When I was in middle school at a Catholic K-8 school, students who were dropped off early were sent in to morning Mass, even after it had started. There would be times when we would literally walk into the church and the sisters would send us up the aisle to the Communion line. I never arrived early enough to attend the entire Mass (usually not until after the consecration) and I always felt awkward receiving, having not been there the entire time.
Mass is not just about our receiving something from God; it also about us giving something to Him – our worship.Hey people, cool down!! My question was very logical, flowing from what I have recently discovered to be true- that Saturday evening mass fulfills sunday obligation. I then wondered if after fulfilling the obligation, the other masses of the day become like weekday masses to the person, where I know for a fact that one can just receive the communion and leave.
Now sure, I know what the mass is- my point was that I’ve already attended the heavenly liturgy, but I may want to still receive the Eucharist on Sunday for strength that day, rather than go more than 36 hours without receiving our Lord.
Of course, you wouldn’t be causing those people loitering outside the church any scandal, because they are already causing scandal themselves! If there are seats available in church, there is no reason they should be “hanging out” outside.
That’s a different issue. The children were not “intentionally” arriving late for Mass. Yes, I do remember what it was like, and a few more minutes of sleep were most welcome–yet that 's not quite the same as saying that the children did this intentionally because they were dependent on the parents schedule. But we can’t compare that situation to one of an adult who specifically intends to arrive at Mass just before Communion solely for the purpose of receiving.
Actually, while this may be done at weekday masses, it’s still not liturgically correct. Why not wait the extra couple of minutes for the blessing, and finish off the sacramental act? A few more minutes with God, and a blessing, at no extra charge!Hey people, cool down!! My question was very logical, flowing from what I have recently discovered to be true- that Saturday evening mass fulfills Sunday obligation. I then wondered if after fulfilling the obligation, the other masses of the day become like weekday masses to the person, where I know for a fact that one can just receive the communion and leave.
There’s nothing liturgically wrong about it, that’s an artificial “wrong” that some liturgists have imposed in the Post-Vatican II church. I’ve seen an article where Jimmy Akins says as much (That is, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with the practice) in answer to a question. I’ve also seen threads here where it’s said that in Pre-Vatican II times, it was very commonly done (and perfectly acceptable) that many, many people just showed up only for communion on Weekday masses and left right after- there were no qualms about any sin regarding this widespread practice because, just like with the present, there’s no obligation to attend Weekday masses and no rule barring communion without participation in mass unless it is a second communion of a given day. So unless we are talking about a second communion in a day, or a day of obligation, there’s absolutely no obligation whatsover on attending mass in order to receive communion on a day if it’s the first time.
Many of us Catholics can create artificial sins where there are simply none.It would be useful if you could cite these sources. I believe that what Jimmy Akins expresses is no more authoritative than any one else’s personal opinion.There’s nothing liturgically wrong about it, that’s an artificial “wrong” that some liturgists have imposed in the Post-Vatican II church. I’ve seen an article where Jimmy Akins says as much (That is, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with the practice) in answer to a question. I’ve also seen threads here where it’s said that in Pre-Vatican II times, it was very commonly done (and perfectly acceptable) that many, many people just showed up only for communion on Weekday masses and left right after- there were no qualms about any sin regarding this widespread practice because, just like with the present, there’s no obligation to attend Weekday masses and no rule barring communion without participation in mass unless it is a second communion of a given day. So unless we are talking about a second communion in a day, or a day of obligation, there’s absolutely no obligation whatsover on attending mass in order to receive communion on a day if it’s the first time.
While it’s best to attend the mass to receive the maximum and unparalleled graces to be found in the fount of all graces (mass), there’s no obligation to do so in order to receive communion being distributed in one, if this is the first time you’re receiving that day. The church says that even if you just happen to be walking past a church when communion is being distributed, you can simply go in and receive- and there’s no obligation (therefore no wrong) in leaving a mass after communion where there’s no obligation to attend a mass. Receiving communion is not necessarily tied to participating in a mass, even though it’s part of a valid mass. The church treats reception of communion as independent from participation in mass, apart from the specified rules on second communions. Some liturgists are creating/have created an artificial rule and law (and therefore a false sin) where there is none- not even during the gloried Tridentine past.
