What happens when a non-Catholic, or Catholic in sin, takes communion

[CRV]

Just imagine a scenario where you’re in a long lineup for confession and the Priest didn’t have enough time to hear confessions before Mass started, and it’s the last Mass of the day, but there’s more confession after Mass. I think, in this case, it’s alright to receive communion if the person is absolutely resolved to do so after. Moreover, in following the rule of Grave Reason, if the person has had plenty of opportunity to confess, like they were busy partying and hanging out with friends, they shouldn’t receive the Eucharist. If the person was truly busy taking care of the family and just causes when confession was available, then the person can receive the Eucharist.

I believe that’s called self justification.
Going to communion whilst in the state of grave sin just because you want to receive and convincing yourself “God’ll be ok with that” is just wrong, let alone objectivly sinful (would be subjectively is the individual knew they shouldn’t and then still deliberately decided to receive.)

If the person was truly busy taking care of the family and just causes when confession was available,

Then they are to make spiritual communions and offer up the disappointment of not being able to make a sacramental communion until such time as they can get to confession.

Just imagine a scenario where you’re in a long lineup for confession and the Priest didn’t have enough time to hear confessions before Mass started, and it’s the last Mass of the day, but there’s more confession after Mass

in this scenario the individual is not to receive sacramental communion, but to make a spiritual communion, and then go to confession after Mass!

continued below

 

[CRV]

I think you missed the other part “and there is no opportunity to confess”

Cherry picking parts of sentences. Needs to be read in context - and canon 916 states unless there is grave reason - a long line up does NOT qualify as a grave reason!

Grave Reasons are that you have greater obligations in welfare to yourself, if you are sick, or to others, taking care of the family and such, which would even include working to support the family.

Sorry, no, these are not grave reasons as I understand grave reasons to be. These are just the normal duties of life. If a person in these situations you’ve stated, is still able to get to Mass, then they are able to go to confession too, and this should be done before receiving Communion.
An example would be in the trenches of war - priest is offering the Mass and due to circumstances won’t be able to hear confessions. That would be grave reason. Going into battle, may be killed, but the condition placed on this sacramental communion is as you say to go to confession as soon as possible. Which in this instance would be if the soldier lived, and at the first occasion when confession is offered , they are to go to confession.

If a Catholic was so ashamed of themselves that they didn’t want to go to confession, but went to Mass. If that Mass, the homily, changed their life and made them desire Jesus and their desire to confess, right before we stand and receive, I would tell them “Go, receive the Eucharist. Go to confession right after. Welcome home.”

And assuming that this Catholic knew they are to go to confession FIRST after committing a mortal sin & before they receive communion, then if they did receive communion on your advice, they are culpable and incur guilt for their sin and you incur guilt for counselling them to receive, as this is one way in which we participate in the sins of others. Obviously if they only had venial sins on their soul, then yes, they could receive Communion

 

[SeraficLeo]

What? No. It’s still a mortal sin. You’re supposed to go to confession to be absolved of any mortal sin before receiving communion, full stop.

[1457] According to the Church’s command, "after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess serious sins at least once a year."56 Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession.57

So you are correct that there are virtually no circumstances in ordinary life and times, particularly where Confession is more or less readily available, that a Catholic conscious of grave sin can receive Communion without first having received the sacrament of Reconciliation. But there is room for extraordinary circumstances (a grave reason means “danger of death”).

1385 To respond to this invitation we must prepare ourselves for so great and so holy a moment. St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself."216 Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion…

So basically, don’t receive unless you’ve gone to Confession if you’re conscious of any mortal sins. But there can be exceptions, if there is a “grave reason” (CCC 1457).

 

[DeniseNY]

If a Catholic was so ashamed of themselves that they didn’t want to go to confession, but went to Mass. If that Mass, the homily, changed their life and made them desire Jesus and their desire to confess, right before we stand and receive, I would tell them “Go, receive the Eucharist. Go to confession right after. Welcome home.”

I would tell them confess so he/she could receive at the next Liturgy. When I returned to the Church it took me a long time to go to confession. I sat in the pew during communion until I got up the courage to go, and did a thorough examination of conscience.

 

[SeraficLeo]

“15:21 And the son said to him: Father: I have sinned against heaven and before thee I am not now worthy to be called thy son.”

