If I were teaching it to a young child, I might state it that way. But I would probably not confuse them by bringing up forgiveness of sins and the Eucharist. If I were teaching a teen, then I would set this Eucharistic forgiveness within the Catechism verses that I quoted before, to make sure that they understand that this forgiveness flows from the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist, not from the penitential rite.
Truly, I think you have to see Catholic liturgy as a whole and not try to subdivide it. It is formal and ritualized just so that it is consistent across nations and times. This allows it to be crafted like the making of fine furniture, so that all the parts add to the whole. A good liturgist will understand this and make sure that any optional pieces (mostly music) is consistent with the rest of the liturgy.
Well, I think in apologetics we get all complicated talking about penitential rites and such, because
the real issue is can a Christian have sins forgiven without partaking in the Eucharist for a plethora of legitimate reasons. This is ultimately not an issue over the Real Presence, but it is one that deals with soteriology and it shows how vast the difference is between Catholicism and Protestantism.
So, I will give a reason right now why I cannot partake in the Roman Eucharist. It is made of wheat bread. I am allergic to bread. So, even if the species of the bread is Christ, the accidens are sufficient to make me sick. Now, if I were a devout Roman Catholic, this would bother me simply because of the teaching that I should partake in the sacrament as the means God has given me to absolve post-baptismal sins. It is better to live and pain and die young, and avoid undo time in purgatory.
Yet, I can even argue as a Catholic that I do not need to take part in the sacrament if I desire to take part. As Aquinas writes, "And it has been said above (Question 68, Article 2), that before receiving a
sacrament, the reality of the sacrament can be had through the very desire of receiving the
sacrament."
So, at its very core, the technical Catholic answer is in reality no different than the Protestant one. Your sins are forgiven by faith. If you flout God's commands and don't desire to partake in sacraments, then you don't really have faith at all. If your desire is reflective of a true faith, then this faith is the means in which one is given the grace of forgiveness by God.
Honestly, I find it unnecessarily confusing and I think it is deliberately so. Their reason for this hits THE VERY CORE of the Protestant-Catholic schism. Protestants believe we are justified by faith in Christ. We don't believe grace can be lost as long as one perseveres in the faith. The Catholic Church teaches, “Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance for all sinful members of his Church: above all for those who, since Baptism, have fallen into grave sin, and have thus lost their baptismal grace and wounded ecclesial communion. It is to them that the sacrament of Penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the grace of justification” (CCC 1446).
So, in reality, my faith is not good enough. My penance must not only be a broken and contrite heart, but it has to take the shape and the form of the choosing of the Catholic Church, because the Catholic CHurch can bind and loose.
WOuld the above be sufficiently accurate? If so, I will talk about the early church, penance, and transubstantiation, which is the topic of this thread.