Who May Receive the Eucharist?

[Fergal]

Avoidance of scandal at the Altar of the Lord is all important. If the one receiving knows they are in mortal sin and still come to receive, then I do not believe that the EMHC can deny the recipient even if the EMCH knows they are in mortal sin.

Likewise if a body knows they are in mortal sin and happen to discover that only two of the faithful are present for Holy Mass as is the case in some early morning masses in Convents, then they are advised to go and receive having made an act of perfect contrition with the intention of going to sacramental cofession a soon as is possible before hand. It avoids scandal on the side of the recipient.

Avoidance of scandal goes both ways you know.

 

[Brendan]

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.

They may only do so if they have made a Act of Perfect Contrition, which carries with it the obligation to obtain Sacramental Absolution at the next reasonable opportunity.

 

[Brendan]

Fergal:

Avoidance of scandal goes both ways you know.

Exactly.

If a priest knows that someone is in mortal sin, but such knowledge is not publically known, the priest has the obligation to offer the Eucharist to the person in question. They have a right under Canon Law, as they are not barred by Law.

Likewise, if there is someone in grave public sin, who presents himself, the priest has the duty to protect the Sacrament and deny it. This person is barred by Law from recieving the Sacrament and thus has no Right to recieve, while the priest has a duty to the Sacrament itself.

 

[palmas85]

I am completely intrigued at this point. Maybe someone can answer me, please. I was taught that to receive Holy Communion while in a state of Moratl Sin was a sacrilige. I was also thaught that while you could receive and would receive both the Body and Blood, you would receive none of the graces associated with communion. Knowing that, why would someone, who knowingly has a mortal sin on their sould present themself for Holy Communion?

I’m sorry, but it just doesn’t make any sense. What not just got o confession?

 

[Freeway4321]

palmas85:

I am completely intrigued at this point. Maybe someone can answer me, please. I was taught that to receive Holy Communion while in a state of Moratl Sin was a sacrilige. I was also thaught that while you could receive and would receive both the Body and Blood, you would receive none of the graces associated with communion. Knowing that, why would someone, who knowingly has a mortal sin on their sould present themself for Holy Communion?

I’m sorry, but it just doesn’t make any sense. What not just got o confession?

It is a sacrilege. And I believe you are correct about not receiving graces if you are in a state of Mortal Sin. Someone can clear that up if i’m wrong as well…

Why don’t people just go to confession? Many Reasons. I believe it was Fr. Angelus Shaughnessy that recently said in a homily “It seems like everyone goes up for communion on Sunday, but you should see the confession lines on Saturday” Human respect has alot to do with it. Sad situation…

 

[Tantum_ergo]

How do you KNOW that you have made a PERFECT act of contrition?

I am taking this right from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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

Nothing about perfect acts of contrition, which are not only just about impossible for us to be sure of, but which in any case involve being in danger of DEATH, not just at our regular Sunday mass and WANTING to receive communion.

 

[rayne89]

I don’t think it’s the Extraordinary ministers duty or right to be refusing communion. A priest I believe has that right if he choses to use it but not a lay person. (Such as in the case of a Catholic public figure scandalizing the faithful by his public disent of church teaching.)

I agree I do not know how EMHC could definatively know the state of a person’s soul. And I don’t think it’s in their job description to try to figure that out either.

 

[allhers]

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.

did everybody read this? this whole thing became something other than what was originally asked.

 

[Brendan]

Tantum ergo:

How do you KNOW that you have made a PERFECT act of contrition?

I am taking this right from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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

Nothing about perfect acts of contrition, which are not only just about impossible for us to be sure of, but which in any case involve being in danger of DEATH, not just at our regular Sunday mass and WANTING to receive communion.

It’s an incredibly difficult bar to reach, (that’s why we have confession)

From New Advent Catholic Encylopedia

Perfect contrition, with the desire of receiving the Sacrament of Penance, restores the sinner to grace at once. This is certainly the teaching of the Scholastic doctors (Peter Lombard in P.L., CXCII, 885; St. Thomas, In Lib. Sent. IV, ibid.; St. Bonaventure, In Lib. Sent. IV, ibid.).

In the interest of space, I’m not going to paste the whole section, but read the section entitled “Perfect Contrition without the Sacrament”

newadvent.org/cathen/04337a.htm

The biggest problem is that, while possible, one can never be really sure one’s contrition is perfect, so, unlike Confession, the Absolution is not a given.

This route, btw, is the only way, other than their initial Baptism, that our Protestant brothers can have their sins forgiven. So pray for them.

 

[Brendan]

rayne89:

I don’t think it’s the Extraordinary ministers duty or right to be refusing communion. A priest I believe has that right if he choses to use it but not a lay person. (Such as in the case of a Catholic public figure scandalizing the faithful by his public disent of church teaching.)

I agree I do not know how EMHC could definatively know the state of a person’s soul. And I don’t think it’s in their job description to try to figure that out either.

First of all, you are correct, an EMHC should only refuse Communion under the instruction of a priest.

