Author Topic: sin to attend church where CinH occurs (Read 1236 times)

Geremia · « **on:** March 01, 2013, 11:09:17 AM »

From St. Thomas's Summa III q. 82 a. 9 c., a beautiful syllogism:

1. [H]eretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not make a proper use of it; on the contrary, they sin by using it.
2. But whoever communicates with another who is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin. Hence we read in John's Second Canonical Epistle (11) that "He that saith unto him, God speed you [ave], communicateth with his wicked works."
3. Consequently, it is not lawful to receive Communion from them, or to assist at their mass.

Or, more simply:
1. [H]eretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or sinful priests […] [sin in their improper] use of ["the power to consecrate the Eucharist"].
2. But whoever communicates with another who is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin.
3. Consequently, it is not lawful to receive Communion from them, or to assist at their mass.

Since a priest sins by not stopping Communion in the hand, then it's sinful to attend a church where Communion in the hand occurs.

Thoughts?

MyrnaM · « **Reply #1 on:** March 01, 2013, 11:31:31 AM »

<<<1. [H]eretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or sinful priests […] [sin in their improper] use of ["the power to consecrate the Eucharist"]. >>>>>

Which is why one should not attend a novus ordo service.

TKGS · « **Reply #2 on:** March 01, 2013, 12:07:18 PM »

I agree with MrynaM. By the time we get to Communion in the hand, we've already gone way past the point where we should avoid the priest.

Geremia · « **Reply #3 on:** March 01, 2013, 12:10:29 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Which is why one should not attend a novus ordo service.

Agreed

MariaCatherine · « **Reply #4 on:** March 01, 2013, 01:49:51 PM »

Would you say it's a sin even if the person doesn't know that CITH is said to be a sin?

Geremia · « **Reply #5 on:** March 01, 2013, 01:53:03 PM »

Quote from: MariaCatherine

Would you say it's a sin even if the person doesn't know that CITH is said to be a sin?

It certainly could be. Isn't CinH an active denial of transubstantiation? And Catholics would be sinning by omission in not learning about their faith to know about transubstantiation.

MariaCatherine · « **Reply #6 on:** March 01, 2013, 02:12:49 PM »

Quote from: Geremia

Quote from: MariaCatherine
Would you say it's a sin even if the person doesn't know that CITH is said to be a sin?
It certainly could be. Isn't CinH an active denial of transubstantiation? And Catholics would be sinning by omission in not learning about their faith to know about transubstantiation.

It's hard for me to know who in my life is guilty of willful ignorance and who isn't, so I try to teach what I've learned, and if I see them getting even more stiff-necked, I withdraw.

OHCA · « **Reply #7 on:** March 02, 2013, 05:31:46 PM »

Yes, it is a sin to attend church where CITH occurs. One is to some extent legitimizing the practice as simply being a matter of choice when he attends such "masses." It legitimizes sacrilege. Also, a person attending such a "mass" is at least to some minimal degree exposing himself to the temptation of receiving CITH too. It's like we don't grasp the concept that we pray "lead us not into temptation," but then nonchalantly expose ourselves to temptation without giving it any thought whatsoever.

Even beyond that though, such "masses" are doubtful. There is the cloud of doubt surrounding the new rite ordinations; cloud of doubt surrounding the form of the transubstantiation; cloud of doubt surrounding intent with regard to transubstantiation. Do you think a "priest" who believes in the Real Presence would put it in your grubby paw? Or dole the Real Presnce out to an army of lesbians to assist in the communion line lest his "mass" run over 5 minutes?

Thus, at a minimum there is sacrilege at such "masses" by gross irreverence to the Real Presence and quite possibly idolatry in the event their is no transubstantiation accomplished. I am grateful that I found my way out of this mess. Though I do not identify as sedevacantist (I don't rule it out), Myrna had a lot to do with me reflecting on the ills of conciliarism simply being too great to remain a part of it.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #8 on:** March 03, 2013, 03:57:27 AM »

What would you call it when a traditional Catholic father and husband tells
his daughter that she should always receive Communion kneeling and on
the tongue, but then her mother (the wife of the same father) follows the
girl up the aisle and when they arrive at the front of the line, where there
is a priest who gives out hosts either on the tongue or in the hand (like
they do at the EWTN studio chapel), the mother then reaches around
her daughter and grabs her hand from behind her, and pushes it forward
toward the priest, twisting her daughter's hand so as to make her palm
facing upward, so then the girl gets the host in her hand?

TKGS · « **Reply #9 on:** March 03, 2013, 06:10:26 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

What would you call it when a traditional Catholic father and husband tells his daughter that she should always receive Communion kneeling and on the tongue, but then her mother (the wife of the same father) follows the girl up the aisle and when they arrive at the front of the line, where there is a priest who gives out hosts either on the tongue or in the hand (like they do at the EWTN studio chapel), the mother then reaches around her daughter and grabs her hand from behind her, and pushes it forward toward the priest, twisting her daughter's hand so as to make her palm facing upward, so then the girl gets the host in her hand?

I would say the Father needs to learn what traditional Catholicism is. He should not be subjecting his family to a service where such a "choice" is possible.

The wife also needs correction and the daughter should witness the correction lest she remain confused. This woman is another Eve.

OHCA · « **Reply #10 on:** March 03, 2013, 08:08:26 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

What would you call it when a traditional Catholic father and husband tells
his daughter that she should always receive Communion kneeling and on
the tongue, but then her mother (the wife of the same father) follows the
girl up the aisle and when they arrive at the front of the line, where there
is a priest who gives out hosts either on the tongue or in the hand (like
they do at the EWTN studio chapel), the mother then reaches around
her daughter and grabs her hand from behind her, and pushes it forward
toward the priest, twisting her daughter's hand so as to make her palm
facing upward, so then the girl gets the host in her hand?

I think "bitch" and "feminist" pretty much sums it up the mother, if that's what you're asking. The mother has committed several sins in this one action. Also, there is little chance that even her mere presence at such a "mass" is not a mortal sin because she is on notice of the sacrilege of CITH by knowing her husband's views. Even if it wasn't her husband putting her on notice of this, it would be incuмbent upon her to research the matter. Thus, if she is smart enough to tie her shoes, then this is probably a mortal sin in her case.