Communion?

[FrDavid96]

I think this may be where you and I part ways as I don’t see not receiving communion for a third time on one day a “penalty”. We need not receive communion at any mass we attend, indeed there are often reasons not to-- one hour fast, conscious of serious sin, a self assessment of not properly disposed-- and I’d just add “already received twice today” to the list of reasons I would not go up to receive on a particular day or at a particular mass.

I don’t view reception of communion at a particular mass as a right nor lack of reception as a penalty. It’s no more a *penalty *to refrain because I’ve already received twice today than it would be a *penalty *to refrain from receiving because I ate a bagel as I drove up to the church. it just is. It’s a reason like any other.

I wouldn’t frame it that way. It’s not about excluding, IMHO. It is about self-regulation for many reasons-- superstition, too lax an attitude about reception of communion, whatever. For many reasons the Church found it necessary to put such law in place. And it’s not a guideline, it’s a law of the Church. They found it necessary to make it a law. To be clear.

So, knowing the law, I follow it if I’m ever in such a situation (which I haven’t ever been in my whole life).

There are literally millions of people who don’t know the law, and may have received 3 times or 4 times or whatever in a day-- or received twice but not in the correct context such as receiving at mass and then receiving in a non-mass setting of some type. They are ignorant of the law and it’s not really a big deal as far as I’m concerned. The world is not going to end because they innocently received 3 times.

There are some who know the law, look at their situation, and say “I’ve already received twice I don’t need to receive again” and stay in their pew. In fact, they may receive once and say “I’ve already received once I don’t need to receive again” not because there is a law but because they don’t believe they “have” to receive at every mass they go to. that would be where I fall.

There are those who know the law and ignore it. They are accountable for that decision (as we all are for all our decisions).

I think for the most part, this is angels dancing on the head of a pin. Not really something the average man in the pew worries about. But by the same token, I don’t think framing it as a penalty and exclusion from the Eucharist is the way to go. If someone’s already received twice in one day, not receiving for a third time is hardly a penalty or exclusion, IMHO.

I’m not talking about a person who want to receive 3 times as a repetition of the same liturgical day. I am writing about someone who does not have the opportunity to participate in the Sunday Mass by receiving Communion at that person’s only opportunity to participate fully and actively at one single Sunday Mass (per weekend, of course).

That’s entirely different from someone who attends 3 Sunday Masses, or someone who attends 3 Wednesday Masses, or someone who attends 3 Saturday Masses.

 

[FrDavid96]

In my loose translation I used vigil for evening. That is irrelevant for this.

There is a difference between a liturgical day, a particular liturgy of a solemnity by which is it celebrated, and the observance of the day. The first particular liturgy for a solemnity includes the first vespers, there may also be a vigil Mass. The observance of the solemnity may not actually use the particular liturgy of the solemnity, but may be fulfilled in the evening of the prior day per canon law.
I comes down to what the texts actually say. You say there is not a difference between a day and the celebration of a day, yet the text states that there is a difference, very clearly defining a liturgical day from midnight to midnight, so all other references are to observance of it:

• “The liturgical day runs from midnight to midnight, but the observance of Sunday and solemnities begins with the evening of the preceding day.”
• “Solemnities are counted as the principal days in the calendar and their observance begins with evening prayer I of the preceding day.”

We also know because of the appellation pre-fest would not have been used as it is not the day itself: “pre-festive Mass, it is necessary to remember that it is the day of Sunday in itself which must …”

Nonsense.

You keep proving that you have no idea what you’re writing about.

Learn the vocabulary. Please learn the vocabulary. Then (and only then) can you hope to post with any credibility. Right now, your credibility factor is at “zero.”

 

[ProVobis]

Sorry, but I’m not following this debate at all. It seems to me that both sides are saying, or at least acknowledging, the same thing: the liturgical day of Sunday begins on the CALENDAR Saturday, after Evening Prayer I.

What’s the dispute, exactly?

