I’m sure I don’t need to tell anyone reading this about the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19) from China to Italy and the rest of the world. But it’s been fascinating watching the Church respond: dioceses across the country and across the globe have sprung into action. Restrictions have been placed on how the faithful can receive the Eucharist, in whether or not the Chalice is offered, whether or not the faithful can receive on the tongue, and so forth. In the most shocking development, all public Masses in Italy and in the Vatican are forbidden until April 3 – indeed, the Italian state has banned public Masses and funerals as it tries to prevent this disease from becoming a pandemic. In response, the Cardinal Vicar of Rome (who handles most of the day-to-day operations of the diocese of Rome) has called for tomorrow to be a day of fasting and prayer.
I get these precautions. Whatever you think about the danger of the coronavirus, and whatever you think about the effectiveness of any of the particular proposals (and oh boy, are there are a lot of opinions on both of those scores), I at least understand why Catholic leaders and all people of good will would be concerned about the health and safety of the flock. But here’s what I don’t understand. Where are all of the emergency responses to the crisis, much larger in both scope and severity, of people receiving the Eucharist unworthily? Given all the procedures being put in place to ensure that people don’t get sick, where are the emergency procedures being put in place to ensure that people don’t damn themselves? After all, St. Paul tells us (1 Cor. 11:27-30):
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
These references to weakness, illness, and death seem to be about spiritual, not physical, health. Elsewhere, Paul speaks of how we “were dead through the trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1). As. St. John Chrysostom explains, there is a spiritual law at work here:
For as His presence, which conveyed to us those great and unutterable blessings, condemned the more them that received it not: so also the Mysteries become provisions of greater punishment to such as partake unworthily. […] For if you should come to know accurately Who it is that lies before you, and Who He is that gives Himself, and to whom, you will need no other argument, but this is enough for you to use all vigilance; unless you should be altogether fallen.
The greater the gift we reject, disdain, or receive thoughtlessly, the worse the offense. And one hardly even needs to be a Christian to understand this law. The more effort and expense you put into taking care of someone, the more damage they do to the relationship if they take your efforts for granted, or are thoughtless or cruel in their response. In the Eucharist, Jesus gives to us Himself. The stakes couldn’t be higher.
This is why Catholics have always practiced closed Communion. Unlike some Protestant denominations (who invite forward all professing Christ to partake of what they call the Lord’s Supper), Catholics will not commune those who either are not in the Church, or are openly living sinfully. Way back in 155-157 A.D., St. Justin Martyr explained it this way:
And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.
So you have to (1) believe what the Church teaches, (2) be baptized, and (3) be living in a state of grace to receive Communion. This isn’t to be snobby or judgmental. It’s to protect the health, the spiritual health, of those present at Mass. For as bad as coronavirus is, or may be, this spiritual death is worse. Jesus says as much: “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28).
But sin is like a disease is another sense as well. One of the problems public health officials are having right now is the one that they always have: sick people behaving recklessly or selflessly, considering only their personal health without regard for how their contagious disease might hurt more-vulnerable parts of the population. We’re a deeply individualistic society, so we can overlook or ignore the social consequences to our personal health. The same goes for sin: we’re constantly tempted to say that our sin is our own business, as if it doesn’t impact those around us. St. John Paul II reminds us that this is a lie:
The mystery of sin is composed of this twofold wound which the sinner opens in himself and in his relationship with his neighbor. Therefore one can speak of personal and social sin: From one point of view, every sin is personal; from another point of view, every sin is social insofar as and because it also has social repercussions.
On the one hand, sin is “personal” because “it is an act of freedom on the part of an individual person and not properly of a group or community.” It’s not literally true that a society or institution or organization can sin, since those things don’t literally have souls or wills. Instead, it’s the people operating within those societies and institutions and organizations that are sinning. And so, as “a personal act, sin has its first and most important consequences in the sinner himself: that is, in his relationship with God, who is the very foundation of human life; and also in his spirit, weakening his will and clouding his intellect.” But sin is also alwayssocial:
To speak of social sin means in the first place to recognize that, by virtue of human solidarity which is as mysterious and intangible as it is real and concrete, each individual’s sin in some way affects others. This is the other aspect of that solidarity which on the religious level is developed in the profound and magnificent mystery of the communion of saints, thanks to which it has been possible to say that “every soul that rises above itself, raises up the world.” To this law of ascent there unfortunately corresponds the law of descent. Consequently one can speak of a communion of sin, whereby a soul that lowers itself through sin drags down with itself the church and, in some way, the whole world. In other words, there is no sin, not even the most intimate and secret one, the most strictly individual one, that exclusively concerns the person committing it. With greater or lesser violence, with greater or lesser harm, every sin has repercussions on the entire ecclesial body and the whole human family. According to this first meaning of the term, every sin can undoubtedly be considered as social sin.
