On worthy Holy Communion, the examination of conscience, and the recovery of divine worship as the first purpose of attending Mass
✠ Jerome Lloyd OSJV, Titular Archbishop of Selsey
I am increasingly convinced that one of the most serious problems confronting contemporary Catholic life is not simply a decline in religious observance, nor even the widespread ignorance of particular doctrines, but a fundamental misunderstanding of what the sacraments are and why they are given. Too often, they are approached as though they were personal accomplishments, milestones in religious development, or privileges to which individuals become entitled through participation in the life of the Church. Their essential character as undeserved gifts of divine mercy has become obscured. This confusion is especially apparent in prevailing attitudes towards Holy Communion, where sacramental reception is increasingly treated as an expected expression of belonging to the gathered congregation rather than a sacred encounter with Christ requiring faith, repentance and proper spiritual disposition.
The distinction matters enormously. The sacraments are not things which human beings achieve. They are supernatural gifts instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ, through which He communicates His grace and sanctifies those who receive them with the requisite dispositions. Their efficacy derives from Christ, not from the accomplishments, emotions or personal worthiness of the recipient. The proper response to such gifts is therefore not self-congratulation, but humility, gratitude and a renewed determination to live according to the grace received. St Paul’s question to the Corinthians expresses the principle with remarkable simplicity: “Or what hast thou that thou hast not received? And if thou hast received, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?” (1 Corinthians 4:7).¹ The Apostle’s challenge applies with particular force to the sacramental life. Whatever preparation may precede our reception of grace, we remain its beneficiaries, not its authors.
Consider the celebrations surrounding First Holy Communion, Confirmation and Sacred Ordination. These occasions ought to be among the most joyful in Catholic life, yet the manner in which they are sometimes presented can suggest that the recipient has attained a personal distinction rather than been blessed by God. First Holy Communion becomes the culmination of a course of preparation; Confirmation resembles a graduation from religious instruction; Ordination is celebrated almost as the crowning achievement of an ecclesiastical career. Considerable attention may be devoted to clothing, photographs, festivities, congratulations and presentations, while the supernatural significance of what has taken place receives comparatively little emphasis. None of these outward celebrations is objectionable in itself. Families are right to rejoice when their children receive the sacraments, and the Church should celebrate the gift of priestly vocations. But the festivities must never obscure the nature of the gift. The child receiving Our Lord for the first time has not earned Him. The confirmand has not achieved the Holy Ghost. The ordinand has not made himself worthy of the priesthood through years of study or preparation. Each has been granted something which no human effort could ever purchase.
This is not to deny the importance of preparation, perseverance or the proper exercise of human freedom. Sacramental preparation is necessary, and those approaching the sacraments must possess the dispositions appropriate to their reception. The distinction is between cooperating with grace and imagining that grace is owed to us because of our cooperation. A priest may have studied diligently, endured years of formation and responded generously to a divine vocation; nevertheless, the priesthood is not his personal accomplishment. It is a sacred office conferred through the grace of Holy Orders, bringing obligations far exceeding any distinction attached to it. The same principle applies to every sacrament. The recipient is not honoured because he has become sufficiently deserving. He is blessed because God has chosen to bestow His gifts upon the undeserving, calling them thereby to holiness.
I believe this confusion has had particularly serious consequences for the understanding of Holy Communion. The Eucharist is increasingly perceived primarily as a sign of fellowship with the other members of the congregation, a visible expression that one belongs to the community gathered for worship. Certainly, the Eucharist has an essential ecclesial dimension. The faithful are united in Christ, and sacramental Communion both expresses and deepens the unity of His Mystical Body. It would be mistaken to deny this aspect of the sacrament. The difficulty arises when the order of that relationship is reversed. Our communion with one another derives from our communion with Christ. We are not principally receiving a symbol of fellowship with our neighbours; we are receiving the true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Our unity with one another is founded upon that supernatural reality and the common profession of the faith which it presupposes. As Benedict XVI explained in Sacramentum Caritatis, Eucharistic communion and ecclesial communion are inseparably related precisely because the Eucharist is the sacrament of Christ’s presence and sacrifice.²
When this understanding becomes obscured, Holy Communion gradually assumes the character of a social expectation. Attendance at Mass is presumed to entail reception. Those who remain in their places while others approach the altar may feel conspicuous, embarrassed or obliged to explain themselves. The expectation can extend even to those who are not Catholic, or who do not share the Church’s faith concerning the Eucharist, because withholding Communion is increasingly interpreted as a refusal of fellowship rather than the observance of sacramental discipline. Yet the Church does not possess the authority to redefine the Eucharist as an indiscriminate sign of welcome. Its reception requires communion in the faith and life of the Church, subject to the particular provisions of ecclesiastical law. The carefully defined exceptions concerning certain other baptised Christians do not establish a general principle of unrestricted admission. The Blessed Sacrament is not ours to distribute according to changing social expectations. It is Christ’s gift, entrusted to His Church, to be administered according to His truth.
