FrDavid96, you have been very patient in your explanations, and I apologize if I am being thick.
I am still unclear how one’s participation in the Mass (or lack thereof) affects one’s *disposition *to receive the Eucharist. As [post=5710632]you yourself noted[/post]: *There is no point [defined by the Church] in the Mass when you have to be there in order to receive, *so how can a priest justly reckon that one person is properly disposed and another person is not, based on their participation?
It seems to me the requirements for proper disposition are outlined in Canons 916-919, and the only mandated participation is in reference to someone receiving a second time in a single day.
(Granted, none of the requirements listed there would exclude the stumbling drunk from proper dispostion – I hope that case would be covered by some other canon or rubric)
tee
tee,
It’s like I’ve been saying. Catholics have a right to receive Communion (for the sake of brevity, from now on I’ll refrain from adding what we already know “not impeded…”)
The priest in that parish is essentially saying this “every Catholic has a right to participate in Mass and receive Communion, therefore I am offering daily Mass at this parish. If you wish to receive Communion, come to Mass, and I will be more than happy to give you Communion.”
The manner in which we receive Communion is by participating in the Mass. Yes, we can do so at other times, but for our discussion here, that’s what we’re talking about.
At the same time, individual persons don’t get to choose for themselves the manner in which Communion is distributed. Catholics can’t simply walk up to a priest at any time, under any circumstances and say “I want to receive Communion” Yes, it’s possible, and yes, if the priest judges that it’s appropriate this can be done.
Catholics have a right to the Sacraments, but they don’t have a right to decide for themselves the manner in which the Sacraments are administered. The Church has said that the usual way to distribute Communion to healthy people is through the
manner of attending Mass.
Let’s say someone approaches me in the grocery store and says “I want to receive Communion.” Well, think about that please. I don’t have to carry a pyx with me everywhere just in case someone does this. The person can’t say to me “I have a right, and I want it now.” If I respond with “there’s a Mass tomorrow at 9 AM. Be there and you can receive.” That’s perfectly appropriate. I’m not refusing a Catholic Communion, I’m only saying that this is not the time or place for it.
Although the above example is a bit extreme, it
illustrates for us that the priest has a responsibility to protect the integrity of the Sacraments and the integrity of Mass itself.
As I said before, we can safely presume that if a person had arrived on-time and had participated in the Mass, the priest would have administered Communion. If that’s not true, we’re talking about a very different scenario.
The priest here is saying “if you want to receive Communion, by all means you may do so, but if you’re going to approach me within the context of Mass and request Communion, you have a responsibility to be here to actually attend the Mass.” That’s the point here. Someone can’t just ask a priest who’s celebrating Mass at that moment to give Communion to someone who hasn’t attended Mass.
Yes, the Church has never, to my knowlege, defined a moment in the Mass at which a person who is late cannot receive. However, we also have plenty of parallel examples where participation in the Mass is defined as being there to hear the Gospel.
Let me repeat my quote from earlier:
The Instruction Inaestimabile Donum approved by HH John Paul II expresses this in better words than I could ever compose:
- “The two parts which in a sense go to make up the Mass, namely the Liturgy of the Word and the Eucharistic Liturgy, are so closely connected that they form but one single act of worship.” A person should not approach the table of the Bread of the Lord without having first been at the table of His Word. Sacred Scripture is therefore of the highest importance in the celebration of Mass…
papalencyclicals.net/JP02/JP2inaest.htm
We also have parallel examples from the CDWDS where the Church does define the Gospel as a possible (but not definitive) moment. Priests who are not celebrating Mass may hear Confessions in the same church while Mass is being said, but the priest must stop doing them before the Gospel begins. Although it doesn’t directly go to the issue at hand, it’s safe to say that it does express for us that the Church considers “being there to hear the Gospel” as a possible point.
We also know that there is a long-standing custom, at least in the US, of defining the Gospel as “the moment.” I know it goes back at least to the 1920’s because the generation of people who were children in that decade were being taught this. Custom remember means “how the law has been interpreted and applied by legitimate authority” it doesn’t mean “this is how we do things.”
I hope this helps.
Please remember that the priest is not refusing anyone Communion.
