Communion?

[Vico]

Actually, what replaces canon 1246 from the 1917 code is
Can. 1248 §1. A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.
This because of how Sunday and Solemnities are counted since the reform and restoration of the liturgy.

I have an unfortunate familiarity with the canonist you cite, concerning the restoration of the permanent diaconate and his theories about aspects of it. They caused upset and required the Holy See to intervene and correct. As a result of the affair, I’m afraid I pass over his writings in favour of others in whom I have confidence. His commentary on the code is of no interest to me.

1917 Canon law shows that is was about hours for feast days, fast, abstinence, so it really does not have one direct replacement canon in the 1983 code, rather at least these 1250-1251 and Can. 202 §1, and including the one you gave.

Can 1246. Supputatio diei festi, itemque diei abstinentiae et ieiunii, facienda est a media nocte usque ad mediam noctem, salvo praescripto can. 923.

[Reckoning of the day of the feast, as well as of the day of abstinence and fasting, must be made from midnight …]

 

[FrDavid96]

…

I do remember a key point was that Canon Law and Liturgical Law are distinct, and each authoritative in their own domains.

I say both “yes” and “no.”

Both are the law of the Church. Both are binding. Neither has more or less authority than the other. There is also a 3rd category of law called “special law” which deals with particular circumstances such as papal elections (Summorum Pontificum is another example of special law). All 3 categories are authoritative and binding. All 3 complement each other.

I must mention that because there seems to be a notion (sometimes more or less subtle) floating around here that the Code of Canon Law (CIC) takes precedence over liturgical laws.

In reality, the two forms of law complement each other. For the most part, the CIC does not address liturgical issues (canon 2). This is critical. It is necessary. There must be harmony between the 3 forms of law. The reason is that the Church does not contradict Herself. The Church does not tell us in one place “do this” and in another place “do not do this.” All laws are ordered toward the good of souls and so have the same ultimate goal.

The Church does not see conflict between the matters addressed in the CIC and the liturgical life of the Church (if such would exist, it would need to be resolved, and indeed would be). The Church does not separate liturgical life from the rest of our Christian lives, so neither does that happen in the law. Again, the different forms of law complement each other, they work together, and they must always be seen as parts of one whole.

My presumption ( which should take with a grain of salt, tequila and a lime) would be that for Canon 202, “In law, a day is understood as a period consisting of 24 continuous hours and begins at midnight unless other provision is expressly made”

The “expressly made” can be a matter of Liturgical Law and would not have to be reflected in Canon Law.

That’s exactly my position as well.

We take canon 2, canon 917, canon 202, and the liturgical law of the Church (the norms on the calendar) and we find the harmony among all of them. We put all of the laws together to form the answer to the question at hand.

I do believe that’s what I’ve done. As I’ve written before I do not advocate dismissing or violating the CIC, but instead finding a way to interpret and apply it by working within the existing law—the totality of the law.

 

[1ke]

I’m not trying to be “definitive”, or tell anyone else what to do or not do, or speak for the Church.

I’m stating what I would do and what I base that decision on. I would self-regulate and say “how many times have I already received?” and would receive or not receive again accordingly.

I have read both opinions on the matter (opinions of professors, canonists, and priests, which I would consider professional opinions) and I agree with one explanation over the other regarding the measure of days and how the canons apply. I am open to revising that opinion in the future if presented with something that provides a more convincing argument of the opposite.

And now i’m going to go over to the paint color thread in Family Life and not returning to this one, which has become rather pointless.

 

[FrDavid96]

…

A number of posts on this thread truly demonstrate the problem when those without the benefit of real, true, and authentic guided formation read a canon and arrive at some conclusion in a vacuum or based on things published that, in the end, have varying value. It’s worse when people decide what they think it means and then put that forth as “It’s my opinion that the Church already answered that question and the answer is ‘you already received twice today.’” There’s reason for being very cautious in one’s ability to assert what one puts forth
…

Excellent posts. Thank you.

I see the problem here as a symptom of our contemporary way of thinking and of gathering information.

People want one-sentence answers to questions and think that such answers can be readily found simply by doing an internet search. This applies, unfortunately, to many aspects of life, not just what we see on CAF.

“Have a question? Google it. Whatever comes up first must surely be the right answer” is all too often the way that people answer questions today.

There seems to be a pattern (sometimes, not always) that a person does little more than do an internet search for a particular phrase, then quotes one (maybe 2) sentences from someone and that settles the matter.

There is no context. There is little in the way of actual scholarship and even less in the way of reasoning or logic.

Maybe the original source is entirely correct, maybe the original source is nowhere near that. Maybe the original source is addressing something entirely different. At times, it seems not to matter. It suffices to “cut & paste” an answer from somewhere on the internet.