For the record, I believe I was the one to ask him whether receiving three times on Saturday AND twice on Sunday takes into account two different ways of looking at the liturgical day to suit one’s purpose, or something to that effect. I also believe Father David has addressed that issue if not much more. I for one have understood his explanations. Thank you, Fr. David.

 

[1ke]

I’m not talking about a person who want to receive 3 times as a repetition of the same liturgical day. I am writing about someone who does not have the opportunity to participate in the Sunday Mass by receiving Communion at that person’s only opportunity to participate fully and actively at one single Sunday Mass (per weekend, of course).

I understand that. One does not need to receive communion to participate fully and actively in the Sunday Mass (or any other mass).

If I ate a bagel on the way in the door to the Saturday evening mass, I would not receive communion at that mass. But yet I still participate fully and actively.

If I received the Eucharist twice already that day, and for some reason needed or wanted to attend the Saturday evening mass for my Sunday obligation, I would not receive the Eucharist that third time. I would have still participated in the Sunday Mass actively and fully.

I don’t see why you are correlating receiving or not receiving the Eucharist at the Sunday Mass as some sort of deprivation or penalty or having participated or not participated.

I also don’t think anyone is being denied the opportunity to receive at the Sunday mass. They have already received the Eucharist twice. They have no need to receive it again. They do have a need to fulfill their obligation. If that’s the only time they can do it, they just don’t receive the Eucharist.

It seems pretty simple to me. I don’t get what the big deal is, frankly. I don’t say to myself, “I didn’t get to receive the *Sunday *Eucharist” as if it’s somehow different from the two other hosts I received that same day. They were plain old *Saturday *hosts, so that’s somehow different? (exaggerated point, not trying to be flip).

I guess I really don’t see why it makes a difference what mass that third mass or third reception is. It’s a third reception, so don’t do it.

 

[FrDavid96]

I understand that. One does not need to receive communion to participate fully and actively in the Sunday Mass (or any other mass).

True. But neither should that value be so casually dismissed. We are, after all, a people of the Eucharist.

No, we do not “need” to receive at every Mass. However, we do have to ask the question “what sort of thing should exclude a faithful Catholic from receiving?” We should not merely dismiss that question as it were of no importance.

If I ate a bagel on the way in the door to the Saturday evening mass, I would not receive communion at that mass…

That because eating less than one hour before receiving is a perfectly reasonable criteria to make someone ineligible for that particular moment.

Still, the Church recognizes that there can be mitigating circumstances. If a diabetic is on a fixed schedule and truly “must” eat that bagel before Mass (I do mean really must), then the Church says that full and active participation is more important than the 1-hour fast. Severe diabetes should not be a reason to exclude a member of the faithful from receiving Communion.

My position is that the same principled approach should apply to the Saturday evening Mass. If a person finds himself in a position where the only opportunity to attend Sunday Mass just happens to be on Saturday evening, then the mere fact that such a person received Communion at the Saturday votive Mass in the morning and a funeral late morning should not be an obstacle to full and active participation in the Sunday Mass.

If I received the Eucharist twice already that day, and for some reason needed or wanted to attend the Saturday evening mass for my Sunday obligation, I would not receive the Eucharist that third time. I would have still participated in the Sunday Mass actively and fully.

And if that is your decision, I would respect that. If you came to my parish on that Saturday evening, surely I would not force you to receive Communion.

I don’t see why you are correlating receiving or not receiving the Eucharist at the Sunday Mass as some sort of deprivation or penalty or having participated or not participated.

Exactly because it has the same effect as a penalty.

We do not exclude Catholic from one (key word “one”) Sunday Communion (over and against their desire to receive) except for good reason. The excommunicated, interdicted, manifest grave sinners? Excluded (with the opportunity to reconcile). We even make exceptions from the 1-hour fast for those who truly need it.

So what constitutes a good reason?

More on that at the end.

I also don’t think anyone is being denied the opportunity to receive at the Sunday mass. They have already received the Eucharist twice.

