Those in communion line MUST receive communion or cause scandal

[itsjustdave1988]

Dave brought up a Fr. McNamara, but here is something from Fr. McNamara that might work in **Pro Domina’s **favor:

(NOTE: I am not making a statement either way on the merit or lack of merit of Pro Domina’s argument or anyone else’s counter argument in this thread – I’m just providing another source from Fr. McNamara)
VC

I was about to post this too!

While I agee with Fr. McNamara, there is one BIG difference between a lay person and a celebrant priest in these situations…to celebrate the Mass, the celebrant priest MUST receive Holy Communion. Whereas, there is never a reason why a lay person MUST communicate (although he should, if in danger of death).

The “grave reason” of embarassment for a celebrant priest differs somewhat than the “grave reason” of a lay person. One might make a similar case for an EMHC, but it seems a strech for the average person in the pew.

Furthermore, I can go to confession every day in my city, if I so choose. I understand that I’m blessed in this regard, and in many remote or rural locations, the opportunity for confession is not so abundant. Nonetheless, for me (and perhaps many others), the condition of the canon which states “no opportunity to confess” has to be seriously considered. Simply not going to confession when the opportunity existed doesn’t seem to be the intent. Granted, there are many occasions when one can commit mortal sin right before going to Mass. In such cases, I don’t think there is an obligation for a lay person to recieve everytime they go to Mass, is there?

However, as stated earlier, instead of being embarrased by choosing not to communicate, I understand it to be an outstanding teaching moment for anybody who would be so bold as to ask me why I wasn’t receiving communion that day. I say, “I didn’t go to confession.” You should see the look on their face when I say this to them. It’s as if I didn’t get the memo that the modern Catholic Church doesn’t worry about such things anymore. Other times I’ve said, “I didn’t fast,” if that was the reason for that particular moment. In the final analysis, these replies aren’t embarrasing at all, but instead help to teach that we should take seriously the canonical norm to not only be in a state of grace, but also the obligation to fast, as well as, when conscious of mortal sin since one’s last confession, not to “receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess.”

Nonetheless, the argument of the OP is that you MUST receive. Canon law gives certain conditions that one MAY receive. There are no norms which prevent someone from entering the communion line, crossing their arms and bowing in reverence to the Sacred Species without receiving Holy Communion.

 

[marytk]

WHY is it a scandal (if I am curious enough to be watching what others are doing.0 If I see someone going up and not receiving. It isn’t my business to watch what others are doing. IT could be I see someone not receive the sacred body but then go receive the precious blood because of a diet problem. but even If I notice they don’t receive. I KNOW that we are all sinners… Why couldn’t the person be sitting back down because they remembered they ate late that day? Or someother reason to not receive? Why is standing up and then sitting down more ominous than just sitting.

I don’t see how this is a scandal. We are all sinners so even if I knew the person was in mortal sin I would rather see them in Church then not and see them not receive.(not that I would have any way of knowing unless someone told me)

 

[rjs1]

Whoever says going up for a blessing is not a sin is quite a lay person.

You are OBLIGATED to recieve Holy Communion if you get into the line. Even if you remembered you are in mortal sin or that you ate something or whatever, you cannot not recieve, you are obligated to do so. It is a sin of scandal is you don’t.

Now I would like to argument on the suggestions of doing a spiritual communion in mortal sin… But that is another fight.

This is a scandalous statement! No Catholic may receive Holy Communion if they are in a state of mortal sin. This is an absolute teaching of the Church.

This wrong statement could lead people into a state of serious sin - the mortal sin they remember while in the Communion line is then compounded when they commit another mortal sin by receiving Holy Communion.

I have been waiting for a Forum Administrator to come on line and issue a definitive statement regarding this. It disturbs me greatly that Catholic Answers Forums allows mistaken statements to be posted and remain officially uncorrected.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Yep, I agree with you Dave. I’ve no problem staying seated and not going to communion, I’ve had to do it more times than I wish. Even when everyone around me goes, and I have to get up, go to the end of the pew, step aside, let the others proceed, go back to my seat, kneel, wait until they return, get up, go to the end of the pew, let some in, follow them in, kneel back down. Whew!

I guess, though, I can somewhat see Pro Domina’s point incipient in Fr. McNamara’s article. Pro Domina has taken a beating on this thread, though.