It is my pastoral judgement that far too many Catholics now receive Holy Communion frequently when they ought first to examine their consciences and recognise that they should refrain. I do not make that observation as a claim to know the spiritual condition of particular individuals. The secrets of conscience belong to God, and no priest is entitled to presume the presence of mortal sin merely from appearances. Nor do I possess statistical evidence by which to measure the precise proportion of communicants who may be improperly disposed. My concern arises from the increasingly habitual expectation of reception, the apparent decline in recourse to sacramental confession, and the diminished emphasis upon the examination of conscience as an indispensable preparation for approaching the altar. Where Communion becomes automatic, its frequency can conceal rather than demonstrate spiritual maturity.
The number of people receiving at Mass tells us very little, by itself, about the holiness of a congregation. A parish in which almost everyone receives may be one whose members are genuinely devoted to the Blessed Sacrament, regularly examine their consciences and avail themselves of confession whenever necessary. But the same outward appearance might exist in a parish where examination of conscience is rarely taught, confession is neglected and reception has become an unquestioned custom. We cannot determine the spiritual reality by counting communicants. The more meaningful question is whether Catholics understand why they are receiving, what dispositions are required, and whether they are prepared to refrain when conscience obliges them to do so.
St Paul’s warning to the Corinthians leaves no room for treating this responsibility lightly. He commands that a person should examine himself before receiving the Eucharist and warns against receiving without discerning the Lord’s Body. The Douay-Rheims translation renders his admonition with unmistakable gravity: “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself” (1 Corinthians 11:29).³ These words ought to be familiar to every Catholic preparing for Holy Communion. The Apostle does not regard reception as an automatic benefit conferred by participation in the Christian assembly. He insists that it carries a responsibility proportionate to the holiness of the gift.
The warning should neither be exaggerated nor diminished. St Paul does not teach that every instance of unworthy reception automatically results in eternal damnation. Indeed, his subsequent words distinguish divine chastisement from condemnation. Nevertheless, deliberately receiving the Blessed Sacrament while conscious of unrepented mortal sin constitutes a grave sacrilege and places the soul in spiritual danger. Where mortal sin is persisted in without repentance, eternal salvation itself is imperilled. It would be a strange conception of pastoral charity which regarded it as more compassionate to encourage sacramental reception regardless of disposition than to warn the faithful against offending Our Lord and endangering their souls. The Church’s discipline exists not merely to protect the dignity of the sacrament, but also for the spiritual welfare of those who approach it.
For this reason, I believe it would be a far more convincing indication of developing personal holiness if Catholics recovered the habit of serious and honest examination of conscience before receiving Holy Communion. Where such examination reveals mortal sin, they should seek sacramental confession before approaching the altar. Where a genuine and well-founded doubt remains concerning their spiritual disposition, prudence may counsel abstention until the matter can be resolved through confession or competent spiritual direction. Such restraint should not be regarded as a source of embarrassment. It may be an act of humility, reverence and obedience, demonstrating a more mature understanding of the sacrament than reception undertaken merely because everyone else is approaching.
An important distinction must be maintained here. Examination of conscience is not an invitation to scrupulosity, nor should those subject to persistent religious anxiety be encouraged to doubt their spiritual condition endlessly. A passing apprehension is not evidence of mortal sin, and a properly formed conscience must distinguish between grave and venial matter, deliberate consent and involuntary weakness. The faithful who suffer from scruples should follow sound spiritual direction rather than multiplying private judgements against themselves. The Church does not require moral perfection before Holy Communion. Indeed, the Eucharist is itself a remedy for weakness and a source of the grace by which the Christian life is sustained. But she does require the dispositions appropriate to its worthy reception. To make this distinction clearly is not rigorism. It is elementary pastoral responsibility.
