The Papists

Apologetics and Evengelization
  • December 31, 2013 7:17 pm
    ohcac:  How do Catholics justify the many modernizations and innovations in their history: The Filioque, Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility & The Immaculate Conception. And recent modernizations due to Vatican II such as the New Mass. Coming from the Orthodox perspective, how can any Catholic claim that their church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, with all the doctrinal changes that were never existent in the early church?

    Good questions. Any kind of thorough answer would be book length—several book lengths—so I’m going to try for a brief overview and link you to some more detailed resources. 

    The short answer is that none of the things you mention are doctrinal changes or inventions. It’s important to remember that when a Council or a pope defines a specific teaching, that teaching didn’t just show up overnight, or in a vacuum, or because some scholar in his cell decided it was a good idea. Historically, teachings have only been defined when what was commonly accepted and believed by the Church was challenged by heretics. They weren’t “invented” or “added” by the definition—they were supported and bolstered as long-standing truths.

    This is especially important for understanding how the Trinity is described in the Creed (and the Immaculate Conception.) That part of the Creed was formulated to address a heretic who specifically denied that the Holy Spirit proceeded through the Father, but “filioque” was not un-thought or un-believed. See this, which includes citations from some Church Fathers, and this which addresses the question of Councils adding things to creeds.

    Anyone who does even a little googling will quickly realize that there’s no lack of evidence about the Catholic position on all these issues—the hullaballo starts because everybody interprets the evidence differently.

    Really all these questions come down to one: the nature of the pope’s authority (or primacy). What is it and how does it work? If it’s what Catholics say, then it explains the “whys” of all the other issues, and any good historian can explain the technical “how” of these issues coming about and being answered in the historical Church. So, if you really want to understand the Catholic position, my advice would be to read as widely and deeply as you can—from genuine, orthodox, actually-Catholic writers—about what we believe the pope’s authority to be and why that’s so. (The links below on the issue go wide and deep once you start clicking through.)

    While we’re on the the papacy: let’s be very careful about the definition of Petrine infallibility. It doesn’t mean what most people think. Infallibility is a negative charism: because the Holy Spirit guides the Church, the Vicar of Christ cannot teach error in matters of faith and morals. It’s not a guarantee that the pope is holy, or perfect, or a good leader, or right about everything. In his person, he could be a sinner and a heretic (and we have had some pretty terrible popes.) But because the gates of hell cannot prevail against the Church, no matter how bad a man a pope may be, he is incapable of formally teaching error in on faith and morals in the name of Christ. See more, see more. And this article is long but very thorough.

    Petrine primacy: The nature of the pope’s primacy as understood by Catholics has its roots not only in the whole of Scripture, but in the actions of the earliest popes and the writings of the Fathers. I’ve collected some resources in this tag (start about 5 pages back for the really relevant stuff.) These articles and these break the issue down by sub-question and type of evidence. And I strongly recommend Fortescue’s book The Early Papacy.

    Here and here and here are some resources on the Immaculate Conception.

    And in general, this website is really useful.

    Now, concerning the New Mass: 

    I’m not going to make any friends for saying this, but here’s the basic truth: the Novus Ordo as implemented immediately after the Council was, by and large, an unholy disaster. And I don’t use the word “unholy” lightly. Grave abuses were committed and even institutionalized in popular feeling. However: the aesthetics, propriety, and “goodness” of the Novus Ordo liturgy—in both theory and practice—is a completely separate question from its validity. The Novus Ordo Mass is a valid Mass when said according to the rubrics by a validly ordained priest. Whether one believes it to be a valid mass or not depends on what one believes about the authority of Councils and the pope in regards to the liturgy, which of course hinges on the previous questions about authority.

    Two final thoughts: a good resource is always the Catechism, searchable online here. Also important is something that’s often tricky to discuss and understand without confusion: the very important notion of the development of doctrine. See here, for starters. In a nutshell: it is not innovation, modernization, or corruption to explicate with a newly developed understanding a truth that has been present implicitly from the beginning. (If this wasn’t the case, Scriptural exegesis would be crippled, and Protestants would have a legitimate point when they use “But the Bible doesn’t say that!” as an argument against sacraments, the priesthood, etc.)