Allowing people to live in sin isn’t just terrible for them, but terrible for those around them. This morning (the audio will be week 9 here, when it is uploaded), my coworker Chad Pirotte spoke on the importance of intercessory prayer, and he made a point that I haven’t heard many people make. We’re called, as the Body of Christ, to unite ourselves to Christ on the Cross at Mass, for our own good and the good of the world… and we can’t do that effectively if we’re mired in sin. So one very concrete way that our “personal” sin impacts those around us is that it makes it harder for us to effectively pray for them.
Again, my point in saying all of this isn’t to say that coronavirus is unimportant or not dangerous or anything of the sort. It’s claimed many lives already, and I understand why churches are taking strong precautions to keep it from becoming a much worse global pandemic. I’m only trying to point out that we’re doing so while often remaining silent in the face of much worse diseases. We feel comfortable telling people to stay home from Mass when they might be sick, but we don’t feel comfortable telling them to go to Confession when they might be dead inside. Our silence on this point is both a betrayal, and contributing to the pandemic of sin with which we’re struggling.
As mentioned on a few liturgical blogs (New Liturgical Movement comes to mind), the revision of the lectionary causes the removal of the very specific passages in 1 Corinthians 11 to be removed around proper disposition for receiving Holy Communion. It would be great if there could be a revision to the lectionary to re-include those.
I am in total agreement that they seem to worry far more as to coronovirus than they ever did as to unworthy partaking of the Blessed Sacrament.
In time of plague, my opinion is we should be having more Masses rather than fewer, if for no other reason than providing (pick-a-distance) from fellow worshippers to provide that personal space all health experts say we should have 24/7 anyhow….remove hymnals and missals, and wipe pews and doors after each service, and no person or group admitted if even one has a fever….
And why is no diocese in the USA yet, to my knowledge, breaking out those old prayers for deliverance in time of plague? Because nobody upstairs apparently believes in their effectiveness, is my guess….and it never enters their minds.
The inevitable “not like the Protestants” schtick of course, but getting to the matter of being in a state of sin when taking communion, who is in a state of sin? Does God convict according an objective code regardless of the sinner, or does the partaker convict or acquit themselves, even when unconscious of doing so, on the basis of their moral and spiritual understanding? The one who is in sin, but is not conscious of it, or is not conscious of the sin of taking communion in such a state, is that person bringing on their head the punishment of one who wilfully and knowingly takes communion in a particular state of sin?
Difficult to say, difficult for anyone except He who knows all. Which of course is why men get into trouble when the try to make up formulas to take God’s place and pre-empt His judgement.
And that is probably a much greater sin!
James,
Wrong again. The Church has always taught that three things need to be present to be in a state of sin, they are:
You said: Difficult to say, difficult for anyone except He who knows all. Which of course is why men get into trouble when the try to make up formulas to take God’s place and pre-empt His judgement.
And that is probably a much greater sin!
Difficult? Maybe. Impossible for you, because God has not given the power to bind and loose to you, but He clearly did give it to men. He obviously did intend His Church to make those judgements.
When I read your comments, it is clear to me that you know nothing about Catholicism, or of Scripture.
Friend, what this or that church has “always taught” does not matter two pins. The body of Christ is the community of believers who are acceptable in the sight of God, and only He knows who they are.
As the host of this site has stated, your church “stands or falls” on the claimed authority of the papacy. The case for that claim is denied by Scripture, by the very works of God themselves through innumerable thousands of non-Roman Catholics, the facts of history, and mere common sense.
You love the doctrine, you cling like limpets to it, because so many other doctrines of men have been hung upon it in the last thousand odd years, but as the saying goes, “wishing won’t make it so”.
Christ gave St. Peter an authority, but Peter has gone to his reward, and his authority went with him.
And you have no proofs of anything else.
James,
You are wrong again. Don’t you ever get tired of being so wrong?
