A reader writes:
My wife went to confession this
past Sunday. Our church provides confession before mass and it runs up
to communion. While in line for confession, she said she wasn’t able
to concentrate on the readings, then by the time she came out of the
confessional, she had missed the end of the gospel. She then
considered not receiving communion because she felt she did not
complete her Sunday obligation of mass. She finally decided to receive
communion, but on the drive home she thought that she may have
committed a sin by receiving communion. She ended up going to another
mass later that evening, but that didn’t calm her fears. Is
there anything I can tell her or do to help her?
Yes. Let’s split this question in two.
First: Did your wife sin by receiving Communion when she hadn’t been able to participate in part of the liturgy of the word?
NO!
Y’know why? Because YOU DON’T HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN MASS IN ORDER
TO RECEIVE COMMUNION. That’s why there are Communion services. That’s
why the Church’s documents EXPLICITLY note that it’s licit to receive
Communion even if you just happen to be walking through a church when
Communion is being distributed.
How much or how little of the Mass you attend when you receive
Communion the first time during a day has NOTHING to do with whether
you can receive Communion. You don’t even have to be at Mass at all!
You may be receiving in a Communion service (as is the case, for
example, with the sick who are receiving Communion in the hospital).
(NOTE: This applies to the FIRST time you receive Communion on a
given day. If you want to receive twice then canon law provides that
the SECOND time you receive that you need to do so in the context of a
Mass that you are attending.)
Since this was the first time (I assume) that your wife had received Communion that day, there was NO SIN AT ALL committed.
Receiving Communion and fulfilling one’s Sunday obligation are TWO SEPARATE ISSUES.
Now let’s deal with the second question: Did your wife fulfill her Sunday obligation?
Yes.
Not only because she went to Mass later in the day but ALSO because
her participation in the first Mass was sufficient to satisfy the
requirements of canon law.
Here’s why:
The Church HASN’T specified precisely how much or what parts of the
Mass one needs to attend in order to fulfill one’s Sunday obligation.
Obviously, it needs to be a significant part of the Mass, but the
Church has not offered us an explicit formula for figuring this out.
That means that it is reasonable to look to the historic practice of
the Church for help in figuring out this question. When we do that, we
find that the situation your wife was in is VERY COMMON in Church
history. Before the liturgy was revised, it was VERY COMMON to have
confessions being heard during the liturgy of the word (which was then
called the "Mass of the catechumens," separate from the liturgy of the
Eucharist or "Mass of the faithfu") and–y’know what?–they DIDN’T stop
confessions during the gospel so people could hear it. Nor did the
Church tell people they had to go to another Mass if they didn’t hear
the gospel.
A common stream of opinion prior to the reform of the liturgy was
that you satisfied your Sunday obligation AS LONG AS YOU HEARD THE MASS
FROM THE OFFERTORY NEAR THE BEGINNING OF THE LITURGY OF THE EUCHARIST
OR "MASS OF THE FAITHFUL." In other words, YOU COULD MISS THE ENTIRE
LITURGY OF THE WORD OR "MASS OF THE CATECHUMENS" AND STILL FULFILL YOUR
SUNDAY OBLIGATION.
I can quote this point from MULTIPLE pre-Concililiar moral theologies if necessary.
That being the case, we then ask: Do the Church’s documents indicate that MORE than this is required today?
No.
They don’t.
In fact, as I’ve mentioned, canon law does not indicate anything at
all regarding how much of the Mass we need to attend in order to
satisfy our Sunday obligation, which also tells us something else: THEY
DON’T WANT US SCRUPULING ABOUT THIS POINT. If they wanted us to scruple
about it, they would have told us more precisely what is required.
As long as we’re making a basic effort to do our part and attending
Mass–and ESPECIALLY if we attend Mass from the Offertory onwards,
which was commonly considered sufficient in the past–then we have done
that.
Now maybe she might have doubts about this.
Okay, then in comes our old friend, Canon 14 of the Code of Canon Law, which provides that in cases of a doubt of law then the law does not bind.
