Communion?

[peter26]

Now I’m confused. So receiving once at Saturday vigil and twice on Sunday itself, it this allowed or not, as this is what I do every weekend. My understanding is the rule is midnight to midnight.

 

[FrDavid96]

Now I’m confused. So receiving once at Saturday vigil and twice on Sunday itself, it this allowed or not, as this is what I do every weekend. …

Have you spoken to your priest(s) about this?

If the answer is “yes” and you are following what he (they) told you, then be at peace. Done.

If the answer is “no” then I suggest that you do discuss it with them and follow their counsel.

 

[peter26]

I discussed this with my priest this evening. He said I am fine to continue doing what I have been doing, and so I will. He said the two receptions per day limit was not designed to prevent what I am doing in receiving Saturday evening and twice Sunday but rather to stop people from going from parish to parish to receive as many times as possible for supposed added grace, which was apparently a problem in the past. Anyway, I know where I am now.

 

[Vico]

What if a person attended Saturday evening Mass, Sunday morning, and Sunday evening? Would that count as one day, or two?

I. The canon law regarding reception of the Eucharist, except for the communion fast which simply is an hour prior, and fast and abstinence, for the Latin Church, applies per day, midnight to midnight,

II. The liturgical day is also midnight to midnight.

Part 1: Liturgical Days

I. The Liturgical Day in General

1. Each day is made holy through the liturgical celebrations of the people of God, especially through the eucharistic sacrifice and the divine office. The liturgical day runs from midnight to midnight, but the observance of Sunday and solemnities begins with the evening of the preceding day.
   Source: General Norms for the Liturgical Year and the Calendar, 14 February 1969
   scborromeo.org/litcal.htm

 

[FrDavid96]

I. The canon law regarding reception of the Eucharist, except for the communion fast which simply is an hour prior, and fast and abstinence, for the Latin Church, applies per day, midnight to midnight,

II. The liturgical day is also midnight to midnight.* Excepting Sundays and other Solemnities as clearly stated in the following text:*

Part 1: Liturgical Days

I. The Liturgical Day in General

1. Each day is made holy through the liturgical celebrations of the people of God, especially through the eucharistic sacrifice and the divine office. The liturgical day runs from midnight to midnight, but the observance of Sunday and solemnities begins with the evening of the preceding day.
   Source: General Norms for the Liturgical Year and the Calendar, 14 February 1969
   scborromeo.org/litcal.htm

The “midnight to midnight” part is your own opinion, your own interpretation. It is not to be found anywhere in the Code of Canon Law, nor for that matter anywhere else in any official document of the Church. In contrast to that, Church documents* which address the question of receiving Communion and counting how many times one receives Communion consistently follow the liturgical day.

As for the Liturgical Day, you just quoted the text that proves that the Liturgical Day for Sundays and Solemnities begins on the evening-before according to the secular calendar. I’ve put that part in bold letters. Since the question in this thread is about a Sunday, the liturgical day begins in the evening.

---

• I mean documents from the mid-20th century forward. For many reasons, including the fact that methods of telling time and calculating the calendar varies greatly across the world, and the universal practice that all Catholic Masses were limited to the morning hours, and Communion was very strictly limited to once-per-morning, laws from before the 1917 Code would not provide much in the way of sources.

 

[FrDavid96]

I discussed this with my priest this evening. He said I am fine to continue doing what I have been doing, and so I will. He said the two receptions per day limit was not designed to prevent what I am doing in receiving Saturday evening and twice Sunday but rather to stop people from going from parish to parish to receive as many times as possible for supposed added grace, which was apparently a problem in the past. Anyway, I know where I am now.

And that’s exactly the point: The rule about once-per-day, which was later expanded to twice-per-day was meant as a remedy against superstitious notions about the Eucharist and to emphasize the point that “once is sufficient” (and later “twice is permitted”).

It was never meant to be a tool for a pharisaic interpretation and expansion of the law that actually prevents faithful Catholics from receiving Holy Communion at the Sunday Mass—which is unfortunately exactly the motivation of some posters on CAF. And yes, pharisaic is exactly the word that applies: Placing burdens on people with no regard for the good of souls.