Secondly, EWTN is not saying anything about having to know the state of anothers soul. It is public actions that warrent the refusal of Communion. Public Acts are, by definition, public and known.

Communion and only can be refused when a person PUBLICLY manifests grave sin.

No judgements on the state of a soul are required or desired.

 

[Confiteor]

Brendan:

First of all, you are correct, an EMHC should only refuse Communion under the instruction of a priest.

Secondly, EWTN is not saying anything about having to know the state of anothers soul. It is public actions that warrent the refusal of Communion. Public Acts are, by definition, public and known.

Communion and only can be refused when a person PUBLICLY manifests grave sin.

No judgements on the state of a soul are required or desired.

From the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and
others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.

First, I emphasize with bishops, priests, deacons, and EMHC who have this responsibility. I would not want it and most EMHC don’t seem to. (This is one reason why the proliferation of EMHCs seems like a bad idea to me.)

Second, for the ordained, it seems to be part of the responsibility they take on. Thomas Aquinas said no Eucharist should be permitted by the PRIEST to public sinners —no mention of a bishop in his response. (And of course, his era did not have EMHCs.) Canon law also requires denial to those “who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin.” While this may require communication between the pastor and the communicant, it does not mention the bishop having to make a declaration…Granted, like Cardinal McCarrick, many clergy are uncomfortable doing so, but Christ did not call them to be comfortable.

 

[palmas85]

allhers:

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.

did everybody read this? this whole thing became something other than what was originally asked.

True, but the question still remains, why would someone in a state of mortal sin try to receive in the first place? That is the real question and from what I’ve read some real catechisis needs to be done on this issue.

 

[Pug]

ICXCNIKA:

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.

I’d say all three are probably incorrect, depending on all their underlying assumptions. If you are in a state of mortal sin and have not gone to confession and you don’t have a grave reason, well, then don’t go up to receive communion until you get to confession. It is not a grave reason that you missed the priest in the box right before 5:00 mass. It is a grave reason if you are about to be shot dead. In the latter case, make a perfect act of contrition and receive (assuming confession is unavailable).

I would be quite surprised if an EMHC refused to give you communion. If this happened to you, I’m terribly sorry! It can cause a person much harm to be refused wrongfully.

Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

 

[allhers]

palmas85:

allhers:

True, but the question still remains, why would someone in a state of mortal sin try to receive in the first place? That is the real question and from what I’ve read some real catechisis needs to be done on this issue.

True, it sure does.

 

[Freeway4321]

Council of Trent
The Thirteenth Session

“Canon XI.—If any one saith, that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist: anathema sit. And for fear lest so great a sacrament may be received unworthily, and so unto death and condemnation, this holy Synod ordains and declares, that sacramental confession, when a confessor may be had, is of necessity to be made beforehand, by those whose conscience is burthened with mortal sin, how contrite even soever they may think themselves. But if any one shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be eo ipso excommunicated.”

So… where are the excommunications?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Freeway4321:

Council of Trent
The Thirteenth Session

“Canon XI.—If any one saith, that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist: anathema sit. And for fear lest so great a sacrament may be received unworthily, and so unto death and condemnation, this holy Synod ordains and declares, that sacramental confession, when a confessor may be had, is of necessity to be made beforehand, by those whose conscience is burthened with mortal sin, how contrite even soever they may think themselves. But if any one shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be eo ipso excommunicated.”

So… where are the excommunications?

This canon is no longer in force. If it were, all Eastern Catholics would be excommunicated since we practice the traditional sequence of baptism, chrismation/confirmation and eucharist, and even do this for infants. Confession is not one of the sacraments of initiation so it really has no role there unless one has messed with the traditional sequence. Even today the Latin Church knows this and the sequence for people going through the RCIA is baptism, confirmation and eucharist. There is no need for confession when done in this sequence since, unless the person is really active, all sins were forgiven by baptism and therefore there is no need for confession before going to communion.

Deacon Ed

 

[Brendan]

Freeway4321:

Council of Trent
The Thirteenth Session

"Canon XI.—If any one saith, that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist: anathema sit.

If I ever convince my wife to get a dog, I’m going to name it ‘anathema’; just so I can use that line

 

[Freeway4321]

Deacon Ed:

This canon is no longer in force. If it were, all Eastern Catholics would be excommunicated since we practice the traditional sequence of baptism, chrismation/confirmation and eucharist, and even do this for infants. Confession is not one of the sacraments of initiation so it really has no role there unless one has messed with the traditional sequence. Even today the Latin Church knows this and the sequence for people going through the RCIA is baptism, confirmation and eucharist. There is no need for confession when done in this sequence since, unless the person is really active, all sins were forgiven by baptism and therefore there is no need for confession before going to communion.

Deacon Ed

Ah, thankss for the knowledge, Deacon. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif

 

[Freeway4321]

Brendan:

If I ever convince my wife to get a dog, I’m going to name it ‘anathema’; just so I can use that line

Hahaha! I appreciate the “anathema sit”. We ought to see it more often… when needed of course.