It would seem you’d have been kosher on communion. Your father was being presumptuous and rude.
Coulda/shoulda/woulda asked the priest.
No, actually he was right. Searching on the catholic.com website, I found this article, in which it clears up that forgetting to attend Mass is not a mortal sin, but intentionally missing it is:
I suppose one could argue that you didn’t know missing Mass was a mortal sin, but considering what I’ve been told by people about Catholic upbringings, I somehow doubt that. 
I’ve heard this many times from lay Catholics, but I’m skeptical. If true, it would seem to pose a barrier to most Catholics, as well as most other Christians. After all, you can’t even understand what the word transubstantiation means without having a working knowledge of some fairly arcane philosophical concepts (for example, the concept of substances). Most people can accept that the Church knows what she’s talking about, without actually understanding what she’s saying, but I’m not sure that is the same as actually believing something.
The difference in belief between the Catholic church and most Protestant churches may be a significant (though unwarranted, IMO) barrier to shared Communion between denominations, but I’d like to see a cite from Canon Law that a Catholic in a state of grace who otherwise fulfills the requirements of the Church would be barred from Communion by a lack of belief in transubstantiation. (Or that such a lack of belief would preclude being in a state of grace.)
(I’m sure Catholic Answers is a conscientious organization, but the best make errors, and the Nihil Obstat only guarantees against doctrinal and moral errors, not misunderstanding fine points of Canon Law.)
Oh God, this reminds me of Tuesday afternoon on Catholic School, when one of the priests would visit and answer all the stupid questions we could possibly think up.
If you consider yourself to be a Catholic in good standing, you should take communion. If not, you should not. You must believe in the Transubstantiation. You must honestly believe yourself to be without Mortal Sin. No one else can decide if you should take communion, but if you have to wonder, you probably shouldn’t. It does matter what you’re motivations are. You shouldn’t be doing it to be part of something, or to go along with other people. If you wouldn’t do it without all those people around, you shouldn’t do it.
-saoirse
who has not taken Communion since his wedding.
Well, Canon Law requires that children not be admitted to their First Communion until they understand at least something about the concept:
Code of Canon Law, Can. 913 ß1. In this context, “Mystery of Christ” refers to transubstantiation. There is an inference that this requirement persists to adulthood in Can 914, which provides that it is the duty of the parish priest to see that those he has judged to be insufficiently disposed do not come to holy communion.
Can. 916 provides that anyone who is conscious of grave sin may not celebrate Mass or receive the Body of the Lord without previously having been to 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 resolve to go to confession as soon as possible.
It’s not for me, or any message board participant, or indeed any layman to judge such matters definitively. This is a discussion best had with your pastor.
However, speaking purely academically, a person is required to live up, as best he or she can, to the commandments of God and the precepts of the Church. The precepts of the Church include the obligation to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of obligation, to fast and abstain on the days appointed for such, to receive the Eucharist at least once per year during the paschal season, and to confess your sins at least once per year if serious sin is involved. A person that has deliberately chosen not to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation is certainly arguably not in a state of grace, and cannot approach communion without first availing him or herself of the sacrament of penance.
Again, though, it is generally for each person to examine their conscience, informed by the teachings of the church, and decide if they may take communion. It’s not for others, even well-meaning relatives, to make this determination. Certainly if you were not Catholic, your dad would have been right on the money to steer you away. Here? Not so much.
Finally, I would point out that the sacrament of baptism may only be received once, because it leaves “an indelible mark on the soul,” as the old Baltimore Catechism used to say. I don’t know what you had when you were twenty, but unless there was some question about the validity of the baptism you had as an infant, what you had at twenty was not “another” baptism. You can only be baptized once.
I have a friend who grew up Catholic,and who now goes to an Episcopal church. She was refused communion at her mother’s funeral, which was in a Catholic church, because she goes to an Episcopal church.
The Episcopal Church is far less restrictive (suprise, suprise!) about who can take communion. It’s usually welcome to all baptized Christians. C’mon down!
What went on after your wedding?
I am not a Catholic (but I went to a Catholic university for two years!), but isn’t it true that those who are not eligible to receive communion can still join the line and receive a blessing from the priest? My mother (also not a Catholic) goes to Mass frequently with her devout Catholic friend, who’s told her that she can join the line and receive a blessing - she simply needs to cross her arms over her chest when she reaches the front of the line as a signal to the priest, who will then give her a blessing rather than communion.