Nor should my argument be mistaken for opposition to frequent Communion. St Pius X expressly encouraged frequent and even daily reception in the decree Sacra Tridentina Synodus of 1905. He opposed the excessive severity which had discouraged Catholics from receiving unless they believed themselves to have attained an exceptional degree of spiritual perfection. His teaching was clear: those in the state of grace who approach with a right and devout intention should be encouraged to receive frequently. But he was equally clear that a right intention excludes reception motivated merely by routine, vanity or human respect.⁴ This last consideration is especially relevant today. The problem is not that Catholics receive frequently when properly disposed. The problem is that frequent reception may become so habitual that the question of proper disposition scarcely arises. The remedy is not to discourage worthy Communion, but to recover the sacramental seriousness which makes it fruitful.
The traditional prayer before Holy Communion, Domine, non sum dignus — “Lord, I am not worthy” — should therefore recover its proper significance. It is possible to recite these words and then behave as though we possessed an unquestionable claim upon the Blessed Sacrament. Yet the prayer expresses the precise opposite. No Catholic, however devout, approaches the altar by virtue of personal deserving. We come as sinners dependent upon mercy, seeking the grace which only Christ can bestow. To receive worthily does not mean to have become worthy of God through our own accomplishments. It means to approach according to the dispositions He requires, recognising that even these depend upon the assistance of His grace. The sacramental life cannot be understood properly if the distinction between meriting a gift and being prepared to receive it is forgotten.
This leads to a further and, in my opinion, even more consequential misunderstanding: the tendency to regard Holy Communion as the principal purpose of attending Mass. In much contemporary Catholic consciousness, participation in the Eucharistic celebration is measured chiefly by whether the individual receives the sacrament. A Mass at which somebody does not receive may be regarded as an incomplete experience, as though the person’s attendance had somehow failed to achieve its intended purpose. Such an assumption fundamentally misconceives what the Mass is.
The Holy Mass is first and foremost the Holy Sacrifice of Christ. It is the sacramental making-present, in an unbloody manner, of the one perfect offering of Our Lord upon Calvary. Christ Himself is the principal Priest and Victim. Through the ministry of the ordained priest, His sacrifice is offered to the Eternal Father for the glory of God and the salvation of souls. The traditional theology of the Mass identifies its four ends as adoration, thanksgiving, propitiation and impetration, or petition. These are the fundamental purposes of the sacrifice. The faithful assist at Mass by uniting themselves, their intentions, prayers, sacrifices and lives with the offering of Christ. They come, before everything else, to worship Almighty God.
This truth is of enormous importance. The congregation does not assemble principally to celebrate itself, affirm its members or create a sense of communal belonging. It assembles to render to God the worship which is His due, through the sacrifice of His Son. The Mass is not made holy by the presence of the congregation, nor does its essential worth depend upon the number of people who receive Holy Communion. Its infinite dignity derives from Christ, whose offering is made sacramentally present upon the altar. The faithful participate most fruitfully when they unite themselves in faith, hope, charity, repentance and adoration to that sacrifice. Holy Communion is an incomparable participation in its fruits, but its reception by every member of the congregation is not what constitutes the Mass as the supreme act of Christian worship.
Pope Pius XII addressed precisely this question in Mediator Dei, his great encyclical concerning the Sacred Liturgy. He taught that the integrity of the Eucharistic Sacrifice requires the sacramental Communion of the celebrating priest, but not that of every person assisting at Mass. He explicitly rejected the argument that general Communion should be regarded as the culmination of the whole celebration on the assumption that the Eucharist is essentially a fraternal meal. At the same time, he strongly encouraged the faithful to receive frequently and fervently, recognising the abundant graces of worthy Communion.⁵ There is no contradiction between these positions. The Mass is essentially a sacrifice; Holy Communion is the sacramental participation in that sacrifice’s fruits. To defend the primacy of divine worship is not to diminish Communion, but to place it within the theological reality from which it derives its meaning.
The Council of Trent had already affirmed the same distinction. It encouraged the faithful to receive not merely spiritually but sacramentally, so that they might obtain more abundant fruit from the Holy Sacrifice. Nevertheless, it explicitly defended the legitimacy and completeness of Masses at which the priest alone receives Holy Communion.⁶ The teaching is decisive because it demonstrates that attendance at Mass without individual sacramental reception is not thereby rendered meaningless. A Catholic who conscientiously refrains has nevertheless assisted at the supreme sacrifice of the New Covenant. He may have offered adoration, thanksgiving, contrition and petition, united himself spiritually to Christ’s offering, and received genuine spiritual benefit through his participation in the worship of the Church.
