Late to Daily Mass: Do not Receive

[m134e5]

I go to daily Mass here in England and today at the end of Mass our curate/assistant Priest announced that those who had come in late should not have come up for Communion as the Mass itself was the preparation for receiving the Lord and therefore they should refrain from doing so.
I was not one of those people but iI know that in the past I have been late getting to daily Mass because of some work circumstance etc that has been out of my control and has delayed me. However in such instance I have always gone to communion knowing that it was not my intention to show disrespect to the Lord in arriving late and consoling myself that He desired me to receive Him in this great Sacrament.
Is our Priest correct?
If he is not then how could I approach him on this subject in a way that would change his mind?
For my part if I arrive late at daily Mass again I will not go to Communion.

Daily Masses can be very short. They are usually done in half an hour or less. If you’re 10 minutes late, you’ve missed a good portion of the liturgy. There is to be sufficient time for reflection on what you’re about to do before you receive communion, and I really don’t think you can walk in 5 minutes before the Eucharistic prayer starts and call that sufficient reflection. There is no obligation to go to daily Mass, so but it is irreverent to walk in so late. If there is a problem with many parishioners’ work schedules, the priest should see if he can change the Mass time.

 

[jpjd]

If a person is late due to circumstances beyond their control, I think it would be cruel to deny them the Eucharist.

Remember, frequent reception the Eucharist is desirable, but not a right. We are required to receive only once per year.

It is the Mass that is required by God every week. To go more often than Sundays (Daily Mass) is an honor. If you are too late to Daily Mass to receive the Eucharist (according to your priest’s judgement), then just be thankful you are able to attend the Mass at all, as that is still an honor.

 

[I_Believe]

Hi Cid, are there a few folks getting there late every day ?

If so, perhaps he is just trying to stop it from getting worse.
A subtle hint, so to speak.

 

[vince2paul]

A priest talked about it before. He said that to receive daily communion is good, thus he never refrain late comers from receiving the Eucharist. Well, there are people who receive the Holy Communion without mass. As long as they are in the state of grace, it shouldn’t be a problem.
of course, it shdn’t be a habit.

 

[otjm]

Here is a Q&A regarding this question.

It doesn’t appear that there is a hard and fast rule, so your Priest can make up his own mind on the matter.

The Q&A was interesting but not really on point, as the OP asked about a weekday Mass. Throughout the Q&A the comments were made about “obligation”; there is no oblighation to weekday Mass (excluding Holy Days, which is not the subject).

:Thei issue is much more akin to the issue of someone receiving Euchatrist who is not able to attend Mass at all - shut-ins, those in the hospital, etc. They certainly can receive without attending; it seems strange that someone who has no obilgation to attend, and comes in late, would be refused.

Further, Canon Law allows one to receive a second time in a day; the stipulation being that the second reception must be “at a Mass” (and presumably one has attended that Mass for at least most of the liturgy); by implication if no other, the first reception could be without having attended the full Mass.

I know of no rule that says that if one is to receive on a non-obligatory day that one must first attend all or most of the Mass at which the Eyucharist to be received is Consecrated. Further, there are some really strict rules about a priest not refusing Communion to anyone who has a right to receive (see, for example, Rome’s comments about priests refusing Communion to those who chose to kneel rather than receive standing). It would seem that the priest is making unnecessary, and possibly illegitimate rules of his own.

 

[Kielbasi]

Back in the day,not too longer ago, maybe 15-20 years, I sometimes frequented St. Marys at the Point here in Pittsburgh.

Daily masses were said from an early hour , maybe 5 am, every half hour or less, on a daily basis.

As I recall, folks would come in according to their own schedules, if they were inclined to receive communion, it would be available at a mass that may have just been going on at the same time as their bus arrived in Gateway Center.

Just because someone was “late” for the mass at 6:30, maybe they weren’t late at all, but just early for the 7 am mass, or really early for the 7:30 mass.

I don’t understand this particular priest’s problem. Daily mass is optional as well as receiving communion, I just don’t see where he is coming from here.

 

[jpjd]

This issue is much more akin to the issue of someone receiving Euchatrist who is not able to attend Mass at all - shut-ins, those in the hospital, etc. They certainly can receive without attending; it seems strange that someone who has no obilgation to attend, and comes in late, would be refused.

EMHCs who take Communion to shut-ins and hospital patients should be doing a Communion service, which is basically the Liturgy of the Word. The EMHC doesn’t just walk into the room, give the patient the Communion, and that’s it. The reception of the Eucharist should be received in the context of a service.