It was a problem in the middle ages (and later). In cities (naturally it was done in places where people had access to multiple churches) people would go around receiving Communion from place to place over and over again all morning. Communion was usually distributed before or after Mass (rarely during Mass, which will surprise many modern Catholics). People would go from one church to another, simply walk in, receive Communion, and then walk out again, and proceed to the next church, do the same thing, and repeat that pattern all morning. It was with good reason that the Church instituted the law of “once per day is sufficient.” Of course, that is obviously not your motivation, just historic background.

 

[1ke]

The “midnight to midnight” part is your own opinion,

Can. 202 §1. In law, a day is understood as a period consisting of 24 continuous hours and begins at midnight unless other provision is expressly made

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.

Perhaps there are documents that make an express provision, and it would be great if you could provide a link to them because it is not just Vico’s or my or Bookcat’s opinion but also Fr Z’s opinion (see blog post below). It is also the position Dr. Edward Peters takes whe he states (in the comments of the same blog post), “The law on reception of Communion is canonical, as Fr. Z observed, not liturgical. It’s canonical days that count, not liturgical”.

wdtprs.com/blog/2013/05/quaeritur-communion-on-saturday-evening-then-twice-on-sunday/

 

[Vico]

The “midnight to midnight” part is your own opinion, your own interpretation. It is not to be found anywhere in the Code of Canon Law, nor for that matter anywhere else in any official document of the Church. In contrast to that, Church documents* which address the question of receiving Communion and counting how many times one receives Communion consistently follow the liturgical day.

As for the Liturgical Day, you just quoted the text that proves that the Liturgical Day for Sundays and Solemnities begins on the evening-before according to the secular calendar. I’ve put that part in bold letters. Since the question in this thread is about a Sunday, the liturgical day begins in the evening.

---

• I mean documents from the mid-20th century forward. For many reasons, including the fact that methods of telling time and calculating the calendar varies greatly across the world, and the universal practice that all Catholic Masses were limited to the morning hours, and Communion was very strictly limited to once-per-morning, laws from before the 1917 Code would not provide much in the way of sources.

Surely you understand the difference between a day and an observance.

I just quoted that the liturgical day is midnight to midnight: “the liturgical day runs from midnight to midnight”. It is the observance of solemnities that is begun on the preceding liturgical day, as stated: “the observance of Sunday and solemnities begins with the evening of the preceding day” .

 

[FrDavid96]

Surely you understand the difference between a day and an observance.

No need to get snippy.

It only proves the weakness of your point, because obviously you do not understand what the Church means by those 2 words, especially the word “observance.”

It also illustrates that when this discussion comes up, it leads to people making childish remarks (like that one) as a way to distract from the actual discussion.

I just quoted that the liturgical day is midnight to midnight: “the liturgical day runs from midnight to midnight”. It is the observance of solemnities that is begun on the preceding liturgical day, as stated: “the observance of Sunday and solemnities begins with the evening of the preceding day” .

Saying “the observance of” is exactly the same thing as saying “the Liturgical day.” They are one and the same thing.

Each day is made holy through the liturgical celebrations of the people of God, especially through the eucharistic sacrifice and the divine office. The liturgical day runs from midnight to midnight, but the observance of Sunday and solemnities begins with the evening of the preceding day.

Sundays and other solemnities begin in the evening-before according to the secular calendar. That is why on Saturday evening, the Church prays “Evening Prayer One of Sunday” not “Evening prayer of Saturday” not “Evening Prayer the day before Sunday” not “Evening prayer in anticipation of Sunday” nor anything else.

That is why St John Paul II wrote about the Sunday Mass on Saturday:

Ad liturgicam consuetudinem enim dies festus incipit eiusmodi Sacris Vespertinis. Propterea Missae liturgia nonnumquam «praefestivae» appellatae, quae vero reapse pleno iure «festiva» est, dominici diei est, instante etiam celebrantis officio ut homiliam sacram habeat et cum fidelibus precationem universalem absolvat.
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/la/apost_letters/1998/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_05071998_dies-domini.html

He wrote “dominici dei est” which means “it is the Day of the Lord” or “it is Sunday” since Church Latin prefers to refer to Sunday as the Lord’s day rather than the day of the sun. It is Sunday. It does not anticipate Sunday. It it not the “day before Sunday.”

In fact, John Paul II makes a specific point of saying that the Saturday evening Mass is not the pre-feastday Mass (nonnumquam ‘praefestivae’) but it is specifically the feastday Mass (‘festiva’) of Sunday.

John Paul II says that this the reality expressed in the law—the very same law that he promulgated.