I have argued elsewhere, particularly in my reflections on the liturgy under the title In Conspectu Dei, that genuine participation in divine worship cannot be measured simply by outward activity. The faithful are not spectators at a religious performance, but neither do they become participants merely by performing a visible action. Their essential participation is interior: the union of heart, mind and will with Christ’s offering to the Father.⁷ This principle is especially relevant to Holy Communion. Sacramental reception is a most intimate participation in the Eucharistic mystery, but it should arise from an interior disposition consistent with what is being received. A person who remains prayerfully in his place may be participating with greater reverence than somebody who approaches the altar inattentively or through social expectation. No observer is competent to pronounce upon the relative holiness of those two souls; the point is simply that outward reception and inward devotion are not interchangeable realities.
For these reasons, I believe the Church urgently needs to recover a culture of worship and adoration as the fundamental orientation of attendance at Holy Mass. The first question should not be whether everybody received Communion, but whether Almighty God was worshipped with reverence, whether the faithful understood the sacrifice being offered, and whether those who approached the altar did so with suitable preparation. Our churches should once again be recognised unmistakably as places in which God is adored, where silence, recollection, prayer and reverence naturally direct the soul towards His presence. Eucharistic adoration outside Mass, thanksgiving after Communion, visits to the Blessed Sacrament, preparation before Mass and the regular examination of conscience all form part of that recovery. Far from competing with sacramental reception, these practices prepare the soul to receive more fruitfully and help preserve the supernatural understanding of the Eucharist.
The relationship between Eucharistic worship and adoration is intrinsic. Christ is present upon the altar as the divine Victim offered to the Father, and He remains truly present under the consecrated species. The worship due to Him is not suspended when the Mass concludes. Eucharistic adoration therefore expresses the same faith which inspires worthy reception. As Benedict XVI observed in Sacramentum Caritatis, the celebration of the Eucharist and adoration of the Blessed Sacrament must never be placed in opposition; adoration prolongs and deepens what takes place in the liturgical celebration.⁸ A renewal of Eucharistic devotion must consequently include both an understanding of the Mass as sacrifice and a renewed practice of adoration before Our Lord’s Real Presence.
Such a renewal would also help restore the proper relationship between the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Penance. The decline in the practice of confession, wherever it occurs, cannot be considered unrelated to the assumption that Communion may be received routinely. If Catholics cease to recognise the possibility that grave sin can separate them from the life of grace, they will inevitably struggle to understand why confession might be necessary before receiving the Blessed Sacrament. The obligation to examine one’s conscience becomes unintelligible when the distinction between mortal and venial sin is neglected. Yet the purpose of confession is not to humiliate the penitent or erect unnecessary obstacles before Holy Communion. It is to restore the sinner through the mercy of Christ and prepare the soul for fruitful sacramental union with Him. The Church’s discipline concerning reception is therefore itself an expression of pastoral care. It protects the holiness of the sacrament while directing the faithful towards reconciliation and spiritual healing.⁹
There is also a necessary lesson concerning the Church’s responsibility towards those who cannot presently receive Holy Communion because of their matrimonial or other circumstances. Their participation in the life of the Church should not be regarded as worthless simply because sacramental reception is impeded. They remain members of the worshipping community, capable of prayer, charity, repentance and spiritual growth. The Church owes them genuine friendship, pastoral assistance, sound guidance and every legitimate opportunity to move towards sacramental reconciliation. Their circumstances should neither be concealed through a false understanding of compassion nor employed as a reason for humiliation or exclusion from the wider life of the parish. Pastoral charity requires both the acknowledgement of objective truth and a patient concern for the person who finds it difficult to live according to that truth.
At the same time, the existence of difficult pastoral circumstances cannot justify treating Holy Communion as though its reception were the ultimate measure of whether somebody has been welcomed by the Church. A Catholic who cannot presently receive may still worship God, attend Mass, listen to His Word, pray, perform works of charity and seek the grace necessary for conversion. The obligation to participate in the Church’s worship is not identical with an obligation to receive Communion at every Mass. The Church strongly recommends frequent worthy reception, while traditionally distinguishing the obligation of attending Mass on Sundays and holy days from the minimum obligation of receiving Communion at Easter. These distinctions reflect a sacramental life richer than the assumption that attendance and reception are invariably synonymous.
