Annual Communon obligation

[dans0622]

I’m still curious when the rule was changed for the US to include Lent. We have several statements that that IS the rule, but no actual reference to an official document that provides for this rule.

Hello Digitonomy,

The source of this “indult” is the 2nd Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 257. This norm was promulgated before the 1917 Code and “the Vatican” stated (don’t have the precise resource for this at hand) that this law was still to be observed, even though the 1917 Code stated something different (in c. 859).

In the same way, the 1983 Code did not quash this particular law.

FYI, c. 859 of the 1917 Code mandated that the reception of Communion was to be done at least “at Easter”–which was determined to run from Palm Sunday to what we call the 2nd Sunday of Easter/Divine Mercy. However, the Local Ordinary could extend the time back to the 4th Sunday of Lent forward to Trinity Sunday.

I don’t know about other countries but I imagine that they also might have similar “indults.”

Hope this helps.
Dan

 

[Vico]

Paschal Tide has variations in many areas over hundreds of years, according to this article from the old Catholic Encyclopedia (1911). (See Canon Law on the page below.)

newadvent.org/cathen/11516a.htm

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Could the just cause be that the individual simply failed to receive reconciliation during the Easter season? Also, as I read it, the requirement of once-per-year minimum is already met if the person received communion back in January. If that’s the case, he no longer has an obligation to receive in the Easter season.If you receive on the Second Sunday of Easter two years in a row, well more than 365 days may have elapsed.

Some canons are carefully thought out, and the premises and ramifications that surround them have been debated and clarified over decades or even centuries. I’m curious whether this is one of those, and we’ve just lost sight of the legal scholarship in this era of frequent communion that Pius X pushed for. Or, if this is a canon that has simply not been carefully honed. Does your commentary book shed any light on these issues, if it’s handy?

I have found my Canon Law commentary. For some reason it was in Biology. It is no help on this issue; Sheehy et al (1995) say the following about Canon 920 §2:

The preferred time for the fulfilment of this precept is Paschal time, which was defined in the 1917 Code as being from Palm Sunday to Low Sunday and was capable of being lengthened. From the time laid down for its fulfilment this precept was known as ‘Easter duty’ … .

Reference: Sheehy, G., Brown, R., Kelly, D., and McGrath, A. (1995) The Canon Law Letter and Spirit London: Geoffrey Chapman (ISBN 0-225-66702-9) p. 505.

 

[dans0622]

Related questions:

1. 
   *]What is a “just cause” for the purposes of this canon? If I happened to go to confession before mass in August, would receiving then instead of during the Easter season be justified?
   *]Normally I would assume the Church’s liturgical year, rather than the calendar year, is what we are using here. However, Canon 202 seems to accept any 365-day period - is that correct?:

1. 
   Hello again,
   
   If a person considers himself to be in a state of mortal sin all throughout Paschal time, and is unable to go to confession, then that certainly is a just cause to not receive communion. “Just cause” is the lowest weight of a reason to do/not do something. It is not difficult to find a just cause–the difficulty is claiming that that just cause endured all throughout Paschal time.
   
   Regarding the reckoning of “a year,” I think you need to look at c. 202.2. Since this “year” in c. 920 is continuous time, the year is to be taken as in the calendar.
   
   Dan

 

[Digitonomy]

The source of this “indult” is the 2nd Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 257…

Thanks. Any idea where I could find the text of this?
Matthew Holford:

I have found my Canon Law commentary…It is no help on this issue

Thanks for looking it up, it was worth a try.

“Just cause” is the lowest weight of a reason to do/not do something. It is not difficult to find a just cause–the difficulty is claiming that that just cause endured all throughout Paschal time.

That clarifies it quite a bit.

dans0622:

Regarding the reckoning of “a year,” I think you need to look at c. 202.2. Since this “year” in c. 920 is continuous time, the year is to be taken as in the calendar.