    I hope this helps answer your questions. Please check out the links; it”s worth the time to become familiar with the historical evidence and why we interpret it the way we do.

  • December 29, 2013 12:15 am
    Anonymous:  So I've been learning about Catholicism recently, I bought a catechism to deepen my understanding but the constant repetition I think is confusing me. Could you explain to me the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity? (nature, person procession... are things i'm interesting in learning about also) Thank You! :)

    Hi, anon. That is a very complicated question, but I’m going to do my best to be fairly brief. But be aware that this is the GREATEST MYSTERY OF OUR FAITH. And it’s called a mystery on purpose: because it’s mysterious and we, as humans, can barely comprehend the immensity of God. Anything we can say about Him falls very, very short, but nevertheless I will do what I can.

    image

    Above is a commonly used illustration of the Trinity. As the caption says we believe in one God in three coequal and coeternal Persons who have one nature (divine). 

    God, though One, is also three. God is, in Himself, a family, a Trinity of Persons. Also, the Father is not 1/3 of God but rather fully God, as are the Son and Holy Spirit.

    And, as I’m sure you know, the second Person of the Trinity, the Son, took on our human nature in Jesus Christ without losing His divine nature. In this way, Jesus Christ is one (divine) Person with two natures (human and divine). True God and true man. 

    I also want to point out that we use the names Father, Son and Holy Spirit (or, archaically, Holy Ghost) because those are the names that God has revealed to us. In fact, Catholics do not consider a baptism to be valid unless it was done “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Some people say, “Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier,” and although those terms may be accurate, they are not the names that God has revealed to man. Also, they focus on what God has done for us (i.e. what we get out of it) rather than Who God is. God was Father, Son, and Holy Spirit before He ever created the world. 

  • August 8, 2013 4:12 pm

    The End of Denominations?

    varangoi:

    bannerofthecross:

    myadventuresinoddity:

    A wonderful article. 

    Schism (which is how many denominations came about) never fixes anything.  Disunity is a sin, a very real sin that Christians need to ponder.  This is one of the reasons I am wary of the continuing Anglican movement and have never seriously looked into it.  Though TEC has many problems, I don’t think abandonment is the solution.  

    I like this quote “Jesus didn’t give us many churches. He gave us one Church.”

    So if schism is bad, and Jesus gave us one Church…shouldn’t we try and figure out where that One Church went?

    I think they found it in Russia, Greece, Ukraine, Serbia, Georgia, Romania, and some other countries or something. Something about an Orthodox Church. Idk.

    Funny, you know I heard the same thing about a Church centered in Rome with rites all around the world…something about a Catholic Church? ;)

  • July 27, 2013 9:12 pm

    A Call for Reform in the Catholic Church by an Austrian priest

    existenceandidentity:

    thepapists:

    existenceandidentity:

    Fr. Schüller proposes the following:

    • allowing priests to marry
    • allowing women to become priests
    • allowing lay people to have communion services without a priest present
    • giving lay people much greater control of church policy and practice and local and higher levels
    • allowing remarried Catholics to receive the Eucharist
    • honoring loving committed gay relationships

    Just a warning, it’s late, I’m tired, I should probably gather my thoughts but I feel the need to respond to this article.

    Also, this is not directed explicitly towards existenceandidentity, this is directed towards this article. 

    The need for reform of Church teaching, doctrine, dogma, traditions, and the like is not a need at all. Vatican II already made its reforms, the council is over, the Church has spoken, let’s move on. 

    The crisis in the Church does not call for a reform of the Church; it calls for a reform of the hearts of Her members.

    The reforms of the Mass, from what I’ve understood, was an attempt to re-ignite the Faith of the 20th century. The Novus Ordo was supposed to help the laity become more involved, more active, and to better understand what the Mass is about. 

    What has happened in the last 50 years?