Further, Canon Law allows one to receive a second time in a day; the stipulation being that the second reception must be “at a Mass” (and presumably one has attended that Mass for at least most of the liturgy); by implication if no other, the first reception could be without having attended the full Mass.

An example could be that the first reception could be in a Communion service or viaticum. This Canon Law should not be construed to mean that because there are (limited) circumstances where a parishoner can receive Communion outside of a Mass, then he can be as late as he wants to be at Mass and still receive.

I know of no rule that says that if one is to receive on a non-obligatory day that one must first attend all or most of the Mass at which the Eyucharist to be received is Consecrated.

Perhaps no rule, but just common sense, and respect for and love of God. Remember, the Liturgy of the Word has a purpose. It’s purpose is to prepare us and dispose us to receive the Eucharist, after which we are sent forth to love and serve God and one another, according to the readings in the Liturgy of the Word. See how it fits together? The Liturgy of the Word is not something we should miss nor should we treat it cavalierly.

Further, there are some really strict rules about a priest not refusing Communion to anyone who has a right to receive (see, for example, Rome’s comments about priests refusing Communion to those who chose to kneel rather than receive standing). It would seem that the priest is making unnecessary, and possibly illegitimate rules of his own.

Perhaps the priest can not refuse the Eucharist to anyone on the basis of being late, but in his role as our spiritual father, he is looking out for our spiritual well-being by reminding us that it is not respectful to our Lord nor helpful to our spiritual well-being to be late to Mass, especially when it’s late enough that in his judgement it is too late to be properly prepared and disposed to receive. Please refrain from accusing a well-meaning priest of making illegitimate rules when he is actually doing his job properly.

I don’t understand this particular priest’s problem. Daily mass is optional as well as receiving communion, I just don’t see where he is coming from here.

Receiving Communion may be “optional,” but when a parishoner does choose to receive it, it should be done properly. That is to say, we need to be present for the Liturgy of the Word as well as the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

 

[Fergal]

Simple rule I follw is if I miss the Gospel then I don’t receive.

 

[otjm]

An example could be that the first reception could be in a Communion service or viaticum. This Canon Law should not be construed to mean that because there are (limited) circumstances where a parishoner can receive Communion outside of a Mass, then he can be as late as he wants to be at Mass and still receive.

This isn’t about being as late as he wants to: the OP siad that he was delayed due to work issues. It is an issue of something outside his control. Further, it is weekday Mass we are discussing, not Sunday Mass.

Perhaps no rule, but just common sense, and respect for and love of God. Remember, the Liturgy of the Word has a purpose. It’s purpose is to prepare us and dispose us to receive the Eucharist, after which we are sent forth to love and serve God and one another, according to the readings in the Liturgy of the Word. See how it fits together? The Liturgy of the Word is not something we should miss nor should we treat it cavalierly.

The problem with common sense is that it is not common. The OP is trying to get to Mass and is delayed becuase of circumstances out of his control. I know that the Liturgy of the Word is preparation; that is not the question. From the OP’s post, he is trying to get there on time for Mass; the question is, if he is seriously delayed, shoule the priest refuse him Communion because of circumstanaces out of his control? I say that there is no requirement for daily Mass/reception of Communion that indicates he should be refused.

Perhaps the priest can not refuse the Eucharist to anyone on the basis of being late, but in his role as our spiritual father, he is looking out for our spiritual well-being by reminding us that it is not respectful to our Lord nor helpful to our spiritual well-being to be late to Mass, especially when it’s late enough that in his judgement it is too late to be properly prepared and disposed to receive. Please refrain from accusing a well-meaning priest of making illegitimate rules when he is actually doing his job properly.

The priest may be very well meaning. So are many who make inappropriate changes to the liturgy. We are not discussing how well meaning the priest is; we are discussing whether or not a priest - well meaning or otherwise - should refuse Communion at a daily Mass where the recipient through no fault of their own is not able to make it on time. What is the purpose of Communion? Isn’t it union with Christ? Aren’t we to be fed? In John 6, Christ didn’t say “He who eats my body and drinks my blood will have everlasting life if he shows up on time for Mass”.

Receiving Communion may be “optional,” but when a parishoner does choose to receive it, it should be done properly. That is to say, we need to be present for the Liturgy of the Word as well as the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

Again, I see nothing in the rules that says that for a weekday mass, we “need” to be present for the Liturgy of the Word, most particularly when the inability to do so is not our fault.

I do not suggest in any way that one should have a “casual” attitude about the Mass, even a weekday Mass. However, keeping to what the OP asked - why should he be denied when it is not his fault that he arrives late - I say that he should not be denied. Christ broke the Sabbath rules, and Christ was the perfect Jew. He and the apostles picked grain and consumed it on the Sabbath, which was work, forbidden in Mosaic Law. As he said, the Sabbat was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Seems the same issue should apply here.

