When did the sacrament of reconciliation became a prerequisite for communion?

[Tamsulosin]

Ok, agree that Jesus gave power to the apostles to forgive or retain sins in Jesus’s name.
But I do not see the link with the reception of communion.
Had the apostles confessed before the last supper?I read no indication of that.Neither Jesus seem to imply that before eating the consacrated bread and drinking the wine in his name, their souls should be free of at the very least the mortal sins.The Lord commanded “do this in memory of me” No strings attached.
I can see that it is much better( to feel worthier) to receive the host with a pure heart, but I wonder when it became church law.
I personally go to confession regularly.So,why am I asking this?Because I know some people first hand whose souls would benefit by such heavenly remedy, but abstain all their lives because of the requirement of confession.
And I wonder what Jesus would prefer, since He did not require it himself at the Last Supper.

 

[benedictgal]

Ok, agree that Jesus gave power to the apostles to forgive or retain sins in Jesus’s name.
But I do not see the link with the reception of communion.
Had the apostles confessed before the last supper?I read no indication of that.Neither Jesus seem to imply that before eating the consacrated bread and drinking the wine in his name, their souls should be free of at the very least the mortal sins.The Lord commanded “do this in memory of me” No strings attached.
I can see that it is much better( to feel worthier) to receive the host with a pure heart, but I wonder when it became church law.
I personally go to confession regularly.So,why am I asking this?Because I know some people first hand whose souls would benefit by such heavenly remedy, but abstain all their lives because of the requirement of confession.
And I wonder what Jesus would prefer, since He did not require it himself at the Last Supper.

Unfortunately, one of the 12 received unworthily at the Last Supper, Judas Iscariot. In fact, the Gospels note that Satan had already entered his heart.

Furthermore, have you not read the First Letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians:

21 For every one taketh before his own supper to eat. And one indeed is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What, have you not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God; and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise you not. 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 **Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep. **

Thus, we should take St. Paul at his word.

We should also take Jesus at His word as well. Remember, too, that Jesus entrusted the Sacred Mysteries of the Holy Eucharist, thus the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to the Church in the person of St. Peter and His Successors, and, in some share, the Apostles, when he gave St. Peter the authority to bind and loosen. Binding and loosening also includes the regulation of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. St. Paul gives us the first theological and spiritual reason as to why we should receive Our Lord worthily.

 

[diggerdomer]

Ok, agree that Jesus gave power to the apostles to forgive or retain sins in Jesus’s name.
But I do not see the link with the reception of communion.
Had the apostles confessed before the last supper?I read no indication of that.Neither Jesus seem to imply that before eating the consacrated bread and drinking the wine in his name, their souls should be free of at the very least the mortal sins.The Lord commanded “do this in memory of me” No strings attached.
I can see that it is much better( to feel worthier) to receive the host with a pure heart, but I wonder when it became church law.
I personally go to confession regularly.So,why am I asking this?Because I know some people first hand whose souls would benefit by such heavenly remedy, but abstain all their lives because of the requirement of confession.
And I wonder what Jesus would prefer, since He did not require it himself at the Last Supper.

Strictly speaking, it’s not. Being free of mortal sin is a condition for communion.

No, the Apostles did not confess before the Last Supper.

The requirement to confess mortal sins prior to receiving communion was legislated by the Council of Trent (1545-1563)

 

[rkrispies]

Ok, agree that Jesus gave power to the apostles to forgive or retain sins in Jesus’s name.
But I do not see the link with the reception of communion.
Had the apostles confessed before the last supper?I read no indication of that.Neither Jesus seem to imply that before eating the consacrated bread and drinking the wine in his name, their souls should be free of at the very least the mortal sins.The Lord commanded “do this in memory of me” No strings attached.
I can see that it is much better( to feel worthier) to receive the host with a pure heart, but I wonder when it became church law.
I personally go to confession regularly.So,why am I asking this?Because I know some people first hand whose souls would benefit by such heavenly remedy, but abstain all their lives because of the requirement of confession.
And I wonder what Jesus would prefer, since He did not require it himself at the Last Supper.