Given the lack of guidance on this question and the presence of the
pre-Conciliar history of regarding hearing Mass from the Offertory
onward as sufficient we AT LEAST have a doubt of whether the law
requires us to attend any particular part of the liturgy of the Word in
order to fulfill our Sunday obligation.
We therefore have a doubt of law, and the law does not bind unless and until Rome clarifies it.
Until then the faithful are not obligated to hear any part of the
liturgy of the word in order to fulfill their Sunday obligation.
That may surprise some folks, but that’s what canon law indicates
given the doubt of law situation that unambiguously exists in this case.
If your wife couldn’t concentrate on certain readings (which
wouldn’t have counted prior to the reform of the liturgy, anyway) or
didn’t hear the gospel then she CLEARLY fulfilled her obligation under
the old law and, since the new law doesn’t specify and has the
provision regarding a doubt of law not binding then she CLEARLY
fulfilled her Sunday obligation by attending the part of Mass that she
did.
So: It was praiseworthy for your wife to go to the lengths she did
to attend another Mass, but it was not required by the law and she did
not sin. Her Sunday obligation was fulfilled (TWICE!) and she should
not scruple on this point.
20
I attend Mass at a parish run by the Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest– a traditionalist order. They still have confessions during the Masses on Sunday. It took me awhile to get used to that. But, as an aside, about 200 people avail themselves of this sacrament every Sunday!
The Church HASN’T specified precisely how much or what parts of the Mass one needs to attend in order to fulfill one’s Sunday obligation. Obviously, it needs to be a significant part of the Mass, but the Church has not offered us an explicit formula for figuring this out.
I was taught that we had to be there by the Gospel. Since this goes back to Pre-Vat II days, maybe there were regulations in the past.
“SCRUPULING”.
“SCRUPULING”.
I just like to say “SCRUPULING”.
I was taught that we had to be there by the Gospel. Since this goes back to Pre-Vat II days, maybe there were regulations in the past.
There weren’t. The Church didn’t have detailed regulations then, either. When that happens, you fall back on “the common and constant opinion of learned persons,” as found in the moral and pastoral theologies of the time.
In preparing the post last night I consulted three conservative pre-Conciliar moral theologies and ALL rejected the “must be there by the gospel” position.
…I consulted three conservative pre-Conciliar moral theologies and ALL rejected the “must be there by the gospel” position.
I consulted my “expert” too, my Mom, and she agrees. :^)
The 2002 Motu Proprio of John Paul II “Misericordia Dei” made it clear that Confession during the Mass is permitted:
“2. Local Ordinaries, and parish priests and rectors of churches and shrines, should periodically verify that the greatest possible provision is in fact being made for the faithful to confess their sins. It is particularly recommended that in places of worship confessors be visibly present at the advertized times, that these times be adapted to the real circumstances of penitents, and that confessions be especially available before Masses, and even during Mass if there are other priests available, in order to meet the needs of the faithful. (Footnote 15: Cf. Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Responsa ad dubia proposita: Notitiae, 37 (2001) 259-260)”.
The full document is at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_20020502_misericordia-dei_en.html
Jimmy. One can also…oh, 20. Never mind.
This is awesome!! I always thought it was the Gospel, too!
Oh, and it’s “scrupling”.
You people bust me up:)
Scrupling! Scrupling!
Reidtgang
Now if we could just get the C&E Catholics to show up at all! (I almost forgot about the Holy Day of Non-Obligation that they also show up—–
Ash Wednesday!!!)
This strays a little from the subject. I’m wondering about watching mass on tv for the sick and elderly. If you can’t go to mass I know that you don’t need to fulfill your obligation, but do you get some of the same graces as if you are attending mass? What do you get excactly? I’m often not up to attending mass due to illness, but I always watch it on EWTN.
I asked my bishop this question and he didn’t know. If you don’t get any grace or blessing, why would they bother showing it on tv?
Thanks for any reply.
