Arriving After the Gospel: No Communion

ROME, OCT. 23, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: My parish priest made a regulation that anyone who arrives in Mass after the Gospel is not allowed to take Communion. According to him, the reason is that Jesus is "the Word made flesh." Therefore we must recognize Jesus in the Word before we recognize him in holy Communion. Another priest, who is a professor of liturgy, has another opinion. He said that people who arrive late in Mass with a valid reason (for example, an unusual traffic jam, attending sick children, etc.) should not be denied Communion. Could you please give a clarification on this matter? -- B.E., Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

A: We dealt with the question of late arrivals at Mass in one of our first columns, on Nov. 4 and Nov. 18, in 2003.

Then as now, I would agree more with the second priest: that someone who arrives late out of no fault of their own should not be denied Communion.

I also consider it unwise to set any barrier point; I continue to insist that the faithful should assist at the whole Mass.

It is quite possible that some members of the faithful could begin to see the Gospel as the cutoff moment and feel comfortable in habitually arriving for the second reading, thus assuring that the Mass is "valid."

It is true that the Mass is a whole and that we must first recognize Jesus in the Word before we recognize him in the Eucharist. But this would include the entire Liturgy of the Word and not just the Gospel.

Also, while there is some certain logic in choosing the Gospel as such a moment, the reasons given are not sufficiently well grounded from the theological, canonical and moral standpoints to support such a blanket impediment to receiving Communion.

The pastor has a duty to direct and inform the consciences of the faithful entrusted to him. And while I disagree with his suggesting the Gospel as a demarcation point for receiving Communion, it is at least clear that he his trying to perform his sacred duty.

Therefore, the onus of the decision whether or not to receive Communion, in this particular case of a late arrival, falls primarily upon the individual Catholic rather than upon the pastor who can hardly be expected to be attentive to every late arrival.

It is therefore incumbent on those arriving late to examine their conscience as to the reason behind their tardiness. If the reason is neglect or laziness, then they would do better attending another full Mass if this is possible. Even those who blamelessly arrive late should prefer to assist at a full Mass although they would be less bound to do so in conscience.

At the same time, there are some objective elements to be taken into account besides the reason for lateness. Someone who arrives after the consecration has not attended Mass, no matter what the reason for his belatedness. Such a person should not receive Communion, and if it is a Sunday, has the obligation to attend another Mass.

It is true that Communion may be received outside of Mass, so Mass is not an essential prerequisite for receiving Communion. This would not, however, justify arriving just in time for Communion at a weekday Mass, as all of the rites for receiving Communion outside of Mass include a Liturgy of the Word and one should attend the entire rite.

* * *

Follow-up: Mentioning the Mass Intention

After our commentaries on reading out Mass intentions (Oct. 9) a priest observed: "At a concelebrated Mass, each concelebrant conceivably has a separate Mass intention. At my monastery, we have daily concelebration, and we have a policy of never mentioning any Mass intention at Mass. Otherwise, it could happen that if one Mass intention is mentioned by the presiding celebrant, someone may be present who has requested a different intention from one of the concelebrants, and would have the impression that the requested intention was not fulfilled."

This is certainly a legitimate policy given the circumstances. There might be particular occasions, however, when the fact that several priests are concelebrating specifically allows for more than one intention to be mentioned, provided that the faithful know that each intention will be entrusted to a different priest.

Even though only one Mass is celebrated at a concelebration, each priest legitimately celebrates a Mass and may receive a stipend for the corresponding intention.

There is, however, a strict norm that a priest may never receive a stipend for a concelebrated Mass if he celebrates, or more rarely concelebrates, another Mass on the same day.

For example, if our correspondent, besides concelebrating at the community Mass in the monastery, were to also celebrate for the people at some other time, he could only accept a stipend for the second Mass.

He could have any number of personal intentions to offer at the community Mass, but none associated with a stipend.

* * *

Unfortunately, even in parishes where there are no announcements or only brief announcements after Communion, there are always people who leave as soon as they receive. I guess they pray privately after Communion while they’re driving home!

“Scots-Irish Presbyterians.”

That would explain it. How ‘bout the Catholic Irish? Wasn’t the Klan just a bit against those Papists? This of course is not to say that churches weren’t burned and priests tarred and feathered in the North. My great great grandfather fought back as a howling nativist mob burned down the Catholic Church in our town, cut the fire hoses when the fire brigade showed up and tarred and feathered the priest. He was nearly killed and was never quite right after the beating he got.

“So in what Southern city was your father told to not shine shoes in front of the hotel?”

My grandfather and in a very Northern city.

Poor sweet lambs!

