Our Father before Communion?

[TheOldColonel]

Indeed, you are correct. There is really no definitive answer in documents. Rather, the teaching of pastors over time have formed traditional answers to the question and prescribed discipline for those judged “too late.”

The one I provided was the predominate answer just prior to Vatican II. I imagine such red lines have been set by pastors in response to observed abuses such as people arriving as the Communion line starts and then leaving immediately after receiving the Eucharist. I’ve actually seen this at my parish.

In my opinion, no one should be admitted to the church building once Mass has started. Perhaps we should bring back the early church ministry of Porter.

 

[MaryEstelle2]

Says Who? The theological legal beagles? Tell them to cite their sources.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The problem once you start relying on “tradition” is it’s all over the map. Some say you have to hear the Gospel. Some say you have to be present for Penitential Rite. Some say you just have to be there for Liturgy of the Eucharist. Some say none of the above.
There is no definitive answer.

 

[veritatisstella]

To suggest on a Catholic website that one can show up basically at any time and still make their obligation, let alone receive communion, is rather worrying.

No one is suggesting that you can just show up at any time and make the Sunday obligation. You do have to attend some decent chunk of the Mass in order for it to count, but having the Offertory as a cut-off point was never documented as an official rule by the Church, although it has often been observed in practice and in my opinion it’s a good rule to follow. But ultimately as there is no officially promulgated rule from the Church about this, I think it comes down to each person’s individual conscience (which they have a duty to form properly) to determine whether they have attended enough of the Mass to fulfill the obligation.

Life goes on but let’s not mince words and pretend it’s NOT a mortal sin!

Also, on the topic of mortal sin, we must remember that mortal sin is only committed when a person is too late to Mass and doesn’t go to another Mass when they are able to. If a person is inculpably late to Sunday Mass and is not in a state of serious sin, there’s no reason why they shouldn’t receive communion.

Say John Smith is driving to an evening Mass on Sunday but gets caught up in traffic because there was a car accident along the route there. It’s very backed up and there’s nothing he can do but wait it out. When he finally gets to church, the Offertory is over and the Canon is starting. It was clearly not his fault he was late to Mass, so that is not a mortal sin. John is not otherwise in a state of mortal sin, and has not eaten anything in the last hour. In these circumstances, I can see no reason why he shouldn’t receive communion. If you differ on this I am interested to hear your opinion and reasons why he should not receive.

 

[babochka]

Say John Smith is driving to an evening Mass on Sunday but gets caught up in traffic there was a car accident along the route there. It’s very backed up and there’s nothing he can do but wait it out. When he finally gets to church, the Offertory is over and the Canon is starting. It was clearly not his fault he was late to Mass, so that is not a mortal sin.

On the other end of things…

Let’s say that John Smith has two options for Mass. He can go to the 8 a.m. or he can go to the 10 a.m. He likes to sleep in a bit on Sunday mornings, but he has a standing golf date with his buddies at 10:30, which rules out the 10 a.m. Mass. He was taught the offertory rule, so every Sunday he times it just perfectly. Who needs the Penitentiary Rite, the readings and all that preaching and singing anyway? He just needs to be there for the part that counts.

It doesn’t seem to me that John Smith would be on solid ground.

Common sense and one’s own conscience should prevail here.

 

[veritatisstella]

It doesn’t seem to me that John Smith would be on solid ground.

Exactly, there is a huge difference between being deliberately late for Mass and trying to get to Mass on time but being unintentionally delayed. In the scenario you give, John Smith would certainly be guilty of at least venial sin. The offertory rule should never be used to deliberately skip parts of Mass. It’s more about “if you unintentionally get to Mass after the offertory starts, you need to attend another Mass if you can reasonably do so”.

 

[babochka]

I’m not even attempting to look for documentation regarding this as I would not have even known about it had I not heard it from the pulpit of my own deanery (MANY decades post-Vatican II). And others here have confirmed it. It is YOU that is stating otherwise, therefore it is on you to produce documentation showing that Vatican II did away with this rule, since you seemingly freely admit it was indeed a rule of the Church at one point. Let me give you a hint; such documentation does not exist because YOU ARE WRONG. I can do that too; it doesn’t make either of us RIGHT.

You’ll find your answer in Sacrosanctum Concilium, paragraphy 56
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

The two parts which, in a certain sense, go to make up the Mass, namely, the liturgy of the word and the eucharistic liturgy, are so closely connected with each other that they form but one single act of worship. Accordingly this sacred Synod strongly urges pastors of souls that, when instructing the faithful, they insistently teach them to take their part in the entire Mass, especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation.

No, this doesn’t explicitly abrogate a former rule because a universally applicable rule did not exist. There was no rule to abrogate. Moral theology manuals are not magisterial documents. Vatican II laid out principles by which the Mass was to be understood. If these principles are observed, it naturally follows that there is no arbitrary cutoff.

 

[camoderator]

Hello to everyone. To wrap up this contentious discussion, I share this post from the eminent canon lawyer Edward Peters. In that light, if we miss part of Mass for no good reason, let’s repent, confess it and move forward and do better. But we really shouldn’t be missing any part of Sunday Mass, though sometimes we might miss part for a legitimate or not legitimate reason. Lastly, re: Peters’ humorous scenario at the end of his post, knowing Ed as I do please don’t infer that the guy who missed part of Mass because he wanted to know how the game ended was headed to hell. Rather, Purgatory to get his priorities straight.

How much of Mass can I miss? You know, and it still counts?

Second only to questions on annulments, the above question—How much of Mass can I miss and it still counts for my obligation?— is probably the single the most common canonical question lay people a…

canonlawblog.wordpress.com