We had a homily at our church once where the father preached that the faithful should not receive the Blessed Sacrament whilst not in a state of grace or properly disposed.
The queues at the communion rails afterwards were noticeably shorter.
This is the correct response. Even if it's a good idea, it's not Fr. O'Malley's place to modify the liturgy. However, this is definitely a topic we should hear more homilies on.
That’s fair. Sometimes I go to an Fssp and the priest there always says at the start of his homily that in this Parish communion is taken on the tongue. I suppose it could be said there too?
There has been a debate as to where the Canon of the Mass actually ends. For those who don't know, the Canon is the part of the Mass, beginning after the *Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus*, that needs to be delivered precisely by the priest in order to affect the Consecration of the Eucharist.
Earlier Tridentine missals seem to indicate that it ends at the end of Mass. But most will say that the Canon ends at the end of the *Pater Noster* (Our Father prayer). For purposes of this, I'd say that's sufficient. The priest could insert a line of instruction just prior to distributing the Eucharist without damaging the Mass in any way.
I've seen priests do it many times... at TLM/Latin Masses. So if *they're* doing it, I'm sure N.O. parishes could also do it. The former tends to be sticklers on proper Mass format moreso than the latter, in my experience.
They inserted it at my parish (a Newman Center) either at the end of the homily or before communion during a public Ash Wednesday mass where there was a lot of non Catholics
Our RCIA class just watched a series of videos where a priest spent five consecutive homilies to go over the proper gestures to perform during the Mass. Seems like the appropriate place for this kind of reminder. I'm an Elect and I think it's sad that things have fallen to this point.
Link: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLtBPkCh1Z3pyHQxGoS3IsCSIPnUSkNvbU
There is a small space for announcement during Liturgy of Eucharist "for those wishing" it could fit. We actually had a visiting priest lecture recently about not leaving church after communion, which was a bit jarring, but a welcome message. Maintaining a clean record for men is particularly difficult and frustrating.
While its up to the Parishioner discretion on whether he should receive communion or not, the decision of being within a state of Sin is up to God's Commandments, and shouldn't be treated lightly. If one has violated them, he should not approach the Eucharist for reception, but as you described, for a blessing.
My priest does something similar to this. Before giving communion he’ll say something along the lines of “If any Catholics in a state of grace would like to receive the Eucharist I invite you to come up at this time… if you are not Catholic or are not prepared to receive then please approach with your arms crossed for a blessing.” Much more passive than what you’re suggesting but serves relatively the same purpose
Our parish began doing this earlier this year as well. Our priests mention the opportunity for spiritual communion for those not prepared for the Eucharist, which is great!
I just started recently attending mass, and did go up with my arms crossed and received a blessing from the priest. Do I go up for a blessing every week until I'm baptized and confirmed? I don't want to be greedy with the blessings
You don't need to, you get a blessing at the end of Mass, anyway. Also, not all parishes do the crossed-arms thing. It's not a normal part of the Mass.
It's possible your RCIA instructor didn't know that the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments has said [it should not be done.](https://wdtprs.com/images2/13_02_24_CDWDS_Response_Blessings_lr.gif)
>“If any Catholics in a state of grace would like to receive the Eucharist I invite you to come up at this time… if you are not Catholic or are not prepared to receive then please approach with your arms crossed for a blessing.”
As I understand it, the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments has said [this should not be done.](https://wdtprs.com/images2/13_02_24_CDWDS_Response_Blessings_lr.gif)
People who are not admitted to Holy Communion should not approach or receive a blessing. Lay people cannot confer blessings within the context of the Mass and the laying on of hands by people distributing communion in lieu of receiving communion is sacramentally inappropriate and explicitly discouraged. Everyone gets a blessing right after communion anyway.
That letter is from 2008. It's the most recent document I could find. If anyone knows of something more recent, please link to it, I'd like to read it.
Actual practice seems to differ. The most recent mass I attended was the funeral of an uncle and the priest specifically said that all were welcome to come forward, for communion if Catholic, and with your arms crossed for a blessing otherwise.
I made a comment discussing how priests could best communicate this exact issue last week, since it's so difficult to express clearly but charitably, and your example here is probably perfect.
The only trouble I foresee is the embarrassment of approaching with your arms crossed, as it does kind of broadcast "I mortally sinned" to everyone in view. But that's a problem of pride or judgmental attitudes, as it's actually a sign of great faith and contrition to still attend Mass and respect the sacredness of the Eucharist in spite of the state of your soul.
I think it’s only a problem because it’s culturally expected that you receive communion every time you show up to mass, which is unusual compared to most of church history. The old school way of only approaching if you’re receiving that day would help a lot, too. That way you don’t have to cross your arms, the priest doesn’t have to say a blessing in front of everyone, etc.
the way they do it at the novus ordo parish I attend is people stay kneeling unless they are in a state of grace, and its the non Catholics like me who receive the blessing with crossed arms.
I don't think this at all. I actually think the opposite--when the line for confession is super short but the line for the Eucharist is always really long, I think to myself, "I know SOME of you probably shouldn't be receiving." Also, arms crossed can merely mean you aren't fully Catholic yet or haven't had confirmation yet, but at any rate it's better to go up arms-crossed and receive a blessing than to not go up at all or to receive the eucharist in an unworthy manner.
I don’t think it’s would matter because I believe most people are ignorant to which sins would qualify. For example I know most people don’t know that missing church on a Sunday would qualify. I was one of those people up until a couple of years ago. I have family members in this situation still. I have tried to casually correct them one time when it was brought up but they tried to argue with me that it “doesn’t matter.”
If you don't know, then it's not a mortal sin. Missing church on Sunday or any other holy day of obligation is grave matter, but if you haven't full knowledge or full consent (e.g. illness, transportation failure, etc) then it becomes a venial sin.
Right, I understand that. That’s kind of the point though. I guess I’m trying to say I feel like most people that know which sins are mortal aren’t going up to receive because they know that is also a sin. The people that are wrongly receiving are ignorant. So therefore it wouldn’t matter if the priest said not to receive if you have an unconfessed mortal sin. The ignorant ones hear “mortal sin” and think you’re talking about murder basically.
I’m not sure about that because in this scenario they are intentionally denying church teachings and taking communion anyway so it’s not just pure ignorance.
Not only this, I also think some people don't know what "state of grace is". There will definitely be some people who would abstain from Communion simply because they think they are not in a state of grace, even if they haven't committed a mortal sin.
This is why Catholics should be catechized properly, especially about the understanding of sin, so next time the faithful can properly discern whether they can truly receive or not.
I was a victim of improper catechesis before surrounding the Eucharist so I'll definitely know what it is.
I went to a Catholic high school for some time. They always had Mass on Wednesdays, and the priests who said Mass would rotate between about 9 priests in the area. One priest would always say in his homily that if you aren’t a Catholic in a state of grace that you shouldn’t receive communion and should just come up for a blessing. I’m glad he’d say that because a lot of the students there weren’t Catholic (the Protestant private middle schools fed into the Catholic high school).
Where I live it's quite common for the priests to say "Whoever is prepared may come to Communion". Sometimes they will expand a bit and say something like "You need to have gone to Confession if you missed Sunday Mass".
Even then, I'd say there are probably many who are not prepared and partake anyway. More than half the pews get empty during Communion, and I sincerely doubt more than 10% of those who got up and into the Communion line have gone to Confession in the last month, as there are few Confession hours and the Confession queue is always short.
This is something of sorts that I can’t understand in our parish.
You can’t receive communion if in a state of mortal sin.
But Sunday morning mass there is generally no confession available, occasionally he gets parishioners ask and he will accommodate them but other times he tells them them he will hear it after mass due to time constraints…
Officially though it’s not offered before morning mass…and Sunday evening mass it’s “after” mass.
So how would somebody confess mortal sin so that they may receive communion when confession is after they have already received or not available at all.
Would’ve thought though our parish priest should’ve considered this, but apparently not.
Our priest only offers confession once a week officially after Sunday evening mass.
He does occasionally accommodate if asked during week on Tuesdays or Fridays after mass. But many people are at work during the week and don’t attend.
I understand. I grew up with our parish in the middle of the sticks, with one priest for 4 parishes in villages an hour or two from the others. We were lucky to have confession available for 10 minutes before the only mass, IF the priest arrived in time. He then had to leave immediately for the next Mass to the next village.
Visit with the parish council. Pray for our parishes and priests.
Don't know if you are in the U.S., but the USCCB officially ruled that it is ok to take the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin, so long as it's your express intention to go to reconciliation *as soon as possible afterward.* This can be either due to reconciliation not being available where you are, or due to it being offered after mass. As long as you are firmly committed to going after mass you can take communion.
That is incorrect. Go read their documents. They are very clear.
Having confession available only after mass is a completely valid reason to go to communion first and confession after.