I rather think that John Paul II knew what he was writing about.

 

[FrDavid96]

Can. 202 §1. In law, a day is understood as a period consisting of 24 continuous hours and begins at midnight unless other provision is expressly made

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.

Perhaps there are documents that make an express provision, and it would be great if you could provide a link to them because it is not just Vico’s or my or Bookcat’s opinion but also Fr Z’s opinion (see blog post below). It is also the position Dr. Edward Peters takes whe he states (in the comments of the same blog post), “The law on reception of Communion is canonical, as Fr. Z observed, not liturgical. It’s canonical days that count, not liturgical”.

wdtprs.com/blog/2013/05/quaeritur-communion-on-saturday-evening-then-twice-on-sunday/

The documents have been posted again and again. Solemnities begin in the evening-before. No need to repeat it. It’s already there in plain sight.

It may be the opinion of some people who post here and maybe the opinion of some who are not posting here. However it is clearly the opinion of St John Paul II in his letter Dies Domini (which I quoted and provided the link just a post or 2 ago).

John Paul II promulgated the 1983 Code of Canon Law. I prefer to accept his interpretation of his own law over and against what anyone else (yes, anyone else) whose interpretation runs contrary to that of the very pope who promulgated the law.*
Edited after posting.
I do not mean to imply that anyone in particular thinks he knows better than John Paul II, nor that anyone in particular is trying to interpret the law contrary to what John Paul intended. That sentence means that I feel John Paul II since he was the lawgiver is the best interpreter of his own law. No one should interpret my post as a slight against anyone else, especially against someone who is not posting in this thread.

 

[FrDavid96]

Surely you understand the difference between a day and an observance.
.

We’ve been down this road before and in earlier threads, you’ve made it very clear that you do not understand the definition of the term “liturgical day.”

That is the problem. You do not understand what the term means and what makes it worse is that you have made it clear that you absolutely refuse to learn what that term means.

Before you try to make arguments about how the concept of a liturgical day works in the Church’s laws, you must first learn what the Church means by the term “liturgical day.” Until you do that, your posts have no credibility.

 

[FrDavid96]

…
Perhaps there are documents that make an express provision, and it would be great if you could provide a link to them because it is not just Vico’s or my or Bookcat’s opinion but also Fr Z’s opinion (see blog post below). It is also the position Dr. Edward Peters takes whe he states (in the comments of the same blog post), “The law on reception of Communion is canonical, as Fr. Z observed, not liturgical. It’s canonical days that count, not liturgical”.

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.

I am asking you to read through that response. Read it objectively and without any bias.

The first value expressed is “the principle of fuller participation.” Meaning that Catholics (assuming nothing prevents them from receiving Communion) should be able to fully participate in the Mass by actually receiving Communion.

The second thing to note is that a the time (1965) only ONE Communion per day was permitted. Therefore, a person who attended Mass in the morning for one Office had already reached the maximum number of Communions per day permitted by the law.

That last sentence is important. The Law only permitted ONE Communion per day. That much is made clear in the opening sentence. The provision in the law permitting a second Communion would not happen for another 20 years. At the point when that response was written, the law still said “no more than once per day.”

The Congregation, however, is offering an interpretation that relies on the standard of the “Office” (we can safely say “the Liturgical Day”). I must mention here that those who do not understand the vocabulary being used should not attempt to dispute things which they do not understand.

Now, one might point to certain documents (pre 1983) about allowing more than one Communion. Those documents allow more than one Communion for the same liturgical day (for example, allowing Communion twice, one at each of 2 Masses for Christmas). Those are exceptions already granted, and therefore already part of the law. Again, the opening sentence “…the general law, granting only one Communion per day…” is an indication that what follows is addressing situations other than what was already addressed by changes to the law (such as by indult).

As we read this response from the Congregation, it’s clear that in the mind of the Church, when a Catholic person receives Communion for one liturgical day (one Office) that does not prevent the Catholic from receiving Communion for the next liturgical day (the next Office).

I hope people notice the words “The Church supported by the principle of fuller participation through the reception of the Eucharist in the sacred celebrations…grants the faculty of giving Communion twice to the faithful who participate at both celebrations.” That’s critical. There is no change in the law which allows this to happen. The reason is NOT “by virtue of papal indult” NOT “by virtue of such-and-such a document” NOT “by virtue of a concession granted by the Holy Father.” NOT by anyting stated in either the law itself nor in any complementary legislation. The reason given is the principle (not the law) of full participation in the Eucharist.

