Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
True, but they don’t have to.
- Status
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Not from a legalistic point of view. But from a spiritual point of view, yes you have to. Isn’t our objective in life is to be in perfect communion with God? Its starts by having the Eucharist everyday in fact. I think its healthier to look at the goal rather than what the minimum is. We tend to go where we’re looking
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
This thread is about the legalistic side of it, though, as per the OP.
Are we now not allowed to have threads about requirements? To receive more often, provided you’re disposed, is infinitely better. I wholeheartedly agree. But it isn’t a requirement, which is what this is about.
B
Brendan
Guest
Actually Mass is supposed to be said continously, which would, of course, include the Eucharist
Malachi 1:11
Malachi 1:11
The only truely Pure offering is Christ Himself.
F
fred_conty
Guest
The reason why some only receive Him in Holy communion once a year, while others receive Him once a week, while others receive Him every day, is that their appreciation of Him varies in their faith(sight) and charity(love).
Holy Communion has been called the sacrament of Love.
Holy Communion has been called the sacrament of Love.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I don’t think so. The OP was asking about Jesus’ institution of the Eucharist and weekly reception, not the canon law or discipline behind it. Although I’m not surprised that the thread turned into another canon law discussion.
Its not about what is allowed or what. Its just focusing on what the OP is asking.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Apostolic Tradition, ECFs written into the Bible in John. The entire Bible OT/NT is the Liturgy of the Mass. Christ changed the Sacifice to Himself.My husband was a Baptist and now he claims to just be a Christian…must be all the praying and rosaries I do for his conversion
Anyway…he wants to know how can Catholics be sure that Jesus instituted the Eucharist to be taken every single week. And why he would require us to take Eucharist every single week. Usually, I’m pretty quick in my answers but I kind of came up blank on this one…I told him I would get back with him.
Thanks in advance and God bless
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
As per the OP:
The essential of the question is legalistic, namely that Jesus (thus the Church) requires us to receive communion every week. The Church does not. The OP was having a discussion with her husband. I do not think he would be very convinced if she said, “Well, the Church does tell us that we have to receive Him every week.”
No, to win the argument and possibly help her husband think about converting, a more comprehensive (and partly legalistic) response should be given, such as: “The Church only absolutely requires us to receive communion once per year, and that is all, but it is highly recommended to receive as often as one can, provided he is properly disposed, because receiving communion reaps infinite graces.”
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Read the question carefully, the OP asked “why Jesus instituted…” so it means its a matter of the institution of the Sacrament, not the discipline behind it. Its the same way one can ask why Jesus used bread and wine and not, say, rice and orange juice.
Also from a juridic point of view, “requires” means “do it or there is a consequence”. But Jesus objective is to create for us a dependence on the Eucharist to sustain our lives, but not the earthly, physical life but the partaking of the life of God. So He is requiring us to eat His flesh and drink His blood, he said so in the bread of life discourse. And there is a consequence for not doing so, “he hath no life in him.”
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
The main point I take from the question is the “to be taken…” part. I suppose we can disagree. If the main point was, “Why did he institute the Eucharist,” then it would be a completely different question altogether.
J
Jean_Anthony
Guest
Please don’t take the thread off topic. Please focus on answering the OP’s questions. Thank you all.
E
Evan
Guest
The commandment says ‘Keep Holy the Lord’s Day’ [or that is how we read it today]. There is no better way to keep the day holy than to receive him Body and Soul in the Eucharist.
In the Acts of the Apostles, in Paul’s Epistles, the reception of the Eucharist (Breaking of the Bread) occurred on Sundays [weekly]
In the ECF, the description of what occurred on Sundays was the Eucharist. We have done since the resurrection, and continue as it was also the first act Jesus did on the Sunday he Rose: Road to Emmaus (reading and homily on the road, Eucharist at the house)
In the Acts of the Apostles, in Paul’s Epistles, the reception of the Eucharist (Breaking of the Bread) occurred on Sundays [weekly]
In the ECF, the description of what occurred on Sundays was the Eucharist. We have done since the resurrection, and continue as it was also the first act Jesus did on the Sunday he Rose: Road to Emmaus (reading and homily on the road, Eucharist at the house)
M
mgoforth
Guest
Does no one own a Catechism?
2181 The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor. Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.
This is quite clear…if you’re at Sunday Mass (which is obviously a requirement), you MUST receive the Eucharist, unless you’ve received a dispensation by your own pastor. Of course, in the state of mortal sin we MUST NOT receive the Eucharist until we’ve been to Confession.
So how to reconcile this with the familiar command to receive Communion at least once a year during Easter, as that seems to imply that we don’t have to receive the Eucharist weekly? Here’s the way I see it:
- We must attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation.
- Our souls must be in a state worthy of receiving the Eucharist at least once per year, during Easter.
- If our souls are in that worthy state more often than just once per year, we must receive the Eucharist.
*** If our souls are NOT in that worthy state more often than just once per year, we’re really not trying very hard to utilize the sacrament of Confession and remain free from mortal sin!!**
Bottom line, if you’re at Mass on Sunday, without mortal sin…get your butt up to the front and receive the body of Christ! You are obligated to do so.
