Who May Receive the Eucharist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ICXCNIKA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

ICXCNIKA

Guest
This evening I was watching an EWTN conference from Denver. A woman in the audience asked about giving the Eucharist to people known to be in mortal sin. The woman is an Extra-Ordinary Minsiter (Although she called herself a Eucharistic Minister) and wanted to know what she should do when someone approached to receive the Eucharist whom she knew to be in mortal sin. The priest’s answer was that she should tell it to the priest and that the priest should approach the person and explain to the person the seriousness of confessing sins before receiving. He went on to tell the woman that if the priest did nothing about it that she should refuse to give communion to someone she knew to be in mortal sin.

Perhaps someone can correct me, but this seems to over-step our bounds. Isn’t the woman making a judgement on the condition of someone else’s soul?

In 1 Corinthians chapter 11 Paul teaches us that “whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.”

It seems to me that the examination is a personal one. It doesn’t seem proper to let lay people make a judgement about the condition of someone else’s soul.

When I first returned to the Church I was told that if I was in mortal sin, but sorry for it and didn’t go to confession, during the part of the Mass when we say “I am not worthy to receive you, but say the word and I shall be healed” that our mortal sins are forgiven. Later I was told that if I am in mortal sin, and truly sorry for it, but can’t make it to confession, but intend to go, I can receive the Eucharist and I am forgiven, as long as I go to confession later. And finally I have been told that if I am in mortal sin, I must not recieve at all until I’ve gone to the sacrament of reconciliation.

So imagine someone in my ignorant state, truly sorry for sin, going up to receive communion, but being refused by an Extra-ordinary Minister because she knows I’m in mortal sin.
 
40.png
ICXCNIKA:
This evening I was watching an EWTN conference from Denver. A woman in the audience asked about giving the Eucharist to people known to be in mortal sin. The woman is an Extra-Ordinary Minsiter (Although she called herself a Eucharistic Minister) and wanted to know what she should do when someone approached to receive the Eucharist whom she knew to be in mortal sin. The priest’s answer was that she should tell it to the priest and that the priest should approach the person and explain to the person the seriousness of confessing sins before receiving. He went on to tell the woman that if the priest did nothing about it that she should refuse to give communion to someone she knew to be in mortal sin.

Perhaps someone can correct me, but this seems to over-step our bounds. Isn’t the woman making a judgement on the condition of someone else’s soul?

In 1 Corinthians chapter 11 Paul teaches us that “whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.”

It seems to me that the examination is a personal one. It doesn’t seem proper to let lay people make a judgement about the condition of someone else’s soul.

When I first returned to the Church I was told that if I was in mortal sin, but sorry for it and didn’t go to confession, during the part of the Mass when we say “I am not worthy to receive you, but say the word and I shall be healed” that our mortal sins are forgiven. Later I was told that if I am in mortal sin, and truly sorry for it, but can’t make it to confession, but intend to go, I can receive the Eucharist and I am forgiven, as long as I go to confession later. And finally I have been told that if I am in mortal sin, I must not recieve at all until I’ve gone to the sacrament of reconciliation.

So imagine someone in my ignorant state, truly sorry for sin, going up to receive communion, but being refused by an Extra-ordinary Minister because she knows I’m in mortal sin.
Click to expand...
If an Extraordinary Minister knows a person to be in a state of mortal sin then I would imagine tthat particular person is also aware of it. If they know themselves to be in a state of mortal sin they are supposed to know that they cannot receicve Holy Communion. It is a very simple answer. Go to confession first, or reconciliation if you prefer, and avoid the problem.
 
How could one know another to be in a state of mortal sin?
Unless the person shot someone on the way to Communion, is there not the possibility they used the Confessional beforehand?

I could see informing that person before Mass or when they come up that, If in known mortal sin without repentance, they should not recieve… But other than that, how can we know?
Even if the Priest at the Mass was confessed to by this person, would he not be able to say so due to the Seal of Confession?
Just curious like the OP
 
40.png
ICXCNIKA:
This evening I was watching an EWTN conference from Denver. A woman in the audience asked about giving the Eucharist to people known to be in mortal sin. The woman is an Extra-Ordinary Minsiter (Although she called herself a Eucharistic Minister) and wanted to know what she should do when someone approached to receive the Eucharist whom she knew to be in mortal sin. The priest’s answer was that she should tell it to the priest and that the priest should approach the person and explain to the person the seriousness of confessing sins before receiving. He went on to tell the woman that if the priest did nothing about it that she should refuse to give communion to someone she knew to be in mortal sin.