I should emphasise that this argument is not intended to cultivate an atmosphere in which the faithful feel constantly scrutinised or discouraged from receiving Holy Communion. There is no merit in making people afraid of the sacraments, nor in creating a parish culture where refraining from Communion invites suspicion. Nobody should be presumed guilty because he remains in his place, just as nobody should be presumed spiritually perfect because he approaches the altar. The Church must teach her people to form their consciences and act according to them, under the guidance of sound Catholic doctrine. Her priests must be available for confession and spiritual counsel, and her communities must be places in which sincere repentance is encouraged rather than stigmatised. The spiritual welfare of souls is served neither by careless permission nor indiscriminate severity.
What I desire is something more profoundly Catholic: a culture in which the faithful understand the extraordinary holiness of the sacraments and the mercy by which they are bestowed; in which children approach First Holy Communion with awe rather than merely excitement; in which Confirmation is recognised as a strengthening of the soul by the Holy Ghost rather than a certificate of religious maturity; and in which an ordinand understands that he is being entrusted with a sacred responsibility, not rewarded with ecclesiastical status. Above all, I desire a culture in which Catholics attend Holy Mass principally to worship Almighty God, approach Holy Communion with reverence and gratitude, and are sufficiently well formed in conscience to know when they should refrain.
Such a culture would not necessarily produce fewer Communions. It should produce more worthy Communions, more frequent confession, deeper examination of conscience, greater Eucharistic adoration and a more mature understanding of Christian holiness. The objective is not to make abstention preferable to reception, but to restore the truth that both must be governed by reverence for Christ. A Catholic who is properly disposed should receive with gratitude and confidence in divine mercy. A Catholic who is not properly disposed should refrain, seek reconciliation and continue to worship God faithfully. Neither should act because of embarrassment, social pressure or the desire to appear more devout than others.
Ultimately, the question is whether the sacramental life remains centred upon what God gives or has become increasingly concerned with what human beings expect to receive. The difference is not merely one of emphasis. It determines how Catholics understand grace, sin, repentance, worship and the very purpose of the Church. If the sacraments are treated as personal achievements, their reception becomes a form of self-affirmation. If they are recognised as gifts of divine mercy, their reception becomes an occasion for humility, thanksgiving and conversion. If the Mass is reduced to a gathering whose principal purpose is the reception of Communion by those assembled, its essentially sacrificial character becomes obscured. If it is understood as the supreme act of worship offered to the Eternal Father through Christ, sacramental Communion assumes its proper place as a sublime participation in the fruits of that sacrifice.
The Church must therefore recover the courage to teach that grace is not entitlement, that participation is not necessarily reception, and that the reverent examination of conscience is an act of fidelity rather than a sign of exclusion. She must encourage the frequent reception of Holy Communion among those properly disposed, while also reminding the faithful of the grave responsibility involved in approaching the altar. She must restore the practice of confession and the spirit of adoration, and teach Catholics once again to recognise that the Mass is offered first for the glory of Almighty God, not for the affirmation of those who attend.
For my part, I would regard it as a hopeful sign of genuine spiritual renewal if Catholics became less concerned about whether everybody in church had received Communion and more concerned about whether everybody had worshipped God with reverence, examined his conscience honestly and understood the mystery before him.
The Blessed Sacrament is not ours to claim. It is Christ’s gift to receive. And the greatest evidence that we understand that gift is not how readily we approach the altar, but how seriously we take the truth of what is offered there.
The faithful must learn again not merely to receive Holy Communion, but to receive it worthily; not merely to attend Mass, but to offer worship; and not merely to celebrate the sacraments, but to stand in wonder before the undeserved mercy of God.
REFERENCES
- The Holy Bible, Douay-Rheims, “First Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter 4”, verse 7.
- Benedict XVI, “Sacramentum Caritatis”, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation, §§15, 20, 56, 22 February 2007.
- The Holy Bible, Douay-Rheims, “First Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter 11”, verses 27–32.
- Sacred Congregation of the Council, “Sacra Tridentina Synodus: Decree on Frequent and Daily Communion”, 20 December 1905.
- Pius XII, “Mediator Dei”, Encyclical, §§80–96, 112–123, 20 November 1947.
- Council of Trent, “Session XXII: Doctrine on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass”, Chapter VI and Canon VIII, 17 September 1562.
- Jerome Lloyd, “In Conspectu Dei: Reflections on the Holy Week Liturgy”, Selsey.org, 13 April 2025.
- Benedict XVI, “Sacramentum Caritatis”, §66, 22 February 2007.
- Catechism of the Catholic Church, “The Sacrament of the Eucharist: The Paschal Banquet”, §§1384–1389; Code of Canon Law, “Book IV: The Sanctifying Function of the Church”, canons 915–916, 920.
