Should one receive Holy Communion after missing part/all of the Liturgy of the Word?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AwaitingHeaven
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AwaitingHeaven

Guest
I am sorry if this question has already been asked, but I could not find an answer to this in this forum or in some of the others, so, here goes.

Assuming that you are a Catholic in good standing with the Catholic Church and are in a state of grace…

but you are late for Mass and miss either some or all of the readings (i.e. the Liturgy of the Word), should you go up to receive Holy Communion?

My understand is that, “no”, you should not. That you must be present for the readings (1st & Gospel on weekdays and 1st, 2nd and Gospel on the Sundays).

Could someone advise (and provide a reference if possible, i.e., point to a reference in the Catechism if it mentions this).

Thanks in advance, and God Bless!
 
40.png
AwaitingHeaven:
I am sorry if this question has already been asked, but I could not find an answer to this in this forum or in some of the others, so, here goes.

Assuming that you are a Catholic in good standing with the Catholic Church and are in a state of grace…

but you are late for Mass and miss either some or all of the readings (i.e. the Liturgy of the Word), should you go up to receive Holy Communion?

My understand is that, “no”, you should not. That you must be present for the readings (1st & Gospel on weekdays and 1st, 2nd and Gospel on the Sundays).

Could someone advise (and provide a reference if possible, i.e., point to a reference in the Catechism if it mentions this).

Thanks in advance, and God Bless!
Click to expand...
One of the unfortunate things,… one of the things that makes being a Catholic so difficult, is the acceptance of subjectivity in determining guilt or not guilt, or sin or “not-sin” of an action…

What was the person’s intention? Was he watching television and didn’t want to miss a program and so left the house really late even though he knew better and did it deliberately?

Or was he way early but had a flat tire, but decide to press on to church instead of turning around and going back home?

Or, just as he was leaving the house, did he get a call from his best friend’s wife, and she was distraught because her husband had died suddenly and he ended up having to offer some consolation over the phone… and so he was late?

Almost nothing that the Catholic Church teaches about sin or actions or moral theology is totally and absolutely black and white and simple and easy with a checklist or a point system.

It’s just not that way.

There is actually a SUPERB book, “Difficult Moral Questions. vol 3” by Germain Grisez. It’s on Amazon. 200 difficult issues. 900 pages. Fabulous. Easy reading. Pulls you in. And it lays out a pattern of thinking about these issues.

I moved it from the moral theology section of my bookcase to right next to the computer, because I refer to it all the time. Really superb. And anyone who is seriously concerned about how they should think about moral issues or what their thought process or logical process ought to be, should buy this book.
 
Al Masetti:
One of the unfortunate things,… one of the things that makes being a Catholic so difficult, is the acceptance of subjectivity in determining guilt or not guilt, or sin or “not-sin” of an action…

What was the person’s intention? Was he watching television and didn’t want to miss a program and so left the house really late even though he knew better and did it deliberately?

Or was he way early but had a flat tire, but decide to press on to church instead of turning around and going back home?

Or, just as he was leaving the house, did he get a call from his best friend’s wife, and she was distraught because her husband had died suddenly and he ended up having to offer some consolation over the phone… and so he was late?

Almost nothing that the Catholic Church teaches about sin or actions or moral theology is totally and absolutely black and white and simple and easy with a checklist or a point system.

It’s just not that way.

There is actually a SUPERB book, “Difficult Moral Questions. vol 3” by Germain Grisez. It’s on Amazon. 200 difficult issues. 900 pages. Fabulous. Easy reading. Pulls you in. And it lays out a pattern of thinking about these issues.

I moved it from the moral theology section of my bookcase to right next to the computer, because I refer to it all the time. Really superb. And anyone who is seriously concerned about how they should think about moral issues or what their thought process or logical process ought to be, should buy this book.
Click to expand...
Actually you didn’t answer the OP’s question. His question is up to what stage in the Mass can a person in a state of grace still receive Communion upon arriving late for Mass. If they are in a state of grace it must mean they were late through no fault of their own.
I don’t the answer for sure but I read somewhere you can even receive if you walk into Church into the Communion line.
 
40.png
AwaitingHeaven:
I am sorry if this question has already been asked, but I could not find an answer to this in this forum or in some of the others, so, here goes.

