Communion Twice a day rule

[user1234]

I recently learned that there is a disciple in the Latin rite that says people can only receive communion twice a day. I was extremely surprised, because I know in Europe where there is a lack of priests, some priest have to say Mass at 4 to 5 different parishes in one Sunday. Since the priest has to receive communion before anyone else, he would have to receive communion 4 to 5 times a day, breaking this rule. Does this rule only apply to the laity?

Pietro

 

[Bookcat]

Canon Law:

Can. 905 §1. A priest is not permitted to celebrate the Eucharist more than once a day except in cases where the law permits him to celebrate or concelebrate more than once on the same day.

§2. If there is a shortage of priests, the local ordinary can allow priests to celebrate twice a day for a just cause, or if pastoral necessity requires it, even three times on Sundays and holy days of obligation.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P38.HTM

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I recently learned that there is a disciple in the Latin rite that says people can only receive communion twice a day. I was extremely surprised, because I know in Europe where there is a lack of priests, some priest have to say Mass at 4 to 5 different parishes in one Sunday. Since the priest has to receive communion before anyone else, he would have to receive communion 4 to 5 times a day, breaking this rule. Does this rule only apply to the laity?

Pietro

You are speaking of two different things.

Canon 917 explains that one may receive the Blessed Eucharist daily and a second time each day provided that the second time is within the body of a Mass at which the person has assisted. There is a further provision to receive Viaticum if at the point of death.
*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.

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.*
Canon 905 governs the number of times a priest may celebrate the Eucharist. Of course, he must consummate the sacrifice of the Mass by consuming the Eucharist he has confected because that is intrinsic to the offering of the Mass. The norm is twice per day on weekdays and three times on Sunday, with the permission of the local Ordinary and true need.
*Can. 905 §1. A priest is not permitted to celebrate the Eucharist more than once a day except in cases where the law permits him to celebrate or concelebrate more than once on the same day.

§2. If there is a shortage of priests, the local ordinary can allow priests to celebrate twice a day for a just cause, or if pastoral necessity requires it, even three times on Sundays and holy days of obligation.*
And, yes, there are times when the pastoral necessity is so great, the priest must be dispensed to exceed what the law allows.

Moreover, if I have not had to offer a second Mass but I am present at the Mass of a brother priest yet not concelebrating, using the grant of Canon 917 I could receive Communion even though I had celebrated and received earlier. Canon 917 would also allow me to the do the same if I were present for the Mass of another priest but celebrating my own Mass for a parish in the evening. So actually speaking, it is not a matter of the provision “applying” to laity only. Canon 917 is not, however, limiting or excluding of the provision of Canon 905.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

You are speaking of two different things.

Canon 917 explains that one may receive the Blessed Eucharist daily and a second time each day provided that the second time is within the body of a Mass at which the person has assisted. There is a further provision to receive Viaticum if at the point of death.
*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.

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.*
Canon 905 governs the number of times a priest may celebrate the Eucharist. Of course, he must consummate the sacrifice of the Mass by consuming the Eucharist he has confected because that is intrinsic to the offering of the Mass. The norm is twice per day on weekdays and three times on Sunday, with the permission of the local Ordinary and true need.
*Can. 905 §1. A priest is not permitted to celebrate the Eucharist more than once a day except in cases where the law permits him to celebrate or concelebrate more than once on the same day.

§2. If there is a shortage of priests, the local ordinary can allow priests to celebrate twice a day for a just cause, or if pastoral necessity requires it, even three times on Sundays and holy days of obligation.*
And, yes, there are times when the pastoral necessity is so great, the priest must be dispensed to exceed what the law allows.

Moreover, if I have not had to offer a second Mass but I am present at the Mass of a brother priest yet not concelebrating, using the grant of Canon 917 I could receive Communion even though I had celebrated and received earlier. Canon 917 would also allow me to the do the same if I were present for the Mass of another priest but celebrating my own Mass for a parish in the evening. So actually speaking, it is not a matter of the provision “applying” to laity only. Canon 917 is not, however, limiting or excluding of the provision of Canon 905.

Do you remember this conversation Bookcat?
The above post seems like “a complicated tangle of laws” here; is the local ordinary’s job to make sure that these laws do not interfere with the “spirit of the law”, which is to give the sacrament to those who desire it?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Do you remember this conversation Bookcat?
The above post seems like “a complicated tangle of laws” here; is the local ordinary’s job to make sure that these laws do not interfere with the “spirit of the law”, which is to give the sacrament to those who desire it?

I beg your pardon? If you are quoting my post and asking a question of me, could you please make clear to me what it is that you are asking? Thank you.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I beg your pardon? If you are quoting my post and asking a question of me, could you please make clear to me what it is that you are asking? Thank you.

Excuse me, my question is: Is it the responsibility of the ordinary grant that a priest celebrate the Eucharist more than prescribed in Canon 905 if necessary?

You stated: “And, yes, there are times when the pastoral necessity is so great, the priest must be dispensed to exceed what the law allows.”

Where does the authority to dispense the priest come from?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Do you remember this conversation Bookcat?
The above post seems like “a complicated tangle of laws” here; is the local ordinary’s job to make sure that these laws do not interfere with the “spirit of the law”, which is to give the sacrament to those who desire it?

Please excuse my bad posting manners Bookcat and Don.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Excuse me, my question is: Is it the responsibility of the ordinary grant that a priest celebrate the Eucharist more than prescribed in Canon 905 if necessary?

You stated: “And, yes, there are times when the pastoral necessity is so great, the priest must be dispensed to exceed what the law allows.”

Where does the authority to dispense the priest come from?