There are 2 different issues that are being “merged” here.There’s nothing liturgically wrong about it, that’s an artificial “wrong” that some liturgists have imposed in the Post-Vatican II church. I’ve seen an article where Jimmy Akins says as much (That is, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with the practice) in answer to a question. I’ve also seen threads here where it’s said that in Pre-Vatican II times, it was very commonly done (and perfectly acceptable) that many, many people just showed up only for communion on Weekday masses and left right after- there were no qualms about any sin regarding this widespread practice because, just like with the present, there’s no obligation to attend Weekday masses and no rule barring communion without participation in mass unless it is a second communion of a given day. So unless we are talking about a second communion in a day, or a day of obligation, there’s absolutely no obligation whatsover on attending mass in order to receive communion on a day if it’s the first time.
While it’s best to attend the mass to receive the maximum and unparalleled graces to be found in the fount of all graces (mass), there’s no obligation to do so in order to receive communion being distributed in one, if this is the first time you’re receiving that day. The church says that even if you just happen to be walking past a church when communion is being distributed, you can simply go in and receive- and there’s no obligation (therefore no wrong) in leaving a mass after communion where there’s no obligation to attend a mass. Receiving communion is not necessarily tied to participating in a mass, even though it’s part of a valid mass. The church treats reception of communion as independent from participation in mass, apart from the specified rules on second communions. Some liturgists are creating/have created an artificial rule and law (and therefore a false sin) where there is none- not even during the gloried Tridentine past.
See the answer given by CAF Apologist to the question here forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=13409 and this discussion here forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=501478 where the Jimmy Akin article is linked so you can get it there, or forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=107810.
I did not say it was a “sin” therefore I don’t know why you’re trying to prove my wrong for having not said it.See the answer given by CAF Apologist to the question here forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=13409 and this discussion here forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=501478 where the Jimmy Akin article is linked so you can get it there, or forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=107810.
The fact is that the only thing preventing anyone from receiving communion where it is distributed is mortal sin. Any other “obstacle” is artificial and should never be imposed by anyone.
-This of course excludes specific rules by the Church on 2nd communions and in danger of death.
Since there is no obligation to attend daily mass, there is zero sin, mortal or venial, in failing to do so. Anyone walking up to the communion line at a daily mass they have not participated in and intending to receive and go home is in no sin for failing to so attend and is therefor not barred by any sin, rule or law from receiving our Lord on that communion line. They will not get the grace for the mass, sure, only the grace of the sacrament, same as in the case of those receiving communion at home or that of the short communion service outside mass. Catholics are adding a false obstacle to the reception of communion that is not imposed by any lawful hierarchy.
PS:
-It is those who say that this is sinful or wrong who must show where they got the idea, since it’s not the law of the church.
-How can intentionally (or regularly) doing something that isnot wrong be wrong?
Peace.
There are 3 criteria when a priest distributes Communion:
But Father, with all due respect, how do those criteria impede a person who receives communion at a daily mass and leaves?
Sorry, that part of the response was not meant for you but for the person who implied that I was the one who had to prove my claim that it was not wrong. Sorry for the confusion.
Perhaps I ought to have been more explicit. I was hoping for an official source to support your opinion rather than the citation of the personal opinion of others. Perhaps, you can demonstrate where Holy Mother Church teaches that, except for particular circumstances, we are to observe only the bare essentials regarding any sacrament. Of course, it is a fact that you cannot do this because the Church no where teaches this.
And the church nowhere teaches that you must participate at mass to receive holy communion. A liturgy professor says so- did you read the Apologist answer to the question here on CAF? And I’ll accept an expert’s opinion on the church’s law (2 in-fact). You on the other hand cannot show any rule or law that says you cannot receive communion at daily mass without participating in mass, and you cannot go around manufacturing sins without showing a breach of a duty. You show me the church’s law that says to receive communion, you must be present at the mass. The only obligation for mass regards Sundays and Holy days of obligation, so if you’re claiming there are other obligations apart from these, and the 2nd communions and communion for the dying, I’d be happy to know what they are.
I’ve read Matthew’s responses here in this thread. And nowhere can I find where he made any claim that receiving without participating in the whole Mass is a “sin.” That was not a word he used–unless, of course, I can’t find it.
I don’t know why you keep going on about sin. It is clear from several posts that those comments are directly aimed at me. I haven’t said that it’s a sin. You’re arguing against something that I haven’t said.
I’m sorry but the church has ben very clear on what we should not do regarding the eucharist, that’s why we know what ingredients we cannot use in the species, who can participate and from which point and how and with what disposition, how it’s administered and what is not legitimate in that practice and the limits of reception, and days of obligation etc etc. So the idea that we can assume something wrong that is not declared so either directly or implied by a particular rule to the contrary is simply not true. Our church is very clear regarding the Eucharist, the mass and Our Lord’s body on what is not legitimate.
. They genuflect, perform all required gestures while there- but there’s no sin if they take communion and leave.Actually, the Church does teach this.