Personally, I think this would be a great quote from the Bible to include in the context of teaching about the sacrament of Penance and grave sins. I think it could also help Protestants to understand the Catholic practice/tradition of the sacrament of Reconciliation and the importance we place on contrition and penance:

Luke 15:21 …make me as one of your hired servants

Does this not follow up the confession and acknowledgment of sin with a desire or willingness to make satisfaction/perform penance? The son does not think he is in the least bit entitled to forgiveness: he offers to be reduced to nothing more than a servant of his father, forfeiting any rights or claims he may have been naturally entitled to as a son: the son greatly humiliated his father by demanding his share of his inheritance (effectively wishing his father were dead) and abandoned his father: now the son, no doubt conscious of this, is willing to voluntarily suffer the humiliation of being a mere servant in his own father’s household, conscious perhaps that he had already forfeited any right or claim to be treated in the dignity of sonship.

 

[rightness]

(a grave reason means “danger of death”).

No, grave does not mean deathly like going to your grave, it means serious. Just like how we determine Mortal Sin must be of a grave matter. It does not mean death was involved.

It doesn’t even make sense in the context of Canon Law 916, that you would couple “danger of death” with “confession was unavailable during the week”. Why even have this Canon Law if the exception is deathly? That would read like this:

A person must be near death and had no confession available to be able to receive the Eucharist when not in a State of Grace, they must make a perfect act of contrition, and then they must go to confession as soon as they can.

I’m pretty sure a person who is near death is probably going to the hospital and receiving Anointing of the Sick regardless.

I would tell them confess so he/she could receive at the next Liturgy. When I returned to the Church it took me a long time to go to confession. I sat in the pew during communion until I got up the courage to go, and did a thorough examination of conscience.

There is a difference between your example, which was my example long ago, where we had plenty of opportunities to confess. I would even consider shame to be a serious reason because shame caused Adam and Eve to be scared of God. If the person finally resolves their shame, and at that point, they weren’t able to make any available confession, then Canon Law 916’s exception will apply.

Remember, Jesus strengthens us in the Eucharist. Our Lord isn’t caught up with definitions of laws when it comes to His mercy. If a person is truly committed to going to confession right away in his Act of Contrition, Jesus would want us to receive Him.

 

[SeraficLeo]

rightness, I actually personally do agree with you in that an act of perfect contrition ought to put a Catholic in the state of grace and hence be properly disposed to receive. However, “grave reason” does mean “danger of death.” There is nothing graver than grave. I think the reason for including “grave reason” is exactly because of the danger of subjective abuse and the very real risk and danger of presumption: that we might fool ourselves in our commitments and even likely and increasingly not show true and perfect contrition but develop a mindset like ‘oh, it’s okay God will/has forgiven me anyway,’ or something like it. In that case we could even be adding sin upon sin as we could even develop a kind of spiritual sloth.

The Catechism point-blank says when speaking of receiving the Eucharist that we are not to receive if we are conscious of a grave sin:

1385 Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.

The word “must” is used and “receive the sacrament of Reconciliation” is specified: the Holy See could easily have said , ‘must be in the state of grace by having made an act of perfect contrition and intend to immediately receive the sacrament of Reconciliation if conscious of any grave sin…’ or something like that. They did not; but they said “must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation.”

Grave reason means “danger of death.” Unless otherwise defined by the Catechism or the Holy See or revised at some point, that is simply what the term grave reason means. It does not mean simply serious: there is nothing graver than grave.

Now I could be completely wrong about all this and would gladly stand corrected by the Magisterium, but I won’t be personally taking a chance on it. It is a rather grave subject.

 

[AlNg]

Well, I have not heard a Catholic priest say that. I did hear a Catholic priest announce that he saw no reason why everyone present should not receive Holy Communion. IOW, does this not imply that he recommended that everyone present receive Holy communion?

 

[CRV]

A person must be near death and had no confession available to be able to receive the Eucharist when not in a State of Grace, they must make a perfect act of contrition, and then they must go to confession as soon as they can.

Almost Correct. Not necessarily near death (think of Viaticum ), only in danger of death, (as in the reception of Anointing of the sick).

Who can receive communion? " The 1983 Code of Canon Law indicates that the same requirement applies today. “A person who is conscious of a grave sin is not to . . . receive the body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession unless a grave reason is present and there is no opportunity of confessing; in this case the person is to be mindful of the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible” (CIC 916).

The requirement for sacramental confession can be dispensed if four conditions are fulfilled: (1) there must be a grave reason to receive Communion (for example, danger of death), (2) it must be physically or morally impossible to go to confession first, (3) the person must already be in a state of grace through perfect contrition, and (4) he must resolve to go to confession as soon as possible." If four conditions - not 1 or 2 or 3 or 4. But all 4 together.

 

[DeniseNY]

If a person is truly committed to going to confession right away in his Act of Contrition, Jesus would want us to receive Him

Can you please cite a Church source that states this? Because right now, it seems only like opinion.

