Why is receiving Eucharist only mandatory once a year?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JMBNH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JMBNH

Guest
Why is receiving Eucharist only mandatory once a year when Mass is weekly (plus Holy Days of Obligation). I can understand why it might not be every week due to unconfessed mortal sins etc. but only once a year doesn’t sound much
 
JMBNH said:
Why is receiving Eucharist only mandatory once a year when Mass is weekly (plus Holy Days of Obligation). I can understand why it might not be every week due to unconfessed mortal sins etc. but only once a year doesn’t sound much
Click to expand...
As I understand it, this law came about when people were more interested in worshiping the Blessed Sacrament than receiving it. People back then didnt go to Communion at all so a law was brought in forcing them to receive at least once a year under penalty of mortal sin if they didnt.
 
In previous days, and not that terribly long ago, most Catholics did not receive communion at every mass.

When I was a kid, the majority stayed in the pews at communion (in the 60s). Receiving communion was even less before the reforms of Pius X a hundred years ago. In the 19th century, prior permission was required before Catholics could approach the altar.

The current rule regarding the Easter Duty, dates from a previous era.
 
JMBNH said:
Why is receiving Eucharist only mandatory once a year when Mass is weekly (plus Holy Days of Obligation). I can understand why it might not be every week due to unconfessed mortal sins etc. but only once a year doesn’t sound much
Click to expand...
Attending Mass on Sundays and Holy Days does not necessarily mean receiving Communion. You can do one without the other. (I like to do both!) —KCT
 
Phemie said:
As I understand it, this law came about when people were more interested in worshiping the Blessed Sacrament than receiving it. People back then didnt go to Communion at all so a law was brought in forcing them to receive at least once a year under penalty of mortal sin if they didnt.
Click to expand...
There was a time laity was not encouraged at all to receive.

To hear mass, that was fine but even after going to confession laity did not regularly receive communion.

There have been periods where priests and religious were the only ones considered ‘worthy’ to receive with any regularity - and for some groups it was seen as an unofficial sign of their ‘higher’ calling.
 
For someone who might live in a remote area for whatever reason, temporary or permanent, where a priest is not available for Mass (think Saudi Arabia or China or any other anti-Catholic region - or even a soldier stationed somewhere where he/she has no access to a Catholic Mass) this allows for an exception to weekly reception of Holy Communion.

The Church aknowledges that for some in the world, it is impossible to receive Holy Communion weekly or even monthly.

Therefore, a yearly requirement is merciful.
 
az_4_faith said:
For someone who might live in a remote area for whatever reason, temporary or permanent, where a priest is not available for Mass (think Saudi Arabia or China or any other anti-Catholic region - or even a soldier stationed somewhere where he/she has no access to a Catholic Mass) this allows for an exception to weekly reception of Holy Communion.

The Church aknowledges that for some in the world, it is impossible to receive Holy Communion weekly or even monthly.

Therefore, a yearly requirement is merciful.
Click to expand...
Weekly requirement is for attending MASS – not for receiving communion.

The yearly minimum does not affect the requirement for weekly mass attendance.
 
JMBNH said:
Why is receiving Eucharist only mandatory once a year when Mass is weekly (plus Holy Days of Obligation). I can understand why it might not be every week due to unconfessed mortal sins etc. but only once a year doesn’t sound much
Click to expand...
How often should it be mandatory?
 
VociMike said:
How often should it be mandatory?
Click to expand...
That is an interesting question actually, not sure. Makes more sense now I’ve heard the reasons it was brought into practise, seemed strange otherwise if you were expected to attend 56 masses a year (well 4 Holy Days of Obligation, in the UK, less than 56 if any fall on Sunday) but only expected to receive Eucharist at one, though clearly you can’t be expected to receive Eucharist at every mass, so not sure.
 
JMBNH said:
That is an interesting question actually, not sure. Makes more sense now I’ve heard the reasons it was brought into practise, seemed strange otherwise if you were expected to attend 56 masses a year (well 4 Holy Days of Obligation, in the UK, less than 56 if any fall on Sunday) but only expected to receive Eucharist at one, though clearly you can’t be expected to receive Eucharist at every mass, so not sure.
Click to expand...
Remember - this is the MINIMUM.
 
Just_1_hr_a_wk said:
Talk to the pastor.

If sacrament is offered under both forms then taking the Precious Blood is a possibility.
Click to expand...
And even if it isn’t. I once attended a TLM (where the faithful only receive the host) where a woman came up at the end of communion and the priest offered her the cup. I assume the reason was that she had an allergy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top