    A decline in Church attendance, poor catechesis, decline in Priestly and Religious vocations, and Catholics are living no different than the secular world. 

    Is this the fault of the Second Vatican Council?  No. It’s because the implementing of Vatican II exploded and people took it and ran with it.

    So what’s my point? Institutional reform without proper instruction results in crisis. Priests and Bishops at times, whether knowingly or unknowingly, veered away from what the Council taught. We have the reform already, now we need the proper instruction.

    Hence the New Evangelization and the Year of Faith; these help us rediscover what it means to be Catholic. 

    We can’t solve this crisis with more reforms. In my opinion, asking for more reforms is showing a lack of faith in Christ. “We are running out of Priests, we need the laity to be able to perform communion with no Priest present, we need Priests to be married, we need women priests”. Why don’t we just ask God to give us more Priests? 

    Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

    Mt 7:7

    How much clearer can Christ be?

    By constantly seeking reform, we continue to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. We give into the temptation of the serpent to become like gods, and instead of trusting in God providence, we begin to play god by saying “No, God’s church is wrong about what God thinks.”

    Are the Church’s teachings hard? Yes! Of course they are! Why? Because the Church is our Mother and She challenges us to be more than what settle for. God gives us this challenge because He knows that we’re up for it. 

    All the reforms listed here are based on a misunderstood secular definition of love; that love is tolerance, acceptance, and warm fuzzies. Love is to will the good of the other and to act on it, which often includes being harsh. Denying someone communion who is not in communion with the Church is not meant to be a punishment; it’s meant to protect them from committing a sacrilege. 

    The Role of the Church is to bring Her people to the fullness of Truth and Salvation. Changing Her teachings would be an injustice to us. It’ll be uncomfortable, but as Pope Benedict said: “We are not made for comfort, we are made for Greatness.”

    I’ve written about the lay Catholic equivocation of the clergy with the Church before on this blog, so I won’t go into. Suffice to say that I think it’s a silly view to equate a very small percentage of men with the entirety of the Church. None of the reforms this priest is calling for are really out there. And allowing more lay involvement in church policy and practice is a necessity if the Catholic Church wants to remain relevant. It doesn’t affect teachings or dogma, and it decentralizes power away from the clergy. If the Church needs an example, they can always look at the Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans, or any other Protestant denomination to see how it works.

    Priestly celibacy is a historically recent practice, there’s no reason to keep it for some nostalgic tradition. That level of sexual repression isn’t healthy, and quite honestly it’s probably why the sex abuse scandal is so big among Catholic clergy.

    The prohibition of women from the priesthood is based on a shaky interpretation (of faulty logic, no less) of the fact that Jesus only had men as apostles. The fact that he only had male apostles is not a command to never ordain women. If anything, a look at the Protestant churches that allow female ministers/priests shows that women are often better pastors than men. 

    And affirming gay relationships is a matter of human dignity. On this the clergy/Church is unequivocally wrong.

    Why you see reform as a lack of faith is beyond me. Lack of faith in the clergy, perhaps, but not lack of faith in God, Jesus, or Christianity. Jesus was a reformer. Reform is the entire message of Jesus. In the Gospels, he is always saying, “repent, return to the basics, forgive your enemy, love God and love your neighbor.” In essence he says, “reform yourself”. 

    Of course, I’m not Catholic anymore, so I don’t really care what happens in the Church. But I think if it wants to continue being relevant in the world and retain members, it needs to change.

    But the thing is, some of these reforms are out there. I’ll admit I was a bit harsh on the Priestly celibacy and on Communion services with no Priest. As catholicninja pointed out to me, Celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma, so that can be changed, and Communion services already exist where it’s needed. Celibacy isn’t kept for nostalgic purposes. Practically speaking, a celibate Priest allows him to be more readily available to his parish, not to mention it is in imitation of Christ who was celibate. 

    As for the sex scandal:

    -Philip Jenkins, is a professor of history and religious studies at Penn State University, and has written a book on the topic. He estimates that 2% of priests sexually abuse youths and children.