No, they have not. They have received the Eucharist twice on Saturday. Such persons as I’m describing are in a position where they have only ONE opportunity to receive at the Sunday Mass.

They have no need to receive it again. They do have a need to fulfill their obligation. If that’s the only time they can do it, they just don’t receive the Eucharist.

And here is the problem I have with that kind of reasoning. It places the value of a law for the sake of a law above the value of the good of souls.

Why don’t we just do away with Sunday Communion altogether then, and daily Communion as well. After all, we only “need” to make a Communion once per year—the “Easter Duty.”? Done that. It was a mistake.

(edited for the sake of the 6000 limit)

I guess I really don’t see why it makes a difference what mass that third mass or third reception is. It’s a third reception, so don’t do it.

Look at it this way:

If a person attends 2 Saturday morning Masses and then attends one Sunday morning Mass, no one (absolutely no one, no matter how strict) would say that such a person is unable to receive at all 3 Masses. True or not true?

I think everyone would agree that there is no conflict here, there is no reason whatsoever to exclude such a one from receiving on Sunday Morning.

Now, the Church tells us that the Sunday Masses on Sunday morning and the Sunday Masses on Saturday evening are equal to each other. The Church makes no distinction between those 2 Masses. They are in every possible way absolutely equal to each other.

Why then should it matter whether a person attends one Mass or the other Mass. My position is that since the Masses are equal to each other, then the same standard should apply to both Masses.

It’s like the example I posted last night.

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, 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 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?

 

[Vico]

Nonsense.

You keep proving that you have no idea what you’re writing about.

Learn the vocabulary. Please learn the vocabulary. Then (and only then) can you hope to post with any credibility. Right now, your credibility factor is at “zero.”

I believe what is given in the canon law and in GENERAL NORMS FOR THE LITURGICAL YEAR AND THE CALENDAR – 14 FEBRUARY 1969, and have presented them. I accept their definitions.

 

[FrDavid96]

I believe what is given in the canon law and in GENERAL NORMS FOR THE LITURGICAL YEAR AND THE CALENDAR – 14 FEBRUARY 1969, and have presented them. I accept their definitions.

You’ve made it quite clear that you do not understand the definition if a liturgical day. You keep proving it and re-proving it every time you post.

 

[buc_fan33]

What if it’s not the only opportunity to attend Sunday Mass? What if, as I would argue usually happens at Saturday evening Mass, a person comes so as to be able to sleep in on Sunday morning and watch football Sunday afternoon?

 

[1ke]

However, we do have to ask the question “what sort of thing should exclude a faithful Catholic from receiving?”

It’s my opinion that the Church already answered that question and the answer is “you already received twice today”.

And today is a canonical day, midnight to midnight. I know your interpretation differs from mine. I see more reaso to conclude canonical over liturgical since that is the way the canons are written.

And poor Linus also has the choice to refrain from receiving at either the Saturday votive mass or the funeral mass if his heart is set on receiving at the Saturday evening mass.

 

[FrDavid96]

What if it’s not the only opportunity to attend Sunday Mass? What if, as I would argue usually happens at Saturday evening Mass, a person comes so as to be able to sleep in on Sunday morning and watch football Sunday afternoon?

Although I see the motivation (as far as choosing the time) as misguided, I think the final result is still the same.

Likewise, what if someone usually attends the 11:00 AM Mass, but decides to attend the 8 AM Mass instead for a similar reason. People do that all the time but we don’t tell them “you can’t receive Communion.”

The Church says that the 2 options are equal: Sunday morning or Saturday evening.

And again, the principle of “whatever pertains to the whole pertains to every part of the whole” as far as I see it, should apply here.

 

[FrDavid96]

It’s my opinion that the Church already answered that question and the answer is “you already received twice today”.

Well, in the past, when the canonical limit was one time per “day” the Church allowed a person who attended a morning Mass then attended an evening Mass (of the next liturgical day) to be admitted to Communion, and this without changing the law.

As far as I see it, I’m not doing anything more than applying existing precedent.