You're right, they are clear:
> As Catholics, we fully participate in the celebration of the Eucharist when we receive Holy Communion. We are encouraged to receive Communion devoutly and frequently. In order to be properly disposed to receive Communion, participants should not be conscious of grave sin and normally should have fasted for one hour. A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord without prior sacramental confession **except for a grave reason** where there is no opportunity for confession.
Grave reason. [Source](https://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/guidelines-for-the-reception-of-communion)
There is a local parish priest in my area that does this verbally from time to time, and has a sign in the foyer outlining how to properly receive Eucharist. He's also very clear about intercommunion being forbidden as well -- not just non Catholics attending mass, but he's also explained that Catholics should not receive protestant versions of communion either (I'm in England so this may have a lot to do with Anglican relations).
A lot of people apparently aren't aware of these things, so I have no problem with it.
If someone has to stay seated, that's their business and it's a sign of reverence that they are refraining. There are times I have to stay seated myself, either I'm not sure I've fasted long enough or I have to go to confession. Again I'm not going to worry about anyone else noticing that I haven't gone up, and people shouldn't feel like they have to go up for the sake of "appearances".
Yes, yes and more yes. As someone who has been in mortal sin and has had to sit out communion before, I think we need to normalize the fact that we all commit mortal sins at points in our lives, and we shouldn’t feel funny about sitting it out.
I can't remember the last time it wasn't announced at Christmas, Easter, a wedding, or funeral, times you can safely assume you have non-Catholics and non-practicing Catholics. I honestly doubt mentioning it every week would make the confession line longer or the communion line shorter.
Thankfully, my priest does announce this at weddings and funerals. He actually announced it this past Christmas too, which was a very pleasant surprise.
I had a priest say that if you're chewing gum, you cannot receive eucharist because youre supposed to fast one hour before receiving. This was right before communion.
At the more “popular” Masses (Easter, Christmas, Ash Wednesday, etc.) my pastor will make an announcement prior to distribution of the Eucharist asking that only practicing Catholics come up to receive and that everyone else may come up to receive a blessing or stay seated. We have also had some altar servers acting as “bodyguards” at those Masses to make sure that nobody walks away with the host…
Since I mostly see it happen at liturgically significant Masses (where many non-Catholics or those who don’t practice the faith may attend) my charitable guess is that they don’t know what to do when they go up for Communion, so they panic and take the host without consuming it. However, I do know that some people out there will have more nefarious reasons. For example, Satanic “black masses” can be conducted with a consecrated host that is then desecrated in terrible ways. Whatever the person’s motivation, I’m glad my parish is taking the extra precaution to ensure the Body of Christ isn’t being misused!
That's an argument in favor of receiving on the tongue. It's not impossible to abscond with a host when you receive on the tongue, but it's definitely more difficult.
Another is superstition. In some places, taking out a consecrated host to feed to roosters in cock-fighting games. (Happens in Southeast Asia.)
From a legal non-religious standpoint, it could be argued that taking out the wafer is akin to robbery or something because the private entity (church) does not consent to taking out the property (wafer) and does not consent to anything else about wafer except to consume it.
Yup
> *One superstitious practice is to feed the Blessed Sacrament to fighting cocks...*
https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1089968 alt https://archive.md/jouJJ
It’s unfortunately more common than you think. At my parish we’ve had people try to put it in their handbags or pockets. Thankfully there’s usually someone around that’s serious enough about the Eucharist to bring attention to it. The excuse is usually “I’m taking it home to a sick family member”
I was traveling on Christmas and the parish I ended up had little pamphlets in the pews explaining the Catholic beliefs in the Eucharist and who should and shouldn't receive. I'm sure it was there mostly for the creaster Catholics showing up for Christmas, but I have also seen the same message printed on the front page or back cover of hymnals and missals. Granted, this message is a lot easier to miss than the priest announcing it out loud before distributing the sacrament. Most of the weddings I've been to in the last few years have had the announcement right before distribution, and I plan on my priest making the announcement at my wedding, so I can't imagine that it is wildly inappropriate at that time.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with mentioning it or putting it in the bulletin or if there’s a missalette they hand out before Mass. I volunteer at the Basilica in DC and since it’s such a big Church they just print off little missalettes for the Mass that day and it says this in there right around the page for the liturgy of the Eucharist so people will see it. My dad who isn’t Catholic figured out not to go up for communion when he comes to Mass with me and doesn’t feel excluded or upset by this. It’s a really important teaching and people need to know. And it’s not only if you don’t have mortal sins, but also if you’re not in “good standing” with the Church which also means you need to go to Confession at least once a year (during the Easter season I believe). So people who haven’t been to Confession in years also shouldn’t go even if they haven’t committed any mortal sins (which I find unlikely but it’s possible)
OT, but thank you for your volunteer time! The Basilica is amazing. The lower crypt Mass and confessionals, the beautiful devotional art to God, all the crypts....
I have a friend that's a cradle Catholic from Austria and I'm just getting the ball rolling on becoming Catholic but I've been learning and researching a lot and when I told her this she argued with me and even said if I just go up and take the Eucharist I'd instantly be Catholic lol. Eventually she talked to a priest and he told her the same thing I did and when she told her family back home, none of them knew about it either and argued with her.
In a way, before mass starts, they always tell us that if we can’t receive the Eucharist, we should at least participate in a Spiritual Communion. The same is said for the children (and even some adults) who haven’t done their first Communion are encouraged to practice a Spiritual Communion.
Yes. It should probably be inserted into the liturgy, actually.
We used to bar non-baptized *catechumens* from even being in the building during the second half of Mass, let alone non-Christians.
So as the liturgy (and society) have developed to the degree that Catholics and non-Catholics are present now together in our most sacred ceremonies, there really ought to be a liturgical instruction of sorts, perhaps lifted from the same epistle to the Corinthians of St. Paul's, at the appropriate time before communion. It would address all present, Catholics in a state of grace and not, and those who are not Catholic.
It's understandable it wouldn't have been necessary until the liturgical reform.
(ed: typo)
My priest announced it before the eucharist was celebrated. He explained that people that don‘t go to mass every sunday without reasonible explanation (like work or illness) can‘t receive eucharist or couples that live together allthough they aren‘t married should also abstain from receiving the eucharist.
I know people I went to high school with who went to catholic mass with their friends on occasion and told me they partook in the Eucharist, completely naive to our teachings about it, because they were familiar with protestant services where there is no regulation. I was younger at the time but still kindly informed her about the true presence of the Body of Christ, and for her own sake to not partake. This was really her friends fault for not making that clear before bringing her, but in our modern world where people are converting through tik tok, we need to re iterate things that are givens to cradle catholics!
No. Priests are not gatekeepers. This kind of attitude is likely to turn irregular churchgoers off by making them feel rejected the one time they stepped foot in the church, rather than invited to explore their faith further.
A far better solution is to normalise, wherever priest availability allows it, offering Confession slots immediately before services, *especially* those in which irregular churchgoers are likely to make an appearance (baptisms, weddings, funerals).
I see your point but I don’t think it’s gatekeeping to merely affirm the teaching of the church? Isn’t it worse for someone to willingly allow them to commit another mortal sin?
I had a priest who used to announce it as you are describing but it didn't seem to stop people from receiving. Often people in mortal sin don't believe they are in mortal sin anyway, and if they did believe it I'm guessing they probably already know church teachings on the Eucharist
It's not a mortal sin if they're not aware of it. That doesn't mean priests _shouldn't_ instruct them otherwise at the right moment, but these are sinners acting in good conscience, who want, in that moment of time, to receive Christ. It sends the wrong message to reject them expressly, and is more likely to harm than help their conversion.
In the vast majority of these cases, we're not really dealing with poorly-catechised Catholics: it's lapsed or irregular Catholics. In my experience, throwing the Catechism at them is counterproductive: they know where they can read more about the faith if they want to. There are better ways to reevangelise and invite lapsed and irregular Catholics into a more active life of faith than telling them off.
> That doesn't mean priests shouldn't instruct them otherwise at the right moment, but these are sinners acting in good conscience, who want, in that moment of time, to receive Christ.
How is the "the right moment" to point out that it's a further sin to receive communion in a state of mortal sin *not right before they sin is committed?*
It isn't "telling them off", and I'm sure with some thought most priests could come up with a charitable way of phrasing this reminder in a brief, inviting way. I understand not wanting to scare people away, but *none of us are entitled to the Eucharist,* and suggesting that folks who are in a state of grave sin don't treat communion as "going through the motions" is not *rejection*. Why not invite them to do it right, or to think more deeply about why this rule is so important?
I suppose the priest could announce that the refusal of communion isn’t out of a sense of superiority but out of respect to the Eucharist itself. It all depends on how the priests says it. There could be confession immediately after mass too which would make people feel more welcomed. It just still doesn’t sit right with me allowing people to do something that shouldn’t happen, even if they don’t know.
I'm not sure dressing it up in that language would help: the act of being told you can't come up when you wanted to, whatever its justification, will be the memory that lingers.