    -Sylvia M. Demarest, a lawyer from Texas has been tracking accusations against priests since the the mid-1990s. By 1996, she had identified 1,100 priests who had been accused of molesting children. She predicts that when she updates the list, the total will exceed 1,500 names. This represents about 2.5% of the approximately 60,000 men who have been active priests in the U.S. since 1984.

    -Conservative columnist Ann Coulter claimed, without citing references, that there are only 55 “exposed abusers" in a population of 45,000 priests. This is an abuse rate of 0.12%.

    -Various news services reported that 200 Roman Catholic priests in the Philippines have been investigated for “sexual misconduct and abuses" over the past two decades. That would represent almost 3% of the total population of about 7,000 priests. However, it appears that misconduct includes many offenses, from child abuse to rape to keeping adult mistresses.

    And I found some sources, not nearly as authoritative that say less than 1%.

    -  Cynthia Stewart’s “The Catholic Church: A brief popular history.”

    -In England according to  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/may/16/catholic-church-vatican-letter-child-abuse , The percentage is less than half of one percent.

    Credit to nikosnature for the stats.

    Also this video.

    Most Priests are good holy men. I think what you said about lay Catholic equivocation of the clergy can be applied here: “it’s a silly view to equate a very small percentage of men with the entirety of the Church.”

    As for women priests, part of it is following the example of Jesus in only ordaining men, but it goes much deeper than that. As human beings we are incarnate spirits; our bodies reflect our souls. I am male both physically and spiritually. When a Priest is administering the Sacraments, he is in persona Christi; "in the place of Christ". In that moment he spiritually becomes Christ. Jesus is male, and only a male body can represent a male spirit. 

    The Catholic Church does acknowledge the dignity of people with same sex attraction.

    The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

    Catechism of the Catholic Church 2358

    (emphasis mine)

    Saying no to gay marriage does not mean saying no to the person.

    I agree with you, Jesus does say “reform yourself”. He desires for us to reform ourselves to His Truth, and how do we know what His Truth is? Through the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The Church’s goal is not to stay relevant but to bring the world the Truth and to bring Her Children to Salvation.

    I’m sorry you decided to leave the Church, but know that we’re always ready to welcome you back. I’ll be praying for you

    In Christ,
    Javi

  • July 23, 2013 12:32 am

    A Call for Reform in the Catholic Church by an Austrian priest

    existenceandidentity:

    Fr. Schüller proposes the following:

    • allowing priests to marry
    • allowing women to become priests
    • allowing lay people to have communion services without a priest present
    • giving lay people much greater control of church policy and practice and local and higher levels
    • allowing remarried Catholics to receive the Eucharist
    • honoring loving committed gay relationships

    Just a warning, it’s late, I’m tired, I should probably gather my thoughts but I feel the need to respond to this article.

    Also, this is not directed explicitly towards existenceandidentity, this is directed towards this article. 

    The need for reform of Church teaching, doctrine, dogma, traditions, and the like is not a need at all. Vatican II already made its reforms, the council is over, the Church has spoken, let’s move on. 

    The crisis in the Church does not call for a reform of the Church; it calls for a reform of the hearts of Her members.

    The reforms of the Mass, from what I’ve understood, was an attempt to re-ignite the Faith of the 20th century. The Novus Ordo was supposed to help the laity become more involved, more active, and to better understand what the Mass is about. 

    What has happened in the last 50 years?

    A decline in Church attendance, poor catechesis, decline in Priestly and Religious vocations, and Catholics are living no different than the secular world. 

    Is this the fault of the Second Vatican Council?  No. It’s because the implementing of Vatican II exploded and people took it and ran with it.

    So what’s my point? Institutional reform without proper instruction results in crisis. Priests and Bishops at times, whether knowingly or unknowingly, veered away from what the Council taught. We have the reform already, now we need the proper instruction.

    Hence the New Evangelization and the Year of Faith; these help us rediscover what it means to be Catholic. 

    We can’t solve this crisis with more reforms. In my opinion, asking for more reforms is showing a lack of faith in Christ. “We are running out of Priests, we need the laity to be able to perform communion with no Priest present, we need Priests to be married, we need women priests”. Why don’t we just ask God to give us more Priests? 

    Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

    Mt 7:7

    How much clearer can Christ be?

    By constantly seeking reform, we continue to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. We give into the temptation of the serpent to become like gods, and instead of trusting in God providence, we begin to play god by saying “No, God’s church is wrong about what God thinks.”

    Are the Church’s teachings hard? Yes! Of course they are! Why? Because the Church is our Mother and She challenges us to be more than what settle for. God gives us this challenge because He knows that we’re up for it. 

    All the reforms listed here are based on a misunderstood secular definition of love; that love is tolerance, acceptance, and warm fuzzies. Love is to will the good of the other and to act on it, which often includes being harsh. Denying someone communion who is not in communion with the Church is not meant to be a punishment; it’s meant to protect them from committing a sacrilege. 

    The Role of the Church is to bring Her people to the fullness of Truth and Salvation. Changing Her teachings would be an injustice to us. It’ll be uncomfortable, but as Pope Benedict said: “We are not made for comfort, we are made for Greatness.”

  • May 15, 2013 9:21 pm
    nerdybeatlemaniac429:  What does it mean when the Catechism asks us to, when possible, "publicly to make reparation for a wrong" we have committed against someone?

    Hi there! Thanks for your question.

    CCC #2487 says this:

    Every offense committed against justice and truth entails the duty of reparation, even if its author has been forgiven. When it is impossible publicly to make reparation for a wrong, it must be made secretly. If someone who has suffered harm cannot be directly compensated, he must be given moral satisfaction in the name of charity. This duty of reparation also concerns offenses against another’s reputation. This reparation, moral and sometimes material, must be evaluated in terms of the extent of the damage inflicted. It obliges in conscience.

    So the Catechism is clear that public reparation is the general way of dealing with an offense. 

    In French, reparer simply means to fix. Simply put, we’re called to fix things after committing an offense against someone. 

    The first thing that comes to my mind is to simply say sorry and ask for forgiveness in front of the person. You tell them, “I’m sorry. Can you forgive me?” and then it’s on them to forgive you. If you did something that hurt them or damaged their property, you should offer to pay the medical bill or mechanic’s bill or contracter’s bill (or replace whatever you broke or damaged). Financial compensation is a good way to make public reparation for a wrong. Another way that comes to mind is to give of your time—your service to that person. If you, say, trampled your neighbour’s rose bushes because you walked outside and were angry, then you could offer to give an hour of your day during the summer helping your neighbour in their garden. 

    On a more serious note, public reparation could mean serving a jail sentence or paying a severe fine. Pleading guilty and accepting your jail time would be a good way to make public reparation. Remember, once you commit a wrong and you realize it is wrong, it is up to you to “make up for it” as best you can. 

    I hope I was able to answer your question. Take care!

    Your friend,

    Olivier

  • April 16, 2013 12:17 pm

    approximatelyinfinity:

    I’ve always wondered what the difference between Orthodox and Catholic were. I know that Orthodox don’t recognize the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, but is there anything else?

    Great question! There are a handful of differences between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The Catechism paragraph 838 says that non-Catholic Christians who have been “properly baptized” are in a “certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound ‘that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.’ ” In other words, we’re really freaking close. :)

    As far as the actual differences, some are theological and some are liturgical choices.

    • The Pope. While the West teaches papal supremacy (meaning he has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church), the East considers the Pope to be a “first among equals.”
    • The “filioque” controversy, in which the West added the words “and the Son” to the Nicene Creed without the consent or consultation of the East. This reflects some differences in the understanding of the Holy Trinity. (Too complicated to get into right now)
    • Slightly different views of original sin. Both say it exists, but the West says everyone inherits the sin of Adam and the East says we inherit the sin of Adam AND everyone else who came before us.
    • The Immaculate Conception (rejected by the Orthodox)
    • Teachings on purgatory, which the East generally rejects, although some believe in a form of purification after death…
    • The use of leavened vs. unleavened bread
    • Celibacy of parish priests (which is a tradition, not a hardfast rule in the West)

    These differences are important, but often they are blown out of proportion by both sides. Historically, there has been a lot of conflict between the East and West about these things, and both can still be “bitter” about it. (It seems to me that the East is a little more bitter than the West, but I don’t blame them. That whole sacking of Constantinople thing…) (Sometimes it reminds me of two feuding families that have been going at it for so long that they can’t remember why they’re arguing anymore.) Fortunately, in recent years a lot of progress has been made in terms of reconciliation between the two Churches. 