What if she knew the person personally and the person told her on the way to Mass? What if it were a relative, friend, etc…someone that you knew well and that you knew that they had not gone to confession? That would be one way she would know, further, what if she informed the one who claimed to be in mortal sin that she was not to approach and explained to her why and the other said, “oh, but I am really sorry”, (like you were incorrectly told, as I will address below.) After explaining it all and the person still approached, the proper thing to do would be to tell the Priest after Mass, not during. Let him talk to them, you don’t say anything after that. Unless of course they approached again and still you knew that they had not repented, then you refuse. This is the Church’s teaching, not just someone’s opinion.

Perhaps someone can correct me, but this seems to over-step our bounds. Isn’t the woman making a judgement on the condition of someone else’s soul?
You’re not making a judgement when you know something to be true.

In 1 Corinthians chapter 11 Paul teaches us that “whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.”
Take particular note of the part that says this:…“shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord”. Now, why would their be such a harsh saying as this if it were not really Jesus Himself, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity? Why wouldn’t you want someone to really know and understand this and not put their immortal soul at risk by acting like it didn’t matter?

It seems to me that the examination is a personal one. It doesn’t seem proper to let lay people make a judgement about the condition of someone else’s soul.
See what I said above They are suppose to be confessing to a Priest, not you!!

When I first returned to the Church I was told that if I was in mortal sin, but sorry for it and didn’t go to confession, during the part of the Mass when we say “I am not worthy to receive you, but say the word and I shall be healed” that our mortal sins are forgiven. Later I was told that if I am in mortal sin, and truly sorry for it, but can’t make it to confession, but intend to go, I can receive the Eucharist and I am forgiven, as long as I go to confession later.

And finally I have been told that if I am in mortal sin, I must not recieve at all until I’ve gone to the sacrament of reconciliation.

The one above that I highlighted in blue is the correct one.

So imagine someone in my ignorant state, truly sorry for sin, going up to receive communion, but being refused by an Extra-ordinary Minister because she knows I’m in mortal sin.
Click to expand...
I would appreciate it if I were in the state of mortal sin and I was ignorant of the teachings of the Catholic Church if someone would refuse me and have the Priest talk to me later. Then I would repent and never do that again. Wouldn’t you? I mean look, if you aren’t going to repent and you understand that it is really Jesus, then why would you want to receive in that state? To be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord, do you know what that means?
 
40.png
CatholicCid:
How could one know another to be in a state of mortal sin?
Unless the person shot someone on the way to Communion, is there not the possibility they used the Confessional beforehand?

I could see informing that person before Mass or when they come up that, If in known mortal sin without repentance, they should not recieve… But other than that, how can we know?
Even if the Priest at the Mass was confessed to by this person, would he not be able to say so due to the Seal of Confession?Just curious like the OP
Click to expand...
I would imagine that if there were any possibility at all that the person had gone to confession right before Mass that the person would then just walk over to the Priest’s line and receive if they were refused by someone else. I mean, that’s what I would do if someone made that call on me and I knew that I had just gone to confession, (guess that is one of the benefits of face-to-face, he would remember me then and I could receive, right?) Now if you had not gone face to face, I would imagine the Holy Spirit would inform the Priest, (this one I’m guessing at, I really don’t know what happens in this case, that is a good question here isn’t it?) In any case, if you weren’t repentant (hadn’t gone to confession, hadn’t been sorry, and hadn’t cared enough to find out the truth, then perhaps this is where you would be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.)
The seal of the confession means that the Priest cannot reveal what sins you confessed, not that he can’t inform someone that it’s alright for you to receive. You know that part where Jesus said, “Go and sin no more?!” He meant that. This is why you are to always be ready, why not go to confession every two weeks or so the way the Church suggests? God’s grace is sufficient for you, and the Saints recommened daily confession if necessary. Repentance is necessary, no repentance, no mercy.
 