Who says the Body of Christ is the community of believers acceptable in the sight of God? That definition for the Body of Christ is nowhere found in Scripture, so it must be a definition that you have come up with, but you have no authority to determine who is or is not a member of the Christ’s body. Jesus is quite adamant that his body will contain tares as well as wheat.
The claim for the Papacy is easily found in Scripture. So I’m not sure if you are reading Scripture, or The Book of Mormon when you say you can’t find it.
Our proof is the unbroken oneness of the Catholic Church since Christ founded her 2000 years ago on St. Peter, and the gates of Hell will never prevail against her. At the earliest, your church that you attend was founded by a human being at the most 500 years ago, but most likely in the last century. You claim to follow Christ, but in actuality, one can easily tell by reading your rants that you follow yourself.
Tell me Mr. Solo Scriptura, when the Early Church Father’s say that St. Peter handed on his authority, why should I believe you when you say that St. Peter didn’t hand on his authority, especially when you say you are prone to error? What verse says that he did not hand it on? If you cannot show me the verse, then it is obviously your opinion, and that’s not worth anything.
I would have thought it was obvious from Scripture Duane. What does Christ say? He says that not all who call Him “Lord, Lord” will be saved.
Not all who have done even miracles or even exorcisms in his name will be automatically saved. Those who have worked “iniquity” will not be saved, even if they have done such things.
What is “iniquity”? In light of this text it seems likely that inquity is to leave one of those “least” ones unfeed, unclothed, without drink, without companionship even, and clearly without the Gospel I suggest.
“Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee, or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in, or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.”
So what hope do any of us have? Only God’s mercy presumably, only the fact that only He can weigh every fragment of our beings and justly judge. And how could a God of mercy and justice do anything else?
So you claim that the Bishop of Rome will decide who is saved and who is not, because Christ told Peter he had the keys to the Kingdom? But Scripture clearly says that many who think they are saved will find that they are not. So how can we tell if we are saved? Clearly we cannot, despite all the foolish claims of some evangelicals to KNOW who will be saved, and the even more foolish claims of your church DECIDE who will be saved.
Do you really think that God,so vast, incomprehensible and indescribable has delegated His powers to a bunch of men to adjudicate according to their vanities and propensities?
There was a time when He gave men the Law, because, as Christ said, the hardness of their hearts made anything more too much for them at that time. But Christ came to bring the New Covenant, to open the door fully to all men, to fulfill the Law, and now you think salvation is still in some code of law ordained by Popes? You think to shut God up in a Roman Holy of Holies?
St. Peter first founded or co-founded churches other than the Roman church, didn’t he? Christ did not say that the authority He gave Peter would carry on down through some structure made by men which He nowhere referred to in Scripture.
Some early “fathers” (the contravention of Christ’s explicit command began even then?) of the western church said the Bishop of Rome had inherited the authority of St. Peter? That’s nice. Could they have been in error? Well, did any of the early church leaders ever err Duane?
It seems they did. Even Peter himself in fact did, repeatedly.
So the present pope says it’s “dangerous” for anyone to think they can have a “direct relationship with God”, and that the Roman Church has to be the middleman? But you see the claimed authority of St. Peter by descent, does not trump the words of St. Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, included in the New Testament: “there is but one mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ the Righteous.”
Of course, once you claim to have the keys, to have the power of God to adjudicate over men’s souls, then inquiring minds begin to wonder when those who claim such power turn out to all too human and all too capable of error. So, they begin to wonder, does God accept these men and their worldly doings, does he allow them to open and close the gates of Heaven even though they are sinners who err?
Alarming proposition, so a flying buttress or two is needed to quiet the restless: “we are worldly and we may err, but when we open our mouths on matters of religion the Holy Spirit does not allow us to err: we are INFALLIBLE!”
“Tell me Mr. Solo Scriptura, when the Early Church Father’s say that St. Peter handed on his authority, why should I believe you when you say that St. Peter didn’t hand on his authority, especially when you say you are prone to error? What verse says that he did not hand it on? If you cannot show me the verse, then it is obviously your opinion, and that’s not worth anything.”
Duane, I didn’t say that St. Peter didn’t hand on his authority, I said and say that he no mandate to hand on his authority. Do you really think that the Son of God, who as it says “knew (and knows) the hearts of men”, intended to hand it all over to Peter and his successors and walk away?