Assuming that you are a Catholic in good standing with the Catholic Church and are in a state of grace…

but you are late for Mass and miss either some or all of the readings (i.e. the Liturgy of the Word), should you go up to receive Holy Communion?

My understand is that, “no”, you should not. That you must be present for the readings (1st & Gospel on weekdays and 1st, 2nd and Gospel on the Sundays).

Could someone advise (and provide a reference if possible, i.e., point to a reference in the Catechism if it mentions this).

Thanks in advance, and God Bless!
Click to expand...
Of course you can receive Holy Communion. However you did not attend Mass. You can receive Holy Communion once a day outside of Mass. If on Sunday or Holy Day you must return to another Mass to meet your obligation, if you have an obligation.
 
I couldn’t find it in the CCC, but I am pretty sure the Church no longer says specific parts of the Mass you must be at like in the old days. Now I believe it says you must be there for Mass - period. (Meaning ALL of it). They have gotten out of the game of “well, as long as you are there for these parts…”
 
Br. Rich SFO:
Of course you can receive Holy Communion. However you did not attend Mass. You can receive Holy Communion once a day outside of Mass. If on Sunday or Holy Day you must return to another Mass to meet your obligation, if you have an obligation.
Click to expand...
In my teachings of the Catholic Church class the professor, a brasilian priest, stated that as long as one is there from the offertory one (in essence there for the whole Liturgy of the Eucharist) that one has been there for the Mass.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
In my teachings of the Catholic Church class the professor, a brasilian priest, stated that as long as one is there from the offertory one (in essence there for the whole Liturgy of the Eucharist) that one has been there for the Mass.
Click to expand...
As noted above the CCC probably does not specify what parts are necessary to technically attnd Mass. However it also does not state that what was seen in the past as necessary for the essential parts of the Mass has in anyway changed. So what generally applied before applies today also. You must be there for the Gospel, the Consecration, and the priests Communion to have said you participated in the Mass. The Church really wants to get away from the idea: "If I arrive by 9:42 I can leave about 10:12.
 
Two Sundays ago, some fellow rushed into church at the last Mass and just made it to the sanctuary before they finished distributing Holy Communion. The priest not only gave the fellow Holy Communion, but patted him on the shoulder and directed him to a Eucharistic Minister who was distributing the Precious Blood.

Obviously the priest knew the fellow and determined that all was well.

Maybe he was an emergency service worker or a cop… I don’t know, but the priest had no problem with the situation.
 
40.png
AwaitingHeaven:
but you are late for Mass and miss either some or all of the readings (i.e. the Liturgy of the Word), should you go up to receive Holy Communion?

My understand is that, “no”, you should not. That you must be present for the readings (1st & Gospel on weekdays and 1st, 2nd and Gospel on the Sundays).
Click to expand...
Your understanding is wrong. If the Catholic is properly disposed and prepared to receive the sacrament it is definitely proper for them to receive. I’ve seen folks walk off the street (during weekday mass) during communion and walk right on up.

But I think you’re just confusing another issue, whether missing part of the mass is acceptable as far as Sunday obligation.

And the answer to that is, it may or may not be.The person could have been held up in traffic, being a good samaritan, been in the ER taking care of sick relatives, or some other good cause. In any of those circumstances, it sure is acceptable.

But if they were at the club having drinks on Sunday morning and the time just got away from them, probably not.
 
The Church allows and individual in a state of grace to receive the Eucharist twice in one day, but the second time must be at a Mass.

So: if the individual posited herein arrived late for Mass (for the sake of arguement, lets say after the Consecration), he or she could go up and receive the Eucharist.

This would not suffice to fulfill the obligation to attend Mass on Sunday.

To fulfill that obligation, one would need to go to another Mass. (and let’s accept the posting which says at a minimum, Gospel through Communion). One could then again receive the Eucharist.

If it is a weekday Mass (and not a day of Obligation), one could simply go up and receive. There is no obligation to attend.

If one, through one’s own fault was late to the first Mass on Sunday and one could still go to another Mass on that Sunday, one would be obliged to go; but one would not have committed a sin by being late to the first Mass. One coud receive at both Masses.