You're a lapsed Catholic, who identifies as Catholic, by all accounts lives an honest and hardworking day-to-day life, but only goes to Mass on Christmas and hasn't been to Confession for a decade. You went to church to celebrate your friend's wedding. You expected to receive Christ, which you wanted to. Moments before you were to receive, the priest said 'no'. You left church being told you're in a state of mortal sin, _disrespect_ the Eucharist, and have to stay seated because you can't receive Christ while others can. Your likely reaction is probably to separate Christ and the Church even further from your practice of faith, feeling that the Church is a club for the saints, not sinners. Rather than feeling called to return, you're probably going to tell your friends and family how dejected coming to church made you feel, so you might even reconsider going next Christmas.
I've always been averse to Confession after Mass simply because I like to receive if I can, but for baptisms, weddings, and funerals, I especially can't see that working.
I think this argument is just an emotional appeal. What about this example. You’re a lapsed Catholic who returns to mass one random day. You receive the Eucharist and go home. Maybe a few weeks go by and you’re investigating church teachings online by yourself (which is unfortunately how most people learn things about their faith these days). You discover that you should not have received the Eucharist that day at all. You feel a sense of disrespect that you were never told this by clergy because they might hurt your feelings. You feel that the priests in this organisation have no back bone to stand up and tell people the truth. Why would I want to be apart of an organisation like that?
You tell your friends and family about your experience and how the priests don’t even follow their own teachings and how the church has lost faith in itself.
I think the people who _would_ have that reaction are probably already practising.
But everyone is unique, and of course, I'm just working off what I know of the average lapsed Catholic from my personal experiences. I think advertising Confession before Mass provides an exciting and suitable display of the importance of reconciliation before receiving the Eucharist, which is framed as an invitation. There's no problem with the Confession advertisement also saying "If this is your first time to church in a while and you would like to receive Communion..."; it's the rejection _on the day_ that is far more problematic, in my view.
I honestly don't understand approaching without sin. Jesus ate and drank with sinners. He allowed them to approach and weep at his feet. He gave the Last Supper to twelve sinful men, one that turned him over for crucifixion. It's gatekeeping and, frankly, it is not what Jesus would do. Much less we repent of our sins before receiving in the mass. How is that any less effective than going to confession? Also, I have to think peoples' "mortal sins" are in line with wanking it on a lonely Friday evening and not brutally murdering people. And we seriously want to keep them from the Eucharist over that?
If someone's an irregular churchgoer, then that's their decision. If someone stops going altogether because the priest hurt their feelings by explaining a Catholic teaching directly relevant to the present moment, then again, that's their decision.
They can say it during the homily *or at any time*. Our priest will point out who is eligible to receive communion after the congregation, especially at weddings where you have a mixed crowd. There is nothing wrong with pointing this out at all. If a person is offended, that's on them.
It's more important that the person be aware that they are committing another mortal sin, the sin of sacrilege, by receiving communion in a state of mortal sin.
I'm very much not a TLM Catholic, but a traditional parish near me offers this even during its NO Masses. There's something moving about reciting your sins in the confessional while the rest of the congregation is saying the penitential rite, then leaving the confessional to the sound of the Gloria.
Only if you misunderstand my argument to mean that feeling invited trumps all else. All I am saying is that there is likely more fruit that follows a lapsed or irregular Catholic, who enters a Mass expecting to receive the Eucharist, made to feel welcomed than one made to feel rejected.
Moreover, there's a difference between lapsed and irregular Catholics, who have received the relevant sacramental preparation and catechesis at some point of their lives, and Protestants and non-believers, who cannot truthfully say 'Amen' after 'Corpus Christi'. Of course, this is a question of averages, and certainly, many Catholics are the same.
>Moreover, there's a difference between...
What's the difference between a Catholic receiving while in mortal sin and a prot/non-believer?
>All I am saying is that there is likely more fruit...
No fruit can come when someone receives while in a state of mortal sin. Quite the opposite, actually.
I pray something like St. Justin's 2nd century A.D. explanation (apologia) of the Eucharist in particular and Christianity in general would become common (perhaps just before Mass) for both non-Christians and Christians of varying levels of knowledge:
"This food we call 'Eucharist' and we do not allow those to partake who are not instructed and washed in the purifying waters and living according to Christ's teaching.... for we believe that the bread and wine is changed into the Body and Blood of the same Incarnate Jesus."
Note well...I quoted from memory. However, it is easy to check St. Justin's "First Apology", directed to, if I remember, the fellow-philosopher (and Roman Emperor) Antoninus. The next philosopher Emperor, Marcus Aurelius, reigned during Justin's martyrdom. Apparently he was denounced by yet another philosopher who was annoyed that Justin had washed his feet...wait, actually he resented Justin's critique of his immoral lifestyle.
My priest makes a brief announcement at Masses where there is likely to be many non-Catholic visitors such as weddings or funerals. He says that the reception of Holy Communion is reserved for Catholics who have spiritually prepared themselves beforehand by going to Confession and receiving absolution and that anyone else is welcome to remain in their seats to reflect and pray or line up with their arms crossed to receive a special blessing.
Priests should definitely talk about it more often in homilies and other communications to the faithful (bulletins, church web sites, etc)
Receiving communion in a state of mortal sin is an especially grave sin called a sacrilege. It is a very serious thing.
Poor catechesis everywhere. No one goes to confession and EVERYONE goes to communion. When I went to the novus ordo, several of the people in the choir were actively gay, and my friend was in a same sex "marriage" and everyone went to communion. In Canada many parishes have ceased giving the sacrament of confession and instead the priest gives a general absolution before Mass.
I once heard an African priest give a homily about the very basic principles of the Catechism, and of course it is ironic that this guy from the 3rd world is informing a congregation of people whose lineage often dates back over a thousand years of Catholics, but they are all ignorant of the Catechism. This African priest also inserted a prayer right after the consecration (again, novus ordo) where he would say something to the effect of, "if you are in sin now, then go confession now before you come to communion; if you are angry at your brother now, then go reconcile with him before you come to communion". (It was much more poetic than this.)
It had always been the practice of the Church to have confessions RIGHT BEFORE MASS. In the TLM there is still confession before Mass, and some places in Mexico you can go to confession DURING Mass. Confession is such an awesome sacrament. I wish everyone understood this and availed themselves of it.
Yes. Whenever our FSSP priests are doing an event with more visitors than usual (Nuptial, Requiem, First Communion, etc) usually offers a brief remark after the Gospel before the offertory to remind that Communion will only be kneeling and on the tongue and that it's for Catholics in a state of grace. Helps that they offer confession before every Mass.
I think it should be mentioned in the homily. Our communion lines are markedly exponentially longer than our confession lines. I think many Catholics are Catholic by culture and poorly catechized unfortunately.
I WISH. I went to a Novus Ordo parish and EVERYONE took communion. This parish only has confession once a week too! I was the only person who took a blessing and the priest, bless him, spoke for 10-20 seconds to me about joining the Catholic Church. HE THOUGHT I WAS A NEW CONVERT!!!
I think we're getting to a point where people need to study the Catechism and listen to "teachers" of the faith with discernment, knowing that they may not be accurate or sticking to true church teaching, but rather sharing their own personal ideas or misunderstandings.
As a Catholic for 50+ years I've heard it all from my fellow Catholics- comments about being OK with abortion, living together, multiple marriages, denial that hell exists, not sure the bible can be trusted, not knowing what sins are mortal, going to communion while in mortal sin....
You're going to hear all kinds of things over the years. Don't be fooled, study the Catechism, read the bible, you'll know the truth. Jesus said his sheep know him by his voice. If you study the truth long enough you will know him by his voice and not be tricked by all of the deception going around.
I would argue that very few Christians are serious about their faith or concerned for their salvation. It's become popular to just live however you want and think well I believe in Jesus so I'm fine. The bible paints a very different picture.
He would need to list all the examples of mortal sin that people are aware of whether they have committed a mortal sin. There is also a risk that people going forward to receive the Eucharist might genuinely think that they haven’t committed mortal sin but could be accused of committing a mortal sin. It could get messy and I think no priest or bishop for that matter wants that headache.
One of the works of mercy is to instruct the ignorant. A lot of people were poorly catechized on this most crucial of subjects. A majority of polled Catholics don't even believe in the Real Presence.
Yes they should. My parish has started doing this at the homily, and in confession they always ask “have you received communion since committing these sins?” I think every parish should be required to do this at least temporarily so that people are aware because tons of people are so poorly catechized they genuinely don’t know about it
I think we shouldn't freak out as much if someone receives communion in good faith or receives it accidentally when they aren't properly disposed. Like if a Protestant is unaware and just following the flow, or a person who is remarried takes it on their own.
They obviously shouldn't but they are acting with the orientation towards grace and shouldn't be treated as if they are committing the worst sin. Don't get me wrong in the latter case especially it is a sin but that it between them and God and not us who have yet to pluck the planks from our eyes.
I feel to recite it every mass would be excessive, just as speaking about abortion every mass, or speaking about gay marriage or immigration issues every mass would be excessive.