The standard under the 1917 code (for quite some time) was to interpret the canon according to the liturgical day. I see no reason why it cannot be done under the 1983 Code as well.

And today is a canonical day, midnight to midnight. I know your interpretation differs from mine. I see more reaso to conclude canonical over liturgical since that is the way the canons are written.

Here I disagree (no surprise there). I don’t see anything requiring it to be a 12to12 day, but I do see ample precedent for the liturgical day.

And poor Linus also has the choice to refrain from receiving at either the Saturday votive mass or the funeral mass if his heart is set on receiving at the Saturday evening mass.

That puts the value of the law for the law’s sake above the good of souls. I prefer to think that the law was meant to serve the people of God, not the people of God meant to serve the law.

 

[buc_fan33]

Although I see the motivation (as far as choosing the time) as misguided, I think the final result is still the same.

Likewise, what if someone usually attends the 11:00 AM Mass, but decides to attend the 8 AM Mass instead for a similar reason. People do that all the time but we don’t tell them “you can’t receive Communion.”

The Church says that the 2 options are equal: Sunday morning or Saturday evening.

And again, the principle of “whatever pertains to the whole pertains to every part of the whole” as far as I see it, should apply here.

FWIW…I agree. But as I often reiterate on here, I’m not a canonist, and have only taken six credit hours of canon law. I routinely find myself asking a good friend of mine, who is studying canon law, canonical advice on various subjects that come across my desk.

 

[Brendan]

I had the pleasure of having Dr. Edward Peters, but that was only a 3 credit hour intro course.

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

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.

 

[Vico]

It’s my opinion that the Church already answered that question and the answer is “you already received twice today”.

And today is a canonical day, midnight to midnight. I know your interpretation differs from mine. I see more reaso to conclude canonical over liturgical since that is the way the canons are written.

And poor Linus also has the choice to refrain from receiving at either the Saturday votive mass or the funeral mass if his heart is set on receiving at the Saturday evening mass.

Does the Sunday observance begin on Saturday evening, in imitation of the Jewish sabbath? (from Catholic Answers):

The Sunday obligation applies to the modern Sunday, reckoned from midnight to midnight. This was established by canon 1246 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law.

catholic.com/quickquestions/does-the-sunday-observance-begin-on-saturday-evening-in-imitation-of-the-jewish-sabba

Apologist, Fr. Charles Grondin wrote to the question “How often can someone receive communion in 24 hours?”:
The only “24 hour provision” in canon law begins and ends at Midnight. So technically a person could receive communion at a 10am funeral on a Saturday, receive communion again at the 1pm Saturday afternoon Wedding Mass, and receiving again at a 8am Sunday morning Mass. Even though that would mean receiving communion 3 times within a 24 hour window, the canonical day begins and ends at midnight and therefore communion has only been received twice in one canonical day in full compliance with canon 917.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12056974

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Does the Sunday observance begin on Saturday evening, in imitation of the Jewish sabbath? (from Catholic Answers):

The Sunday obligation applies to the modern Sunday, reckoned from midnight to midnight. This was established by canon 1246 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law.

catholic.com/quickquestions/does-the-sunday-observance-begin-on-saturday-evening-in-imitation-of-the-jewish-sabba

This provision of the 1917 code has to be read in light of Canon 6 of the 1983 code.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I don’t wish to be unkind but what I’m about to say will come across to some posters on this thread as unkind and even very unkind

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

One who actually knew this most delicate of tasks, and knew it well, and does it professionally would not be blithe to announce as “definitive” things for which not only is “interpretation” appropriate but that definitiveness at the universal level positively remains ambiguous. Such a method of asserting having an answer that exceeds the scope of the interpretation is very flawed

First the Church answers authoritatively in the one who wrote the law. Second, in those entrusted by the lawgiver with the interpretation of the law on the level of the Universal Church. Third, in those who, as members of the College of Bishops, (1) govern a portion of the People of God entrusted to them as well as (2) share in the governance of the Universal Church as a Successor of the Apostles and form one part of the Episcopal College. Finally, those who have the cura animarum and govern a portion of the People of God as Pastors who, by their priesthood, are co-workers with the Order of Bishops