Question for Bricker or anyone else knowledgeable about Catholicism:
Which is the worse sin:
Taking communion when you’re not in a state of grace
Publicly humiliating someone?
Judaism doesn’t have anything like communion, but we do consider publicly humiliating someone to be a very serious sin (it’s considered equivalent to murder). I’m just wondering which one Catholicism would say is worse.
I’d like for there to be an interesting story, too, but it’s more likely that he was married in a Catholic church and hasn’t been to church since.
There are some who question the virtue of organized religion.
If my mother were to die tomorrow (God forbid) and have her funeral in the Methodist church, and Methodist funerals include communion (I don’t know if they do or not), I would or should be refused communion there (of course, I wouldn’t even try to take it- I’m no longer Christian). That wouldn’t affect my attitude toward Judaism or any other non-Christian organized religion- why should it?
Now, there are good and bad ways of telling someone that they shouldn’t take communion- a good way would be for the priest to explain privately to the person in question, before the service, that they shouldn’t take communion. A bad way would be to make a scene at the altar.
Well, shoot, I don’t understand how “true God and true man” works either but I believe it. It’s a matter of faith and I trust in the Word of God and the Church that has interpreted it.
Yes.
Depends on your perspective. Publically humiliating someone would be just as bad in Catholicism as in Judaism. Taking communion while not in a state of grace would be like entering the Temple sanctuary (were it still standing) and partaking of something one had no right to, and was not prepared for. The former is bad, but IIRC the latter in Temple times would be punished by death.
Thanks, Bricker. That isn’t quite what I need to be convinced, but it’s a good starting point.
I’m not sure why you believe that “Mystery of Christ” refers to transubstantiation. It clearly includes the mystery of the Eucharist, but that’s not the same as transubstantiation.
Maybe it would help if I were more clear about what it is I’m skeptical about. I don’t doubt that the RCC requires at least passive acceptance of her teachings on Eucharist. Nor do I doubt that this includes transubstantiaition. I would likely believe, if it were posited to me, that the church requires that communicants believe that the elements really and completely become the resurected body and blood of Christ. (However, this is not clearly implied to me by the canons you cited.) This is not, I think identical with belief in transubstantiation, which I understand to be a technical and philosophical explanation for how the above might be true.
I am aware that transubstantiation is Catholic doctrine. I am unclear on how much one must understand and submit to Catholic teaching before being admitted to Holy Communion. But I don’t believe (yet) that one must actually understand and believe that all elements of creation posess both substance and accidents, that these have the natures and characteristics attributed to them by Greek and Medieval writers, that the elements coming to the Table posess both the substances and the accidents of bread and wine (respectively), and that while the accedents remain constant, the substances of the elements, at a particular point in the Eucharistic prayer, are replaced with the substance of the unified body and blood of Christ by the action of the Holy Spirit, etc.
Maybe that’s not what others understand by the phrase, “believe in transubstantiation.” Is it what is required or expected of communicants (even young ones “according to their capacity”) by the Catholic Church? If not, what is required and expected? The canons you cited seem awfully vague to me.
Please understand, Bricker, I’m not trying to be argumentative or pedantic. (Well, maybe pedantic.) I’m genuinely not sure whether one of us is misunderstanding the other or one is right and the other wrong. (Nor am I sure which is whom in either case–though I suspect you have better odds of being right than I do on account of, you know, actually being Catholic and having studied these things.)
As with everything, intentionality is key.
Taking communion while not in a state of grace, deliberately, with full knowledge of what is required, and desiring to reject God’s grace is the sin of sacrilege, and it’s a mortal sin. Taking communion while not in a state of grace because you are simply unsure of the rules, and don’t quite remember what’s needed, and simply want to share in the fellowship that communion represents… is most likely a venial sin.
Similarly, publicly humiliating someone out of a mean spirit and a desire to destroy or damage the reputation or feelings of your target is a serious, mortal sin. Publicly humiliating someone accidentally, out of a misplaced desire to keep them from sinning by taking communion when they are not entitled, is most likely a venial sin.