Now that brings us to the practical side of things. The question which prompted all this.

If a faithful Catholic attends Mass on Saturday morning and receives Communion, then later that same calendar day attends a funeral Mass at which he likewise receives Communion: Why is it that some people feel that such a faithful Catholic should be turned away from receiving Communion at the Sunday Mass of the same calendar day (Saturday evening) merely because that faithful Catholic had already received Communion twice on Saturday?

Does being a good Catholic on Saturday morning make one a bad Catholic on Saturday evening? I truly want to know the answer to that question?

If such a person is a bad Catholic who should be turned away from receiving Christ in the Eucharist when he participates in Sunday Mass, what does that say about the notion of “full and active participation” at the Sunday Mass?

Does being a good and faithful Catholic on Saturday morning mean that the same person should be treated in exactly the same way as those who are excommunicated, under interdict, or who obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin; for no reason other than the simple fact that such a one either chose (or had no other choice) to attend the Sunday Mass on Saturday evening instead of the Sunday Mass on Sunday morning?

There are those who would answer “yes” to that question.
I say, without hesitation, that such persons are truly the pharisees of our own day.

My answer is “no.” My answer is “if this is your first and only opportunity to celebrate the Sunday Mass, even if it happens to be on Saturday evening, then ‘blessed are those called to the Supper of the Lamb.’”

(more to follow)

 

[FrDavid96]

I would like readers to consider something here. Canon Law is meant “for the good of souls.” That’s why the law exists. It does not exist for its own sake. It does not exist to be an obstacle for the Christian Faithful. It is for their good, not for their detriment.

The law against receiving more than once per day, and later twice per day, is in place to prevent superstitious notions of the Eucharist that by receiving over and over again, on the same day, will somehow be of benefit. Daily Communion is a true Grace, but once per day is sufficient. As an act of solicitude Holy Mother Church allows a second Communion on the same day, even though it is not necessary. This law, limiting how many times a day one can receive, does not exist for its own sake. It does not exist so as to be an obstacle to the faithful. It does not exist to be arbitrary or capricious.

The Church allows the celebration of the Sunday Mass on Saturday evening. The Church makes absolutely no distinction between the Sunday Mass celebrated on Sunday morning and the Sunday Mass celebrated on Saturday night. Absolutely no distinction whatsoever. Everything that applies to the Mass on Sunday morning applies equally to that of Saturday evening. Everything. Every…single…thing. Not one single distinction is made between the two options.

There is a principle in canon law that goes like this “whatever applies to the whole applies to every part of the whole.” For those not versed in such things, what that means is that if some idea or principle applies to something that can be divided into parts, then whatever is said about “everything” applies equally to “any part of that thing.”

Sometimes examples help. If the bishop dispenses from the Friday abstinence from meat, the dispensation applies to all kinds of meat. Meaning: there is no need for one person to be dispensed to eat chicken while another person needs to be dispensed to eat beef and a third person needs to be dispensed to eat lamb. One dispensation to allow eating meat (the whole) applies to any kind of meat (the parts). Likewise, if a person is dispensed from the Friday abstinence, the dispensation applies to all of Friday. One does not need to have one dispensation for the morning, another for the afternoon, and a third for the evening. Whatever applies to the whole of Friday applies to every part of Friday.

Now, we know that the Church allows the Sunday Mass to be celebrated on Saturday evening. Not only is it permitted to merely celebrate the Mass, but likewise anyone who participates fulfills what we often call the “Sunday obligation.” The Church does not merely allow a priest to stand in the sanctuary and offer Mass using the prayers and readings of Sunday; naturally, the Church allows the faithful to fully participate in such a Mass. Indeed, the Church expects such participation. Such a Mass is not meant to be observed. It is precisely for the sake of allowing participation that such Masses are allowed.

Now, as I said earlier, every single part of the Sunday Mass on Saturday evening pertains to Sunday. All of the obligations, such as the Gloria (when needed), the Petitions, even the obligation to provide a homily apply to the Saturday evening Mass. Every part of the whole applies.

Receiving Holy Communion is one part of the whole. That might sound obvious to most, but some disagree. I’ll say it another way, receiving Communion is one “part” of the “whole” of the Sunday Mass. The Church encourages Catholics (excluding of course, excommunicated, interdict or manifest grave sinners) to fully participate in the Sunday Mass, and that includes receiving Holy Communion.