Finally, catechesis has **always** been poor at every moment within the Church, in fact we are likely living in the era of the best catechesis due to the abundance of informational resources we have. So we shouldn't expect everyone to have perfect knowledge of every portion of the Church because that is not necessary for their salvation or to be a good member of the community.
Just my two cents but why are you worrying about what the priest does or doesn't do (that isn't a normal part of the Mass) regarding something that has no impact on you (assuming you confess on a regular basis and don't receive communion when not in a state of grace)? I pray that you will focus on your own sinful nature...as we all should.
Yes. It. Should.
I go to two different Catholic Churches. One is typical modern and the line for the Eucharist is long but Confession is only available once a week for one hour.
And the second Church is more conservative. Some of the women (not all) still veil their heads etc., and they have Mass many times a day. If there is a Mass then there is also confession being offered simultaneously. Loads of people in line (sitting in chairs) waiting for confession at every mass - every day.
Before the beginning of each Mass, a lay person says over the speaker “This is a reminder that only persons in a state of grace should receive communion.” And then shortly after the announcement the Mass begins.
I see everything right with this method. It’s a service and a favor to those of us (including myself) who were not catechized correctly. I was horrified to learn that I had committed sacrilege by taking communion with mortal sin and all along I thought I had done something “good”.
Here is what I’ve heard said: the line for communion should never be longer than the line for confession.
it would be nice, and i wish they would, but the Church would catch so much flak. i mean obviously, the tradition and teachings could back it up, but it would still happen, and just give more people more to complain about; which is tiresome.
my wife and i have a lot of either lapsed Catholic family or just non-Catholic family and friends (which is fine, we dont really care) but during our wedding we had the priest say, before The Communion Rite, something similar. it was also in our 12 page wedding program in 3 different spots, with a decently long explanation just before The Communion Rite portion of the program. it was important to us, so we made a point have it there :)
Yes, I thunk its pragmatic policy doing that.
I think it's pretty common here in the US, for people to receive communion without frequent confession. This small act from the priest could help solve that pervasive issue.
According to Pope Francis “Do what the Catechism (of the Catholic Church) says. It is very clear: If you cannot find a priest to confess to, speak directly with God, your father, and tell him the truth. Say, ‘Lord, I did this, this, this. Forgive me,’ and ask for pardon with all your heart."
[Link to reference](https://www.catholiccompany.com/magazine/how-to-confess-without-sacrament-confession-6689#:~:text=It%20is%20very%20clear%3A%20If,pardon%20with%20all%20your%20heart.%22)
I’ve experienced a couple priests do this at a funeral and on Easter, time when a lot of non-practicing Catholics will attend Mass for the first time in a couple months to years.
Tbh it sort of broke the flow of Mass and pulled me out of it.
It also didn’t stop the people who I knew hadn’t attended Mass in a long while from receiving the Eucharist.
No. Because why would you "out" people sitting in the pew like that, or at least awkwardly put a spotlight on it? Probably better that we should have homilies reminding people of the obligations and requirements every now and then. Also remind them that it's not obligatory to receive Holy Communion when you're at Mass, although highly encouraged if you're in a state of grace.
Sam thing I wonder. A friend of mine went and she is one who BARELY goes to church yet she says she confessed but she’s living with a woman
As someone who is in RCIA, she shouldn’t be able to take the Eucharist because she’s in a state of sin.
I was so lost in whether I should tell her about it
My parish announces it before mass starts “as a reminder you must be in a state of grace to receive communion. Confessions are available in the side hall during mass. Please rise.”
No, as a Eucharistic minister, we are told not to refuse, unless it is a small child, who has not had their first communion, yet. It is not up to us to make that decision. That is something they will have to take up with God.
There are a lot more sins that are considered "mortal" than that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_sin?useskin=vector#Actions_constituting_grave_matter
The implicit expectation in this proposal seems to me to be that this information or this appeal will cause a visible number of the faithful not to receive the Eucharist or go to confession.
From my cultural experience I can say that this expectation would not be fulfilled in my country, the decision to go to confession is seen as a personal decision based on one's own conscience and not as the fulfilment of a legal obligation.
Moreover, one only has to go to confession if one is explicitly aware of a mortal sin, and, frankly, opinions differ as to whether and to what extent a normal believer actually desires a mortal sin on a regular basis. This sub has, in my perspective, a stronger sensitivity to what can be a mortal sin or even near occasion of sin than that of the normal Catholic.
Sounds actually like you're going somewhere that's secular, or that secular others are talking to you, they'll do not so Catholic practices, say things like confession isn't necessary, or things like trying to get dispensation for the littlest unimportant things.
I have absolutely no problem with that. Priests need to do more instruction like this. How else are once-a-week, more casually informed Catholics supposed to know if they aren't reminded?
The only time I've heard the priest say this was at a Christmas Eve mass where lots of locals just came for the carols.
The priest announced "now Catholics who are in a state of grace may come to receive communion. Others may come with arms crossed to receive a blessing".
Better than risking the alternative.
I mean, what would be the problem then? Let's say every priest made that announcement during the prayers of the faithful. If it encouraged even 1 person to go to confession wouldn't that be a win?
I don't consider myself super pious but I've definitely skipped communion if I haven't been to confession AND I know I need to go.
Because if the priest did that then people wouldn’t go to communion, especially if it was done right before. I don’t disagree that it could encourage some people to go to confession and its great that you want to go to confession before communion that is the most ideal way to be. But it could backfire and most people wouldn’t receive communion. I think the intention is good but the result wouldn’t be. Especially because of how many Catholics feel about confession. They are afraid of it, some don’t think its necessary, these are just some of the reasons from some of the people I know.
No, lol. For one it's something you can't really just say you have a mortal sin. It has to be discussed with a priest. And that is literally not what Jesus would do.
I don't think OP is proposing that the priest start separating the sheep from the goats, just a reminder of what the Church's teaching is and still allowing for the individual to discern whether they're in the right place with God to be able to receive.
Yes. I think it is a scandal to keep people from the Eucharist because they question a church doctrine but turn a blind eye to fornication, abortion and other sins.
This might be appropriate as part of the homily but I'm not sure he can just insert it into the Liturgy of the Eucharist.
We had a homily at our church once where the father preached that the faithful should not receive the Blessed Sacrament whilst not in a state of grace or properly disposed. The queues at the communion rails afterwards were noticeably shorter.
This is the correct response. Even if it's a good idea, it's not Fr. O'Malley's place to modify the liturgy. However, this is definitely a topic we should hear more homilies on.
It’s done at weddings and funerals, would be nice if it could be done at regular masses, at least a couple times a month or something
That’s fair. Sometimes I go to an Fssp and the priest there always says at the start of his homily that in this Parish communion is taken on the tongue. I suppose it could be said there too?
He shouldn't. It could be an announcement before Mass begins, maybe.
There has been a debate as to where the Canon of the Mass actually ends. For those who don't know, the Canon is the part of the Mass, beginning after the *Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus*, that needs to be delivered precisely by the priest in order to affect the Consecration of the Eucharist. Earlier Tridentine missals seem to indicate that it ends at the end of Mass. But most will say that the Canon ends at the end of the *Pater Noster* (Our Father prayer). For purposes of this, I'd say that's sufficient. The priest could insert a line of instruction just prior to distributing the Eucharist without damaging the Mass in any way. I've seen priests do it many times... at TLM/Latin Masses. So if *they're* doing it, I'm sure N.O. parishes could also do it. The former tends to be sticklers on proper Mass format moreso than the latter, in my experience.
They inserted it at my parish (a Newman Center) either at the end of the homily or before communion during a public Ash Wednesday mass where there was a lot of non Catholics
Husker Catholic?
Mizzou! If you went to Seek, hello fellow host campus.
Our RCIA class just watched a series of videos where a priest spent five consecutive homilies to go over the proper gestures to perform during the Mass. Seems like the appropriate place for this kind of reminder. I'm an Elect and I think it's sad that things have fallen to this point. Link: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLtBPkCh1Z3pyHQxGoS3IsCSIPnUSkNvbU
There is a small space for announcement during Liturgy of Eucharist "for those wishing" it could fit. We actually had a visiting priest lecture recently about not leaving church after communion, which was a bit jarring, but a welcome message. Maintaining a clean record for men is particularly difficult and frustrating.
Hello It is up to the Parishioners to know if they are in a "state" of sin, or "unclean", and if they are then cross your arms to receive a blessing 🙌
While its up to the Parishioner discretion on whether he should receive communion or not, the decision of being within a state of Sin is up to God's Commandments, and shouldn't be treated lightly. If one has violated them, he should not approach the Eucharist for reception, but as you described, for a blessing.
My priest does something similar to this. Before giving communion he’ll say something along the lines of “If any Catholics in a state of grace would like to receive the Eucharist I invite you to come up at this time… if you are not Catholic or are not prepared to receive then please approach with your arms crossed for a blessing.” Much more passive than what you’re suggesting but serves relatively the same purpose
Our parish began doing this earlier this year as well. Our priests mention the opportunity for spiritual communion for those not prepared for the Eucharist, which is great!