Caroline, from Chatham, On Canada
All CAPITALS in a text (as opposed to a title, for example) is equivalent to “shouting”. Bad netiquette. Bold or italics would be better.
Caroline,
When you watch and follow along with a TV or Radio Mass (or a devotion such as the rosary) you are praying and opening yourself up to God’s grace, so of course you are receiving grace. In doing this you are acting upon your love for Christ, and such love is always rewarded by God. Christ tells us that where two or three are gathered in his name, he is present among them. When you join yourself to the other Massgoers via EWTN, you are, in a real sense, joined together with them, and certainly the Lord is present to you at that time.
You’ve taken a great burden off of me. I always thought you had to be there by the gospel. I attend daily Mass, and I sometimes get there 5 minutes late due to traffic. In 5 minutes they can be finished with the gospel if the readings are short. It would make me feel like crying watching everyone else go to communion and feeling like I was prevented by the stupid traffic. What a relief!
Jimmy, I’ve known people who time getting to Sunday Mass by when the Holy Holy Holy starts, figuring you only need to get there by the Consecration. Legalism at its worst.
What Mr. Akin did not point out is that missing any part of Mass without a justifiable reason is a venial sin, according to those pre-conciliar sources. So legalism isn’t the problem, apathy to sin is.
I should say, missing any part of Mass to which there is the obligation of attending.
2 comments:
First, to Mrs. Dr. P:
No matter what time you get to daily Mass you can receive communion, because you have no obligation to be there at all. (Therefore you are not committing a mortal sin by arriving late.) Like Jimmy said, you can just be walking through a church and receive communion.
Second, to Pazdziernik:
Please be patient with those of us who are technically challenged and don’t know how to do bold or italics except in Microsoft Word. 🙂 I often use ALL CAPS to emphasize a point because I don’t know how to make it to italics here. (Were you talking to other commenters, or to Jimmy?) Anyway, I don’t think everyone views it as shouting.
Breier:
You make a good point that we need to abhor venial sin as well as mortal sin. But the question Jimmy was answering was regarding whether or not the woman committed a mortal sin by going to confession during Mass and then by receiving Communion. The woman was sitting there afterwards worrying for her soul. (I know when I thought I committed a mortal sin I worried that I would die before getting to confession–could happen). We can see from his answer that certainly she did not commit a mortal sin, and not even a venial one.
If you are right (about missing any part of Sunday Mass is a venial sin) then the effect should be that we try not to do it, and if we do then we are sorry and confess it next time we get to Confession. But that is very different from the question posed.
“I often use ALL CAPS to emphasize a point because I don’t know how to make it to italics here. “.
Louise-
ME, TOO!
I don’t know how to do the combox italics either, and don’t really care.
Let’s see if I can pull this off.
To bold: <b>text</b>
To italicize: <i>text</i>
To underline: <u>text</u>
Right description, wrong example for underline.
To bold: text
To italicize: text
To underline: text
Whaddaya know. I have known these forever, but I’d never gotten bold and underline to work here at this blog before. Only italics always worked for me. Oh wait — underline appears not to work.
testing bold
Oh, for bold, instead of “b” inside the <>, use the word “strong” inside the <>
Let me try:
This text should be bold and this should be regular.
This text should be italicized and this should be normal.
Dude! It worked! Thanks for the lessons!
bold text?
Mr. Akin:
Great post. I’ve often wondered about this, as I’ve been known to attend confession during mass at one of my local parishes. It’s comforting to be a part of Church that provides guidance even for us lowly anal retentive types.
Tim
Chicago, IL
Jimmy would you be kind enough to cite “the Church’s documents EXPLICITLY not(ing) that it’s licit to receive Communion even if you just happen to be walking through a church when Communion is being distributed.”
Many thanks!
Jimmy,
Still waiting for the cite where the Church’s documents EXPLICITLY note that it’s licit to receive Communion even if you just happen to be walking through a church where Commmunion is being distributed.
Many thanks!