It is my position that the “part” of the Mass of receiving Holy Communion is no different than any other “part” of the Sunday Mass. Since the whole Mass pertains to Sunday, then every part of the whole, even including receiving Holy Communion, pertains to Sunday.

Now let’s look at the situation under discussion.

A Catholic attends Mass on Saturday morning. It is a typical Saturday morning Mass, maybe a Votive Mass of the Immaculate Heart. That person participates by receiving Communion.

That same Catholic then attends a funeral Mass later that same morning. Again, that Catholic receives Communion. Maybe that Catholic person offers that Communion for the soul of the deceased.

Both of these things are very good things for Catholics to do. Such a person would be accounted a good Catholic. That person has done nothing wrong. That person has done nothing to bring about any penalties or restrictions.

Now, let’s say that the same person has a job which requires him to work all day on Sunday. The only way he can fulfill his Sunday obligation is to attend the Sunday Mass at 9 PM on Saturday night.

That person attends the Sunday Mass at 9 PM on Saturday—the person’s only opportunity to attend Sunday Mass.

Can he receive Communion? Does the fact that he attended 2 Masses on Saturday render him ineligible to be admitted to the Supper of the Lamb at his only opportunity to attend Sunday Mass that weekend? Is he deserving of punishment? Should he be relegated to a place with the excommunicated, interdicted, and manifest grave sinners? Is he at fault for having attended 2 Masses on Saturday?

(continued)

 

[zab]

Now I’m confused. So receiving once at Saturday vigil and twice on Sunday itself, it this allowed or not, as this is what I do every weekend. My understanding is the rule is midnight to midnight.

I discussed this with my priest this evening. He said I am fine to continue doing what I have been doing, and so I will. He said the two receptions per day limit was not designed to prevent what I am doing in receiving Saturday evening and twice Sunday but rather to stop people from going from parish to parish to receive as many times as possible for supposed added grace, which was apparently a problem in the past. Anyway, I know where I am now.

I’m trying to follow this conversation and it seems that the latest question is in reference to receiving Communion three times in one Liturgical day (Saturday Vigil , and twice on Sunday) despite the allowance given to us to receive twice a day. I think some people are just questioning if is ok. So if some are saying that we are only allowed to receive twice in one liturgical day doesn’t mean that they are trying to give “pharisaic interpretations…”

 

[FrDavid96]

Continuing my earlier post about the Catholic who attended 2 Saturday Masses:

There are those who say that such a person should be excluded from receiving Holy Communion at the Sunday Mass celebrated on Saturday night.

To those people, I submit this question:

Given that the Church makes no distinction between the Sunday Mass celebrated on Sunday morning and the Sunday Mass celebrated on Saturday evening: why should such a one be excluded from the Lord’s Table?

Look at 2 variations on the same situation.

Linus attends 2 Masses on Saturday. One is the Votive Mass of the Immaculate Heart and the second is a funeral Mass for a friend. He receives Communion at both Masses.

Linus has a job that requires him to work all day on Sunday. He cannot attend any Sunday morning, afternoon, or evening Mass. His only option to attend Sunday Mass comes on Saturday night.

Linus attends Mass at 11:30 PM on Saturday night at St Lucy Church (often called the “Printer’s Mass”), and the distribution of Communion never begins before midnight. Can he receive Communion?

Linus attends Mass at 11:00 PM on Saturday night at St Florian Church (often called the “Firemen’s Mass”) which is always over no later than 11:45 PM. Can he receive Communion?

Let’s remember here that this is Linus’ only opportunity to attend Mass. His only opportunity to participate in the Holy Sacrifice by receiving our Lord in Communion for the entire weekend.

Should it really make a difference if Linus goes to the Mass at St Lucy Church or the Mass at St Florian Church?

Is a time difference of 30 minutes really so significant to render him unworthy of receiving Communion, given that the Church considers both Masses to be equal to each other? That’s important. We aren’t talking about a situation where the Church tells us that there is indeed a significant difference between the 2 Masses or the 2 Mass times–on the contrary, the Church tells us that both Mass times are equally valid and licit and that whatever pertains to one Mass pertains to the other interchangeably.