What do you think Fr. Mcnamara would say about a well-respect school principal who has to go to Mass with his students, fully prepared to go to communion, but, after getting in line in full view of everyone, recalls that he is not properly disposed? Surely the principal has no obligation to receive communion like a priest does. . . but, I wonder exactly what situations Fr. McNamara had in mind where a layperson exposes himself to the danger of infamy.

Curious, no?

VC

 

[marytk]

Oh my goodness, what a *scandal *! You should have peed your pants. Or be carried up on a gurney.

I too, stepped out of communion line. At the Chrism Mass last year. I was ill, should not have been there - but didn’t want to miss it. Waiting in line I felt very dizzy, started sweating with a fever. I stepped out of the communion line, left the Church, & crawled into bed. Where I belonged.

Yes maybe you could realize that if you did receive unless it came with a miracle you could get sick (and I don’t want to think about that) or maybe I am carrying a baby who decides to let lose and really scream…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Yep, I agree with you Dave. I’ve no problem staying seated and not going to communion, I’ve had to do it more times than I wish. Even when everyone around me goes, and I have to get up, go to the end of the pew, step aside, let the others proceed, go back to my seat, kneel, wait until they return, get up, go to the end of the pew, let some in, follow them in, kneel back down. Whew!

Last time I did this, my wife gave me a look of curiosity. The next day, she invited me and my son to go to confession with her. I see goodness in these little moments which may, for just a fleating moment, feel a little embarrasing. Do such moments amount to “infamy”? I don’t think so. I’m just not that important.

Nonetheless, the canon allows for “grave reasons” if one had no opportunity to confess. Each communicant will have to make a conscientious decision on that himself, and surely doesn’t need other sinners judging the external state of his soul.

Pro Domina has taken a beating on this thread, though.

I think it is because he made some wild accusations without supporting them. He also took his argument too far. If he simply quoted the canon and offered a discussion on it, that would have been more helpful. However, claiming one MUST, if they enter the line is just silly.

What do you think Fr. Mcnamara would say about a well-respect school principal who has to go to Mass with his students, fully prepared to go to communion, but, after getting in line in full view of everyone, recalls that he is not properly disposed?

I see it as an outstanding opportunity to teach the children to take their examination of conscience seriously before presenting yourself for reception of Holy Communion. I’d see it as a teaching moment.

… I wonder exactly what situations Fr. McNamara had in mind where a layperson exposes himself to the danger of infamy.

I dunno. However, I freely admit in public that I’m a sinner, a serious sinner, in need of the sacrament of confession and Eucharist frequently. I’m not as concerned with “infamy” as I am with the profound lack of the sense of sin in our society.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Last time I did this, my wife gave me a look of curiosity. The next day, she invited me and my son to go to confession with her. I see goodness in these little moments which may, for just a fleating moment, feel a little embarrasing. Do such moments amount to “infamy”? I don’t think so. I’m just not that important.

Lest you misunderstand me, I do this all the time. *Too frequently.

*As to the grave reason, and the danger of infamy or revealing the state of one’s soul, as grave reason. I don’t know. But it seems like Fr. McNamara is contemplating the idea that the Church doesn’t want to force highly respected individuals to have teaching moments. If you get my drift.

Unless the person, like you as a father, can say “I didn’t go to confession” or “I haven’t fasted” etc. there is a possibility, I think you’ll admit, that others might harbor uncharitable thoughts about a public person, and its possible (I guess) that one’s social standing or ability to make a living could be seriously damaged?

Note to others: please don’t take umbrage at my use of “social standing” or “make a living” and scoff at it. One of the grave evils of slander or detraction is that it damages another’s social standing or ability to make a living.

Anyway, I think you are right about Pro Domina overstating things (you MUST, etc.). And, even though going up to receive a blessing isn’t really appropriate, it would be preferable in most situations (if you could do it fairly unnoticed) instead of receiving communion when not properly disposed!

VC

 

[ProVobis]

As if we didn’t have enough controversy in the Catholic Church.

Once I went up to receive and looked at someone’s watch while in line and realized it wasn’t a full hour since I ate. Or maybe it was but I didn’t want to chance it. It was tough to be discrete about it but I managed.

Tough if the OP thinks this is scandal.

 

[pnewton]

On the bright side, this thread has shown how well the posters here understand their faith. Someone posts something contrary to Catholic teaching and everyone here knows it right off the bat.

 

[puzzleannie]

Auto-denouncing a non-public sin IS A SCANDAL!

Making it clear you are not worthy for communion is a scandal.

Staying on the bench does not make it clear.

Getting into the line and then leaving makes it quite clear.

