If I am late to a weekday mass, is it still okay to receive communion?

This is happening right now-I'm on my way to a mass in Nashville but I might arrive late.

Yes.

As there is no obligation to attend the Mass itself, in itself the missing of a part is no sin. In principle, one could even arrive just in time for communion and leave shortly after.

What is important is that one prepare himself for the sacrament and offer suitable thanksgiving. He should not leave right after, e.g., unless urgent necessity requires it. And it is ideal to partake in Mass, even apart from receiving communion. But if one is receiving reverently, better to do so, than to omit it because the circumstances are less than perfect

Thank you. I made it in time for the full mass! But I think it was a good question...

Just to derail this thread,

Obviously weekday masses are not required of the faithful, however should one show up late for a Sunday mass, are then fit to receive communion? Would one need to find a whole other mass to fulfill the Sunday obligation?

I thought we aren't supposed to receive Communion if we arrive after the Gospel.

ETA: Fr. McNamara gives the following opinion:

Although I prefer not to hazard giving a precise cutoff moment, certainly someone who arrives after the consecration has not attended Mass, should not receive Communion, and if it is a Sunday, go to another Mass.

He is wrong.

We are not talking about the obligation to attend Mass.


And the Gospel is not a cutoff point. That notion is only from the 1970's, and is arbitrary. The obligation is for the whole Mass, and it is a sin to miss any and you have to make up for the missed part. Where distinctions of the part of Mass play a role is a) whether the making up of a part if a light or grave obligation b) whether one is obligate to attend another Mass in toto, since the essence of the Mass is missed, namely the consecration. There Fr. Mcnamara if right.

But he is wrong about communion. While it is ideal to go to Mass, if one misses a part of Mass, whether a lighter part (e.g. the very beginning, e.g., through the "liturgy of the word"/ Mass of the Catechism), or an graver part, (e.g. the offertory) or the essential act (consecration), he can still receive communion, just as he can receive communion outside of Mass.

Maybe if he had already received communion that day, he could not, since a second communion requires that it be in a Mass. But a first communion does not. So you might say, if you missed the Consecration, that you were not there for Mass. You missed the sacrifice. But that does not mean you cannot receive communion


ETA: He actually does not answer the question, but rambles about Mass obligation which was not what was asked.

He is also wrong about what the moral manuals said. I hate, hate, hate this garbage. Just sick of it. He is repeating something that is not true, never having looked at the source before, he repeats what he has been told by people who either were similarly misled, or, for some reason, in an agenda to discredit "pre Vatican II theology" someone misrepresented it.

Sorry, but that just goads me.

FWIW, just glanced back over some manualists. Davis, SJ, states (in summarizing Church decrees about frequent communion), that habitual negligence of preparation and thanksgiving, such as participating in Mass, when they could be reasonably done, is a sign that communion is receive out of routine, rather than reverence.

Note, we are talking about neglect of preparation and thanksgiving, presumably setting time for both. Attending Mass is an example. This only becomes an impediment to frequent communion (or more accurately put, a red flag that one needs to examine his dispositions better) when a) neglected b) habitually so c) when such can be reasonably done.

If I have, say, a short time before I need to go to work, and this requires that I leave right after communion, that is not a sin. I offer thankgiving, of course, as far as I can, internally...maybe on the car ride to work.



NB: This does not apply to the sacred Triduum. Communion, on THOSE days must be received within the context of the liturgy. Except, in the old rite, it is allowed for a just cause to distribute communion immediately after the Holy Thursday Mass. (with exceptions of viaticum, sick, etc). And of course, aside from visitation of the sick, shut ins etc, communion must be given in a sacred place under similar norms to where Mass can be said.

So what you're saying is, it is lawful for a Catholic to just walk into the middle of a daily mass and receive Communion and walk out.

In se, yes. Of course.

It's not entirely arbitrary since the Gospel was part of the Arcanum in the old Roman Rite (which is why the current dismissal of catechumens is done at the wrong place where it's done ... but I digress).

Ιασων, can you refer me to a source on this?

Moral and Pastoral Theology, Davis, SJ

Prümmer, Summa Theologia Moralis

Quam singulari

CIC 1917 and Prümmer Manuale iuris canonicae

The 1983 CIC, which does not fundamentally alter these provisions, except to make communion even easier (fast and twice a day, e.g.) Canon 917, Can. 917 A person who has already received the Most Holy Eucharist can receive it a second time on the same day only within the eucharistic celebration in which the person participates. Canon 918 only "highly recommends" that communion be receive in the context of Mass, any just cause permits outside of Mass.

That implies that the first communion need not have been "within the Eucharistic celebration in which the person participates"

The fact is the law of the Church explicitly allows communion outside of a Mass in which the person participates.


