Would you take Eucharist from a priest who had sinned?

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes, I assume you'd feel this way... but it matters that he knows at least enough to cut you off before you drink yourself to death. A priest that (thinks he is) without sin is a danger, for "If you say you are without sin, you deceive yourself."

Alot of churches say Jesus was without sin. I don't think this is right, nor the point. He ate with sinners, healed on the Sabbath, and when the priests told his mom to talk sense into him nothing happened. According to the Law, Jesus was a sinner. According to the Law. But Jesus overcame sin by proving what it really was.

The last part, that's how I would see it. A sinkess person can't be around sin but if you send a singular person, he would be like humans and his crucifixion would be how Christian's would be. If he was not sinful, nothing really died but flesh not sin.

I never heard a priest saying he is sinless. I only heard Jesus was sinless and he has the authority to reconcile to God. Confesser ask God to forgive him. Christ forgives confessed. Priest reconciles the forgiveness between person and God.

I saw it differently (priest reconciles one back into the physical church. Christ in the spiritual) I never looked into it when I practiced. I never did like debating by throwing around verses like swords. Each person are at different maturity

Anyway. It would make sense if Christ is sin. Priests know they are sinners. I can see the connections.

 

[PureX]

This was a power that Jesus gave to the apostles, namely the "binding and loosening" of sins.

So they claim. But I don't buy it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'm talking on this other forum-like website. It's not really for discussion. It's interesting people's views on confession, priests, sin, and the church.

I was wondering.

Would you as a catholic take communion from a priest who committed a mortal sin?

The other site, catholics said they would need the priest to make a public confession after being convicted to pay his debts to society before they take communion.

If the priest repeatedly sinned, I can see why one wouldn't take communion.

If it were one grave sin, wouldn't confession and forgiveness from the Church be enough to take communion; or, does the catholic want him to be convicted and confess to society first?

Is the forgiveness of a grave sin only forgiven (thus free to give communion) when the Church and other priest forgive the guilty or does the sacrament of giving communion also depend on the conviction and response of society and his sin?

All persons except Jesus Christ have sinned. Perfection IMHO is required for a priest and for Heaven, logically speaking.

 

[blü 2]

I'm talking on this other forum-like website. It's not really for discussion. It's interesting people's views on confession, priests, sin, and the church.

I was wondering.

Would you as a catholic take communion from a priest who committed a mortal sin?

The other site, catholics said they would need the priest to make a public confession after being convicted to pay his debts to society before they take communion.

If the priest repeatedly sinned, I can see why one wouldn't take communion.

If it were one grave sin, wouldn't confession and forgiveness from the Church be enough to take communion; or, does the catholic want him to be convicted and confess to society first?

Is the forgiveness of a grave sin only forgiven (thus free to give communion) when the Church and other priest forgive the guilty or does the sacrament of giving communion also depend on the conviction and response of society and his sin?

You raise a major point.

One of the reasons that the RCC (not that the other churches were free of offenders) was dragged back into the mire of pederasty again and again and again since early this century was the adherence to the view that the law of the RCC took priority over the laws of the particular nations in which the RCC traded. The moving from parish to distant parish of re-offending priests who had confessed and thus received absolution is an example of this kind of thinking. And if you haven't come across it, go to Amazon, enter "book Potiphar's Wife" and read a summary of the Vatican's rules applicable to clerical child abuse in the 20th and early 21st centuries, not least the Papal order to exclude civil authorities from knowledge of such cases. It's deeply shocking but at the same time it explains a great deal.

You raise the same principle here: who gives two cents whether a priest has confessed secretly and been absolved secretly? Let penance be public or not regarded as penance at all, with such civil penalties as naturally follow from that.

 

[Thief]

I'm talking on this other forum-like website. It's not really for discussion. It's interesting people's views on confession, priests, sin, and the church.

I was wondering.

Would you as a catholic take communion from a priest who committed a mortal sin?

The other site, catholics said they would need the priest to make a public confession after being convicted to pay his debts to society before they take communion.

If the priest repeatedly sinned, I can see why one wouldn't take communion.

If it were one grave sin, wouldn't confession and forgiveness from the Church be enough to take communion; or, does the catholic want him to be convicted and confess to society first?