"

you are still dead wrong and you still have not provided a source for your claim

no, what you do or do not do in church makes absolutely nothing clear to the casual observer about the state of your soul. If that person is scandalized because you receive, or do not receive, or change your mind, that person needs to leave off the sin of judging other people, and needs to put his attention back on Christ and not on his fellow congregants.

 

[puzzleannie]

It

But here is one that I know it is easy to find, since it is in a confession manual.

 

[puzzleannie]

For starters, the Church is not the US. It does not have people permanently making up laws for no reason. There is no need to make positive laws for things Catholic doctrine teaches.

I know this from my studies. Where is the exact source, it disapears in the list of books I’ve read, which does not exist.

But a thing I can state from the top of my head is that canon 916 allows for special circumstances to recieve without prior sacramental confession.

I am really conservative, so I assure you it is not a progresivist thing.

Some facts from history:
These situations did not happen in the past.

First off, daily communion is a new concept in practice. The faithful did not recieve as often. Second, when they did, it was kneeling at the rail.

Now they do, because of changes in the practices. But the concept remains.

You got into the line to recieve. If you leave, it is because there is a reason that has changed your mind. Others don’t know what is the reason, but they know it changed. That is enough to cause scandal. God and the faithful have the right not to be scadalized.
You entered that line without wrongful intentions. Your memory brought back an impediment. You can’t leave, so you must do an act of contrition and recieve.

Now staying on the bench is another thing. No intention was manifested. Though it is prudent not to sit in the front eh.

none of this has anything whatever to do with claim in OP. Nothing. nada

the only true thing you have said is that the list of books you have read has been lost, that I can well believe.

 

[ac_claire]

none of this has anything whatever to do with claim in OP. Nothing. nada

the only true thing you have said is that the list of books you have read has been lost, that I can well believe.

I agree, which is why IMO we should stop replying…We’re really discussing nothing. How is this different from trolling?

 

[RubyT]

You are wrong.

It would be a sin of scandal to receive in mortal sin. Not to leave the communion line.

Need I say more.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Whoever says going up for a blessing is not a sin is quite a lay person.

You are OBLIGATED to recieve Holy Communion if you get into the line. Even if you remembered you are in mortal sin or that you ate something or whatever, you cannot not recieve, you are obligated to do so. It is a sin of scandal is you don’t.

Now I would like to argument on the suggestions of doing a spiritual communion in mortal sin… But that is another fight.

I think you need serious help on this matter. Talk to a priest or something.

 

[SwizzleStick]

I do not know if I’ve ever noticed any adults in the line to go up to receive our Lord in the Eucharist and then not receive. If so, I’ve since forgotten. I guess I do not pay enough attention to what others are doing.

I do know that my 5-year old always goes up with us with his arms crossed to receive a blessing only since he has not yet received his First Holy Communion and I certainly don’t think twice about that. I doubt anyone else does either since most other children too young to receive do the same thing. My guess is that there are adults who do this as well, folks who just go up to receive a blessing and not the Eucharist because either they cannot receive that day or they cannot receive period (non-Catholic), but I just haven’t noticed them.

I do not mean to be uncharitable, but this is probably one of the more unusual threads that I’ve read on CAF.

 

[Leonius]

So to prevent scandal you should commit sacrilege. Wrong. So wrong in fact that I think you are trolling and need to stop wasting everyone’s time.

“In this sacrament, as in the others, that which is a sacrament is a sign of the reality of the sacrament. Now there is a twofold reality of this sacrament, as stated above (Question 73, Article 6): one which is signified and contained, namely, Christ Himself; while the other is signified but not contained, namely, Christ’s mystical body, which is the fellowship of the saints. Therefore, whoever receives this sacrament, expresses thereby that he is made one with Christ, and incorporated in His members; and this is done by living faith, which no one has who is in mortal sin.** And therefore it is manifest that whoever receives this sacrament while in mortal sin, is guilty of lying to this sacrament, and consequently of sacrilege, because he profanes the sacrament: and therefore he sins mortally.**
Summa Theologica > Third Part > Question 80>Article 4”

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I know this from my studies. Where is the exact source, it disapears in the list of books I’ve read, which does not exist. .

Your studies? Are you a priest? A religious?

 

[Lainey63]

This statement made by the OP is nuts! I see where a little bit of knowledge can be deadly to the soul.

 

[ac_claire]

This statement made by the OP is nuts! I see where a little bit of knowledge can be deadly to the soul.

Let’s see how long this pointless thread can go on…