Caregiver receiving comunion twice in a day

[ineeda]

I am caregiver for my mother. The deacon brings her Communion, and gives it to me as well. I received it at mass, and he gives it to me at the house as well. The first time I told him that I already received at mass. He told me that it was okay. He gave it to me at mass, then again at home. I figured well he should know as he is a deacon. I was just looking online, and see that you can receive twice if you went to mass twice. So, I should not be receiving it a second time? I have received it twice about three times. To my understanding from what I have read is that I should not receive a second time.

 

[1ke]

You can receive twice, but the second time must be at Mass.

So, if he came before you went to Mass you could receive again at Mass. Not the other way around.

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, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 921, §2.

Unless you are dying:
Can. 921 §1. The Christian faithful who are in danger of death from any cause are to be nourished by holy communion in the form of Viaticum.

§2. Even if they have been nourished by holy communion on the same day, however, those in danger of death are strongly urged to receive communion again.

 

[ineeda]

Okay. Thank you. I was puzzled by this. I will refuse from now on. I attend mass before he comes. I am baffled as to why he would give it to me a second time. As I said before, he is a deacon and knows more than I. He even mentioned that it was great giving me communion to me at mass. I went from not being able to receive for years to receiving twice in one day.(recent marriage convalidation) I saw where you can receive twice in one day, but still questioning it, I discovered today that it must be at two masses, or in the reverse order I was receiving.

 

[utah_rose]

I’m a caregiver also but sometimes when he was hospitalized and sick i wasn’t sble to attend Mass first but was told it was ok to receive Communion with him. Sometimes too they’re too sick at home for a caregiver to attend Mass if no one else is there with him.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I’m a caregiver also but sometimes when he was hospitalized and sick i wasn’t sble to attend Mass first but was told it was ok to receive Communion with him. Sometimes too they’re too sick at home for a caregiver to attend Mass if no one else is there with him.

Yes, it is absolutely okay for a caregiver to receive if his charge receives a Communion call – Unless the caregiver has previously received earlier in the day. In that case the caregiver should refrain from receiving a second time outside of Mass.

(Or the caregiver’s own viaticum, should it be required)

tee

 

[cycleman]

You can receive twice, but the second time must be at Mass.

So, if he came before you went to Mass you could receive again at Mass. Not the other way around.

I understand the rules as you have laid them out. I just can’t understand “why” the church has written the rules out as they are. I can see restricting communion to twice a day, and I can also see requiring that one of those occasions be at mass.

But why should the sequence matter? What good is being promoted, or conversely what harm is being prevented with the rules as they are currently written?

 

[Vico]

I understand the rules as you have laid them out. I just can’t understand “why” the church has written the rules out as they are. I can see restricting communion to twice a day, and I can also see requiring that one of those occasions be at mass.

But why should the sequence matter? What good is being promoted, or conversely what harm is being prevented with the rules as they are currently written?

Once per day is the norm. I believe that the second time is mainly to allow for evening reception at the Mass on the eve of a solemnity (Sunday, Holy Day of Obligation).

In 1967 per Eucharisticum Mysterium, permission was given for those that received on Saturday morning to receive at an evening vigil Mass or for the two Holy Thursday Masses.

In 1973 per Immensae caritatis, there was an extention made to weddings, baptisms, confirmations, funerals, professions, and ritual Masses and for Viaticum, and for any singular instance that the Bishop allowed.

 

[cycleman]

But I still don’t get the sequence thing. In the specific case that the OP described (i.e. receiving once privately and once at mass) why can the OP receive twice if the first reception was the private one, but not receive twice if the first reception was at mass?

 

[Lapey]

But I still don’t get the sequence thing. In the specific case that the OP described (i.e. receiving once privately and once at mass) why can the OP receive twice if the first reception was the private one, but not receive twice if the first reception was at mass?

Receiving twice is acceptable if the second time is in the context of participating in Mass, a Eucharistic celebration. A Communion service, or a sick call, does not meet that. If a person receives twice at Mass, while being a participant, then they are good.

The reason there is a stipulation is based on past abuse. The faithful in generations past made a habit of Mass hopping; going to Mass in time to receive the Eucharist, then moving to the next parish and then the next. The Canon Law change made this not acceptable as the abuse can make the reception of the Eucharist a superstition, and that is not good theology.

 

[Vico]

But I still don’t get the sequence thing. In the specific case that the OP described (i.e. receiving once privately and once at mass) why can the OP receive twice if the first reception was the private one, but not receive twice if the first reception was at mass?

See Post #7 for the historical development allowing vigil Mass reception.

 

[cycleman]

Receiving twice is acceptable if the second time is in the context of participating in Mass, a Eucharistic celebration. A Communion service, or a sick call, does not meet that. If a person receives twice at Mass, while being a participant, then they are good.

OK, one more comment/question and I will leave it alone. I am just surprised that the chronological order of events, rather than their substance, is determinative. In this case, the reception “facts” are identical. One reception at Mass, one at sick call (as caregiver, not the one who is sick). Just the order varies from day to day.

Dcn. Gary, you say a sick call does not meet the requirements for a second reception. Would it not follow then, in these cases, that the OP should not receive during the sick call even if she has not already attended Mass given that there is virtual certainty (or at least the strong intention) that she will attend Mass later in the day?

 

[Lapey]

OK, one more comment/question and I will leave it alone. I am just surprised that the chronological order of events, rather than their substance, is determinative. In this case, the reception “facts” are identical. One reception at Mass, one at sick call (as caregiver, not the one who is sick). Just the order varies from day to day.

Dcn. Gary, you say a sick call does not meet the requirements for a second reception. Would it not follow then, in these cases, that the OP should not receive during the sick call even if she has not already attended Mass given that there is virtual certainty (or at least the strong intention) that she will attend later in the day?

The chronological order is set as a discipline; disciplines are established quite often in response to abusive situations, as is this one. But none the less, it is a discipline which is much different than a doctrine, dogma, or even liturgical law. As faithful Catholics we are bound to follow this discipline.

I would agree that the person probably should not receive on the sick call, but that is only our opinions and not the requirement, only that if they had received already. So the person on the sick call is well within their right to receive twice. The purpose it to be at Mass, the Eucharistic celebration. This is the “Source and Summit” of our faith, not simply receiving Communion. Remember, we are not required to receive but once a year. But we are required to attend Mass at least on Sundays or the Vigil of Sunday, and holy days of obligation or the vigil of those days.

Also, I meant that the sick call reception does not meet the requirements of a Eucharistic celebration, only Mass is a Eucharistic celebration. I conduct Communion services often which includes the Liturgy of the Word and the Communion Rite; basically includes everything but the Liturgy of the Eucharist and Fraction Rite, but it is not a Eucharistic celebration because there is no priest and no epiclesis. The Blessed Sacrament which is distributed is an extension of the Mass in which it was consecrated.