Choosing Not To Receive Holy Communion

[chrysostom]

I'd like to hear people's thoughts and experiences on this.

 

Assuming you are in a state of grace, do you ever elect not to receive the Precious Body and/or the Precious Blood?  Why or why not?

 

I generally refrain when I visit a parish for the first time.  I want to see how the distribution is done and whether it would look possible to receive on the tongue and kneeling without making a scene - or, for that matter, even just on the tongue.  Sometimes, even when I know how the distribution will happen, I refrain because I am interiorly disturbed and feel unable to receive Our Lord in a placid spirit with attention wholly on Him, usually due to things like changing/adding prayers or similar abuses.  (too much noise - on the drums level - affects me like this too)

 

But it doesn't have to be related to liturgical issues.  I read elsewhere that only after Pope St. Pius X was frequent/daily communion a near-universal norm.  Now I love that frequent communion is encouraged, but do there remain legitimate personal/spiritual reasons to refrain on occasion?  (again, assuming the state of grace)

 

And as a more historical question, what WERE the reasons given for infrequent communion before the 20th century?

 

Thanks for your thoughts.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I have heard you can fast from the holy eucharist for purification of self or other intentions. But also i have heard there is nothing Jesus hates more than someone whom can receive holy communion whom doesn't. I don't know either way.

But also i wonder whether one can receive only the precious blood without receiving the holy eucharist and still be in full communion with the church,angels and saints, just a thought not an insinuation. Even if just in the medical sense in that some people are allergic to wheat. 

Edited April 10, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[chrysostom]

I have heard you can fast from the holy eucharist for purification of self or other intentions.

 

This I have heard of - there are some Redemptoristine Nuns who receive the Holy Eucharist only once a year and assist at Holy Mass the rest of the year from behind a partition that precludes receiving Jesus.  It is a very, very penitential life, and I cannot imagine the agony of longing for the Eucharistic Christ for 364 days a year.

 

But also i have heard there is nothing Jesus hates more than someone whom can receive holy communion whom doesn't.

 

Well, Jesus hates sin.  It isn't a sin to voluntarily refrain from Holy Communion, so that view is a little confusing to me.
 

 

But also i wonder whether one can receive only the precious blood without receiving the holy eucharist and still be in full communion with the church,angels and saints, just a thought not an insinuation. Even if just in the medical sense in that some people are allergic to wheat. 

 

Well, since Jesus is wholly present, body, blood, soul, and divinity, under each species of Holy Communion, anyone receiving from the Chalice receives the Holy Eucharist - receives the whole Christ.  Just as anyone receiving only the Host receives the whole Christ and is also in full communion.

[4LoveofJMJ]

 

But also i wonder whether one can receive only the precious blood without receiving the holy eucharist and still be in full communion with the church,angels and saints, just a thought not an insinuation. Even if just in the medical sense in that some people are allergic to wheat.

 

I was allergic to wheat for 2 years and during that time I only received the Blood because my allergic reactions where so bad. The priests that I talked to told me that even though I only consumed the Blood, I was still receiving Jesus Himself. Granted it did cause much confusion and hesitation when the Eucharistic ministers saw me receiving a blessing then head toward the person holding the chalice like I wanted to receive. But they were cool with it when I explained that I was allergic to wheat.

 

And of course I learned that they came out with wheat free hosts only AFTER I grew out of that allergy. <_< <_< <_<

[reminiscere]

This I have never heard of, even before Vatican II. In fact, the only traditional Redemptoristines left (Campos) who have kept all the strict customs of the order receive daily.

 

But it is true, generally, that they are only very close to seeing the Blessed Sacrament - besides immediately before receiving the Host in Communion - once a year, on Corpus Christi, when the priest enters the enclosure with the monstrance for the procession. 

 

This I have heard of - there are some Redemptoristine Nuns who receive the Holy Eucharist only once a year and assist at Holy Mass the rest of the year from behind a partition that precludes receiving Jesus.  It is a very, very penitential life, and I cannot imagine the agony of longing for the Eucharistic Christ for 364 days a year.

 

 

Well, Jesus hates sin.  It isn't a sin to voluntarily refrain from Holy Communion, so that view is a little confusing to me.
 

 

Well, since Jesus is wholly present, body, blood, soul, and divinity, under each species of Holy Communion, anyone receiving from the Chalice receives the Holy Eucharist - receives the whole Christ.  Just as anyone receiving only the Host receives the whole Christ and is also in full communion.

 

Edited April 10, 2014 by reminiscere

[chrysostom]

This I have never heard of, even before Vatican II. In fact, the only traditional Redemptoristines left (Campos) who have kept all the strict customs of the order receive daily.

 

But it is true, generally, that they are only very close to seeing the Blessed Sacrament - besides immediately before receiving the Host in Communion - once a year, on Corpus Christi, when the priest enters the enclosure with the monstrance for the procession. 

Oops!  I was quite mistaken, then - these are the Redemptoristines that I was referring to.  Thanks for setting that straight.