I agree, although just to avoid confusion with my use of “calendar year” earlier, by “as in the calendar” Canon 202 does not mean the 365 day period that begins January 1, it means any 365 continuous days counted consecutively as listed on the calendar, not 365 days excluding holy days or some other means of counting (apparently referred to as tempus utile), and it means 366 days if it’s a leap year. Here’s the American commentary on Canon 202:

…a one-month period of continuous time beginning on February 1 will consist of only 28 (or, in a leap year, 29) days…A month computed as tempus utile, however, always consists of 30 unimpeded days which, depending upon the number of canonically significant interruptions (see commentary on c. 201), could last more than 30 calendar days. Similarly, a year computed as tempus utile always consists of 365 unimpeded days which could last more than 365 calendar days depending upon the number of canonically significant interruptions.
Book search

So my current reading is that every 365 day period has this obligation. A person who received communion in January 2012 has met his obligation for the following 365 days. However, once Easter season arrives, he still has an obligation to receive for the 365 day period starting then, and except for a just cause he must do so during the season of Easter 2012, since January 2013 will not be Easter season yet.

On the other hand, a person who received communion in the US on Shrove Tuesday this year (March 8), could without any just cause omit this year’s Easter season and receive again in early Lent of 2012, since it will start in February next year and the communicant will not have exceeded 365 days.

Meanwhile, a person who receives once a year on Easter Sunday will be failing to meet his obligation many times, when the period between Easters is more than 365 days.

 

[Vico]

Digitonomy,

Baltimore Council I was in 1852,
Baltimore Council II was in 1866,
Baltimore Council III was in 1884.

It is hard to find those documents on the internet, but the 1891 Baltimore Catechism No. 3 (post-Confirmation vol.) has this:

Q. 1349. What is meant by the command of confessing at least once a year?
A. By the command of confessing at least once a year is meant that we are obliged, under pain of mortal sin, to go to confession within the year.
Q. 1350. Should we confess only once a year?
A. We should confess frequently, if we wish to lead a good life.
Q. 1351. Should we go to confession at our usual time even if we think we have not committed sin since our last confession?
A. We should go to confession at our usual time even if we think we have not committed sin since our last confession, because the Sacrament of Penance has for its object not only to forgive sins, but also to bestow grace and strengthen the soul against temptation.
Q. 1352. Should children go to confession?
A. Children should go to confession when they are old enough to commit sin, which is commonly about the age of seven years.
Q. 1353. What sin does he commit who neglects to receive Communion during the Easter time?
A. He who neglects to receive Communion during the Easter time commits a mortal sin.
Q. 1354. What is the Easter time?
A. The Easter time is, in this country, the time between the first Sunday of Lent and Trinity Sunday.
Q. 1355. When is Trinity Sunday?
A. Trinity Sunday is the Sunday after Pentecost, or eight weeks after Easter Sunday; so that there are fourteen weeks in which one may comply with the command of the Church to receive Holy Communion between the first Sunday of Lent and Trinity Sunday.

baltimore-catechism.com/lesson36.htm

 

[Vico]

This proves what it is for the US. What about other territories?

According to (1910) New Catholic Dictionary:

US: from the first Sunday of Lent to Trinity Sunday
England: from Ash Wednesday to Low Sunday
Ireland: Ash Wednesday to the octave of Saint Peter and Saint Paul (July 6)
Scotland: first Sunday of Lent to the octave of the Ascension
Some places: first Sunday of Lent to Low Sunday.

saints.sqpn.com/ncd02910.htm

 

[Vico]

Note that in the Eastern Catholic Churches (using the Gregorian Calendar) Latin Church Trinity Sunday is All Saints Sunday, immediately followed by a fast (beginning Monday) until the Feast of Apostles Peter and Paul (June 29). It punctuates the end of the Pascha/Pentecost season.