    Honestly, in today’s world, we’re fighting against the same things. I saw a book in the Orthodox Church’s bookstore that was like, “Criticism of Protestantism” or something like that, and I’m sure it’s nearly identical to what the Catholic Church says about Protestantism! 

    So anyways, that’s a long-winded answer that really only touches the surface. In brief, there are some differences, listed above, but honestly a lot of the conflict is historical rather than theological. And we’re making progress so we can be friends again. :)

    I figured I’d reblog this here to make it visible to more people. Hope it’s informative!

  • February 11, 2013 2:32 am
    Anonymous:  Can you give me some insight on the Catholic basis for Purgatory? What is their evidence of it?

    Hi Anon,

    I believe this article will answer your questions. Also, if you want an excellent book on the subject, I recommend “Can Catholics and Evangelicals Agree on Purgatory and the Last Judgement?" by Brett Salkeld. It’s an excellent piece of work (and the answer is yes!). 

    Your friend,

    Olivier

  • January 13, 2013 3:03 am
    Anonymous:  Hello! I was wondering what exactly is the Church's teaching on the salvation of non-Catholic Christians, evangelicals for example?

    Dear anon,

    I found this good article that hopefully gives a clear answer to your question.

    Here are the best bits:

    1. The book Catholic Replies sums up the teaching of the Church concerning what it means to be “saved” through the Church: What the doctrine of no salvation outside the Church does mean is that everyone is saved through the Catholic Church either as faithful members of that Church, or as members of churches which contain some significant elements of truth and sanctification found in the Catholic Church, or as persons who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience (Catechism n 847).  Those churches which contain some elements of truth would be, for example, protestant churches that practice Trinitarian baptism.
    2. But just because the Church recognizes the validity of Baptism in some Christian churches it does not mean that all Christian denominations are equally true as stated in the Decree on Ecumenism. Even though the Catholic Church states that those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are brought into a certain, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church and are properly regarded as brothers in the Lord by the sons of the Catholic Church (Decree on Ecumenism, n.3), the Church in the documents of Vatican II stops short of calling these separated Christians as members of the “Body of Christ,” mindful of the statement issued in the 1943 encyclical of Pope Pius XII On the Mystical Body (Mystici Corporis):  Only those are to be included as real members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith and have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body or been excluded from it by legitimate authority for serious faults.
    I think the end of the article, quoting Pope Paul VI, sums it up perfectly: the divine design of salvation embraces all men[.]

    TL;DR salvation is accessible to all people, including evangelicals and other non-Catholic Christians. God does not punish people for their ignorance of the truth, but he does leave them the choice to accept or reject his love (i.e. choose either heaven or hell).

    I hope this helps!

    Your friend,

    Olivier

  • November 12, 2012 12:43 pm
    Anonymous:  What are the rules for receiving the Eucharist after you sin?

    Although it is encouraged to go to Confession after any type of sin, being able to receive the Eucharist depends on whether or not the sin was mortal or venial.

    If you are in a state of grace (ie: have not committed a mortal sin), then you may receive communion. The Confiteor at the beginning of Mass (like any Act of Contrition) forgives all venial sins, as does receiving the Eucharist Itself. 

    If you have committed a mortal sin, then you must not receive Holy Communion until after receiving the Sacrament of Reconciliation and Penance. (Receiving the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin is in itself a mortal sin. It is a grave offence against the Blessed Sacrament.)

    1 Corinthians 11:27-29: “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgmenton himself.”