Keep working on them! At their age, they'll probably eventually pester their mom into letting them be baptized.

It sounds as though the mom is not just lukewarm or inattentive, but actively resisting. Is she not just non-Catholic, but anti-Catholic? Mixed marriages are always tough . . . even when it's as slight a difference as Methodist and Episcopalian (which is how we started out).

My grandfather and in a very Northern city.

If that's the best evidence you can come up with of anti-Greek discrimination in the South, then your case doesn't survive summary judgment.

My great great grandfather fought back as a howling nativist mob burned down the Catholic Church in our town

Again, in what Southern city did that occur, or again are you trying to bring in irrelevant evidence?

Wasn’t the Klan just a bit against those Papists?

Which Klan are you talking about? The original Forrest bunch, no. The Indiana crowd of the teens and 20's, yes, they brought with them their northern anti-Semitism. The Southern nightriders of the 50s and 60s - no, except insofar as they found a Catholic trying to help organize the Blacks. It was the Black churches which were getting bombed, not the Catholic ones.

I'm going to pass the "Judas left early too" on to Monsignor . . . it's too good to waste.

We have SOME but not too many sneaking out before the dismissal hymn is over . . . there has already been some pointed comment made and it seems to have had an effect.

My position is, I'll spend some time listening to the postlude (yeah, we have a postlude and there are actually folks still around to hear it), go down to the choir room and hang up my robe, visit with some friends, maybe grab a cup of coffee from the kitchen. By then all the traffic in the parking lot is GONE, and good riddance. No need to sprint to try to beat the Baptists to the Waffle House, 'cause they're all already there (this is an 11:30 Mass and by 12:30 all the Baptists around here are long gone.)

You're one of the few people I've run across that knows the difference between the KKK of the teens and twenties in the Midwest (the Evans-Stephenson crowd) and the Southern KKK in the 50s . . .

None of 'em are missed particularly, but the Midwestern Klan was more a collection of professional criminals than anything else.

Is your point that there was not any discrimination against Greeks in the South? Just what sort of “evidence” do you want presented on this sort of forum? I’ve already seen variations on “Some of my best friends were Greeks” and “We so loved our Greek neighbors” Come on. If you think you will convince me that there was never any discrimination against Greeks in the South it won’t work. Now have I ever experienced discrimination in the South because I have a Greek mother? No. Have I heard of such discrimination? Yes; as recently as Tuesday from the godfather of my sons who just got back from Virginia. Sadly, I cannot put him under oath, record him and post it here.

You know, P, this whole silly discussion started because another poster defended indefensible Roman communion practices by implying that the Greeks might have provided a better example, apparently down South, if they weren’t so unfriendly at their church. I suggested a reason for that unfriendliness. You don’t want to accept that which is fine by me. It also doesn’t surprise me.

“We so loved our Greek neighbors”

There weren't many Greek neighbors, so there wasn't much interaction. A few guys that ran cafes, one of the local pharmacists, that was about it.

Folks discriminate against the group they feel threatened by. In most of the south, there weren't enough Greeks to constitute a threat. The only place I can think of, off the top of my head, where there was a sizable concentration of Greeks was Tarpon Springs, Florida.

The lynchings in Nebraska were sparked by one those lynched killing a police officer, so I doubt that was the incident you were talking about.

Wisconsin, Nebraska, they’re all out there somewhere. :)

And, everyone knows that anywhere in flyover territory is exactly like the rest of flyover territory. LOL

Oops, wrote my earlier reply before my coffee.

“The idea that you can is blasphemy. It’s an insult to Christ. The bread in Communion is not Christ’s body. The bread represents Christ’s body.”

No, the bread literally becomes the Body of Christ, as Christ himself said.

I’ve already seen variations on “Some of my best friends were Greeks” and “We so loved our Greek neighbors”

Look, darn it, that's a foul blow.

I gave you an example - just ONE example among a number of well respected Greek citizens (I could have named a doctor, another couple of lawyers (I mostly know lawyers), a businessman whose son was one of my high school classmates) but probably the best known - of a good man, a pillar of the cathedral here, who was respected by all, re-elected repeatedly to public office, and memorialized by not only the entire GA General Assembly but arguably the most powerful man in Georgia at the time, and all you can say is a nasty mocking variation of "Some of my best friends are NEEgroes?"

That's not just anecdotal evidence of a personal friendship -- that's widespread public support and admiration for a man by Southerners who obviously didn't give a darn where his ancestors came from, even if it WAS Ohio. And I linked to an actual copy of the resolution, so there's your hard evidence.

Now, are you going to take back and apologize for your nasty wholesale slur on the South?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.