Why did He say that the Holy Spirit, the Comforter would come to “lead us into all truth” if He had given St. Peter and Co. authority to decide what that was the truth?
James,
You said:
Except St. Paul is quite clear that there will be members of Christ’s body here on Earth that will not be justified at the end, contradicting your definition of who the members of Christ’s body are.
You said:
Can you show me where I have ever made that claim, or where the Catholic Church makes that claim? If not, just another empty assertion on your part with, as usual no evidence to back it up.
You said:
Yes. Jn. 20: as the Father sends me so I send you. Was Jesus sent with authority? If you say yes, then He sends them as He was sent.
You said:
Ah, no. Not sure where you are getting this from, but it is not what the Catholic Church teaches. You really need to provide some evidence for your assertions, or they become just empty words.
You said:
Two things:
1.) The structure was made by Christ, not men.
2.) How do you know Christ never said that St. Peter’s authority was not to be handed on? Are you saying that all that Jesus did and said was written down? Hmmm. I think Scripture quite clearly contradicts you somewhere. LOL
You said:
Reposted to correct formatting errors.
James,
You said:
Except St. Paul is quite clear that there will be members of Christ’s body here on Earth that will not be justified at the end, contradicting your definition of who the members of Christ’s body are.
You said:
Can you show me where I have ever made that claim, or where the Catholic Church makes that claim? If not, just another empty assertion on your part with, as usual no evidence to back it up.
You said:
Yes. Jn. 20: as the Father sends me so I send you. Was Jesus sent with authority? If you say yes, then He sends them as He was sent.
You said:
Ah, no. Not sure where you are getting this from, but it is not what the Catholic Church teaches. You really need to provide some evidence for your assertions, or they become just empty words.
You said:
Two things:
1.) The structure was made by Christ, not men.
2.) How do you know Christ never said that St. Peter’s authority was not to be handed on? Are you saying that all that Jesus did and said was written down? Hmmm. I think Scripture quite clearly contradicts you somewhere. LOL
You said:
Are you saying Christ explicitly commanded for the authority He gave St. Peter not to be handed on? Please post that verse for me? But for your information, several Protestant scholars such as Forberg, Albright, Liderboss, Meier, et al. admit that when Christ gives St. Peter the keys to the kingdom, He is referencing Is. 22 and Eliakim, an office which was to be handed on.
You said:
Yes, if Jesus did not give the keys of the Kingdom to St. Peter.
You said:
Sure. But you seem to be creating an even bigger error by believing that just because a person should commit error, that means they do not have authority. That is a non sequitur. Also Jesus quite clearly contradicts you.
You said:
Please post the exact quote and where the quote came from. If you cannot, then you are guilty of Bearing False Witness, something you undoubtedly learned from your hero Foxe.
You said:
Not alarming at all. I thank Jesus for the gift of Infallibility that He gave to the successor of St. Peter and to the Catholic Church every day. It is quite reassuring.
By the way Jesus quite clearly points in two places in Scripture where men have infallibility, so your problem is with Him.
You said:
Please post the verse where Jesus tells St. Peter not to hand on His authority.
Be careful where you tread with this mandate nonsense. Where is the mandate for the Gospels to be written? For the council of Jerusalem to be called? For a successor to Judas to be elected?
You said:
So you are saying that maybe the Apostles were wrong and it was not really the decision of the Holy Spirit but it was just the Apostles on a power binge?
James, your problem is not with the Catholic Church. Your problem is with the words of Jesus.
Focus your comments on the article at hand. The pandemic hoax,
A serious Catholic would consider ‘Catholics will not commune those who either are not in the Church, or are openly living sinfully.’ against Amoris Laetitia.
Certain other Catholic types see no need to question why Coronavirus has come among us during this time of day.
Indulgence indeed.
James,
I’m not meaning any kind of shtick, but this question of open vs. closed communion is one that I’ve frequently heard from Protestants, so I included that by way of explaining WHY our Church looks so different from what many Protestants might be used to.
Regarding the objective vs. subjective dimensions of sin, you’re definitely on to something. We can know which things are objectively contrary to God’s law, but we have a difficult or impossible time of saying whether a person who acts contrary to God’s law does so knowingly or intentionally. The Code of Canon law actually recognizes the distinction you’re describing:
– Canon 916 says that “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.” This is the subjective dimension – you know, in your heart, that you’ve done something gravely sinful. Even if nobody else knows it or can prove it, YOU have a duty not to receive the Eucharist unworthily.