Is Linus a good and faithful Catholic when he goes to St Lucy’s but when he goes to St Florian’s he is somehow unworthy to receive Communion, for no reason other than the simple fact that he attended Mass on Saturday morning and a funeral Mass later?

Let’s look also at Holy Mother Church.

The Church allows Catholics to attend Mass on Saturday evening, to fulfill their Sunday obligation, and to be full and active participants at such a Mass.

Do we really think that Holy Mother Church is so capricious, that the Church would say to our friend Linus “GOTCHA!” The Church says “I told you you can come to Mass. I told you that it will fulfill your Sunday obligation. I told the priest that he is obligated to treat that Mass as any other Sunday Mass. I told you that both Masses are equal.” But then say “you are not welcome to receive Communion.” ???

Does the Church really say to us that everything about the Saturday evening Mass pertains to Sunday (which is exactly what St John Paul II writes in Dies Domini 49), but then have one single obscure exception that says we are ineligible to be full participants at the Sunday Mass merely because we were participants at 2 Saturday Masses? Not Sunday Masses, but Saturday Masses.

The canon which allows no more than 2 Communions per day is not meant to be an obstacle to good and faithful Catholics who merely (can we say “merely”?) desire to be full and active participants at their only opportunity to attend Sunday Mass. It is meant to be a safeguard against irreverent and misguided notions of multiple Communions on the same day. There is nothing irreverent or misguided about a Catholic who wants only to receive Holy Communion at his one opportunity to participate in the Sunday Mass.

Canon Law is meant for the good of souls.

It is not intended as a trap to catch people who are actually trying to be faithful Catholics.

It is not intended to be an obstacle for the good of souls.

And yet, there are those who, for some reason, prefer to see Canon Law as a way to trap people in difficult situations. There are those who prefer to ignore the value of “the good of souls” and would prefer that the Law be an arbitrary and capricious obstacle to the very People of God whom the law is supposed to protect.

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m trying to follow this conversation and it seems that the latest question is in reference to receiving Communion three times in one Liturgical day (Saturday Vigil , and twice on Sunday) despite the allowance given to us to receive twice a day. I think some people are just questioning if is ok. So if some are saying that we are only allowed to receive twice in one liturgical day doesn’t mean that they are trying to give “pharisaic interpretations…”

I suggest re-reading the question and the response.

Now I’m confused. So receiving once at Saturday vigil and twice on Sunday itself, it this allowed or not, as this is what I do every weekend. My understanding is the rule is midnight to midnight.

Since I can only speak for myself, this is how I responded:

Have you spoken to your priest(s) about this?

If the answer is “yes” and you are following what he (they) told you, then be at peace. Done.

If the answer is “no” then I suggest that you do discuss it with them and follow their counsel.

 

[zab]

I suggest re-reading the question and the response.

Since I can only speak for myself, this is how I responded:

Yes, I saw that answer. And I thought it was a good answer. But it is getting lost in the thread.

 

[FrDavid96]

Yes, I saw that answer. And I thought it was a good answer. But it is getting lost in the thread.

I actually have quite a bit to say about that answer.

My fear is that the pattern from the past will repeat itself.

Too many times, the thread devolves to the point where one or two posters will do the equivalent of the five-year-old who puts his hands over his ears and runs around in circles screeching “I can’t hear you! I’m not listening to you! Waaaahhhh. Nah, nah, nah, nah, I’m not listening.” I’m sure everyone can visualize the image.

I truly do think that there is more than one answer. My concern is that if people either won’t read it, or (worse) will present themselves as obstacles to a civilized conversation, then what’s the point of writing it?

I’m also going to go back and address your question. Yes, your question, not the one from the other person.

 

[FrDavid96]

… So if some are saying that we are only allowed to receive twice in one liturgical day doesn’t mean that they are trying to give “pharisaic interpretations…”

As you can see, I cut out everything except the question itself.

It’s a fair question: are we not being pharisaic by limiting Communion to 2 times per day?

It’s true that there is no such restriction placed by Christ, so why then should there be a human law (a matter of mere discipline) that puts a restriction where the Divine Law does not?

This is how I respond:

Just like any other law that places restrictions, this was done in response to a problem. The problem was that people would receive multiple Communions in a day for misguided reasons, thinking “if one Communion is good, two is better, three is even better” and so on. It was even worse because those people often did not even attend Mass. They simply went from church to church receiving Communion, and doing little else, in some cases (even documented ones) they didn’t even pause to pray. They just hurried along receiving over and over. It was certainly a problem that needed a solution.