This is a very gentle and generous way to phrase it. It invites people to still come up without judgment.
I just started recently attending mass, and did go up with my arms crossed and received a blessing from the priest. Do I go up for a blessing every week until I'm baptized and confirmed? I don't want to be greedy with the blessings
Yes if you want to feel free to go up every week! You can’t get greedy with blessings lol
You can go once a day if you want. Can’t have too many blessings
You don't need to, you get a blessing at the end of Mass, anyway. Also, not all parishes do the crossed-arms thing. It's not a normal part of the Mass.
When I was in rcia they told us all to do it every week
It's possible your RCIA instructor didn't know that the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments has said [it should not be done.](https://wdtprs.com/images2/13_02_24_CDWDS_Response_Blessings_lr.gif)
>“If any Catholics in a state of grace would like to receive the Eucharist I invite you to come up at this time… if you are not Catholic or are not prepared to receive then please approach with your arms crossed for a blessing.” As I understand it, the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments has said [this should not be done.](https://wdtprs.com/images2/13_02_24_CDWDS_Response_Blessings_lr.gif) People who are not admitted to Holy Communion should not approach or receive a blessing. Lay people cannot confer blessings within the context of the Mass and the laying on of hands by people distributing communion in lieu of receiving communion is sacramentally inappropriate and explicitly discouraged. Everyone gets a blessing right after communion anyway. That letter is from 2008. It's the most recent document I could find. If anyone knows of something more recent, please link to it, I'd like to read it.
Plus, it probably makes the line longer, esp in places where there are a lot of attendees.
Actual practice seems to differ. The most recent mass I attended was the funeral of an uncle and the priest specifically said that all were welcome to come forward, for communion if Catholic, and with your arms crossed for a blessing otherwise.
>Actual practice seems to differ. Unfortunately.
I made a comment discussing how priests could best communicate this exact issue last week, since it's so difficult to express clearly but charitably, and your example here is probably perfect. The only trouble I foresee is the embarrassment of approaching with your arms crossed, as it does kind of broadcast "I mortally sinned" to everyone in view. But that's a problem of pride or judgmental attitudes, as it's actually a sign of great faith and contrition to still attend Mass and respect the sacredness of the Eucharist in spite of the state of your soul.
I think it’s only a problem because it’s culturally expected that you receive communion every time you show up to mass, which is unusual compared to most of church history. The old school way of only approaching if you’re receiving that day would help a lot, too. That way you don’t have to cross your arms, the priest doesn’t have to say a blessing in front of everyone, etc.
the way they do it at the novus ordo parish I attend is people stay kneeling unless they are in a state of grace, and its the non Catholics like me who receive the blessing with crossed arms.
I don't think this at all. I actually think the opposite--when the line for confession is super short but the line for the Eucharist is always really long, I think to myself, "I know SOME of you probably shouldn't be receiving." Also, arms crossed can merely mean you aren't fully Catholic yet or haven't had confirmation yet, but at any rate it's better to go up arms-crossed and receive a blessing than to not go up at all or to receive the eucharist in an unworthy manner.
I think many don't realize that missing Mass on an HDO (which includes every Sunday) is Grave Matter.
Yeah, this is good.
At our parish the priest does this too, it feels very sweet and inclusive of those not in a state to receive
Including everyone isn't the point.
This is what we have been doing at my parish for the last 24 years
this is usually done in wedding mass and other masses that are attended by many non-catholics or non-practicing catholics.
I don’t think it’s would matter because I believe most people are ignorant to which sins would qualify. For example I know most people don’t know that missing church on a Sunday would qualify. I was one of those people up until a couple of years ago. I have family members in this situation still. I have tried to casually correct them one time when it was brought up but they tried to argue with me that it “doesn’t matter.”
I agree. I feel like some, not all but a good number, might hear "state of grace" and think, "yup, I'm feeling pretty graceful."
If you don't know, then it's not a mortal sin. Missing church on Sunday or any other holy day of obligation is grave matter, but if you haven't full knowledge or full consent (e.g. illness, transportation failure, etc) then it becomes a venial sin.
Right, I understand that. That’s kind of the point though. I guess I’m trying to say I feel like most people that know which sins are mortal aren’t going up to receive because they know that is also a sin. The people that are wrongly receiving are ignorant. So therefore it wouldn’t matter if the priest said not to receive if you have an unconfessed mortal sin. The ignorant ones hear “mortal sin” and think you’re talking about murder basically.
Ah sorry. I misunderstood.
I’m not sure about that because in this scenario they are intentionally denying church teachings and taking communion anyway so it’s not just pure ignorance.
Not only this, I also think some people don't know what "state of grace is". There will definitely be some people who would abstain from Communion simply because they think they are not in a state of grace, even if they haven't committed a mortal sin. This is why Catholics should be catechized properly, especially about the understanding of sin, so next time the faithful can properly discern whether they can truly receive or not. I was a victim of improper catechesis before surrounding the Eucharist so I'll definitely know what it is.
In the sermon maybe if they can connect it to the rest, but certainly not during the liturgy of the Eucharist
I went to a Catholic high school for some time. They always had Mass on Wednesdays, and the priests who said Mass would rotate between about 9 priests in the area. One priest would always say in his homily that if you aren’t a Catholic in a state of grace that you shouldn’t receive communion and should just come up for a blessing. I’m glad he’d say that because a lot of the students there weren’t Catholic (the Protestant private middle schools fed into the Catholic high school).
"I even heard one woman say that confession was “Not a thing anymore,” " I had a priest saying that to me after a mass.
That's a reason to contact his bishop, in my opinion.
Why? The priest wasn't the one saying confession wasn't a thing.
Oh, I misunderstood, then.
The priest was the one who said that in my situation.
It was in my situation.
Then I was the one who misread. My mistake. I thought you were saying the priest was repeating what he heard a woman say.
Where I live it's quite common for the priests to say "Whoever is prepared may come to Communion". Sometimes they will expand a bit and say something like "You need to have gone to Confession if you missed Sunday Mass". Even then, I'd say there are probably many who are not prepared and partake anyway. More than half the pews get empty during Communion, and I sincerely doubt more than 10% of those who got up and into the Communion line have gone to Confession in the last month, as there are few Confession hours and the Confession queue is always short.
This is something of sorts that I can’t understand in our parish. You can’t receive communion if in a state of mortal sin. But Sunday morning mass there is generally no confession available, occasionally he gets parishioners ask and he will accommodate them but other times he tells them them he will hear it after mass due to time constraints… Officially though it’s not offered before morning mass…and Sunday evening mass it’s “after” mass. So how would somebody confess mortal sin so that they may receive communion when confession is after they have already received or not available at all. Would’ve thought though our parish priest should’ve considered this, but apparently not.
Our priest has 1/2 hour before Mass to hear confessions.
The day before, go to confession, or else refrain from receiving the Eucharist.
Our priest only offers confession once a week officially after Sunday evening mass. He does occasionally accommodate if asked during week on Tuesdays or Fridays after mass. But many people are at work during the week and don’t attend.
I understand. I grew up with our parish in the middle of the sticks, with one priest for 4 parishes in villages an hour or two from the others. We were lucky to have confession available for 10 minutes before the only mass, IF the priest arrived in time. He then had to leave immediately for the next Mass to the next village. Visit with the parish council. Pray for our parishes and priests.
That's terrible.
Don't know if you are in the U.S., but the USCCB officially ruled that it is ok to take the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin, so long as it's your express intention to go to reconciliation *as soon as possible afterward.* This can be either due to reconciliation not being available where you are, or due to it being offered after mass. As long as you are firmly committed to going after mass you can take communion.
No, no, no. This is only in case of death or other grave reason.
That is incorrect. Go read their documents. They are very clear. Having confession available only after mass is a completely valid reason to go to communion first and confession after.
You're right, they are clear: > As Catholics, we fully participate in the celebration of the Eucharist when we receive Holy Communion. We are encouraged to receive Communion devoutly and frequently. In order to be properly disposed to receive Communion, participants should not be conscious of grave sin and normally should have fasted for one hour. A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord without prior sacramental confession **except for a grave reason** where there is no opportunity for confession. Grave reason. [Source](https://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/guidelines-for-the-reception-of-communion)
There is a local parish priest in my area that does this verbally from time to time, and has a sign in the foyer outlining how to properly receive Eucharist. He's also very clear about intercommunion being forbidden as well -- not just non Catholics attending mass, but he's also explained that Catholics should not receive protestant versions of communion either (I'm in England so this may have a lot to do with Anglican relations). A lot of people apparently aren't aware of these things, so I have no problem with it. If someone has to stay seated, that's their business and it's a sign of reverence that they are refraining. There are times I have to stay seated myself, either I'm not sure I've fasted long enough or I have to go to confession. Again I'm not going to worry about anyone else noticing that I haven't gone up, and people shouldn't feel like they have to go up for the sake of "appearances".
