Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Arriving After the Gospel; No Communion

ROME, NOV. 6, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

With respect to our piece on arriving late for Mass (Oct. 23) several readers pointed out opinions stating that one fulfilled the obligation if one arrived before the offertory.

These opinions were generally written before the Second Vatican Council and reflected the liturgical situation and canonical thought of the times. Back then, the first parts of the Mass were frequently referred to using expressions such as "pre-Mass" or "Mass of the catechumens."

Likewise the obligation to assist at Mass was frequently couched in strictly juridical terms and under pain of mortal sin which naturally led to questions as to the legal extent of the obligation.

I believe that the opinion that the offertory is a cut-off point is no longer valid.

First of all, while the obligation remains in force, canon law no longer explicitly obliges under pain of mortal sin. This does not mean that deliberately or negligently missing Mass is no longer a mortal sin; it is, but not in virtue of a canonical stricture.

In large part this is because one of the criteria in reforming the Code of Canon Law was to remove the obligation under pain of mortal sin from ecclesiastical precepts. Any sinfulness involved would depend on the circumstances and attitude toward God's will of the person who failed to fulfill the obligation.

Second, one of the most important aspects of the liturgical reform was to revaluate the Mass as a single act of worship, which must be attended in its entirety in order to be true to its nature.

This moving away from the juridical focus of the obligation and the stress on the wholeness of the Mass is why one is unlikely to ever find any official view suggesting arriving at the offertory, or any other moment of the Mass, as sufficient to fulfill the Sunday obligation.

Rather, each person must examine the causes of his lateness and act in good conscience out of love of God and fidelity to his will.

In this context, when I mentioned in my earlier column that a person who arrived after the consecration should not receive Communion, it was not to suggest that the consecration is a cut-off point. Rather, it simply suggested that missing the consecration is practically equivalent to missing Mass and not just arriving late.

The reason for refraining from Communion at this stage is out of respect for the Eucharist. That sacrament should be received after a proper spiritual preparation according to the mind of the Church.

Thus, I believe that a person finding himself in this situation through no fault of his own, and with no possibility of attending a later Mass, should rather prefer to wait till Mass is over and ask the priest to administer Communion outside of Mass according to the approved rites.

Of course, there might be special exceptions even to this. It is impossible to foresee all possible situations. I believe, however, that we should insist on proper reverence in administrating holy Communion according to the Church's mind and rites, and always strive to give the Eucharistic Lord all the love and respect that he deserves.