– Canon 915, in contrast, deals with the *objective* dimension of sin: forbidding those who have been excommunicated or who are “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin.” It’s POSSIBLE that someone doesn’t know that (say) living with their girlfriend outside of marriage is sinful, but in this case, the fact that the Church refuses to commune them dispels any ignorance they may suffer from. Significantly, there’s no need to judge the subjective state of their soul here (that’s the job of the individual, per 916), but to judge whether their public lifestyle is consistent with Christianity or not.
The problem with looking ONLY at the subjective dimension is that it erodes and eliminates anything like visible Christianity. Who’s to say that the Buddhist down the block isn’t secretly a Christian, or that Christ isn’t at work in his life in some way we can’t define? The logical result is that a subjective-only approach to Church or communion renders the whole idea of “Church” and “communion” nebulous beyond meaning. The Church is at once the Mystical Body of Christ and the visible Household of God, so these two dimensions (subjective and objective) always necessarily co-exist.
I would say more about how Luther (and Jan Hus before him) functionally destroy this concept, leading to relativism, but I don’t want to be accused of some sort of shtick….
In the Blood,
Joe
I can only reiterate that attempting to codify matters of the Spirit is recipe for confusion, delusion and disaster.
So let us assume that some pedophile priest has finished his day’s abominations, he partakes of “the sacrament of confession” and lays his poor head down to rest. We cannot weigh his suffering heart so we cannot say to what extent his confession or repentance is wholehearted or merely “visible”. Is he in a state of sin? Does the confessor know? If the confessor says, “your sins are forgiven” and our pedophile is not truly repentant, is he forgiven anyway because Fr. John Doe, at the end of the million mile petrine bungee cord, says they are?
Clearly you have innumerable priests, to say nothing of laity, who are “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin”, but apparently don’t think so, or secretly laugh at the whole idea of sin, or who think the “sacrament” of confession permanently absolves them as long as they periodically go through the motions of it.
The problem is not, “ONLY looking at the subjective dimension”, the problem is ONLY looking at the “objective”, as men swiftly come to believe that the overt, “objective” acts or “sacraments” surpass or negate the “subjective”.
A Christian church can certainly exist as a “visible” entity without pretending to determine beyond the proven and the obvious who is in a state of sin. We do not have divine perception, so how can we do any more? Will the communicant be condemned by God for failing to discern who is a sinner and denying that one Holy Communion? Clearly not, unless the Holy Spirit has been given to that communicant sufficient for them tell!
An ex-communicated person forbidden to take Holy Communion? Ex-communicated by who, for what, from what, on what evidence, and on what authority?
No man or body of men (a church) stands between God and man, that is what Scripture says. A church may refuse to commune with a person, may even expel them, but to pretend that by doing so they have cut that person off from God’s mercy and salvation unless that person repents to their satisfaction and avows their particular theology?
Mere presumption; were it not an abomination if would be laughable.
And by the way, have a look into the case for Fr. John O’Connor: silenced, expelled from the Dominicans, told to see a psychiatrist and finally excommunicated for speaking up about the homosexual and pedophile mafia in the priesthood.
http://voxcantor.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-homosexual-dominicans-and-their.html
torontocatholicwitness.blogspot.ca
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NInbnDt2fw4
There’s a video on “What Catholics Believe” where some other priest goes on about how modernism is an attack on the priesthood and repeatedly says that he prays for Fr. O’Connor’s soul and asks others to do so. Hoist on his own petard: if Fr. O’Connor spoke against evil in the church and was silenced and ex-communicated for it, then what is such an ex-communication worth?? Does any catholic seriously believe his soul is in danger because corrupt clerics read a rite of ex-communcation over him? Proverbs 26:12 And if it is not, then what is the rite worth? Presumptuous nonsense.
Too bad you are not a bishop.
These are teachings we need to reflect on. We may be better off materially than we were in medieval times, but have forgotten the spiritual side of reality.
>>>The greater the gift we reject, disdain, or receive thoughtlessly, the worse the offense.<<<
Applying this truism to abortion what greater sin is there? Same sin as Satan, Judas and Cain, hatred of God, attack on Jesus Christ and child sacrifice to demons.
I won’t spoil it for you: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=the+arch+of+baal