Were one late to that first Mass on Sunday by one’s own fault (that is, intentionally late) and not able to attend another Mass (it was the last one said on a Sunday evening), then one would have committed a serious sin by being intentionally late, and should not receive.

If one were late but it was not intentional (held up by an accident, had the wrong time, etc) and there was no other Mass to go to, one could receive The Eucharist, and if no Mass were available to go to, one would not have an obligation (no sin in not attending). Why? because 1) sin requires intent; and 2) the obligation ceases where one is not able to fulfill it for reasons outside of one’s ability.
 
40.png
ReformedCatholic:
Would Christ ever turn anyone away from Himself?
Click to expand...
Sorry I don’t have chapter and verse, but I seem to recall a parable told by Jesus Christ that involved a wedding feast that the invited guests did not attend. So the host told the servants to go into the street and invite strangers. But one showed up without a wedding garment and was tossed out into the darkness to wail and gnash his teeth. Seems to be an affirmative answer to your question.

Of course, the real answer is that Christ would welcome the sinner to Himself in Confession first, then to Holy Communion. So, no, He would not turn anyone away who approached properly.

Betsy
 
40.png
baltobetsy:
Sorry I don’t have chapter and verse, but I seem to recall a parable told by Jesus Christ that involved a wedding feast that the invited guests did not attend. So the host told the servants to go into the street and invite strangers. But one showed up without a wedding garment and was tossed out into the darkness to wail and gnash his teeth. Seems to be an affirmative answer to your question.

Of course, the real answer is that Christ would welcome the sinner to Himself in Confession first, then to Holy Communion. So, no, He would not turn anyone away who approached properly.
Click to expand...
That sounds like an interesting parable. My question has always been that why would one need confession prior to the Eucharist? If indeed one has gravely sinned or whatever it would seem that s/he would need the Eucharist more than ever! and it subsequently would be given to them. I understand that confession first would probably be ideal, but would it be necessary?
 
40.png
ReformedCatholic:
My question has always been that why would one need confession prior to the Eucharist? If indeed one has gravely sinned or whatever it would seem that s/he would need the Eucharist more than ever! and it subsequently would be given to them. I understand that confession first would probably be ideal, but would it be necessary?
Click to expand...
When the person is in a state of mortal sin, it is necessary to go to confession before receiving Holy Communion . When people commit mortal sin, they throw away sanctifying grace (if, of course, they had sanctifying grace). You must go to confession (or make an act of perfect contrition) to receive sanctifying grace again. Holy Communion increases sanctifying grace in our souls. It only makes sense that you must have sanctifying grace before it can be increased. Therefore (this is one reason), you must have sanctifying grace at the time you receive Holy Communion. *However, just having sanctifying grace is not enough to be able to receive Holy Communion worthily. *If you are in the state of mortal sin, you must go to confession, not just make an act of perfect contrition, before receiving Holy Communion.

J89
 
40.png
Kielbasi:
Your understanding is wrong. If the Catholic is properly disposed and prepared to receive the sacrament it is definitely proper for them to receive. I’ve seen folks walk off the street (during weekday mass) during communion and walk right on up.

But I think you’re just confusing another issue, whether missing part of the mass is acceptable as far as Sunday obligation.

And the answer to that is, it may or may not be.The person could have been held up in traffic, being a good samaritan, been in the ER taking care of sick relatives, or some other good cause. In any of those circumstances, it sure is acceptable.

But if they were at the club having drinks on Sunday morning and the time just got away from them, probably not.
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly there used to be a rule about not receiving Holy Communion if you arrived after the priest removed the chalice veil …
 
40.png
ReformedCatholic:
That sounds like an interesting parable. My question has always been that why would one need confession prior to the Eucharist? If indeed one has gravely sinned or whatever it would seem that s/he would need the Eucharist more than ever! and it subsequently would be given to them. I understand that confession first would probably be ideal, but would it be necessary?
Click to expand...
Grave (mortal) sin takes away the life of the soul, leaving the sinner spiritually dead. The Eucharist is food for the soul, and, as far as I know, only the living eat. The soul must be brought back to life in Confession before partaking of the food of the Eucharist.

To receive the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin is to add sacrilege to the mix, yet another mortal sin, digging the hole even deeper.