Mortal sin is the complete and willful turning away from God. Judas received unworthily. He paid the price for his sins. The other eleven were (to that point) faithful to Christ (minus some possible little missteps). No mortal sin. One could argue that Peter’s denial of Christ later on constituted mortal sin. As could the disciples falling asleep in the Garden. These, however, came after the Last Supper.

Another point to consider: the reception of a Sacrament (except for Reconciliation) in a state of mortal sin denies the recipient the graces imparted by the sacrament. Traditionally, the Last Supper was not only the institution of the Eucharist but also the institution of the priesthood (i.e. Holy Orders). So if they were in a state of mortal sin, they would not have received the graces of their ordination that night. I dare say we wouldn’t argue that they did not receive that sacramental grace then.

Chris

 

[Tamsulosin]

The decisions at the Council of Trent fall under the concept of infallible.Don’t they?

 

[diggerdomer]

The decisions at the Council of Trent fall under the concept of infallible.Don’t they?

Maybe. Maybe not. Can you say more about why you ask, or what you’re asking about? Thanks.

 

[Tamsulosin]

Chris, how can we presume to know what was the state of the apostles’ soul?
One can love Christ and be faithful, but the devil is out there making us commit sins nonetheless.The recent priests’ scandals are an example.
I read with interest what you said about the fact that the benefits of the sacrament of communion do not take hold in an impure heart anyways.That is a thought to ponder.I need to ask you respectfully though.Is this your opinion, or you read it ?
Tam

 

[Tamsulosin]

Strictly speaking, it’s not. Being free of mortal sin is a condition for communion.

No, the Apostles did not confess before the Last Supper.

The requirement to confess mortal sins prior to receiving communion was legislated by the Council of Trent (1545-1563)

Because you said that the requirements to precede the reception of communion were set
at that Council,so I was asking if this decision was considered Holy Ghost inspired and so infallible, or subject to change, like for example the matter of covering the head for women, the kneeling when receiving , etc, etc.

 

[diggerdomer]

Because you said that the requirements to precede the reception of communion were set
at that Council,so I was asking if this decision was considered Holy Ghost inspired and so infallible, or subject to change, like for example the matter of covering the head for women, the kneeling when receiving , etc, etc.

I don’t think it makes a difference whether it’s taught infallibly or not. Do you? If so, why?

 

[Rolltide]

Well, let’s look at a couple of the earliest existing non-Biblical Christian documents:

This selection is from the Didache, which is the ONLY non-Biblical Christian document that survives from a time when the Apostles were still alive. It was meant to be used as a sort of early Catechism. It dates to about 70 AD, give or take.

“Let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too, the saying of the Lord is applicable: Do not give to dogs what is sacred.”

“…On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.”

Here’s a different selection, this time, from Justin Martyr’s Apologia, written in 150 AD:

“And this food is called by us Eucharist, and it is not lawful for any man to partake of it but him who believes the things taught by us to be true, and has been washed with the washing which is for the remission of sins and unto a new birth, and is so living as Christ commanded. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but just as Jesus Christ our Savior, being made flesh through the word of God, had for our salvation both flesh and blood, so, also, we are taught that the food for which thanks are given by the word of prayer which is from Him, and from which by conversion our flesh and blood are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”

This is slightly less clear, although it’s clear that sins needed to be remitted at LEAST through baptism. Other documents from slightly later corroborate what the Didache is saying about confession being a requirement.

 

[Brendan]

Because you said that the requirements to precede the reception of communion were set
at that Council,so I was asking if this decision was considered Holy Ghost inspired and so infallible, or subject to change, like for example the matter of covering the head for women, the kneeling when receiving , etc, etc.

The requirement that a person be free from Mortal Sin is de fide and infallible.

The requirment that one recieve the Sacrament of Reconcillaition prior to 1st Reception of the Eucharist is a matter of disciple.

