Communion question?

[TomS]

I went to Mass yesterday (Vigil Mass) and received Communion. My wife could not make it to the mass with me, so I took her to a 5PM Sunday mass and went to run some errands. I got back to the church just as people were receiving communion and I received the Eucharist along with my wife. Was it improper to receive at the 5PM mass? I has already met my obligation and wanted to receive the extra graces that come along with receiving Our Lord. Please let me know if I did anything improper.

Thanks,

Tom

 

[Joannm]

I went to Mass yesterday (Vigil Mass) and received Communion. My wife could not make it to the mass with me, so I took her to a 5PM Sunday mass and went to run some errands. I got back to the church just as people were receiving communion and I received the Eucharist along with my wife. Was it improper to receive at the 5PM mass? I has already met my obligation and wanted to receive the extra graces that come along with receiving Our Lord. Please let me know if I did anything improper.

Thanks,

Tom

You may receive twice in one day but the second time you receive you must have fully pariticipated in the Mass.

 

[Phemie]

I went to Mass yesterday (Vigil Mass) and received Communion. My wife could not make it to the mass with me, so I took her to a 5PM Sunday mass and went to run some errands. I got back to the church just as people were receiving communion and I received the Eucharist along with my wife. Was it improper to receive at the 5PM mass? I has already met my obligation and wanted to receive the extra graces that come along with receiving Our Lord. Please let me know if I did anything improper.

Thanks,

Tom

Although both were Sunday Masses, they were on two different days so you didn’t do anything wrong. If you had gone this morning and then received again with your wife without attending the Mass that would have been wrong.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I went to Mass yesterday (Vigil Mass) and received Communion. My wife could not make it to the mass with me, so I took her to a 5PM Sunday mass and went to run some errands. I got back to the church just as people were receiving communion and I received the Eucharist along with my wife. Was it improper to receive at the 5PM mass? I has already met my obligation and wanted to receive the extra graces that come along with receiving Our Lord. Please let me know if I did anything improper.

Thanks,

Tom

You did not, to my knowledge*, do anything improper:

Yesterday: You fulfilled your Sunday obligation by assisting at Mass, and you received communion.
Today: You received communion without having participated in the Mass.

Should you seek to receive a second time today, you should participate in the Mass.
(Or be in danger of dying)

tee
(* Not A Canon Lawyer)

 

[benedictgal]

According to Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[95.] A lay member of Christ’s faithful "who has already received the Most Holy Eucharist may receive it again on the same day only within a Eucharistic Celebration in which he or she is participating, with due regard for the prescriptions of Can. 921 § 2."182

I hope this helps you.

 

[Chatter163]

I think the issue of a second reception in a day is one question, but the question of receiving when one has not been present for the entire Mass (or in this case, even for any of it) is another. I would raise this question even if it were the only reception of the day.

 

[Digitonomy]

I think the issue of a second reception in a day is one question, but the question of receiving when one has not been present for the entire Mass (or in this case, even for any of it) is another. I would raise this question even if it were the only reception of the day.

Is there some reason you think a person shouldn’t receive communion if they haven’t participated in the mass?

 

[Chatter163]

Is there some reason you think a person shouldn’t receive communion if they haven’t participated in the mass?

Yes, that is actually the tradition (small t). The guideline used to be that if one were late for Mass, one missed the penitential prayers at the beginning of Mass, and did not receive. Put in another way, the penitential rite (the prayers at the foot of the altar in the EF), which is understood to forgive venial sins, was missed and the person did not receive the Eucharist because of the remaining venial sin. (Obviously mortal sin is another matter, one requiring confession.) This went hand-in-hand with the maxim that if one arrived after the gospel, one had missed too much of the Mass to fulfull the obligation, if it were a Sunday or holy day. While never strictly enshrined in canon or liturgical law, these were popular guidelines that were intended to encourage reverent preparation to receive the Blessed Sacrament. Even when the new rite of Mass came out, initially there was a notion that if one were late for the celebration, one did not receive. Some priest of the time pit it succinctly, “If one arrives late for dinner, one does not simply eat dessert. It would be an insult to the host.”

It is only in recent decades that we have begun to believe that we ought to receive communion nearly every time we are there, even when we are late, or missed the entire Mass, as was this case here. This is not meant to be critical; I simply point out that these discussions would not have been held sometime back. We seem to have gone from one extreme (rarely receiving) in past centuries to the other today.

 

[rwoehmke]

If one had to be on time for Mass or present for some particular part of the Mass, the homebound and those in the hospital would not be able to ever receive communion. Logically it would seem that anyone free of mortal sin, not having drank or eaten for one hour before(doesn’t apply to the sick and homebound) would be free to receive for the first time within the time span of a day whether one had been at Mass or not. I would hope that at least some little time of preparing to receive would take place and not just walk in the door and rush down the aisle with absolutely no forethought. I would suggest that even that would not be a serious sin, but would be pretty disrespectful.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I went to Mass yesterday (Vigil Mass) and received Communion. My wife could not make it to the mass with me, so I took her to a 5PM Sunday mass and went to run some errands. I got back to the church just as people were receiving communion and I received the Eucharist along with my wife. Was it improper to receive at the 5PM mass? I has already met my obligation and wanted to receive the extra graces that come along with receiving Our Lord. Please let me know if I did anything improper.

Thanks,

Tom

I have heard people answer this in different ways. However you will not find anything published by the Church that prohibits any Catholic from receiving Holy Communion, being in the proper state of Grace. All Church Documents indicate that any Catholic in good standing can receive Holy Communion once a day outside of Mass.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

The Mass is not necessary for the purpose of receiving communion. If for example, you shared a priest with three or four other churches, so that he only said Sunday Mass at your parish every fourth Sunday, and daily Mass only once a week, you could still receive communion daily at the hands of a deacon or Eucharistic Minister providing there were consecrated Hosts in the Tabernacle.

 

[Digitonomy]

Yes, that is actually the tradition (small t). The guideline used to be that if one were late for Mass, one missed the penitential prayers at the beginning of Mass, and did not receive. Put in another way, the penitential rite (the prayers at the foot of the altar in the EF), which is understood to forgive venial sins, was missed and the person did not receive the Eucharist because of the remaining venial sin. (Obviously mortal sin is another matter, one requiring confession.) This went hand-in-hand with the maxim that if one arrived after the gospel, one had missed too much of the Mass to fulfull the obligation, if it were a Sunday or holy day. While never strictly enshrined in canon or liturgical law, these were popular guidelines that were intended to encourage reverent preparation to receive the Blessed Sacrament.

The rule about arriving after the Gospel was as you say related to the holy day obligation, which isn’t relevant to the OP and needn’t be relevant to the specific issue we’re discussing. However, you make a good point regarding the penitential rite, which I hadn’t considered.

Chatter163:

We seem to have gone from one extreme (rarely receiving) in past centuries to the other today.

I think this trend can be most directly traced back to Pope Pius X, the “Pope of the Eucharist.”