 

[jpjd]

Whether it’s a Sunday Mass or a daily Mass, makes no difference. A Mass is a Mass, Jesus is equally present at both.

Whether late through circumstances beyond your control or not, makes no difference. Late is late. Besides, aren’t all instances of being late to Mass beyond the person’s control? I don’t know of anyone who deliberately plans to be late to Mass.

We should only receive when properly prepared and disposed. If you arrive too late to properly receive, self-denial of the Eucharist is a good penitential practice.

 

[jpjd]

…

 

[Fergal]

I don’t know of anyone who deliberately plans to be late to Mass.

Well I do. Since I have become a daily Mass goer I am amazed at the number of people who come in late every day. Some after the readings and some after the consecration. They then stroll up to receive and leave before the Priest’s final blessing.

Very bad manners and very rude indeed.

 

[Meggie]

Well I do. Since I have become a daily Mass goer I am amazed at the number of people who come in late every day. Some after the readings and some after the consecration. They then stroll up to receive and leave before the Priest’s final blessing.

Very bad manners and very rude indeed.

Ferngal don’t judge. Once upon a time I walked nearly 3 miles to daily Mass…on bad snowy days (no hills besides the snowplow’s mountians) and (sometimes for weeks in a row) I’d arive late. Sometimes, especally on those days, I’d have to leave early to get home in time.

I know nurses who will go to Mass on their breaks, (sometimes breaking up a 12 hour shift!) as well as schoolteachers who get their own kids to school and then go to Mass, and have to leave early to not be late.

 

[Fergal]

I am not judging any person. if anything I am criticising the habit. I am saying that being late to Mass every day over a period of time as far as missing the Liturgy of the Word and then going to receive Holy Communion is very bad manners and is very rude.

I have no problem with people being late for Mass as long as they do not think they have the right to receive the Blessed Sacrament when ever they want to. That is a big problem in today’s Church.

If you realise that you are continuously late, then you have to leave home a few minutes earlier or go to Mass at a different time or find a Parish nearer.

I know that I used to love getting 7.30am Mass in my Parish Church here in Naas. I work in Knocklyon in Dublin. I was late to school on and off because I opted to start my day with Holy Mass. the recurring lateless was a problem for me so I opted to go to Mass at 7am at a Convent beside the school in Dublin which means I now have to get up at 5.45am in order to get Mass before I head off for school

How is it that when it comes to our employment or to a film or a theatre show or a dinner date etc. we always seem to be able to be on time? I think it is because the others involved would perceive our lateness as bad manners.

I don’t know how Christ perceives habitual lateness for Mass but I know how it is being perceived by those who are continually on time.

By the way, we are encouraged to be early for Mass not just on time.

 

[gvogt4]

I don’t know how Christ perceives habitual lateness for Mass but I know how it is being perceived by those who are continually on time.

By the way, we are encouraged to be early for Mass not just on time.

While I detest the inrease in circumstances of a lack of respect that our Lord receives in the Blessed Sacrament these days, and I also am not amused by late arrivals to Sunday Mass (and I generally arrive before the prior Mass lets out), I still think that those who are attempting to receive the Sacrament in these circumstances (daily Mass) should be allowed to do so. Only the Lord knows what is in their hearts. If they are predisposed to receiving the Sacrament, and they are obviously making an attempt that many others are not, why should they be refused?

 

[otjm]

Whether it’s a Sunday Mass or a daily Mass, makes no difference. A Mass is a Mass, Jesus is equally present at both.

Whether late through circumstances beyond your control or not, makes no difference. Late is late. Besides, aren’t all instances of being late to Mass beyond the person’s control? I don’t know of anyone who deliberately plans to be late to Mass.

We should only receive when properly prepared and disposed. If you arrive too late to properly receive, self-denial of the Eucharist is a good penitential practice.

It most certainloy does make a difference. You are obliged to go to Sunday Mass; you are not obliged to go to weekday Mass. The OP was making every effort to go, but could only go late do to circumstances beyond his control on a weekday; what, other than opinion, is the basis for denying him Communion?

Going to weekday Mass is a good penitential practice.

 

[jpjd]

You are obliged to go to Sunday Mass, yes. You are not obliged to partake of Communion. It’s that simple. If you CAN NOT RECEIVE PROPERLY, THEN YOU *SHOULD NOT *RECEIVE.

My source is my own respect for the Mass, the Lord, and not in the least, the opinion of the priest.