We know this for two reasons.

1. Catecumens recieve the Eucharist at the same Mass that they are Baptized at. They do not stop Mass so that the priest may hear their Confessions. There is no need, as the Baptism remits all sin.
2. Eastern Catholic infants recieve the Eucharist at shortly after they are Baptized (within minutes). Infalliable teaching apply to all sui juris Churches, disciplines do not.

 

[4EverHis]

in the Bible it says that we shouldn’t receive the Eucharist unworthily…

if we have chosen to sin knowing that it’s wrong, (in other words: if we committed mortal sin) then we have separated ourselves from God…

and so if we were to receive the Eucharist in a state of separation from God, we would be receiving unworthily and would be offending Him.

So, we go to Confession to be reconciled

confession existed in the early Church too, but the difference is that in addition to the priest all the other people in the parish heard your confession too it was done publically…

but the power to absolve has only been given to the priests.

God bless

 

[Joannm]

confession existed in the early Church too, but the difference is that in addition to the priest all the other people in the parish heard your confession too it was done publically…

God bless

Not exactly. They confessed to the bishop and did public penance. Confession in the early CHurch is a bit complicated…and I don’t have time to go through it at this moment. When I get a chance I will post some info about reconciliation in the early CHurch. But basically once you were baptized it was expected that you would not sin again…one sin and you were out. Of course there were only three sins that would cause this to happen and only those three required you to confess to the bishop. Confession to a priest, or confession as we know it, came much later, 5-6 centuries to start and developed during the Middle Ages to what we know now. Lesser sins in the early Church, even what we would now call grave sins, were not confessed but the person sought reconciliation by asking for forgiveness and by prayer and fasting on their own.

 

[Tamsulosin]

Not exactly. They confessed to the bishop and did public penance. Confession in the early CHurch is a bit complicated…and I don’t have time to go through it at this moment. When I get a chance I will post some info about reconciliation in the early CHurch. But basically once you were baptized it was expected that you would not sin again…one sin and you were out. Of course there were only three sins that would cause this to happen and only those three required you to confess to the bishop. Confession to a priest, or confession as we know it, came much later, 5-6 centuries to start and developed during the Middle Ages to what we know now. Lesser sins in the early Church, even what we would now call grave sins, were not confessed but the person sought reconciliation by asking for forgiveness and by prayer and fasting on their own.

This is one reason for my initial question.Because I was looking for an indication that Jesus himself , and not the many directives that change with time ,are keeping some people,even in my immediate family from receiving communion.They cannot bring themselves to confess to a priest,but wish to do it directly to God.I have explained to them that the priest is an intermediary,like a phone you use, to confess to Jesus.
Anyways,a poster above found some early documents in which Jesus himself says not to receive with an impure heart.That is what I was looking for.
And since Jesus made the apostles the instrument for confession,it has to be done that way before being able to receive communion.When the apostles had their first communion,those rules had not been established yet,there were no priests, and Jesus knew what was in their hearts anyways.The apostles were the first priests.

 

[Tamsulosin]

Oh, I forgot.Thank you Rolltide and all of you for the info.Tam

 

[rkrispies]

Chris, how can we presume to know what was the state of the apostles’ soul?
One can love Christ and be faithful, but the devil is out there making us commit sins nonetheless.The recent priests’ scandals are an example.
I read with interest what you said about the fact that the benefits of the sacrament of communion do not take hold in an impure heart anyways.That is a thought to ponder.I need to ask you respectfully though.Is this your opinion, or you read it ?
Tam

Strictly speaking, we can’t know for certain. So we give them the benefit of the doubt. As far as the graces not being imparted, while I cannot specifically point to a document (don’t have time to go digging around right now), it is something I have read and heard on several occasions, the most recent of which was a lovely homily by my pastor. I will answer with this: while it is an opinion, I’m pretty sure it’s grounded somewhere in fact, but I couldn’t tell you right now exactly where.

Chris