 

[dans0622]

…
So my current reading is that every 365 day period has this obligation. A person who received communion in January 2012 has met his obligation for the following 365 days. However, once Easter season arrives, he still has an obligation to receive for the 365 day period starting then, and except for a just cause he must do so during the season of Easter 2012, since January 2013 will not be Easter season yet.

On the other hand, a person who received communion in the US on Shrove Tuesday this year (March 8), could without any just cause omit this year’s Easter season and receive again in early Lent of 2012, since it will start in February next year and the communicant will not have exceeded 365 days.

Meanwhile, a person who receives once a year on Easter Sunday will be failing to meet his obligation many times, when the period between Easters is more than 365 days.

It seems you are making this more complicated than it is. Canon 920 says we must receive Communion at least once a year. This is continuous time, so we take it as it is in the calendar. Since the canon does not specify a beginning of the year’s period, we would take it year by year–2010, 2011, etc. Only if the law said “A person must never go more than 365 days between receptions of Communion. or Once one receives Communion the first time, he must always receive again on or before that day the next year, and so on.” would your interpretation be in accord with the text.

To determine if a person has fulfilled this obligation, wouldn’t he be asked “You know, you are required to receive Communion at least once a year. Did you receive Communion last year?” And, wouldn’t everyone think “Hmm. ‘Last year.’ That means 2010. Did I receive last year?”

Finally, your last comment would seem to show that such an interpretation is problematic. If a person received every year on Easter Sunday, would anyone say that he could have possibly *not *received Communion at least once a year and thereby violated canon law?

Thanks for your time.
Dan

 

[Vico]

dans0622, the whole canon is:

CIC Can. 920
§1 Once admitted to the blessed Eucharist, each of the faithful is obliged to receive holy communion at least once a year.
§2 This precept must be fulfilled during paschal time, unless for a good reason it is fulfilled at another time during the year.

And so the Bishops Conferences specity the time period. At one time some parishes kept a book in which to write the names of those that fultilled this duty. It was a way of affirming that you were still an active Catholic.

 

[Digitonomy]

It seems you are making this more complicated than it is. Canon 920 says we must receive Communion at least once a year. This is continuous time, so we take it as it is in the calendar. Since the canon does not specify a beginning of the year’s period, we would take it year by year–2010, 2011, etc.

The last sentence is an assumption you are making, which I’m not convinced is supported by the text of the canon. If you are correct, a person could receive communion every two years, on December 31 and January 1, skipping two Easter seasons, so long as he had a just cause the second year (the first year, he would already have met his obligation in January).

dans0622:

Finally, your last comment would seem to show that such an interpretation is problematic. If a person received every year on Easter Sunday, would anyone say that he could have possibly *not *received Communion at least once a year and thereby violated canon law?

This is obviously more sensible than how I interpret the canon to read. And I’m persuaded by Vico’s anecdote about parishes keeping an register (I assume for the Easter season) that it also correct, custom being the best interpreter of the law. However, I still see problems with either my approach or yours when determining how to count or when to begin a year.

 

[Vico]

Pertaining to tradition, the Latin Church Liturgical year begins with Advent.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[MissRose73]

It seems like many do the Easter obligation on Easter Sunday as churches are filled up with barely any where to sit at times and you rarely see the church that full on other Sundays during the Easter season after Easter Sunday to Pentecost.

I always make sure to go either at Easter Vigil, or Easter Sunday.

 

[Will_S]

http://thankevann.com/hsg/images/lit_cycle.gif
Pertaining to tradition…

The traditional calendar doesn’t have “ordinary time”

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Vico]

The traditional calendar doesn’t have “ordinary time”

http://wsxyz.net/images/calendar.jpg

It is interesting, isn’t it?

The Church renamed the portions: Time after Petecost with Trinity & Corpus Christi, and Time after Epiphany & Septuagesima (pre-Lent). But also there were changes before that. Pope Pius XII in 1955, revised Holy Week and made calendar changes, to the Mass of Benedict XV (1920).