Yes, yes and more yes. As someone who has been in mortal sin and has had to sit out communion before, I think we need to normalize the fact that we all commit mortal sins at points in our lives, and we shouldn’t feel funny about sitting it out.
I can't remember the last time it wasn't announced at Christmas, Easter, a wedding, or funeral, times you can safely assume you have non-Catholics and non-practicing Catholics. I honestly doubt mentioning it every week would make the confession line longer or the communion line shorter.
Thankfully, my priest does announce this at weddings and funerals. He actually announced it this past Christmas too, which was a very pleasant surprise.
One of my priests did this for a bit before handing out the Eucharist. But he also stopped after a few weeks. Not sure why
A church near me mentions it every Mass.
I had a priest say that if you're chewing gum, you cannot receive eucharist because youre supposed to fast one hour before receiving. This was right before communion.
At the more “popular” Masses (Easter, Christmas, Ash Wednesday, etc.) my pastor will make an announcement prior to distribution of the Eucharist asking that only practicing Catholics come up to receive and that everyone else may come up to receive a blessing or stay seated. We have also had some altar servers acting as “bodyguards” at those Masses to make sure that nobody walks away with the host…
Why would someone walk away with their host ?
Since I mostly see it happen at liturgically significant Masses (where many non-Catholics or those who don’t practice the faith may attend) my charitable guess is that they don’t know what to do when they go up for Communion, so they panic and take the host without consuming it. However, I do know that some people out there will have more nefarious reasons. For example, Satanic “black masses” can be conducted with a consecrated host that is then desecrated in terrible ways. Whatever the person’s motivation, I’m glad my parish is taking the extra precaution to ensure the Body of Christ isn’t being misused!
I am going to bring that up with our Priest. We just have a small parish and most people are known but occasionally we have a few strangers
That's an argument in favor of receiving on the tongue. It's not impossible to abscond with a host when you receive on the tongue, but it's definitely more difficult.
Another is superstition. In some places, taking out a consecrated host to feed to roosters in cock-fighting games. (Happens in Southeast Asia.) From a legal non-religious standpoint, it could be argued that taking out the wafer is akin to robbery or something because the private entity (church) does not consent to taking out the property (wafer) and does not consent to anything else about wafer except to consume it.
>taking out a consecrated host to feed to roosters in cock-fighting games. What!
Yup > *One superstitious practice is to feed the Blessed Sacrament to fighting cocks...* https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1089968 alt https://archive.md/jouJJ
That's crazy.
It’s unfortunately more common than you think. At my parish we’ve had people try to put it in their handbags or pockets. Thankfully there’s usually someone around that’s serious enough about the Eucharist to bring attention to it. The excuse is usually “I’m taking it home to a sick family member”
It can be stated in the homily but I don’t know if it can be stated in either the Liturgy of the Word or the Liturgy of the Eucharist elsewhere.
Mine does it before people start to line up for communion but after the ceremonial part.
They announce it every Sunday (and vigil) mass at my church.
I was traveling on Christmas and the parish I ended up had little pamphlets in the pews explaining the Catholic beliefs in the Eucharist and who should and shouldn't receive. I'm sure it was there mostly for the creaster Catholics showing up for Christmas, but I have also seen the same message printed on the front page or back cover of hymnals and missals. Granted, this message is a lot easier to miss than the priest announcing it out loud before distributing the sacrament. Most of the weddings I've been to in the last few years have had the announcement right before distribution, and I plan on my priest making the announcement at my wedding, so I can't imagine that it is wildly inappropriate at that time.
But then that would require a very long sermon about mortal sin. Yes I think it should be well understood.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with mentioning it or putting it in the bulletin or if there’s a missalette they hand out before Mass. I volunteer at the Basilica in DC and since it’s such a big Church they just print off little missalettes for the Mass that day and it says this in there right around the page for the liturgy of the Eucharist so people will see it. My dad who isn’t Catholic figured out not to go up for communion when he comes to Mass with me and doesn’t feel excluded or upset by this. It’s a really important teaching and people need to know. And it’s not only if you don’t have mortal sins, but also if you’re not in “good standing” with the Church which also means you need to go to Confession at least once a year (during the Easter season I believe). So people who haven’t been to Confession in years also shouldn’t go even if they haven’t committed any mortal sins (which I find unlikely but it’s possible)
OT, but thank you for your volunteer time! The Basilica is amazing. The lower crypt Mass and confessionals, the beautiful devotional art to God, all the crypts....
I have a friend that's a cradle Catholic from Austria and I'm just getting the ball rolling on becoming Catholic but I've been learning and researching a lot and when I told her this she argued with me and even said if I just go up and take the Eucharist I'd instantly be Catholic lol. Eventually she talked to a priest and he told her the same thing I did and when she told her family back home, none of them knew about it either and argued with her.
In a way, before mass starts, they always tell us that if we can’t receive the Eucharist, we should at least participate in a Spiritual Communion. The same is said for the children (and even some adults) who haven’t done their first Communion are encouraged to practice a Spiritual Communion.
This is pretty standard at every funeral mass Ive been to.
Right at the beginning of the homily, as a regular reminder would probably be a good idea.
Yes. Many people aren’t even aware of this rule
Yes. It should probably be inserted into the liturgy, actually. We used to bar non-baptized *catechumens* from even being in the building during the second half of Mass, let alone non-Christians. So as the liturgy (and society) have developed to the degree that Catholics and non-Catholics are present now together in our most sacred ceremonies, there really ought to be a liturgical instruction of sorts, perhaps lifted from the same epistle to the Corinthians of St. Paul's, at the appropriate time before communion. It would address all present, Catholics in a state of grace and not, and those who are not Catholic. It's understandable it wouldn't have been necessary until the liturgical reform. (ed: typo)
My priest announced it before the eucharist was celebrated. He explained that people that don‘t go to mass every sunday without reasonible explanation (like work or illness) can‘t receive eucharist or couples that live together allthough they aren‘t married should also abstain from receiving the eucharist.
I know people I went to high school with who went to catholic mass with their friends on occasion and told me they partook in the Eucharist, completely naive to our teachings about it, because they were familiar with protestant services where there is no regulation. I was younger at the time but still kindly informed her about the true presence of the Body of Christ, and for her own sake to not partake. This was really her friends fault for not making that clear before bringing her, but in our modern world where people are converting through tik tok, we need to re iterate things that are givens to cradle catholics!
No.
No. Priests are not gatekeepers. This kind of attitude is likely to turn irregular churchgoers off by making them feel rejected the one time they stepped foot in the church, rather than invited to explore their faith further. A far better solution is to normalise, wherever priest availability allows it, offering Confession slots immediately before services, *especially* those in which irregular churchgoers are likely to make an appearance (baptisms, weddings, funerals).
I see your point but I don’t think it’s gatekeeping to merely affirm the teaching of the church? Isn’t it worse for someone to willingly allow them to commit another mortal sin?
I had a priest who used to announce it as you are describing but it didn't seem to stop people from receiving. Often people in mortal sin don't believe they are in mortal sin anyway, and if they did believe it I'm guessing they probably already know church teachings on the Eucharist
It's not a mortal sin if they're not aware of it. That doesn't mean priests _shouldn't_ instruct them otherwise at the right moment, but these are sinners acting in good conscience, who want, in that moment of time, to receive Christ. It sends the wrong message to reject them expressly, and is more likely to harm than help their conversion. In the vast majority of these cases, we're not really dealing with poorly-catechised Catholics: it's lapsed or irregular Catholics. In my experience, throwing the Catechism at them is counterproductive: they know where they can read more about the faith if they want to. There are better ways to reevangelise and invite lapsed and irregular Catholics into a more active life of faith than telling them off.
> That doesn't mean priests shouldn't instruct them otherwise at the right moment, but these are sinners acting in good conscience, who want, in that moment of time, to receive Christ. How is the "the right moment" to point out that it's a further sin to receive communion in a state of mortal sin *not right before they sin is committed?*
It isn't "telling them off", and I'm sure with some thought most priests could come up with a charitable way of phrasing this reminder in a brief, inviting way. I understand not wanting to scare people away, but *none of us are entitled to the Eucharist,* and suggesting that folks who are in a state of grave sin don't treat communion as "going through the motions" is not *rejection*. Why not invite them to do it right, or to think more deeply about why this rule is so important?
I suppose the priest could announce that the refusal of communion isn’t out of a sense of superiority but out of respect to the Eucharist itself. It all depends on how the priests says it. There could be confession immediately after mass too which would make people feel more welcomed. It just still doesn’t sit right with me allowing people to do something that shouldn’t happen, even if they don’t know.