Edited April 10, 2014 by chrysostom

[truthfinder]

On a few occasions I have decided to not receive - these were because I had shown up late (and not on a day of precept) or I had otherwise been really distracted at Mass and felt it would have been more profitable  make a sincere spiritual communion than a really bad actual communion.  Though, I think if you were doing this frequently, I would suggest discussing it with a confessor or spiritual director to make sure you (3rd person pl) had the right intentions and not out of some scrupulous or overly pious superstition regarding reception.

[chrysostom]

On a few occasions I have decided to not receive - these were because I had shown up late (and not on a day of precept) or I had otherwise been really distracted at Mass and felt it would have been more profitable  make a sincere spiritual communion than a really bad actual communion.  Though, I think if you were doing this frequently, I would suggest discussing it with a confessor or spiritual director to make sure you (3rd person pl) had the right intentions and not out of some scrupulous or overly pious superstition regarding reception.

 

So I haven't actually refrained except on some first visits to parishes (or, as you mentioned, lateness).  Refraining due to distractions caused in part by liturgical issues usually coincided with those first visits.  When I have attended a liturgically distressed parish on even a semi-regular basis I have received though.  What I'm describing isn't regular, though I may have given that impression from my first post.

 

Thanks for mentioning the danger of superstition.  I know that a making a good Communion does not mean that you have to have fuzzy feelings while receiving or that you need to be interiorly still as a Himalayan lake. :)

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

On a few occasions I have decided to not receive - these were because I had shown up late (and not on a day of precept) or I had otherwise been really distracted at Mass and felt it would have been more profitable  make a sincere spiritual communion than a really bad actual communion.  Though, I think if you were doing this frequently, I would suggest discussing it with a confessor or spiritual director to make sure you (3rd person pl) had the right intentions and not out of some scrupulous or overly pious superstition regarding reception.

 

There is no late to receiving holy communion officially as far as I'm aware. You can show up when everyone is lining up for the blessed sacrament and can receive as long as your in a state of grace, the only thing you miss out on is the indulgence for holy mass, there are kind of two indulgences associated with holy mass, the mass and the reception of the precious body and blood. You can actually leave immediately after the priest receives the sacraments and still receive the indulgence for the mass. I don't consider myself as receiving the indulgence for holy mass unless i show up before the omission of the gospel, perhaps if i show up after the gospel and before the start of the consecration of the hosts then i receive a partial indulgence, am unsure of the holy catholic churches official standing on how we obtain whatever the mass offers timing wise, may be something to look up or ask some others.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

P.s. and sorry indulgence is the incorrect word because it is associated with the removal of punishment for sin and holy mass and the reception of the holy hosts is more than that although it is that also.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

And are you sure both Jesus real and perpetual presence is in the blood, i know definitely this is church teaching on the Eucharist/body, perhaps the precious blood performs a different function for want of a better word.

[truthfinder]

Tab, 

although I will acknowledge that we can receive the Eucharist whenever we come into Mass, personally, I don't think we should always default to this. Although I would tend to believe that if you showed up late for a Mass of precept (Sunday or holy day of obligation) for no particularly good reason, we haven't made the obligation and we probably shouldn't receive the Eucharist. 

 

It all turns into a debate about how late is too late.

 

And NO! there is no 'efficacy' difference in receiving either the host or the blood of Christ, because we receive both in receiving one or the other. To believe otherwise is heresy.The consecrated host is body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ and the consecrated wine is body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.

[havok579257]

So I haven't actually refrained except on some first visits to parishes (or, as you mentioned, lateness).  Refraining due to distractions caused in part by liturgical issues usually coincided with those first visits.  When I have attended a liturgically distressed parish on even a semi-regular basis I have received though.  What I'm describing isn't regular, though I may have given that impression from my first post.

 

Thanks for mentioning the danger of superstition.  I know that a making a good Communion does not mean that you have to have fuzzy feelings while receiving or that you need to be interiorly still as a Himalayan lake. :)

 

 

if its because of interior dispisition during mass such as getting angry at mass at your child or the such, that is one thing.  If its due to the priest comiting a liturgical abuse, then to not receive makes no sense unless the mass is invalid.  I mean if your able to receive but choose not to because of what the priest does or does not do, it would be similar if Jesus came to mass just then and said "chrysostom, its time to join me in heaven" and you said "well sorry Jesus, I won't go with you today because the priest here made some liturgical abuses.  I mean sure I would love to be with you always but this liturgical abuse super ceeds my desire to be with you. "

 

I mean the greatest thing we can do here on earth is to be with Jesus in holy communion.  To deny yourself this not because of what you did but because of what someone else does makes no sense. 

[CatherineM]

Sounds like you only want the Eucharist on your terms. I come to mass hungry for it, and grateful to be able to receive it. Many can't.

[Nihil Obstat]

Tab, 

although I will acknowledge that we can receive the Eucharist whenever we come into Mass, personally, I don't think we should always default to this. Although I would tend to believe that if you showed up late for a Mass of precept (Sunday or holy day of obligation) for no particularly good reason, we haven't made the obligation and we probably shouldn't receive the Eucharist. 

 

It all turns into a debate about how late is too late.

 

And NO! there is no 'efficacy' difference in receiving either the host or the blood of Christ, because we receive both in receiving one or the other. To believe otherwise is heresy.The consecrated host is body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ and the consecrated wine is body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.

IIRC, our previous priest said that if you come in after the Collect, then you have not completed your obligation.