40.png
allhers:
I would appreciate it if I were in the state of mortal sin and I was ignorant of the teachings of the Catholic Church if someone would refuse me and have the Priest talk to me later. Then I would repent and never do that again. Wouldn’t you? I mean look, if you aren’t going to repent and you understand that it is really Jesus, then why would you want to receive in that state? To be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord, do you know what that means?
Click to expand...
Maybe I’m dense, but how could you not know that you were in a state of mortal sin? I mean, I would, and I’m not that smart. And I know that if I’m in a state of mortal sin, I’m not supposed to receive Holy Communion.
 
A few of my observations about the EWTN Anniversary show.

I always found it funny that whenever there is a Q&A on EWTN no matter what show it is, people complain about liturgical abuses to whoever the person may be.

Father Charles Connor said some really interesting things.

He went on for some time about how in the 1950s the church was in great shape (and all the stuff we hear from those who say Vatican II was needed?), and EWTN is needed now but wasnt needed then (not that they wouldnt watch it if it was on back then). He also said he sees the church shrinking to a small pure church.

The Masses were disapointing. The background of the mass gave me bad flashbacks of those pictures from when Cardinal Mahony had all those liturgical dancers (and all those liturgical abuses - the pictures were posted in a thread).

Clapping during the mass even if it’s the homily is bothersome. It’s worship friends… Other than that it wasn’t too bad. And i’m always up for seeing the Nuns and Archbishop Chaput.

Regarding what is being discussed, I found this aggravating and annoying (as usual). I think if the woman knows (and we should assume she knows something more than the average parishioner) it’s pretty obvious what should be done!
 
40.png
palmas85:
Maybe I’m dense, but how could you not know that you were in a state of mortal sin? I mean, I would, and I’m not that smart. And I know that if I’m in a state of mortal sin, I’m not supposed to receive Holy Communion.
Click to expand...
The point isn’t necessarily if someone is in the state of mortal sin, but if he is sorry for his sin. For intance, I’ve received the Eucharist when I knew I was in mortal sin, but sorry, because I was told that if I was truly sorry, but couldn’t make it to confession, I could receive. So what else was I supposed to think?

I certainly don’t want an Extra-ordianry minister making that judgement for me.

Imagine: A man and a woman are living together. Everyone in the Church knows they are. Then they decide to get married and are convicted of the sinfulness of their living arrangement. They both go to confession. They decide to stop having sex and sleep in separate rooms until their marriage. But of course, they don’t tell anyone else about that. So they go to Mass next Sunday but the Extra-ordianry minister knows they are living in sin and refuses them communion.

My wife and I lived in the same house before we were married. I and my oldest son lived in one room and she lived in another. This is not an arrangment that I would discuss with Joe Extra-Ordinary Minsiter. What right does he have to Judge me? Paul says we should judge ourselves.
 
My husband and I are not married in the church, yet. Many people know this. Yet many people also see me Receiving Communion everyday. What not all of them know though is that we live a celibate life and have for the past year and a half. We plan on being married in the church, my husband is just a little slow on his annulment paperwork.

If one is in mortal sin and truly sorry for thier sin, a perfect Act of Contrition is all that is necessary to go to communion as long as they intend to go to confession as soon as possible.

Also, if one truly does not know if they have commited a mortal sin, they did not know it was mortal, then it is not a mortal sin. Mortal sin requires full knowledge.

Personally, I think the only way that she could refuse someone w/o judging herself would be if she knew someone was not a Catholic.
 
40.png
ICXCNIKA:
The point isn’t necessarily if someone is in the state of mortal sin, but if he is sorry for his sin. For intance, I’ve received the Eucharist when I knew I was in mortal sin, but sorry, because I was told that if I was truly sorry, but couldn’t make it to confession, I could receive. So what else was I supposed to think?

I certainly don’t want an Extra-ordianry minister making that judgement for me.

Imagine: A man and a woman are living together. Everyone in the Church knows they are. Then they decide to get married and are convicted of the sinfulness of their living arrangement. They both go to confession. They decide to stop having sex and sleep in separate rooms until their marriage. But of course, they don’t tell anyone else about that. So they go to Mass next Sunday but the Extra-ordianry minister knows they are living in sin and refuses them communion.