Is the forgiveness of a grave sin only forgiven (thus free to give communion) when the Church and other priest forgive the guilty or does the sacrament of giving communion also depend on the conviction and response of society and his sin?

well it would be a double standard

when I was sooooooo much younger the scheme was....

confession.....THEN communion

and receiving a sacrament IN a state of sin was even a BIGGER sin

so.....if the practitioner heeds to be clean ….then the guy up front should be cleaner

but I gave up the ritual
the testament report speaks differently to me
and I don't see the Last Supper event as a miracle

it was dealt as instruction to alter the manner of faith

 

[Thief]

All persons except Jesus Christ have sinned.

and He said to them......Do not call Me good
No one is good but the Father

 

[metis]

I'm just asking, though, if a catholic would choose to receive communion if the priest has already confessed and made amends to the church and god.

It should not be an obstacle.

Does his relationship and confession with god is not valid until he is convicted of said crime or are they separate in regards to serving communion?

Again, civil and church issues are not the same, thus they may be treated differently.

Does one need to be convicted as part of the sacrament of confession and giving communion?

No.

I'm not sure I follow. I didn't mention Roman Catholic. Are there other catholic churches that doesn't give the Eucharist as the blood and body of christ?

You mentioned "catholic" in your earlier posts, and all Catholic denominations believe the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ.

However, with that being said, let me put this into perspective because of the Church's use of "essence" along these lines. Much of the early Church writings were influenced in their format by the likes of Aristotle and Plato ("Hellenization"). Obviously these philosophers knew nothing about Jesus since they long preceded him, but the writing style of the NT and the early Church reflects their use of certain words and concepts use by the Greek philosophers.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

All persons except Jesus Christ have sinned. Perfection IMHO is required for a priest and for Heaven, logically speaking.

That means you would take communion from him without regards to the nature of his sin and if he confessed publicly?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You raise a major point.

One of the reasons that the RCC (not that the other churches were free of offenders) was dragged back into the mire of pederasty again and again and again since early this century was the adherence to the view that the law of the RCC took priority over the laws of the particular nations in which the RCC traded. The moving from parish to distant parish of re-offending priests who had confessed and thus received absolution is an example of this kind of thinking. And if you haven't come across it, go to Amazon, enter "book Potiphar's Wife" and read a summary of the Vatican's rules applicable to clerical child abuse in the 20th and early 21st centuries, not least the Papal order to exclude civil authorities from knowledge of such cases. It's deeply shocking but at the same time it explains a great deal.

You raise the same principle here: who gives two cents whether a priest has confessed secretly and been absolved secretly? Let penance be public or not regarded as penance at all, with such civil penalties as naturally follow from that.

I don't put much attention to the news on priests and abuse. I don't like negativity and accusation of all priest in the world because of a handful. It's immoral.

Whether one cares or not (which isn't asked in the question), would you take communion from someone who has no confessed his sins to the public?

We answer questions we don't care about all the time. Religion is no different.

 

[metis]

So they claim. But I don't buy it.

Your choice of course, but it is in the gospels that Christians do largely believe in, and that's their choice.

The Church largely felt that it also could be negatively affected by a member sinning, therefore it reserved the right to take action if necessary. Even businesses throughout the world tend to do something similar to protect their own organizations.

Parents are affected by what their children do, and children are affected by what their parents do. My wife and I always told our own children when they were growing up that if they screwed up that there was a vast difference if they confessed versus if we found out on our own.

IOW, confession, as difficult as it can be, is commonplace and often taken into consideration in terms of what happens next.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It should not be an obstacle.

Again, civil and church issues are not the same, thus they may be treated differently.

No.

You mentioned "catholic" in your earlier posts, and all Catholic denominations believe the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ.

However, with that being said, let me put this into perspective because of the Church's use of "essence" along these lines. Much of the early Church writings were influenced in their format by the likes of Aristotle and Plato ("Hellenization"). Obviously these philosophers knew nothing about Jesus since they long preceded him, but the writing style of the NT and the early Church reflects their use of certain words and concepts use by the Greek philosophers.

I'm not following. Which other post?

I thought all catholics have the blood and body of christ. That's why I didn't specific Roman Catholic. Unless there is a catholic church that doesn't have the blood/body. I don't know which.

I don't know the other post. I try and use catholic and not roman catholic since I usually don't talk about things specific to roman catholic teachings. I'm not familiar with all the differences just the ones I experienced; they aren't segregational teachings.

-

I know they are treated separate from each other. Some people I speak with combine them. They say that they need the priest to confess his debt to society (be arrested and admit his guilt) before they take communion.