You are correct in that the Eucharist is the remedy for sin, but only for the living. Once the soul is revived, the healing can begin.

Betsy
 
Br. Rich SFO:
As noted above the CCC probably does not specify what parts are necessary to technically attnd Mass. However it also does not state that what was seen in the past as necessary for the essential parts of the Mass has in anyway changed. So what generally applied before applies today also. You must be there for the Gospel, the Consecration, and the priests Communion to have said you participated in the Mass. The Church really wants to get away from the idea: "If I arrive by 9:42 I can leave about 10:12.
Click to expand...
As this is the case I think it is best to leave it in the hands of the individual and their spiritual director/confessor/pastor.

Our opinions really mean nothing except for what our personal preference is.

I am of the opinion that if you are not there for the whole Mass then you have not been to the Mass.

As for your comments about no change in what is seen as essential in the Mass from before, can I ask where you get this from? Where does it say what was essential before, and before what? Vatican II? My Teachings professor is an 80 year old semi-retired priest.
 
Thanks to all for your responses.

As I mentioned, I was under the impression that one should not receive Holy Communion at Mass unless you attended the entire Mass (i.e. were there for the Readings).

The situation I had in mind was with respect to daily Mass, not Sunday Mass. I think Br. Rich’s thought
Br. Rich SFO:
Of course you can receive Holy Communion. However you did not attend Mass. You can receive Holy Communion once a day outside of Mass. If on Sunday or Holy Day you must return to another Mass to meet your obligation, if you have an obligation.
Click to expand...
captures the essence of what I was looking for. I was late once for a Monday morning Mass. Mass starts at 6:30am and that morning I was struggling to get out the door. I was tired and almost decided to stay home, but I went. I got there and the priest was giving his homily. I had missed the Reading and the Gospel.

Based on Br. Rich’s thought, I take it that I could have received Holy Communion, but I would not have really attended Mass.

My rationalization for not receiving Holy Communion was that I, through my own fault, did not get to Mass on time. I am able body enough to get out of bed and make it to Mass on time, but I succumbed to fatigue and delayed long enough to miss the Readings and the Gospel. My fault.

Had that been Sunday Mass, a day that I am obliged to attend Mass and be there for the whole Mass, I would need to attend another Mass in order to meet my obligation and thus fulfill my responsibility to attend Mass…the whole Mass.

Thanks to all for taking the time to respond.

God bless.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
As this is the case I think it is best to leave it in the hands of the individual and their spiritual director/confessor/pastor.

Our opinions really mean nothing except for what our personal preference is.

I am of the opinion that if you are not there for the whole Mass then you have not been to the Mass.

As for your comments about no change in what is seen as essential in the Mass from before, can I ask where you get this from? Where does it say what was essential before, and before what? Vatican II? My Teachings professor is an 80 year old semi-retired priest.
Click to expand...
You will generally find it in books that were used in seminary in the 50’s and 60’s. These books went into much more detail about theology and meanings of different actions and prayers of the Mass. Examples would be The Administration of the Sacraments, or *The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy, *and The Celebration of Mass, A Study of the Rubrics fo the Roman Missal.
 
40.png
otm:
To fulfill that obligation, one would need to go to another Mass. (and let’s accept the posting which says at a minimum, Gospel through Communion). One could then again receive the Eucharist.

If it is a weekday Mass (and not a day of Obligation), one could simply go up and receive. There is no obligation to attend.

If one, through one’s own fault was late to the first Mass on Sunday and one could still go to another Mass on that Sunday, one would be obliged to go; but one would not have committed a sin by being late to the first Mass. One coud receive at both Masses.

Were one late to that first Mass on Sunday by one’s own fault (that is, intentionally late) and not able to attend another Mass (it was the last one said on a Sunday evening), then one would have committed a serious sin by being intentionally late, and should not receive.

If one were late but it was not intentional (held up by an accident, had the wrong time, etc) and there was no other Mass to go to, one could receive The Eucharist, and if no Mass were available to go to, one would not have an obligation (no sin in not attending). Why? because 1) sin requires intent; and 2) the obligation ceases where one is not able to fulfill it for reasons outside of one’s ability.
Click to expand...
I think that is a very good answer and one consistent with what I have read on EWTN site regarding this issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top