My wife and I lived in the same house before we were married. I and my oldest son lived in one room and she lived in another. This is not an arrangment that I would discuss with Joe Extra-Ordinary Minsiter. What right does he have to Judge me? Paul says we should judge ourselves.
Click to expand...
I may be wrong, but I don’t think your being sorry is enough. I mean, you would still be receiving the body and blood but NOT the graces that come with it. And if I am not mistaken you would be commiting a sacrilige also. So I would have to ask, why would you want to do it? I know you want to know if the Extraordinary Minister would be wrong to single you out. But if they know you are in a state of Mortal Sin, wouldn’t you know it as well? I mean lets be real here. So why would you attempt to receive when you know you are not worthy? It makes absolutely no sense at all to be in that position.
 
i find it hard to believe that any eucharistic minister and or priest knows what is in a person’s heart. i think it is pompous for an individual to be refused communion by anyone. this person should be concentrating of distributing the eucharist to the faithful and not judging the procession line.

on a side note, i know of some non catholics who have received communion and although i do not totally agree, i am not the monitor and only God knows what is in our hearts. i try and concentrate on my spiritual experiance during mass and not what others are doing.
 
40.png
jeanine:
i find it hard to believe that any eucharistic minister and or priest knows what is in a person’s heart. i think it is pompous for an individual to be refused communion by anyone. this person should be concentrating of distributing the eucharist to the faithful and not judging the procession line.
Click to expand...
Jeanine, neither the priest nor the extraordinary minister can judge a heart, but they can judge actions.

The Church lays down criteria for the reception of Communion. And one of those is manifest, grave, sin.

By definiton, a manifest sin is one that is publically known.

If an EMHC happens to privately know of a person’s sin, they are still to offer the Eucharist. The person in question might be commintting a grave sin by recieving the Eucharist, but they may not be,

In our diocese, an EMHC can only refuse the Eucharist when directed so by a priest. The priest, as confessor, has a better idea of the spiritual state of his flock.

But the obligation to refuse the Eucharist is still retained by the Church, and for very good reason.

The Eucharist is only beneficial for those who are in a state to recieve it. It is a HUGE disrespect to Christ, and damaging to one’s soul to recieve it when one is NOT a Catholic in a state of Grace.
on a side note, i know of some non catholics who have received communion and although i do not totally agree, i am not the monitor and only God knows what is in our hearts
Click to expand...
And this includes non Catholics as well. If they are non-Catholics, by definition, what is in their hearts is a rejection of Christ’s Bride, the Church. They are going up to the altar and lying in front of Christ. Such False reception of the Eucharist kills their soul. Why should any priest participate in that?
 
I’m an ordinary, overused EMHC and a sinner. I have never refused the Eucharist to anyone, not even to individuals who’s state of Grace was known to me to be unquestionably ‘unprepared’. As other posters indicated, they could be fresh out of the confessional, or I could simply be wrong. Either way, I don’t see where I, a miserable sinner, could ever refuse anyone. That’s way beyond my pay-grade.

I appreciated Confiteor’s link to St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, “Whether the priest ought to deny the body of Christ to the sinner seeking it?” St. Thomas Aquinas seems to differentiate between the ‘secret’ and the ‘open’ sinners. It appears that the secret sinner should be given the body of Christ and the open sinner should be denied. I suppose if I were faced with a Kerry or Kennedy type, open and notorious supporters of abortion, homosexual ‘marriage’ and so on, I would just instruct them to get in Father’s line and let him decide what to do.
 
40.png
palmas85:
I may be wrong, but I don’t think your being sorry is enough. I mean, you would still be receiving the body and blood but NOT the graces that come with it. And if I am not mistaken you would be commiting a sacrilige also. So I would have to ask, why would you want to do it? I know you want to know if the Extraordinary Minister would be wrong to single you out. But if they know you are in a state of Mortal Sin, wouldn’t you know it as well? I mean lets be real here. So why would you attempt to receive when you know you are not worthy? It makes absolutely no sense at all to be in that position.
Click to expand...
As I mentioned in my first post, I was told, sometime ago, that if a person is truly sorry for their sins, but was not able to make it to confession, one could receive the Eucharist.

An EM may think he knows I’m in a state of mortal sin, and not know if I am indeed in a state of mortal sin.
 
Canon law accurately reflects the teaching of Aquinas on this point. A Catholic is not to be denied any sacrament if he or she requests the sacrament and is not barred from the reception of the sacrament by the appropriate authority.

The premise of the question, however, bothers me. No one can know the state of another’s soul except the priest to whom the soul is bared in confession! All we can judge is the objective action, we cannot know if the action is, in fact, sinful nor can we know if the individual has gone to confession.

