my understanding that RCIA, while universal in that it exists, is not universal in the breadth of what it must cover, nor are there necessarily safeguards in place to make sure those goals are met adequately, or even properly. Were it not the case, such stories would either not exist or be provable lies. Alas, a sad truth which is, indeed.

I’m sincerely glad you had a good RCIA experience.

It just strikes me that you were quick to jump on thistle but you did not question the motivations of YoungTradCath in the same manner.

 

[jonbhorton]

I wasn’t jumping on anyone. I was trying to figure out what Thistle meant. YTC was very clear in his RCIA experience, what was there to clarify? Since Thistle’s response was in reply to YTC’s, I wasn’t quite sure what his reply meant since since he didn’t go into detail. Was his RCIA experience from a well meaning couple as well? Was it taught exclusively by a priest with help from deacons and laity? Was it from a specific course authorized by a diocese? Other than the perceived quality of their comparative experiences, which, for Thistle I am glad he was able to have a good class, what conclusions can we draw? None.

Since a random declaration of one’s RCIA experience is decidedly random without explanation of the declarative portion, it struck me as wanting and I wasn’t sure if this was intentional and was a veiled attempt at insinuating something I wasn’t getting, or truly just a literal statement.

I was hoping to understand his comment, in light of YTC’s and what conclusion we may draw from their exchange in light of the topic.

We have the answer, it was a literal statement and not meant as anything but.