There are reasons one spends years to study theology and years to study canon law (both of these not under an individual but faculties of varied nationality even) and then years of actually doing theology and doing canon law…either in academics in the academy or else practically in a chancery or a parish, always growing in rank in these years…before one has attained a station and stature to really pronounce on the matter. It is not to tell you what they think or feel but to articulate the authentic sense of the Church’s mind

That simply doesn’t apply to people who haven’t gone through three progressive academic cycles to achieve their doctorate and proceed to work in the field as an apprentice under others who have attained and share their expertise – all this to make this field part of one’s very self. No, these others are those who sit in armchairs and self-appoint themselves to pronounce on matters about which may think much but have little basis for the conclusions and opinions they advance

Theology can be synthesised into a catechetical or kerygmatic statement but to know the statement is but to begin to know the depth of the truth thereby expressed let alone its proper application and – even beyond that – its prudent application. The canons are very distilled but they have much to unpack if you are to fully comprehend and apply them

In this case on reception of Communion, one deals with the intersection of fundamental principles of liturgics and sacramental theology and foundational norms of ecclesiastical law

One goes first to the liturgical principles, which the law is at the service of. The law is at the service of the Eucharist…the Eucharist is not at the service of the law. This is the importance of sentire cum ecclesia which many posters do not evidence

This is also why when I lectured my students destined for priesthood, the first words out of my mouth in the first lecture were to quote, of all things, a canon on the transfer of parish priests because of its conclusion: canon 1752: “In cases of transfer the prescripts of ⇒ can. 1747 are to be applied, canonical equity is to be observed, and the salvation of souls, which must always be the supreme law in the Church, is to be kept before one’s eyes.”

In applying any canon, beyond the Latin words of the editio typica, one does so using that maxim as a hermaneutic. One adds a variety of other hermeneutics in order to reach a sound interpretation. One is applying a norm to a concrete circumstance. There are times when there is only one interpretation one can reach. If a deacon is witnessing a marriage, for the marriage to be valid he must have a delegation to witness the exchange of consent or the marriage is invalid. He either has the delegation or he does not. There’s no middle ground

Other points for which the code is dispositive require the application of interpretation. One is formed by lecture, by study, by research, and by working with canonical professionals in order to acquire the mind for accomplishing the task of interpreting law

When the code was brand new in 1983/84, I remember dealing extensively precisely with Canon 917 and the provision which allowed a person to receive Communion again on the same day, provided the subsequent Communion was in the body of a Mass. The Latin was inconclusive however in the extent. It did not indicate a limitation (a second time) or limitlessness (as often as)…merely that the liturgical act could be repeated

A maxim of the law is that laws that are permissive are to be given the broadest interpretation while laws that are restrictive are to be given the strictest interpretation

In the absence of an authoritative and definitive resolution, which comes from the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, the law was to be read by practitioners that if one came to receive Communion again, it was to be within a Mass and as often as you presented yourself, you could receive Communion. This was the way to proceed for individuals, parishes, dioceses and nations until the Pontifical Council informed us what definitively the canon meant. They told us: a second time. The canon’s wording wasn’t changed; an authoritative interpretation was issued

 

[Don_Ruggero]

(cont’d)

The interpretation wasn’t incorrect. It was the one the maxim of the law said was proper – even if there were those who intuited the intent of the lawmaker and the clarification – the maxim of the law didn’t allow that to be dispositive until promulgated

(The code also does envision the possibility of receiving three Communions in a day in light of canon 921. One can’t say it doesn’t)

To the point at hand. Normally, on a given day, Monday to Friday, if one attends daily Mass, one may receive if prepared and properly disposed. If one subsequently attends another Mass, one may receive according to canon 917. If one attends that evening another Mass, one properly shouldn’t receive to comply with canon 917. That would be a circumstance of three communions in one day that the law disfavours