Deacon Ed
 
40.png
palmas85:
Maybe I’m dense, but how could you not know that you were in a state of mortal sin? I mean, I would, and I’m not that smart. And I know that if I’m in a state of mortal sin, I’m not supposed to receive Holy Communion.
Click to expand...
Speaking as an ex-cafeteria Catholic: It’s easy.

The Cafeteria Catholics find the supporting literature for their opposition to particular Church teachings from Catholic sources (there are several priests, bishops, lay ‘specialists’ who share their views and publish their opinions).

Having ‘read up’ on an issue, they have a clear conscience about their positions because they believe it is ‘informed’ so they honestly believe they are not in a state of mortal sin.

This is also the reason Cafeteria Catholics resent being called Cafeteria. They do not see themselves as rejecting Church teaching at all. They consider themselves more fully educated about the matter, looking at conservative and liberal Catholic sources and then choosing the side which, to them, best presents Church teaching.

Scary, huh?
 
40.png
ICXCNIKA:
As I mentioned in my first post, I was told, sometime ago, that if a person is truly sorry for their sins, but was not able to make it to confession, one could receive the Eucharist.

An EM may think he knows I’m in a state of mortal sin, and not know if I am indeed in a state of mortal sin.
Click to expand...
Well, of course, they have to immediately follow up on that intention.
If they miss the next opportunity for confession, then that’s a bad thing. I don’t know what the consequence is, though…what happens if the person takes 5 months to finally make it to reconciliation to finally make the confession of that one particular sin they ‘intended’ to confess ‘at the next opportunity’???

But certainly, this is a good example of why a priest or EM cannot presume to know the intention of the person seeking the sacrament of communion. It’s quite possible that person will show up on the following Wednesday or Saturday for a full confession.
 
Deacon Ed:
.

The premise of the question, however, bothers me. No one can know the state of another’s soul except the priest to whom the soul is bared in confession! All we can judge is the objective action, we cannot know if the action is, in fact, sinful nor can we know if the individual has gone to confession.

Deacon Ed
Click to expand...
The premise is quite valid and should be discussed Deacon.

The Church has a Duty to protect the Sacrament, and this include from Scandal.

You correctly noted that the Church cannot deny the Sacraments to anyone, but forgot the qualifier " who are not otherwise barred by Law"

There is a requirement not only to be in the state of Grace (the knowledge of one’s soul you mentioned) but not to be in public sin either.

Canon Law bars those who are in manifest, grave sin from receiving the Eucharist. And rightly so, to safeguard the Sanctity of the Sacrament from Scandal.

And the appropriate authority there is the pastor in charge of that soul or the bishop of the diocese.
 
40.png
Brendan:
The premise is quite valid and should be discussed Deacon.

The Church has a Duty to protect the Sacrament, and this include from Scandal.

You correctly noted that the Church cannot deny the Sacraments to anyone, but forgot the qualifier " who are not otherwise barred by Law"

There is a requirement not only to be in the state of Grace (the knowledge of one’s soul you mentioned) but not to be in public sin either.

Canon Law bars those who are in manifest, grave sin from receiving the Eucharist. And rightly so, to safeguard the Sanctity of the Sacrament from Scandal.

And the appropriate authority there is the pastor in charge of that soul or the bishop of the diocese.
Click to expand...
Brendan,

I actually said “A Catholic is not to be denied any sacrament if he or she requests the sacrament and is not barred from the reception of the sacrament by the appropriate authority.” Certainly canon law would be an “appropriate authority.” The determination of an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion is not, however, an appropriate authority (nor, in fact, is that of a deacon or priest). Only the bishop can declare someone a “manifest sinner” which would merit public denial of the sacraments.

While the question may be of some esoteric validity, it is certainly not something that can be answered on this board as there is no way that any of us (unless the alleged sinner’s bishop happens to be on this board) can resolve or answer.

In short, unless the bishop of a diocese has publically denied communion to an individual the all ministers of Holy Communion are obliged to give communion to someone regardless of what we may think we know.

BTW, in my diocese the former bishop denied one of our politicians communion and that has not been revoked. The former governor of California (Kalifornia?) has been denied communion by his bishop as well – and I haven’t heard of that being revoked. So, it does happen, but it’s very rare.

Deacon Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top