There is a moral obligation to not only fast and not be in sin, but be spiritually disposed. Therefore, whatever reasonable time can be given to preparation and thanksgiving is a moral obligation. It is a sin to neglect this when one can reasonably do otherwise. But the presumption here is that one shows up late not out of irreverence, but due to time constraints. If he is properly dispose, nothing prevents this even if he show up just in time to be the last communicant.

I think I remember some rule, or perhaps just false word of mouth, that in regards to a Sunday obligation, if you arrive past the Gospel reading, it "doesn't count" as your Sunday obligation. This might be what AAD was thinking of, but I of course could be mistaken or simply going with something that was said to me in error many years ago.

Yeah that rule is malarkey

From Prummer

1. Corporal presence is the first requisite for the Sunday precept. This presence is judged sufficient whenever the one hearing Mass is morally joined with the celebrant, so that it can truly be said that the one assisting morally hears the Mass and offers the sacrifice with the celebrant. Therefore, they satisfy the precept in respect to corporeal presence:

a) all who are within the Church, even if they stand in a side chapel, or behind a column, where they can neither see nor hear the celebrating priest, as long as still from the sound of the bells or from the signs of others who stand nearer the Mass, they can perceive in some manner what is done by the celebrant.

b) even they who stand outside the Church, near the doors (even if closed), nay also those in a nearby building, as long as they are able to in some way still perceive the ceremonies. Which certainly Lugo and after him many others limit saying: as long as that building is not beyond thirty paces [a mile is 1000 paces, mille passus so 150 ft about] distant from the Church, but in truth this ought not be determined mathematically. Indeed, if someone can attend with religious reverence the ceremonies of the Mass and there exists a moral union with the celebrant, sufficient moral presence seems to be present. However, this manner of assisting from a nearby house and generally from a place outside the Church without a reasonable cause, e.g. infirmity, cannot be permitted. Sufficient corporeal presence certainly does not seem to be if someone hears the Mass by the operation of that new invention, which is called "Radio"

2. Presence ought to be during the whole Mass, i.e. from the begining of the Mass even to the blessing of the priest inclusively. The last Gospel does not seem to pertain to the integrity of the Mass. Whence it is said in the test above cited from the Council of Agathensis (??) "We prescribe by a special order that seculars hear the entire Mass on the Lord's day: so that the people do not presume to leave before the blessing of the priest. Which if they do, they shall be confounded by the bishop." The reason is that since in ancient liturgies of the East and the West there was no Gospel read by the priest after the blessing. But since according to the liturgy in force the Gospel of St. John (or another Gospel) is always read at the end of Mass, it is most irreverent if the faithful without sufficient reason leave immediately after the blessing of the priest...

...He who cannot assist at the whole of Mass, is held at least to be present for the essential part, e.g. consecration, communion, if this is possible. But he who can assist only for some accidental part, e.g up to the Gospel, is not bound to anything. Therefore he who comes before the consecration and cannot assist at another Mass, is held at least to remain to the end of Mass. But he who comes after the consecration, according to many casuists, is not held to assist at the remaining part. But St. Alphonse asserts: "We say that he is well obliged to hear the rest of Mass, for he who cannot fulfill an imposed precept, is held to as much as he can, probabiliter [a probable opinion]" Moreover, all the things which follow after the consecration even to the end, are certainly a notable and essential part of the Mass, and so then he who can hear that part is held to this.

[omitting discussion of parts of Mass, jump to examples]

a. Peter arrives, say with the Gospel already having been said. He is bound under a light obligation to supply from a later Mass that part of Mass already said. He is excused from this supplying even on account of a light inconvenience

b. Peter arrives to the Church, with the offertory already done. He is held either to remain even to the end of this Mass and then hear all of another Mass up until the offertory inclusively, or leaving the first Mass, to hear another Mass entire. This obligation is grave, from which he is not excused except by a grave inconvenience.

c. Peter arrives after the consecration. He is held to hear another Mass entire; if he cannot do this, he is held to remain at this Mass even to the end, as St. Alphonse said above [probable opinion, others say he has no obligation]

[He goes one about how assistance must be religious-- a person who goes to Church solely to hear the music does not fulfill the precept. The must be the intention to worship God. However someone may go for another, profane reason, as long as he also intends the worship of God. A child who goes under fear of his parents, a boy who goes to see a girl. Though if this is the chief reason he sins.]

[one needs to give due attention. One need not say the proper prayers, but he must give at least external attention. He cannot do anything contrary or willfully distracting, reading a profane book. But he who plays the organ or reads a pious book still satisfies the precept, as long as in some way he attends to the Mass occurring and worships God.]




All of this is well established. This text betrays its age, clearly before Vatican II. But so what. This "Let us ignore every consensus of the past, and grope around on our own wits" that is evidenced in so much post-Vatican II answers, I reject.