Choosing Not To Receive Holy Communion

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

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.

 

 

There is no debate as to whether it is or isn't to late to show up for holy communion. The church's official teaching is we can show up any time before the host is administered and receive if we are in a state of grace. That IZ the churches official teaching. But of course you have to attend the whole mass for Sundays and other holy days of obligation. And i never said either way that the precious blood of Christ was any different from the precious body, i just asked if anyone knew the churches official teaching on the subject, do you? :) No pun intended.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

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. 

 

 

Jesus still comes in both hosts for those whom remain faithful even if the priest is a heretic.

 

And thanks nihil, perhaps it is from the collect whether that is church universal or church local i know not, did he clarify whether it is the 1st or second collection? and i am wondering what about holy masses without the collection.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[HisChildForever]

I feel like I read in "Story of a Soul" that St. Therese didn't receive every day, or every week, and longed to do so more frequently. Anyone remember why?

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

:( i can't remember and i think i have read 'Story of a Soul.' DRAT! :(

[Benedictus]

If I'm able to take communion on Sundays, I always do. If I don't know the parish I usually sit nearer the back to observe what's going on -  but I still (95% of the time) have communion on the tongue, even if I haven't noticed anyone else doing it. My exceptions are when the priest is infirm, if they are fairly short (I'm a bit tall), or if I'm visiting a religious community where they have a custom to receive in the hand. I've only ever had one situation where a priest seemed to ignore what I was seeking (or wasn't thinking) and, fairly ungracefully, put the host in my hand. I made a point of telling him this afterwards, very cordially, and he apologized - It never happened again.

I usually make the sign of cross or bow before receiving when I'm visiting new parishes. In my home parish the chalice is always reserved.  I personally think it shouldn't be -  especially for those who can't consume the host for health reasons.  We kneel and have the option on how to receive  the Eucharist (unless it's an EF mass).

 I'd say if you can receive, then do so.  I wouldn't  be overly concerned about the other people there, as long as you are dignified then that's all that matters. If you know the parish you are visiting and it's particularly bad then I'd come after the homily and then leave after the post communion prayers, especially if the music is dire. But in all honesty I'd have to be very desperate, or caught out on a new parish visit,  to end up doing that.

[Nihil Obstat]

Jesus still comes in both hosts for those whom remain faithful even if the priest is a heretic.

 

And thanks nihil, perhaps it is from the collect whether that is church universal or church local i know not, did he clarify whether it is the 1st or second collection? and i am wondering what about holy masses without the collection.

The collect, not the collection. The collect is one of the Proper prayers of the Mass.

[BigJon16]

A major feature of St. Philip Neri's 'spiritual character' was that he encouraged frequent confession and communion at a time when the widespread tradition was to only receive once or twice a year, yet still 'hearing Mass' as often as possible, especially on Sundays and important holy days. Those "bare minimum requirements" have never actually changed and are still manifest in the current "Precepts of the Church":

 

 

The first precept ("You shall attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation and rest from servile labor") requires the faithful to sanctify the day commemorating the Resurrection of the Lord as well as the principal liturgical feasts honoring the mysteries of the Lord, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the saints; in the first place, by participating in the Eucharistic celebration, in which the Christian community is gathered, and by resting from those works and activities which could impede such a sanctification of these days.⁸²

 

The second precept ("You shall confess your sins at least once a year") ensures preparation for the Eucharist by the reception of the sacrament of reconciliation, which continues Baptism's work of conversion and forgiveness.⁸³

 

The third precept ("You shall receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least during the Easter season") guarantees as a minimum the reception of the Lord's Body and Blood in connection with the Paschal feasts, the origin and center of the Christian liturgy.⁸⁴

 

(CCC 2042-2043)

 

 

Is there an exact date when these ideas shifted to the way things are now? I'm not sure. I think the idea of receiving so often is really a late-modern one and mostly a product of contemporary times (Post Vatican II), but I can't back that up with much documentation other than my own observations on other rites of the Church as well as different cultural norms. I think receiving often is very much an American thing, as well. I've observed in many Hispanic communities that people receive less often, and that in the time of my grandparents it was more common to abstain from receiving whereas now it is more common to receive and less common to abstain. 

