Receiving Eucharist from the Deacon a sin or not?


Deacons are ordained clergy and part of their ministry is a rightful place in distributing the Eucharist.

There’s plenty of bad information on this thread; stick with the quoted Canon Law and seek out guidance from your priest/deacon on the matter.


Under current authorized canon law and church practice, it is perfectly acceptable to receive from the deacon.

The only people who would say it is not okay to receive from the deacon, are those who have decided they know better than the Vatican about how the Eucharist should be distributed (as well as various other things). Unfortunately, there are a whole bunch of such posts muddying up this thread.

Your choice to receive from deacon is a personal preference, not a sin.


Its also perfectly fine to receive from the EMHC as well.

I don’t know where the idea came from that receiving from the priest was preferable, much less mandatory.


No… no sin.


What leads you to believe this is sinful?


Make an appointment, or simply call/email, and introduce yourself to your new pastor. Talk to him, he wants to know his new parishioners.


Even if this were true --and it isn’t-- you still would have no problem receiving from the deacon.


Even in the Latin Mass the Deacon is allowed to distribute Communion.


I’ll receive communion on my knees when God makes me 20 years younger and able to get back up again.


Deacons are in Holy Orders period.


Really? :thinking::thinking::thinking:


Yes, Bishops, Priests and Deacons are ALL part of the clergy. None of them are laymen.

This quoted is from the GIRM:

94. After the Priest, the Deacon, in virtue of the sacred Ordination he has received, holds first place among those who minister in the celebration of the Eucharist. For the sacred Order of the Diaconate has been held in high honor in the Church even from the early time of the Apostles.[81] At Mass the Deacon has his own part in proclaiming the Gospel, from time to time in preaching God’s Word, in announcing the intentions of the Universal Prayer, in ministering to the Priest, in preparing the altar and in serving the celebration of the Sacrifice, in distributing the Eucharist to the faithful, especially under the species of wine, and from time to time in giving instructions regarding the people’s gestures and posture.

They do more frequently in the US distribute the sacred host. That, of course, is permitted under the wording above. I’ve only seen Deacons doing wine when it was a larger gathering and there were enough priests to take care of the faithful in distributing the sacred bread.


If you kneel with the priest, just make sure the person in back has ample warning time and that you’ll not knock into the priest. I remember Don_Ruggero mentioning how in his old age, he’ll often take a couple steps back if he sees someone readying kneel because he’s not as sturdy as he used to be.


Strong words.

Are you infering that a person may not refuse to receive Communion by a Deacon for personal reasons, or else they are somo sort of church rebels?

What happens next? If a person only wants to receive Communion once a month, is he/she also a rebel?


Clergy does have a spiritual mark in their souls that grant them the right to consecrate bread and wine. Personally, I prefer receiving Communion from them. And if there was a saint nearby, I would prefer receiving the Eucharist from him.

If this is superstition to you, I’m sorry to hear that. Having preferences is totally licit and often convenient.


Well, deacons do not have the power to consecrate the bread and the wine even though they have received the sacrament of Holy Orders.


My bad. By “clergy” I mean only priests and bishops.


As was pointed out to you, deacons are clergy. They were clergy before the Council and remain clergy after the Council. Moreover before the Council they were extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. After the Council they became ordinary ministers of Holy Communion.

On the other hand, the Council abolished the minor orders.

Not all saints were clergy, and since most saints died before the Council, those that weren’t clergy weren’t authorized to distribute Holy Communion!!! And I think you’d find that they recognized their place in the order of things and would never try to usurp the clergy’s role.

Your “preference” has absolutely no grounding in any Church teaching either before or after the Council. It is merely a personal affectation. Sorry to sound so harsh, but that’s what it is.


The person didn’t ask if he could refuse.
The person asked if it was a SIN to refuse to go to the priest and instead go to the deacon.
I said no.

Somehow you have twisted this into my saying a person can’t refuse to go to a deacon when I clearly affirmed that he could refuse to go to a priest and go to a deacon instead and he wouldn’t be sinning.
Likewise if he refused to go to the deacon and only went to the priest, he would not be sinning.

Your reasoning and logic are, to put it kindly, odd. You seem to be paranoid and see things that are not there.
Please read what is written.


Why do you have this preference? If its because you think you get more grace receiving from a priest or bishop , that indicates to me that you aren’t as well informed as you should be.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit