The Omission that Haunts the Church - 1 Corinthians 11:27-29

The New Liturgical Movement ^ | 4/11/16 | Peter Kwasniewski

[marshmallow]

In all the discussion that is happening over the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, undoubtedly the question of who may or may not receive Holy Communion will remain at the forefront. In the Church today, many seem to be wholly unaware of the terrifying consequences of approaching the sacred banquet without being in a state of grace, that is to say, receiving the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin. Such a communion not only does not and cannot help us, it heaps punishment upon our souls and makes our state worse than it was before.

It is St. Paul who first and most clearly teaches us this truth:

Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink of the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and of the Blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself; and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eatheth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the Body of the Lord. (1 Cor 11:27–29).

In his final encyclical, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, Pope John Paul II quotes St. John Chrysostom:

I too raise my voice, I beseech, beg and implore that no one draw near to this sacred table with a sullied and corrupt conscience. Such an act, in fact, can never be called “communion,” not even were we to touch the Lord’s body a thousand times over, but “condemnation,” “torment,” and “increase of punishment.”[1]

John Paul II explains the reason why:

The celebration of the Eucharist … cannot be the starting-point for communion; it presupposes that communion already exists, a communion which it seeks to consolidate and bring to perfection. .... Invisible communion, though by its nature always growing, presupposes the life of grace, by......

[marshmallow]

The money quote:

"Instead, in keeping with a programmatic decision to avoid what they considered “difficult” biblical texts,[5] the revised Lectionary altogether omits 1 Corinthians 11:27–29. St. Paul’s “stern warning” against receiving the Body and Blood of the Lord unworthily, that is, unto one’s damnation, has not been read at any Ordinary Form Mass for almost half a century".

A topical article in light of the ongoing shenanigans surrounding the question of Holy Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried. Could it be that the current confusion and scandal surrounding this issue is a direct consequence of the Church's 50-year reluctance to proclaim Scripture passages (e.g. 1Corinthians 11:27-29) which it finds harsh and inconvenient?

[Mrs. Don-o]

+1

[impactplayer]

The early church had a much more difficult task to agree on: Should someone who denied the faith to avoid death be allowed back in after the risk has passed?

Many making that decision had lost family members who had not denied the faith. But somehow the early church found the grace for forgiveness. Can a sin block us for the Covenant of the Eucharist forever?

That is the question - and it deserves serious discussion.

[Hostage]

> “In the Church today, many seem to be wholly unaware of the terrifying consequences of approaching the sacred banquet without being in a state of grace, that is to say, receiving the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin. Such a communion not only does not and cannot help us, it heaps punishment upon our souls and makes our state worse than it was before.”

I am thankful for the great insight of the author in expressing this. Those who are blessed with growing wisdom will see the truth in these words. Communion is a focus on one’s own soul that begins before participating in the Eucharist, so that one approaches the Eucharist “in a state of grace” as the author makes so clear.

Thank you for posting this.

[BuddhaBrown]

Who is worthy of grace?

[opus1]

I know people who are on the opposite pole, the worthy people. What will happen to them? They will be hurt by the words of AE, and confused too. For example...

Living in a Josephite marriage (”brother and sister”) is not the terrible emotional and physical burden the pope seems to imagine. I’ve known several couples over the years who have done this due to irregularities in marriages.

One couple was pretty young, and loved by everyone for their peaceful and gracious way of behaving. They both died suddenly and tragically, surely in a state of grace.

Another couple was living chastely together, civilly married, but not sacramentally, for years, due to her divorce. When they were about 60 years old, her former spouse died and they were married quietly in the Church by the parish priest. A honeymoon at that age, well, I bet they loved it.

And interestingly, while they were living without sexual relations, they also had a glow and calmness that is exactly the opposite of what we are told is the result of being “frustrated.” Maybe grace is more helpful than physical or mental supports?

There are many faithful and honest people in awkward situations, trying to live by the highest principles, and succeeding! When the pope holds that up as some neurotic and unnecessary goal, those people will give up and LOSE the special grace they were receiving.