S
Sacred_Heart_1
Guest
Yes I reread it and it says during Easter. You are right. But you only have to receive communion once a year, however, the Church encourages people to receive it once a week, even daily if they can.
K
Kielbasi
Guest
Apparently you don’t understand the wording here.
“participating in the Eucharist” means assisting at Mass, not recipiency of communion.
you might find the appropriate canons a bit more clear on this.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
I do, in fact, own a catechism. Admittedly, I am not as familiar with it as I would like, but I know what it says about general topics. Let us examine:
Apparently you aren’t interpreting this correctly. To “participate in the Eucharist” (as commands paragraph 2181) means to be present at mass. That is our obligation. I shall prove this.
The preceding paragraph, 2180, says: “The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day.”
Paragraph 2180 defines what the “precept” of participating in the Mass is, that is, how the precept is satisfied. It says that the precept is satisfied by “assistance at a Mass,” that is, by being present at a Mass. Paragraph 2181 says that on “days of obligation,” that is, Sundays and obligatory Holy Days other than Sunday, the faithful are “obliged to participate in the Eucharist,” that is, to be present at a Mass.
Now, these paragraphs from the Catechism are backed up by Canons from the Codex Iuris Canonici, as is printed in the footnotes of the Catechism. The Canons in question are 1247 and 1248 § 1.
These Canons read:
1247 “On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass.”
1248 § 1 “A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.”
Therefore, the obligation is simply to be present at a Mass, of some rite of the Universal Church, on the day of or on the evening of the day before.
CIC: vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM
M
mgoforth
Guest
I’ll admit that perhaps I’m mistaken…but your argument is less than convincing to me because you’re interchanging the phrases “participate in the Eucharist” and “participate in the Mass”. Of course, the Eucharist is the central focus of the Mass, but my understanding has been that paragraph 2181 is referring specifically to receiving the Eucharist, not being present at the Mass. Could you refer me to something official that supports your position:
Applying 2181 literally to receiving the Eucharist, as I was in my previous post, just seems to make sense logically. When we attend Mass on Sunday or other holy days and are offered the body of our Lord, what reasons could we have for declining to come forward and receive him? Mortal sin is the only reason I’m aware of that would require us to skip it. I know there may be people with gluten allergies or some other conditions I’m not thinking of. But if we’re in essence just saying “Nah, no thanks Lord. I’m ok so I think I’ll just sit this one out. Catch you next week…if I feel like it.” Wow, how disrespectful that really is to the sacrifice Jesus made for us on the cross! Our anticipation should be building during the whole Mass and our hearts should leap for joy when we hear those bells ring and know that it’s almost time to receive the Lord, body and blood, soul and divinity. Again, I would ask…why in the world would we not go up??
So reading it literally as “choosing to not participate in the Eucharist, receiving the Body and/or Blood on holy days when we have no serious reason to refrain = grave sin” makes perfect sense to me.
If I’m wrong, I ask for your patience in helping me understand.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
I don’t have any clue as to why they use separate terms. I don’t quite understand that either. However, it is a commonly known fact that we must receive the Eucharist once per year and that we must go to Mass on Sundays and other Holy Days. That much is supported in Canon Law.
We can’t take those two bare minimums and say, “Well, we have to receive the Eucharist at every Mass.” Canon Law does not make that absolute requirement. It would certainly be good to, provided that you are disposed to receive communion, but it is not required.
Perhaps just an unclear use of terms on the part of the Catechism. I don’t know. I know an old priest who calls it “Mass” for weekdays and “Eucharist” for Sundays. I don’t know why.
We can’t take those two bare minimums and say, “Well, we have to receive the Eucharist at every Mass.” Canon Law does not make that absolute requirement. It would certainly be good to, provided that you are disposed to receive communion, but it is not required.
Perhaps just an unclear use of terms on the part of the Catechism. I don’t know. I know an old priest who calls it “Mass” for weekdays and “Eucharist” for Sundays. I don’t know why.
V
Vico
Guest
CIC
Can. 898 Christ’s faithful are to hold the blessed Eucharist in the highest honour. They should take an active part in the celebration of the most august Sacrifice of the Mass; they should receive the sacrament with great devotion and frequently, and should reverence it with the greatest adoration. In explaining the doctrine of this sacrament, pastors of souls are assiduously to instruct the faithful about their obligation in this regard.
Can. 898 Christ’s faithful are to hold the blessed Eucharist in the highest honour. They should take an active part in the celebration of the most august Sacrifice of the Mass; they should receive the sacrament with great devotion and frequently, and should reverence it with the greatest adoration. In explaining the doctrine of this sacrament, pastors of souls are assiduously to instruct the faithful about their obligation in this regard.
M
mgoforth
Guest
Could be. Thanks for your response. I’d still like to understand why someone wouldn’t receive the Eucharist each week, assuming their soul is in a state of grace? It’s just hard for me to fathom why someone would choose to remain seated and not join in?
I’d like to understand where those folks are coming from.- Status