 

What I've seen now in my own spiritual life and in the recent pastoral documents of Bishops and Pope Francis is a concentration more on frequent confession and frequent communion. There was a time when I used to only confess about once or twice a year, and yet receive commonly on Sundays and holy days. Now, as I've drawn closer to the teachings of the Church and been graced with a deeper love and longing for the Blessed Sacrament, I have a much more regular schedule of confession (about once a week or once every other week, by the advisement of my confessor) and receiving of the Eucharist. I've become more scrupulous (in a good way) in paying attention to my interior life and trying to build habits of virtue.

 

For me, this has really been a result of entering the seminary, where our daily life revolves around the Eucharist. Before entering the seminary I wouldn't worry about whether I was in a state of grace while receiving the Eucharist, even though I knew what the Church teaches. I simply didn't care. That has changed, thanks to orthodox spiritual directors and formation faculty who not only teach us in classes and meeting but inspire us by their own lives and encouragement. 

 

This place--for all its annoyances, downs and struggles--is really a great place for me to be. lol. Now if only they would stop watching Frozen... 

 

 

[truthfinder]

HisChild,

the reason she wouldn't receive more is because it was at a time when most religious only received the Eucharist on the big feasts of the church, and otherwise with very specific permission from one's confessor.  

[reminiscere]

Absolutely 100% yes. Jesus is really and truly and fully present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in both species.

 

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.

 

 

Basically, daily Holy Communion was not encouraged until the pontificate of Pope St. Pius X. Even religious received several times a week. In France it had been particularly bad due to Jansenism. 

 

I feel like I read in "Story of a Soul" that St. Therese didn't receive every day, or every week, and longed to do so more frequently. Anyone remember why?

 

[ImageTrinity]

Jesus wants to feed us with himself. Why deny Him the joy of coming to you and deny yourself the strength of His presence?

[chrysostom]

Jesus wants to feed us with himself. Why deny Him the joy of coming to you and deny yourself the strength of His presence?

 

Indeed.

 

At this point, I'm still interested in the reasons historically given for taking Communion less often before the time of St. Pius X.  Any ideas?

[truthfinder]

I'll take an educated guess and say that people would make special preparation for each communion they would make (for "second" communion in France, this could also mean going on a three day retreat). Plainly, the church and the laity really did believe they were not worthy to receive and thus needed to especially prepare for every privilege. However, Jansenism was definitely part of this. Remember that the Lateran Council commanded that people receive at least once a year.

[tinytherese]

As long as you're in a state of grace and not incredibly late, why wouldn't you receive communion? I know that liturgical abuse can be frustrating, but as long as the consecration is done as the Church instructs, it's a valid mass.

 

I know from Church history, that the rules for fasting were much more strict in the past. You couldn't eat or drink anything from midnight until communion. Now we just have to do a one hour fast and we're allowed to have water and medication during that hour.

[Basilisa Marie]

I think this is one of those things that really depends on where each person is, spiritually. In recent decades (by recent I mean the last 50 years or so) there has been a bit of a push for frequent reception of communion, because it can be incredibly spiritually beneficial to many people. At the same time, not receiving at every mass can also be spiritually beneficial. I have a friend who only received a partial host when she went up for communion, and the reasons for it were between her and her spiritual director. 

I tend to think that it'd be helpful to make it more common for people to not receive communion at mass. Not necessarily by having the priest or bishop withhold communion from the people, but by encouraging the people to decide for themselves to not receive. Or increase our attention on the hour fast before communion. And encourage adoration. 

[Not A Mallard]

I'm scrupulous, so I sometimes skip communion because I wonder whether or not something I committed was a mortal sin.  It's all a matter of trusting in His mercy, really.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Not A Mallard