 

[Nigel7]

Partaking in the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin is to desecrate the body of Christ, and heaps the judgement of GOD upon that person.
Confessing our sins in the sacrament of Reconciliation beforehand and receiving absolution provides us the assurance that that’s not going to happen.
This is serious business. The most serious business.

 

[Dovekin]

“In any case, I hope his Excellency’s office isvigorously pursuing the question as to what happened to the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord last seen headed toward a politician’s pocket.”

Bishops may not be experts in canon law, but they are the lawgivers, particularly in cases like this one which says bishops or conferences are to decide. The canonist knows that his opinion is not binding; the bishop knows his is binding.

In 1972, the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity addressed the question of “urgent neccesity” in what would become canon 844:

Apart from danger of death, the Directory mentions two examples, people in prison and those suffering persecution, but it then speaks of “other cases of such urgent necessity.” Such cases are not confined to situations of suffering and danger. Christians may find themselves in grave spiritual necessity and with no chance of recourse to their own community. For example, in our time, which is one of large-scale movements of population, it can happen much more often than before that non-Catholic Christians are scattered in Catholic regions. They are often deprived of the help of their own communion and unable to get in touch with it except at great trouble and expense. If the conditions set out in the Directory are verified, they can be admitted to eucharistic communion, but it will be for the bishop to consider each case.

 

[Fauken]

Bishops may not be experts in canon law, but they are the lawgivers, particularly in cases like this one which says bishops or conferences are to decide. The canonist knows that his opinion is not binding; the bishop knows his is binding.

In 1972, the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity addressed the question of “urgent neccesity” in what would become canon 844:

I’m pretty sure Dr. Peters is aware that diocese may have their particular canons. And either way, what canonical necessity was there with the non-Catholic Prime Minister pocketing the Blessed Sacrament?

 

[Dovekin]

I’m pretty sure Dr. Peters is aware that diocese may have their particular canons. And either way, what canonical necessity was there with the non-Catholic Prime Minister pocketing the Blessed Sacrament?

Canon law says “if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it…” The official commentary I just posted says:

If the conditions set out in the Directory are verified, they can be admitted to eucharistic communion, but it will be for the bishop to consider each case.

I don’t know what “grave neccesity urges” this action. I tend to agree with Peters that it was not applied correctly. The range of “grave neccesity” is greater than just imoending death. Whatever we think about those things, the law says it is the bishop who decides.

 

[Fauken]

I don’t know what “grave neccesity urges” this action. I tend to agree with Peters that it was not applied correctly. The range of “grave neccesity” is greater than just imoending death. Whatever we think about those things, the law says it is the bishop who decides.

The Bishop is not allowed to let someone walk with off with the Blessed Sacrament in their pants pocket. The Prime Minister didn’t intend to receive it seems.

 

[OraLabora]

The fact the line is too long does not constitute grave reason

The Church doesn’t specify the definition of “grave”. She leaves that, prudentially, to prudential judgement. A long line might not seem “grave” but consider, say, someone who is doing a dangerous job and is going on shift after Mass, with confessions being heard before Mass as it is where I attend Mass.

It’s one of those areas where we best leave it to individual conscience and focus on our own preparations for the Eucharist.

To answer the OP’s question, nothing “happens”. Until one’s day of reckoning. And a merciful God will surely take into consideration the ignorance of someone not expected to know better.

 

[OraLabora]

But there is room for extraordinary circumstances (a grave reason means “danger of death” ).

Could you point specifically to the Canon that defines “grave reason” as danger of death? Or is this a theological opinion?

The priest was very much wrong to do this.

This might be a US thing. I’ve been to lots of funerals, as our schola sings at them. I have never once heard a priest advise those present on the “rules” for receiving communion. Of course here the population is nominally at least, about 80% Catholic. Still, it’s just not done.

 

[SeraficLeo]

Grave reason just means danger of death. And the Canon follows the Catechism of the Church not the other way around.

 

[Prodigal1984]

Well technically the Church teaches that because Orthodox and a couple other smaller churches have basically the same view of the Eucharist, they are allowed.
It isn’t really like the Church trying to exclude anyone. It is more that someone who doesn’t understand what it represents in the Catholic Church and receives is more or less possibly bringing sin on themselves. It is sacrilege. No Catholic except those in a state of grace should be receiving.

 

[meltzerboy2]

I don’t believe one obtains grace FROM the Eucharist but rather it is the other way around: one must BE in a state of grace to partake of the Eucharist. Catholics, correct me if I’m wrong about the first part.