 

[otjm]

You are obliged to go to Sunday Mass, yes. You are not obliged to partake of Communion. It’s that simple. If you CAN NOT RECEIVE PROPERLY, THEN YOU *SHOULD NOT *RECEIVE.

My source is my own respect for the Mass, the Lord, and not in the least, the opinion of the priest.

Either you did not read my posts, or we are having a serious problem communicating.

This is not about Sunday Mass. It is about weekday Mass.

You are not obliged to go or to receive Communion on a weekday.

The question is, if one is attempting to get to weekday Mass and is unavoidably delayed by work and comes late, can one still receive Communion?

It appears that it is your personal opinion that if one does not attend Mass then one is not properly disposed. However, that does not seem to be the position of the Church, as the Church allows for both a Communion Service (no Mass) and for one who is not able to make it to Mass at all to receive (homebound and sick, who do not have a full Communion service).

Therefore, according to accepted Church practice, one can be properly disposed to receive during the week without having attended a Mass.

Why, therefore, do you insist that one who is delayed unavoidably by work is not able to receive? The Church does not insist that attendance at Mass is the prerequisite for reception, but you seem to.

It seems that it is your opinion; if it is not the Church’s then I would suggest that it is not the Lord’s either, since the Church represents the Lord on earth; and if you are relying on the priest’s, then why does the priest insist when the Church doesn’t?

 

[jpjd]

Either you did not read my posts, or we are having a serious problem communicating.

I have read all your posts. We are having a problem communicating…I will try to make myself more clear.

You are not obliged to go or to receive Communion on a weekday.

There is a difference between Mass and Communion, and their obligations. We both understand that Catholics are obliged to go to Mass on Sundays, and not obliged to go to Mass on weekdays.

Catholics are not obliged to receive Communion on Sunday, and also not obliged on weekdays. Our obligation regarding receiving Communion is to receive once per year. In other words, you can go to Mass (Sunday or weekday) and not receive Communion.

The question is, if one is attempting to get to weekday Mass and is unavoidably delayed by work and comes late, can one still receive Communion?

Here is one point where I think you are misunderstanding me. I believe the priest will always give you Communion if you are late; but as the priest said, by being late you are are not properly prepared and disposed and should not receive. It’s self-policing. Kind of like not receiving when you are in a state of mortal sin.

It appears that it is your personal opinion that if one does not attend Mass then one is not properly disposed.

Here is another point where you are misunderstanding me. I said if a person is so late that they miss the Liturgy of the Word, then the person is not properly disposed. The Mass has 2 parts: (1) the Liturgy of the Word (which is the readings, psalms, Gospel, and homily); and (2) the Liturgy of the Eucharist (which is the offering of the gifts, consecration, Communion.)

The sick and shut-ins get a Communion Service, which means they get the Liturgy of the Word but not the Liturgy of the Eucharist (they just receive an already consecrated Eucharist). So, they do hear the Liturgy of the Word, and are thus properly disposed to receive.

However, that does not seem to be the position of the Church, as the Church allows for both a Communion Service (no Mass) and for one who is not able to make it to Mass at all to receive (homebound and sick, who do not have a full Communion service).

Therefore, according to accepted Church practice, one can be properly disposed to receive during the week without having attended a Mass.

Hopefully, after reading my explanation of a Mass and a Communion Service, you will see that your statements here are a misunderstanding of what the Church practices.

Why, therefore, do you insist that one who is delayed unavoidably by work is not able to receive? The Church does not insist that attendance at Mass is the prerequisite for reception, but you seem to.

I never said Mass attendance was a prerequisite for reception, I said that the Liturgy of the Word prepares and disposes us to receive, and if we miss that, then we should not receive.

…then why does the priest insist when the Church doesn’t?

Hopefully, you will see now, if I have explained clearly enough, that the priest is following what the Church practices. The shut-in and sick get a Liturgy of the Word before receiving. Folks at Mass should be present for the Liturgy of the Word before receiving. If these folks are late, then they should, of their own accord, refrain from receiving.

 

[Pax_Tibi]

JPJD:
You said," Self-denial of the Eucharist is good penitential practice." What could you possibly mean by that.???

OTJM:
I agree with most of what you’ve written, but need clarifiation on, “Going to a weekday Mass is good penitential practice.” I’m assuming that the sacrifice of sleep or missing lunch or whatever time given up. But not the actual attendance at Mass.?

The OP is a daily Communicant! Obviuosly some sacrifice has already been made in attempting to get to Mass this particular day coupled with the anxiety of being late. Just how much prediposition is one have to have to receive worthily? The OP’s desire is not in question nor his/her track record.

Communion is a two way street. Does anyone have the right to deny Jesus’ desire to commune with this person? Who could judge that?

Thanks,