Personally, I would take communion if I knew he confessed because he can't service mass when he is in mortal sin. Theologically speaking, is that a catholic teaching-to wait until the priest pay his debt to society or is that a personal preference thing?

 

[Thief]

seems to me.....your sins are between you and God
likewise for the priest

and a servant of God is relieved of his duties for cause of his sinful nature?

no

sinner or saint.....the will of God is dealt unto all

and the Carpenter said unto His disciple......Feed my sheep
He said it more than once

and that disciple was not a sinner?

 

[metis]

I thought all catholics have the blood and body of christ.

They do.

I'm not familiar with all the differences just the ones I experienced; they aren't segregational teachings.

The differences are not as much theological as they are functionary.

Theologically speaking, is that a catholic teaching-to wait until the priest pay his debt to society or is that a personal preference thing?

No, and a priest in prison may be able to hear confessions and give the Eucharist as long as he's confessed his sins to his bishop and gotten the OK to do both. However, that "OK" may not be automatic, depending on circumstances and what the bishop thinks is best for all parties.

 

[Goodman John]

An interesting point I was considering- if a priest publicly confesses his sins, is he not inviting his congregation to sin by sitting in judgement of him? This would apply especially to those who have sins they have neither confessed nor done penance for. In any case, is there ever a requirement for the public confession of sins? I'm pretty sure if a priest- or any religious leadership figure- were to publicly confess, "Hey I fondled Little Timmy last years- so sorry" the first reaction of the crowd is NOT going to be to bless him and hope he finds his way back to God's grace. I'm pretty sure the very first thing they're going to think is, "You dirty s.o.b...."

The public confession of sins also treads very closely to the sins of pride and/or vanity: Look at me, I'm so pious and brave telling you everything bad I've done and how I'm going to make it right. "Oooh, ahhh, we should be more like him". No, you should probably do your best to not sin in the first place.

 

[metis]

This would apply especially to those who have sins they have neither confessed nor done penance for. In any case, is there ever a requirement for the public confession of sins?

Generally speaking no. But if the bishop says the priest needs to do as such for whatever reason, then the priest would be obligated to do so.

 

[QuestioningMind]

No. If a priest commited a moral sin and asked for forgiveness by church and god (confession) but was not (yet) convicted of his crime, why would or should a catholic wait until the priest is convicted (owe his debt to society) before taking communion?

If not, would they receive communion if that priest came to mass?

Everyone catholic priest and layman know they have to confess before mass. Theologically wise, would you receive communion from a priest who hasn't been convicted of his crime?

We don't know if he went to confession before mass; so, I wonder if catholics have a leap of faith that he did (since he is still in the church) or would they not.

No. If a priest committed a moral sin and asked for forgiveness by church and god (confession) but was not (yet) convicted of his crime,

I'm confused. So you have a priest who committed a mortal sin who has confessed to his church and been forgiven... yet for some reason he has refused to confess to his crime in a court of law. If he hasn't been convicted in a court of law that suggests that he is fighting the charges, since if he'd confessed to the crime he'd be in jail awaiting his sentencing hearing.

 

[Goodman John]

"There is no such thing as innocence- there are only degrees of guilt" - a quote from the Warhammer 40,000 game

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you agree or disagree that a priest should be convicted before one takes communion even though the priest already paid his debt to the church and to god via confession?

I think that refusing to take communion from a predator has more to do with ethics than it does with the effect of the sacraments.

 

[Goodman John]

I think that refusing to take communion from a predator has more to do with ethics than it does with the effect of the sacraments.

Were the priest's sins serious enough, I'd be wondering if there would be anyone attending Mass in his church if only as a silent vote of no confidence.

From a personal point of view, I agree that it's an ethical issue. From a 'ritual' point of view, it's bound up in what the Church approves or disapproves regarding the priest being fit for duty.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

They do.

The differences are not as much theological as they are functionary.

No, and a priest in prison may be able to hear confessions and give the Eucharist as long as he's confessed his sins to his bishop and gotten the OK to do both. However, that "OK" may not be automatic, depending on circumstances and what the bishop thinks is best for all parties.

That's what I was thinking. If the church "okay's it" it (and I'd assume that would be evident when gives Mass "the next morning," than it's okay to receive communion from him.

The actual situation would probably be rare since if one commits a crime, they are convicted regardless who the person is. So societal confession to the church isn't needed as long as the bishop says it's okay? (theoretically speaking)

I ask because people say they relate. The bishop's "Okay" isn't enough.