The Sunday Mass/Holy Day circumstance in which the Sunday/Holy Day Mass is celebrated before Midnight, however, presents us with a different and unique circumstance. It’s not a Mass of the day already in progress but an event of the future arrived into the present. It’s the Mass of Sunday being celebrated when the Church has determined it’s legitimate to celebrate the Mass of Sunday. All the effects of Sunday/the Holy Day are realised at the Mass. (She actually demonstrates much more power to do that than here.) Also, if it’s a Sunday of transition, the season changes. Advent. Christmas. Easter. Ordinary Time. The old season has passed and the new season has begun…the change is not being anticipated, it is arrived

The person who received at the Saturday morning Mass and funeral Mass at Noon is now presenting herself at a Sunday Mass and should be treated at the Sunday Mass as she would be if the Sunday Mass were at 7 a.m. and not twelve hours earlier. (Attendance at this Mass, if this were occurring in Rome at one of the papal basilicas, she could obtain the plenary indulgence one may gain for making a visit there on the Holy Day and there reciting a Pater and a Credo, since it is actually for the purposes of the Mass, of the sacrament and of the indulgence the Holy Day)

If this lady who has already done the Saturday morning Mass and the funeral and the evening Mass were to return twice more on Sunday, she properly should receive only one time more to comply with Canon 917. Since she had received at a Sunday Mass the evening before, she has one Sunday Communion available to her

Two basic principles are that the sacraments are for the people and we are to interpret the law strongly guided by that maxim. And law is to be read so as to favour the aspirations of people who seek the sacraments and are not blocked from them by necessity

One is also guided by the mind of the lawgiver…in this case, that is clear to us since there are those of us who knew the lawgiver. He favoured the giving of the sacraments to the fullest extent they reasonably and prudently can be…as many as twice in connection with liturgies associated with Saturday and twice with liturgies associated with Sunday

In calculating hours and days, I’m reminded of the latitude the law gives. Sunday night ends with midnight and Monday morning begins. If a priest, however, is finishing his ministry late and faces a long drive to the rectory and arrives at 12;30 a.m., it’s quite appropriate for him to pray Sunday’s evening prayer & night prayer since, for him, it’s morally still Sunday as his day is not ended. He is not being unfaithful to the law nor has he failed the law. It’s a matter of how you look at the situation and apply the norm of law.

One poster in this thread said: “One does not need to receive communion to participate fully and actively in the Sunday Mass (or any other mass).” That’s the writer’s judgment. It’s wrong. It needs be read in light of more than 2400 Catholic Bishops who said in Sacrosanctum Concilium:
*“55. That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest’s communion, receive the Lord’s body from the same sacrifice, is strongly commended.” *
Participation in Mass is more perfect when you receive the Lord’s Body and even more perfect when you receive it as elements consecrated at the Mass in which you have just assisted. The theology of the liturgy asserts that. The theology of the Eucharist asserts that. The bishops gathered in ecumenical council assert that. At that point, their conclusion is dispositive, no one else’s; the law is to facilitate that disposition.

The principles of the law, beginning from this apex, is then to work backward. The result would be posited that you’ve already received twice and this would be a third…however the third time is for a liturgy associated with another day in which you are licitly and actually participating & the Church by her judgement has brought into this time frame. The principle for determination who can receive at this Sunday liturgy is who could receive on Sunday; that’s the norm that’s being properly served. It’s also being complied with, if in a method that the lawgiver did not originally envision or provide for.

The mechanism exists to have a definitive interpretation. It hasn’t been done yet. The Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts will I expect do it. In the interim, Bishops, who hold the fullness of executive, legislative and judicial power for the governance of the local Church entrusted to them have the prerogative to clarify how these canons are to be implemented. If there is a question by those with any concern, they should consult their pastor and explain their situation. Dispensation is also available. Unlike people who sit on the Internet who do not have the character of Order or the power of Governance, there are those who resolve these issues.