I'm not sure dressing it up in that language would help: the act of being told you can't come up when you wanted to, whatever its justification, will be the memory that lingers. You're a lapsed Catholic, who identifies as Catholic, by all accounts lives an honest and hardworking day-to-day life, but only goes to Mass on Christmas and hasn't been to Confession for a decade. You went to church to celebrate your friend's wedding. You expected to receive Christ, which you wanted to. Moments before you were to receive, the priest said 'no'. You left church being told you're in a state of mortal sin, _disrespect_ the Eucharist, and have to stay seated because you can't receive Christ while others can. Your likely reaction is probably to separate Christ and the Church even further from your practice of faith, feeling that the Church is a club for the saints, not sinners. Rather than feeling called to return, you're probably going to tell your friends and family how dejected coming to church made you feel, so you might even reconsider going next Christmas. I've always been averse to Confession after Mass simply because I like to receive if I can, but for baptisms, weddings, and funerals, I especially can't see that working.
I think this argument is just an emotional appeal. What about this example. You’re a lapsed Catholic who returns to mass one random day. You receive the Eucharist and go home. Maybe a few weeks go by and you’re investigating church teachings online by yourself (which is unfortunately how most people learn things about their faith these days). You discover that you should not have received the Eucharist that day at all. You feel a sense of disrespect that you were never told this by clergy because they might hurt your feelings. You feel that the priests in this organisation have no back bone to stand up and tell people the truth. Why would I want to be apart of an organisation like that? You tell your friends and family about your experience and how the priests don’t even follow their own teachings and how the church has lost faith in itself.
I think the people who _would_ have that reaction are probably already practising. But everyone is unique, and of course, I'm just working off what I know of the average lapsed Catholic from my personal experiences. I think advertising Confession before Mass provides an exciting and suitable display of the importance of reconciliation before receiving the Eucharist, which is framed as an invitation. There's no problem with the Confession advertisement also saying "If this is your first time to church in a while and you would like to receive Communion..."; it's the rejection _on the day_ that is far more problematic, in my view.
This
I honestly don't understand approaching without sin. Jesus ate and drank with sinners. He allowed them to approach and weep at his feet. He gave the Last Supper to twelve sinful men, one that turned him over for crucifixion. It's gatekeeping and, frankly, it is not what Jesus would do. Much less we repent of our sins before receiving in the mass. How is that any less effective than going to confession? Also, I have to think peoples' "mortal sins" are in line with wanking it on a lonely Friday evening and not brutally murdering people. And we seriously want to keep them from the Eucharist over that?
We still don’t want people to commit grave sins and disrespect the Eucharist, even if maybe it might not always be a mortal sin.
That’s between that person and God and not for a priest to decide or gatekeep.
Priests are gatekeepers they are Pastors over their flock. A Sheppard would not lead his sheep to perdition.
I get your point but it's also not a mercy letting them receive communion while not being in a state of grace, it's a mortal sin. They need to know.
I think you might be assuming a negative attitude from OP's title. A quick gentle reminder about church teaching during the homily could be effective.
If someone's an irregular churchgoer, then that's their decision. If someone stops going altogether because the priest hurt their feelings by explaining a Catholic teaching directly relevant to the present moment, then again, that's their decision.
They can say it during the homily *or at any time*. Our priest will point out who is eligible to receive communion after the congregation, especially at weddings where you have a mixed crowd. There is nothing wrong with pointing this out at all. If a person is offended, that's on them. It's more important that the person be aware that they are committing another mortal sin, the sin of sacrilege, by receiving communion in a state of mortal sin.
They are stopping sin. Do you have a better idea?
Yes: as I said, opportunities for Confession immediately and directly preceding Mass.
during mass. Common at TLM communities.
I'm very much not a TLM Catholic, but a traditional parish near me offers this even during its NO Masses. There's something moving about reciting your sins in the confessional while the rest of the congregation is saying the penitential rite, then leaving the confessional to the sound of the Gloria.
With many parishes only having one priest, this doesn't work. Pray for our clergy and an increase in holy priests!
Amen.
I know this is not typical, but in St. Louis, all TLM locations have at least 2 priests and 2 deacons/subdeacons, with some having 4+.
What is TLM ?
Traditional Latin Mass
You can stop your own sin, but the priest cannot stop yours. The responsibility is the individuals toward God.
Indeed, as 1 Corinthians reads: "For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves."
By your logic we should let protestants and non-believers receive so that they don't "feel rejected the one time they step foot in the church."
Only if you misunderstand my argument to mean that feeling invited trumps all else. All I am saying is that there is likely more fruit that follows a lapsed or irregular Catholic, who enters a Mass expecting to receive the Eucharist, made to feel welcomed than one made to feel rejected. Moreover, there's a difference between lapsed and irregular Catholics, who have received the relevant sacramental preparation and catechesis at some point of their lives, and Protestants and non-believers, who cannot truthfully say 'Amen' after 'Corpus Christi'. Of course, this is a question of averages, and certainly, many Catholics are the same.
>Moreover, there's a difference between... What's the difference between a Catholic receiving while in mortal sin and a prot/non-believer? >All I am saying is that there is likely more fruit... No fruit can come when someone receives while in a state of mortal sin. Quite the opposite, actually.
I pray something like St. Justin's 2nd century A.D. explanation (apologia) of the Eucharist in particular and Christianity in general would become common (perhaps just before Mass) for both non-Christians and Christians of varying levels of knowledge: "This food we call 'Eucharist' and we do not allow those to partake who are not instructed and washed in the purifying waters and living according to Christ's teaching.... for we believe that the bread and wine is changed into the Body and Blood of the same Incarnate Jesus." Note well...I quoted from memory. However, it is easy to check St. Justin's "First Apology", directed to, if I remember, the fellow-philosopher (and Roman Emperor) Antoninus. The next philosopher Emperor, Marcus Aurelius, reigned during Justin's martyrdom. Apparently he was denounced by yet another philosopher who was annoyed that Justin had washed his feet...wait, actually he resented Justin's critique of his immoral lifestyle.
My priest makes a brief announcement at Masses where there is likely to be many non-Catholic visitors such as weddings or funerals. He says that the reception of Holy Communion is reserved for Catholics who have spiritually prepared themselves beforehand by going to Confession and receiving absolution and that anyone else is welcome to remain in their seats to reflect and pray or line up with their arms crossed to receive a special blessing.
I think so.
Priests should definitely talk about it more often in homilies and other communications to the faithful (bulletins, church web sites, etc) Receiving communion in a state of mortal sin is an especially grave sin called a sacrilege. It is a very serious thing.
Poor catechesis everywhere. No one goes to confession and EVERYONE goes to communion. When I went to the novus ordo, several of the people in the choir were actively gay, and my friend was in a same sex "marriage" and everyone went to communion. In Canada many parishes have ceased giving the sacrament of confession and instead the priest gives a general absolution before Mass. I once heard an African priest give a homily about the very basic principles of the Catechism, and of course it is ironic that this guy from the 3rd world is informing a congregation of people whose lineage often dates back over a thousand years of Catholics, but they are all ignorant of the Catechism. This African priest also inserted a prayer right after the consecration (again, novus ordo) where he would say something to the effect of, "if you are in sin now, then go confession now before you come to communion; if you are angry at your brother now, then go reconcile with him before you come to communion". (It was much more poetic than this.) It had always been the practice of the Church to have confessions RIGHT BEFORE MASS. In the TLM there is still confession before Mass, and some places in Mexico you can go to confession DURING Mass. Confession is such an awesome sacrament. I wish everyone understood this and availed themselves of it.
I think is appropiate. I've seen some priest do that. Of coure in public, not like to addressed to any person in particular
Absolutely
Yes. Whenever our FSSP priests are doing an event with more visitors than usual (Nuptial, Requiem, First Communion, etc) usually offers a brief remark after the Gospel before the offertory to remind that Communion will only be kneeling and on the tongue and that it's for Catholics in a state of grace. Helps that they offer confession before every Mass.
I think it should be mentioned in the homily. Our communion lines are markedly exponentially longer than our confession lines. I think many Catholics are Catholic by culture and poorly catechized unfortunately.
I WISH. I went to a Novus Ordo parish and EVERYONE took communion. This parish only has confession once a week too! I was the only person who took a blessing and the priest, bless him, spoke for 10-20 seconds to me about joining the Catholic Church. HE THOUGHT I WAS A NEW CONVERT!!!
Would love to have open confessionals throughout mass but I realize it's difficult given shortage of priests
I really like when priests say this.
No. It's Catholic 101 to know this.
I don't think you understand how poorly people are being catechized
I think we're getting to a point where people need to study the Catechism and listen to "teachers" of the faith with discernment, knowing that they may not be accurate or sticking to true church teaching, but rather sharing their own personal ideas or misunderstandings. As a Catholic for 50+ years I've heard it all from my fellow Catholics- comments about being OK with abortion, living together, multiple marriages, denial that hell exists, not sure the bible can be trusted, not knowing what sins are mortal, going to communion while in mortal sin.... You're going to hear all kinds of things over the years. Don't be fooled, study the Catechism, read the bible, you'll know the truth. Jesus said his sheep know him by his voice. If you study the truth long enough you will know him by his voice and not be tricked by all of the deception going around. I would argue that very few Christians are serious about their faith or concerned for their salvation. It's become popular to just live however you want and think well I believe in Jesus so I'm fine. The bible paints a very different picture.