In response to that, the Church is saying “once per day is sufficient.” That really is all we need.

It’s worth noting that the Church does permit a second Communion per day. What the Church does not say is to outright make the statement “every Catholic is permitted to receive Communion twice per day.” We often paraphrase the canon that way, but that’s not what the canon says. It does not actually say that anyone can receive up to 2 times per day. It merely permits a second Communion on the same day. One time is all that anyone needs. The permission for a second Communion is meant to facilitate unusual situations—not that the Church requires a high standard here, indeed no justification is needed. It’s meant to address situations where a person might attend 2 funerals or 1 funeral and 1 wedding, or just people who attend daily Mass as a personal devotion and then add another Mass for some special occasions (like weddings and funerals, or even being asked to read or serve at 2 Masses).

What I am getting at here is that, in the mind of the Church, the idea that “once per day is sufficient” is still a value worth upholding. Daily Mass is wonderful, and more people should attend. Yet, we only actually need* to receive Communion once per day. Frankly, once is enough.

Permitting the 2nd Communion is not being pharisaic because it actually expands on what we need as the minimum: Because the Church is being gracious by allowing us to receive more than what we need. The pharisees multiplied the burdens on people. The Church, in this instance here, is multiplying the gifts we can receive.

To put all that another way, the Church is not so much saying “you can take two and no more” instead Holy Mother Church is saying “you only need to take one, and I only need to give you one, but as a sign of benevolence and graciousness I’m going to allow you to take twice what you need.” That, to answer your question, is why the twice per day limit is not being pharisaic.

---

• By “need” I do not mean to imply “obligated.”

 

[Vico]

As you can see, I cut out everything except the question itself.

It’s a fair question: are we not being pharisaic by limiting Communion to 2 times per day?

It’s true that there is no such restriction placed by Christ, so why then should there be a human law (a matter of mere discipline) that puts a restriction where the Divine Law does not?

This is how I respond:

Just like any other law that places restrictions, this was done in response to a problem. The problem was that people would receive multiple Communions in a day for misguided reasons, thinking “if one Communion is good, two is better, three is even better” and so on. It was even worse because those people often did not even attend Mass. They simply went from church to church receiving Communion, and doing little else, in some cases (even documented ones) they didn’t even pause to pray. They just hurried along receiving over and over. It was certainly a problem that needed a solution.

In response to that, the Church is saying “once per day is sufficient.” That really is all we need.

It’s worth noting that the Church does permit a second Communion per day. What the Church does not say is to outright make the statement “every Catholic is permitted to receive Communion twice per day.” We often paraphrase the canon that way, but that’s not what the canon says. It does not actually say that anyone can receive up to 2 times per day. It merely permits a second Communion on the same day. One time is all that anyone needs. The permission for a second Communion is meant to facilitate unusual situations—not that the Church requires a high standard here, indeed no justification is needed. It’s meant to address situations where a person might attend 2 funerals or 1 funeral and 1 wedding, or just people who attend daily Mass as a personal devotion and then add another Mass for some special occasions (like weddings and funerals, or even being asked to read or serve at 2 Masses).

What I am getting at here is that, in the mind of the Church, the idea that “once per day is sufficient” is still a value worth upholding. Daily Mass is wonderful, and more people should attend. Yet, we only actually need* to receive Communion once per day. Frankly, once is enough.

Permitting the 2nd Communion is not being pharisaic because it actually expands on what we need as the minimum: Because the Church is being gracious by allowing us to receive more than what we need. The pharisees multiplied the burdens on people. The Church, in this instance here, is multiplying the gifts we can receive.

To put all that another way, the Church is not so much saying “you can take two and no more” instead Holy Mother Church is saying “you only need to take one, and I only need to give you one, but as a sign of benevolence and graciousness I’m going to allow you to take twice what you need.” That, to answer your question, is why the twice per day limit is not being pharisaic.

---

• By “need” I do not mean to imply “obligated.”

Makes sense. Also the special cases are for different reasons:

Can. 921.2. Even if they have received Communion in the same day, those who are in danger of death are strongly urged to receive again.

Can. 919.2. A priest who celebrates the Most Holy Eucharist two or three times on the same day may take something before the second or third celebration even if the period of one hour does not intervene.