The law is at the service of the people and the law is at the service of the sacraments. When it is correctly applied, it really does not lead to lawlessness.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Makes sense…going off of memory here, canon law permits priests to celebrate three Masses on Sunday. Now, to be sure, I know many priests who celebrate more than that, either with regularity or only on occasion. But, I know of no diocese or bishop who interprets that as NOT including the Sunday Mass taking place the evening prior. In other words, you can’t use a Sunday Mass taking place on Saturday to skirt the restriction on celebrating only three Sunday Masses (i.e. One Saturday evening and three on Sunday).

Anyway, I would encourage all engaged in the debate to exercise authentic Christian charity.

Father: Actually, by the concurrent judgement of my bishop and consultation with the presbyterate, this is exactly what I have had to do.

The morning Mass on Saturday was cancelled.

That means I have a slot for a wedding or a funeral on Saturday morning or Saturday afternoon and the evening Mass.

There is an evening Mass which is the Sunday liturgy. The devotees of Our Lady of Fatima say the Rosary after the Mass. The Blessed Virgin asked for Communion on the First Saturdays and they are receiving It on the Saturday so they are happy for that. The Mass fulfills their Sunday obligation and they are happy with this outcome, too.

In turn I have binated on Saturday and I am in compliance with the Code of Canon Law without need of dispensation.

On Sunday, I have three slots for Mass. If I only need those, I trinate and am in compliance with the law. If I need to celebrate another Mass, I have to contact the VG so that the matter is recorded and we have a record of who is exceeding trination and how often this occurs to avoid too much falling on the same priest all the time.

On the Saturday, however, if I have a wedding and a funeral, then those count as bination and my Saturday evening Mass is charged against my trination slots and I check with my pastoral team members to see if one of the other priests has a slot available to help. If not, I advise the VG for dispensation to exceed trination.

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.

In a previous post, I spoke of how we interpret the law. If the bishop, who is moderator of the liturgy for his diocese and a very capable JCD who sits down with his VG and the JV and we all go through the matter and reach the conclusion, I am quite at peace that the conclusion is a sound one. I also have taught for years and I am very comfortable with the material I have lectured on for years, which touches all of this.

Ultimately, if PCFILT were to make another disposition on the interpretation of canon 917 in this instance, I would implement it instantly but with the certitude that the interpretation we reached was reached soundly and with the mandate of the bishop behind it.

 

[Vico]

This provision of the 1917 code has to be read in light of Canon 6 of the 1983 code.

Of course, that code was abrogated in 1983, however that is what the source stated. The current code used a different cannon: c. 202 § 1 which refers to a continuous 24 hour period or other provision. Other provision is not made in Canon 917.
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.

Regarding Sunday and feast day obligations see Dr. Ed. Peters who explains “that exceptions to the midnight-to-midnight day in canon law) must not be expanded beyond their terms, per c. 18. That liturgical law calls for Sunday propers to be applied on Saturday evenings (assuming that even counts as an ‘exception’ to law, and I’m not sure it does), would not allow one to parlay said ‘exception’ in liturgical law into an exception in the canon law governing the satisfaction of Mass attendance obligations; they are, indisputably, different laws serving distinct purposes.”
canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/12/04/1964/

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Of course, that code was abrogated in 1983, however that is what the source stated. The current code used a different cannon: c. 202 § 1 which refers to a continuous 24 hour period or other provision. Other provision is not made in Canon 917.
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.

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.

Regarding Sunday and feast day obligations see Dr. Ed. Peters who explains “that exceptions to the midnight-to-midnight day in canon law) must not be expanded beyond their terms, per c. 18. That liturgical law calls for Sunday propers to be applied on Saturday evenings (assuming that even counts as an ‘exception’ to law, and I’m not sure it does), would not allow one to parlay said ‘exception’ in liturgical law into an exception in the canon law governing the satisfaction of Mass attendance obligations; they are, indisputably, different laws serving distinct purposes.”
canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/12/04/1964/

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.