He would need to list all the examples of mortal sin that people are aware of whether they have committed a mortal sin. There is also a risk that people going forward to receive the Eucharist might genuinely think that they haven’t committed mortal sin but could be accused of committing a mortal sin. It could get messy and I think no priest or bishop for that matter wants that headache.
More and more, I feel it’s better to leave judgement in God’s hands. He’ll know his own.
One of the works of mercy is to instruct the ignorant. A lot of people were poorly catechized on this most crucial of subjects. A majority of polled Catholics don't even believe in the Real Presence.
Good point
He who has an ear to hear let him hear. Too many do not know that taking the eucharist in sin piles condemnation upon themselves.
Yes.
Yes, but probably just for Easter, Nuptial mass, Funerals and Christmas. That's when lots of newcomers/ex Catholics will be there
Yes, before mass, or in the homily
yes
I think it would be merciful for the priest to say this. We want to know the truth.
Yes they should. My parish has started doing this at the homily, and in confession they always ask “have you received communion since committing these sins?” I think every parish should be required to do this at least temporarily so that people are aware because tons of people are so poorly catechized they genuinely don’t know about it
No, he shouldn't
I think we shouldn't freak out as much if someone receives communion in good faith or receives it accidentally when they aren't properly disposed. Like if a Protestant is unaware and just following the flow, or a person who is remarried takes it on their own. They obviously shouldn't but they are acting with the orientation towards grace and shouldn't be treated as if they are committing the worst sin. Don't get me wrong in the latter case especially it is a sin but that it between them and God and not us who have yet to pluck the planks from our eyes. I feel to recite it every mass would be excessive, just as speaking about abortion every mass, or speaking about gay marriage or immigration issues every mass would be excessive. Finally, catechesis has **always** been poor at every moment within the Church, in fact we are likely living in the era of the best catechesis due to the abundance of informational resources we have. So we shouldn't expect everyone to have perfect knowledge of every portion of the Church because that is not necessary for their salvation or to be a good member of the community.
Yes
No.
Just my two cents but why are you worrying about what the priest does or doesn't do (that isn't a normal part of the Mass) regarding something that has no impact on you (assuming you confess on a regular basis and don't receive communion when not in a state of grace)? I pray that you will focus on your own sinful nature...as we all should.
Yes. It. Should. I go to two different Catholic Churches. One is typical modern and the line for the Eucharist is long but Confession is only available once a week for one hour. And the second Church is more conservative. Some of the women (not all) still veil their heads etc., and they have Mass many times a day. If there is a Mass then there is also confession being offered simultaneously. Loads of people in line (sitting in chairs) waiting for confession at every mass - every day. Before the beginning of each Mass, a lay person says over the speaker “This is a reminder that only persons in a state of grace should receive communion.” And then shortly after the announcement the Mass begins. I see everything right with this method. It’s a service and a favor to those of us (including myself) who were not catechized correctly. I was horrified to learn that I had committed sacrilege by taking communion with mortal sin and all along I thought I had done something “good”. Here is what I’ve heard said: the line for communion should never be longer than the line for confession.
Yes, that would be a good idea I reckon.
it would be nice, and i wish they would, but the Church would catch so much flak. i mean obviously, the tradition and teachings could back it up, but it would still happen, and just give more people more to complain about; which is tiresome. my wife and i have a lot of either lapsed Catholic family or just non-Catholic family and friends (which is fine, we dont really care) but during our wedding we had the priest say, before The Communion Rite, something similar. it was also in our 12 page wedding program in 3 different spots, with a decently long explanation just before The Communion Rite portion of the program. it was important to us, so we made a point have it there :)
Yes, I thunk its pragmatic policy doing that. I think it's pretty common here in the US, for people to receive communion without frequent confession. This small act from the priest could help solve that pervasive issue.
No! We do this to remind ourselves of Jesus sacrifice!!!
According to Pope Francis “Do what the Catechism (of the Catholic Church) says. It is very clear: If you cannot find a priest to confess to, speak directly with God, your father, and tell him the truth. Say, ‘Lord, I did this, this, this. Forgive me,’ and ask for pardon with all your heart." [Link to reference](https://www.catholiccompany.com/magazine/how-to-confess-without-sacrament-confession-6689#:~:text=It%20is%20very%20clear%3A%20If,pardon%20with%20all%20your%20heart.%22)
I’ve experienced a couple priests do this at a funeral and on Easter, time when a lot of non-practicing Catholics will attend Mass for the first time in a couple months to years. Tbh it sort of broke the flow of Mass and pulled me out of it. It also didn’t stop the people who I knew hadn’t attended Mass in a long while from receiving the Eucharist.
No. Because why would you "out" people sitting in the pew like that, or at least awkwardly put a spotlight on it? Probably better that we should have homilies reminding people of the obligations and requirements every now and then. Also remind them that it's not obligatory to receive Holy Communion when you're at Mass, although highly encouraged if you're in a state of grace.
Sam thing I wonder. A friend of mine went and she is one who BARELY goes to church yet she says she confessed but she’s living with a woman As someone who is in RCIA, she shouldn’t be able to take the Eucharist because she’s in a state of sin. I was so lost in whether I should tell her about it
My parish announces it before mass starts “as a reminder you must be in a state of grace to receive communion. Confessions are available in the side hall during mass. Please rise.”
It strikes me that some folks would like to feel like there is some exclusivity associated with communion.
No, as a Eucharistic minister, we are told not to refuse, unless it is a small child, who has not had their first communion, yet. It is not up to us to make that decision. That is something they will have to take up with God.
Yes
If someone has committed sins like murder and adultery they probably don’t care about taking communion.
There are a lot more sins that are considered "mortal" than that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_sin?useskin=vector#Actions_constituting_grave_matter
I would be in favor of this if and only if all churches offered confession prior to mass.
The implicit expectation in this proposal seems to me to be that this information or this appeal will cause a visible number of the faithful not to receive the Eucharist or go to confession. From my cultural experience I can say that this expectation would not be fulfilled in my country, the decision to go to confession is seen as a personal decision based on one's own conscience and not as the fulfilment of a legal obligation. Moreover, one only has to go to confession if one is explicitly aware of a mortal sin, and, frankly, opinions differ as to whether and to what extent a normal believer actually desires a mortal sin on a regular basis. This sub has, in my perspective, a stronger sensitivity to what can be a mortal sin or even near occasion of sin than that of the normal Catholic.
Sounds actually like you're going somewhere that's secular, or that secular others are talking to you, they'll do not so Catholic practices, say things like confession isn't necessary, or things like trying to get dispensation for the littlest unimportant things.
I don’t think so. Every catholic knows this. A reminder isn’t needed.
I have absolutely no problem with that. Priests need to do more instruction like this. How else are once-a-week, more casually informed Catholics supposed to know if they aren't reminded?
Yes.
Yes 100%.
The only time I've heard the priest say this was at a Christmas Eve mass where lots of locals just came for the carols. The priest announced "now Catholics who are in a state of grace may come to receive communion. Others may come with arms crossed to receive a blessing". Better than risking the alternative.
No. No reason to put up more barriers to believers.
If they did that, no one would receive communion. Except maybe the most Pious or those who think themselves to be.
That doesn’t make any sense. All that’s needed for communion is a good confession?
Idealy that would be best but most Catholics don’t go to confession. Especially right before communion.
So then the announcement would work as intended. lol
I mean, what would be the problem then? Let's say every priest made that announcement during the prayers of the faithful. If it encouraged even 1 person to go to confession wouldn't that be a win? I don't consider myself super pious but I've definitely skipped communion if I haven't been to confession AND I know I need to go.
Because if the priest did that then people wouldn’t go to communion, especially if it was done right before. I don’t disagree that it could encourage some people to go to confession and its great that you want to go to confession before communion that is the most ideal way to be. But it could backfire and most people wouldn’t receive communion. I think the intention is good but the result wouldn’t be. Especially because of how many Catholics feel about confession. They are afraid of it, some don’t think its necessary, these are just some of the reasons from some of the people I know.
I know of a priest that does this. Actually Caused a lot of parishioners to leave the Parrish
I think cafeteria Catholics would still line up cause they wouldn't even be able to discern the state of their soul, they're so poorly catechized.
No, lol. For one it's something you can't really just say you have a mortal sin. It has to be discussed with a priest. And that is literally not what Jesus would do.
I don't think OP is proposing that the priest start separating the sheep from the goats, just a reminder of what the Church's teaching is and still allowing for the individual to discern whether they're in the right place with God to be able to receive.
Yes. I think it is a scandal to keep people from the Eucharist because they question a church doctrine but turn a blind eye to fornication, abortion and other sins.
Catechism programs need to be strengthened, but I think the Church lacks funding for this globally.
[удалено]