In terms of the permission that Canon 905 refers to, Canon 134 tells us who is a local ordinary:
*Can. 134 §1. In addition to the Roman Pontiff, by the title of ordinary are understood in the law diocesan bishops and others who, even if only temporarily, are placed over some particular church or a community equivalent to it according to the norm of ⇒ can. 368 as well as those who possess general ordinary executive power in them, namely, vicars general and episcopal vicars; likewise, for their own members, major superiors of clerical religious institutes of pontifical right and of clerical societies of apostolic life of pontifical right who at least possess ordinary executive power.

§2. By the title of local ordinary are understood all those mentioned in §1 except the superiors of religious institutes and of societies of apostolic life.

§3. Within the context of executive power, those things which in the canons are attributed by name to the diocesan bishop are understood to belong only to a diocesan bishop and to the others made equivalent to him in ⇒ can. 381, §2, excluding the vicar general and episcopal vicar except by special mandate.*
The diocesan bishops have different policies about this and I do not venture to guess the percentages of who chooses what method. If the priest needs to use the permission, then it is his responsibility in law to ask.

The bishop, on the other hand, is aware that there is more work than there are priests and so normally has a policy in place regarding Canon 905, at least in my experience.

In my case, the bishop gives a relatively broad latitude to presume his permission in the individual cases, provided that we determine the need is genuine, but then we would report our use of this permission, how frequently we were using it, and be prepared to explain and defend our judgement for applying it.

As to needing to be dispensed for the need to exceed bination or trination, I would personally contact the Vicar General normally and, as a last resort, the bishop himself. Usually, there was a brief discussion about any other possible option on my side or any help that they could attempt to find on their side to avoid the situation. If there was no other option, I would receive the dispensation. Different dioceses have different dispositions.

Please excuse my bad posting manners Bookcat and Don.

Not to worry. There is nothing to excuse. I just could not understand if you were asking a question of me or of someone else.

 

[FrDavid96]

Excuse me, my question is: Is it the responsibility of the ordinary grant that a priest celebrate the Eucharist more than prescribed in Canon 905 if necessary?

You stated: “And, yes, there are times when the pastoral necessity is so great, the priest must be dispensed to exceed what the law allows.”

Where does the authority to dispense the priest come from?

Can. 87 §1. A diocesan bishop, whenever he judges that it contributes to their spiritual good, is able to dispense the faithful from universal and particular disciplinary laws issued for his territory or his subjects by the supreme authority of the Church. He is not able to dispense, however, from procedural or penal laws nor from those whose dispensation is specially reserved to the Apostolic See or some other authority.

That is the source of the bishop’s authority to dispense–since that was your question.

Canon 905 permits the bishop to give a priest permission to celebrate 2 Masses on weekdays and/or 3 Masses on Sundays and other Holy Days.

In order to understand this, we have to pay close attention to the words.

The bishop can give permission for 3 Masses on Sunday. That authority is given to him “by the law itself,” specifically in canon 905.2 (added in edit)

In addition to that, the bishop can dispense a priest from the limitations of canon 905.

There is a difference between “permission” and “dispensation.”

A dispensation means that one can legitimately act in a way that would otherwise be against the law (in matters of Church discipline). The 3rd Sunday Mass is by permission because the law says this can be done. The 4th Mass is by dispensation because even though the law says this cannot be done, the bishop has authority (canon 87) to permit that which would otherwise be a violation of the law.

So, again, just for clarity: there is a difference between permission and dispensation.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

The diocesan bishops have different policies about this and I do not venture to guess the percentages of who chooses what method. If the priest needs to use the permission, then it is his responsibility in law to ask.

The bishop, on the other hand, is aware that there is more work than there are priests and so normally has a policy in place regarding Canon 905, at least in my experience.

In my case, the bishop gives a relatively broad latitude to presume his permission in the individual cases, provided that we determine the need is genuine, but then we would report our use of this permission, how frequently we were using it, and be prepared to explain and defend our judgement for applying it.

As to needing to be dispensed for the need to exceed bination or trination, I would personally contact the Vicar General normally and, as a last resort, the bishop himself. Usually, there was a brief discussion about any other possible option on my side or any help that they could attempt to find on their side to avoid the situation. If there was no other option, I would receive the dispensation. Different dioceses have different dispositions.

.

Thank you for answering my question. I started a thread a few days ago called “the spirit of the law” asking what measure was put in place by Jesus to prevent a complicated tangle of laws from interfering with the spirit of the law; as it seems was the case in Jesus’ day. I presumed the answer might be the powers of binding and loosing that Jesus gave Peter but was not sure.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Can. 87 §1. A diocesan bishop, whenever he judges that it contributes to their spiritual good, is able to dispense the faithful from universal and particular disciplinary laws issued for his territory or his subjects by the supreme authority of the Church. He is not able to dispense, however, from procedural or penal laws nor from those whose dispensation is specially reserved to the Apostolic See or some other authority.

That is the source of the bishop’s authority to dispense–since that was your question.

Canon 905 permits the bishop to give a priest permission to celebrate 2 Masses on weekdays and/or 3 Masses on Sundays and other Holy Days.

In order to understand this, we have to pay close attention to the words.

The bishop can give permission for 3 Masses on Sunday. That authority is given to him “by the law itself,” specifically in canon 905.2 (added in edit)

In addition to that, the bishop can dispense a priest from the limitations of canon 905.

There is a difference between “permission” and “dispensation.”

A dispensation means that one can legitimately act in a way that would otherwise be against the law (in matters of Church discipline). The 3rd Sunday Mass is by permission because the law says this can be done. The 4th Mass is by dispensation because even though the law says this cannot be done, the bishop has authority (canon 87) to permit that which would otherwise be a violation of the law.

So, again, just for clarity: there is a difference between permission and dispensation.

Thank you, lots of good information in your post.