 

[FrDavid96]

As I’ve posted numerous times:

My position rests on the canonical principle that says “whatever pertains to the whole pertains to every part of that whole.”

I’m going to note here that no one has made even the slightest attempt to show how or why that should not be the case.

My position also relies on the precedent that we have from the 2nd half of the 20th century that in counting the number of times one has received Communion on any given “day” that counting is done according to the liturgical day. I’ve repeated it at the end of this post. That’s just one example. I’ve provided other examples and I can do so again if need be.

It’s a given that people disagree with this. However, while there’s no shortage of responses saying “it is midnight to midnight and nothing else” no one has even attempted a response to indicate why this precedent should not apply.

I’m well aware that people have re-asserted the position over and over again that only one interpretation of the word “day”, namely that of 12 to 12, should apply. There’s no doubt on that point.

What no one has done is to show how or why my interpretation of the situation should not apply. It’s one thing to say “I disagree” it’s quite another to show how the other person is not correct. So far, I’ve seen plenty of the former, but scant little of the later.

And by the way, mere quotes from the internet don’t suffice. If all one is going to do is to quote someone else’s position on the matter, please don’t bother. I’ll say it ahead of time: that’s not going to be sufficient. Think for yourself and speak for yourself. Let someone else speak for himself. (I’m also not going to engage in some kind of “debate by proxy” where one person merely quotes some 3rd party who isn’t participating here.) Sources are fine, but do your own thinking.

Notitiae 1 (1965), 137, n. 5

Without prejudice to the general law, granting on only one Communion per day, the Church, supported by the principle of fuller participation through the reception of the Eucharist in the sacred celebrations, on those days in which she celebrates for the whole community two liturgical offices distinct from one another, grants the faculty of giving Communion twice to the faithful who participate at both celebrations. She does not extend this faculty to all days with several celebrations when they would only be a repetition of one and the same celebration in favor of the faithful who could not be present at a single celebration. Briefly: When one Office is celebrated, even if it is repeated, only one approach to the holy table is granted; when a double Office is celebrated, a double Communion is granted.

Resp.: Firma lege generali de unica Communione singulis diebus concessa, Ecclesia, principio innixa de pleniore participatione per Eucharistiae susceptionem in sacris celebrationibus, iis diebus, in quibus duo officia liturgica, inter se omnino distincta, pro universa communitate celebrat, facultatem dat bis communicandi fidelibus qui utramque celebrationem participant. Quam facultatem ad omnes dies non extendit cum plures celebrationes tunc sint tantummodo iteratio eiusdem celebrationis in favorem fidelium qui unicae celebrationi interesse non possent. Breviter: cum unum celebratur Officium, etsi iteratum, unica conceditur accesio ad sacram mensam; cum duplex celebratur Officium, duplex conceditur Communio.

Readers must note the date. In 1965, the 1917 Code of Canon Law was still in effect and that code permitted no more than one reception of Communion per day (excepting, as always, viaticum).

 

[dans0622]

…If the seminarian is with me, he may receive Communion at the Saturday Mass (Wedding or Funeral) and the evening Mass – and these count toward his two Saturday Communions. He then receives twice on Sunday.

On the other hand, if he has a wedding and funeral with me on Saturday, he receives then and Saturday evening counting it as a Sunday communion in that instance, if he is leaving early. He then receives only once on Sunday. Sometimes, he has to go back early to the seminary.

…

Interesting.

Dan

 

[dans0622]

…My position rests on the canonical principle that says “whatever pertains to the whole pertains to every part of that whole.”

…

Where would one find this canonical principle? The closest I am aware of is something like “surely, the part is contained in the whole” from the Regulae iuris.

Dan

 

[Vico]

…

I must mention that because there seems to be a notion (sometimes more or less subtle) floating around here that the Code of Canon Law (CIC) takes precedence over liturgical laws. …

I think it is likely that it comes from CIC Canon 2, that when prior liturgical law is contrary the 1983 Code prevails.

CIC Can. 2 For the most part the Code does not define the rites which must be observed in celebrating liturgical actions. Therefore, liturgical laws in force until now retain their force unless one of them is contrary to the canons of the Code.

 

[FrDavid96]

Where would one find this canonical principle? The closest I am aware of is something like “surely, the part is contained in the whole” from the Regulae iuris.

Dan

Same thing.

I simply learned it the way I typed it earlier. In fact, I don’t even have one way that I learned it. I tend to phrase it differently from time to time. Sometimes I say “whatever applies to the whole applies to the part.” For clarity (since I many readers on CAF will not be familiar with the principle) I make it a little longer “whatever applies to the whole applies to every part of that whole.”

The phrasing “the part is contained in the whole” is just one more way of saying the same thing.

In any case, my point still stands. I’ve been making that point (the part is contained in the whole) for years and not one single person has made even the slightest attempt to dispute that.