In Jewish law, you’re referring to the principle of gadol kvod habriot, preserving the dignity of the person. You’re right in saying that violation of this is considered a serious sin. But the Rambam notes in Hil. Kilayim 10:29 that if someone sees another person wearing kilayim, he must remove it from him, even if he is standing in the marketplace, because “…There is neither wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against Hashem.” (Mishlei 21:30)
This is, I think, a fair analogy to the situation we confront here. Even though gadol kvod habriot, there is a principle that kvod habriot doesn’t push off a lav which is explicit in the Torah. (Some commentators suggest that had it been derabanan it would push off the prohibition).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Cahpter 2, Part 2: “The Celebration of the Christian Mystery,” § 1376 et seq., declares:
This is the understanding taught to youngsters before they are admitted to First Communion. While they may be a bit fuzzy on substance and accidents, they must leanr and know that the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Christ, and they must know that it be considered as such and treated with appropriate reverence.
Ok, that’s definitely something. I think we’re getting close. I am sorry this has turned into such a hijack.
Based on your experience and knowledge (I know that probably only a clergyman could answer this authoritatively, and then only as pertains to his own flock), if an adult Catholic approached his priest and said,
how do you believe the priest would (or ought) respond?
Now, what about a Catholic who came to her priest and said,
Continue down this path as far as you like, Bricker. At what point do you think the priest would be mosst responsible if he were to say, “You know what? Maybe today isn’t the best time for you to receive the Eucharist. Why don’t you come by my office after Mass, and we’ll see if we can’t discuss this some more.”
If Bricker sees this going down a long road and is willing to indulge me, or if others want to chime in, I’ll start a new thread, but I think we’re almost there with this now.
Baptised and confirmed Episcopalian here. Father excommunicated for marrying an Episcopalian woman who refused to raise her children exclusively Catholic.
So half my relatives are Catholic. And half are Episcopalian.
My father never took communion after marrying my mother. He took his Catholicism very seriously.
I, raised Episcopalian, always considered the whole thing to be a crock of shit.
Communion, whether Catholic or Episcopalian, are almost exact copies of each other. (I have heard from my Catholic side that Episcopalian wine is excellent whereas Catholic wine, no matter how much blessed, seriously sucks-------dregs of the barrel stuff)
My daughter married a Catholic. So I have been to many Catholic masses. As far as ceremony–Episcopalians have Catholics beat all to hell these days. Much more Catholic than the Catholics. Such silliness anymore happens in Catholic masses------makes me want to bust out laughing during the service. But I do contain myself so as not to embarass my daughter or son-in-law.
I have never taken Communion during a Catholic service. --------Even though almost word for word —it is the exact same service as the Episcopalian one.
Do I believe that the wine and wafer have turned into the blood and body of Christ during the Eucharist?
Could be.
Have nothing against the idea of transubstantiation. (or whatever the hell it is called. Makes no difference to me whether the Eucharist is real or just symbolic.
What I wonder is why anyone would give a crap about that part anyway?
I think any priest would be very pleased at a parishoner expressing the thoughts above. And I believe the dispositive sentence above is the one I have bolded. “Substance” and “accidents” are imperfect methods of describing a process that is, ultimately, a mystery to us, and one that does NOT have any correspondence to any purely physical phenomenon. The hypothetical priest would certainly respond in the affirmative.
This is a closer question.
Pope Paul VI addressed this issue in 1965, in his encyclical letter Mysterium Fidei. He rejected it conclusively. In his later encyclical Credo of the People of God, he confirmed that no matter what phrasing you give to the theological explanation of the doctrine, you must have three basic understandings:
[ul]
[li]Christ’s body and blood are really present[/li][li]The bread and the wine are really absent[/li][li]This presence and absence is real and not merely something in the mind of the believer[/li][/ul]
I think a wise priest would permit such a person to receive communion, but extend an invitation to discuss the issue more completely. The failure of someone to grasp what is really, on its face, a very mysterious – even absurd – claim is not unusual. The parishoner is clearly interested, and his failure to grasp the issue is not a rejection of the Church’s teaching … merely a failure of the Church to present it in a way that he can grasp.
That’s my opinion. But I don’t wear the Roman collar.
Here is my thread earlier on inter-denominational communion.