That was not something that you should have done. It might have been objective sacrilege.I attended Mass knowing full well that I did not fast for the necessary one hour and so could not receive Communion. Then I hatched a brilliant plan- hold the host in my hand (reverently, of course) until the one hour is up, which is like 15, 20 minutes after I lined up for it. Then I wondered, did I commit sacrilege by that act? What do y’all think? P.S. Please quote relevant references thanks.
Objective[ly] sacrilege? Please site your source.That was not something that you should have done. It might have been objective sacrilege.
If you honestly thought that it was ok when you did it, then it would not have been a sin, but it is something that you should not do in the future. In the future, if you mess up on the fast, it is better to simply not receive. (There is no requirement to receive every Mass or every Sunday, and though we do prefer to do so when we can.)
Sorry, I should have emphasized the “might” a bit more. He asked if it was, and my reply was meant to say, essentially, whether or not it was (I really don’t think it was sacrilege, but don’t have the knowledge to say so definitely one way or the other, hence the might - it was certainly objectively inappropriate though), it was not a sin if he thought it was acceptable at the time, but should be avoided in the future.Objective[ly] sacrilege? Please site your source.
He did not consume the Eucharist within the fasting period, but rather refrained until such time had elapsed–holding it reverently in his hand.
I’m not suggesting by any stretch that this is a preferred or favored practice–or even necessarily approved–but sacrilige? Objectively, no less?
It’s not like he fed it to his dog, spat it out on the ground, flushed it down the toilet, mocked it, or the like–he merely held it reverently in his hands for 15 to 20 minutes–until such time had elapsed as his system would be clear of any contaminents–presumably, out of reverence.
Sorry, but I do not see sacrilige here.
CAVEAT: this is just my lay view–not authoratative–which is why I am requesting the source of ID’s contention. Maybe I’m wrong here…
Other laws state that if it is to be kept on a person or carried it must be done in a special Pyx.Can. 935 No one is permitted to keep the Eucharist on one’s person or to carry it around, unless pastoral necessity urges it and the prescripts of the diocesan bishop are observed.
It is apparent from your story that you did not intend sacrilege. I doubt you are guilty of a mortal sin, nor guilty of the crimes against the eucharist which incur automatic excommunication… - But your priest must make those decisions within the sacrament of Confession.Can. 1367 A person who throws away the consecrated species or takes or retains them for a sacrilegious purpose incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; moreover, a cleric can be punished with another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state
Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,[178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.[179]
[93.] The Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling.[180]
[94.] It is not licit for the faithful “to take . . . by themselves . . . and, still less, to hand . . . from one to another” the sacred host or the sacred chalice.[181] Moreover, in this regard, the abuse is to be set aside whereby spouses administer Holy Communion to each other at a Nuptial Mass.
Not applicable. He was appropriately handed the Host. He was improperly supervised in consuming it, but that is not his fault. He certainly did not defame it.See also from Redemptionis Sacramentum
I would strongly advise that you need to discuss this with your priest in Confession.
It is apparent from your story that you did not intend sacrilege. QUOTE]
Then there is nothing to confess, and absolutely no reason to be spending time in the confessional over it.
The confessional is for the confession of sins and the forgiveness thereof. If one needs spiritual direction counseling, has questions of faith or morals (as apart from confessing a sin) then one needs to go to a priest or spiritual director outside the confessional.
The fasting rules are the same. We are all members of the universal church. If one hasn’t fasted then don’t receive communion. No one has the right to keep the blessed sacrament on their person to fulfil the personal desires. I think it’s appalling quite franklyI see you are UK - so this may not apply. In the US, the fast is for one hour before Communion.
Not one hour before the start of Mass; one hour before Communion.
Here’s a link to the Catholic Encyclopaedia entry on sacrilege: newadvent.org/cathen/13321a.htmI attended Mass knowing full well that I did not fast for the necessary one hour and so could not receive Communion. Then I hatched a brilliant plan- hold the host in my hand (reverently, of course) until the one hour is up, which is like 15, 20 minutes after I lined up for it. Then I wondered, did I commit sacrilege by that act? What do y’all think? P.S. Please quote relevant references thanks.