How many times can I go to Mass?

[Lincat]

If I go to Sunday Mass in the morning and recieve Communion, can I go again later that day? Am I allowed to recieve Commumion again?

 

[lutherlic]

If I go to Sunday Mass in the morning and recieve Communion, can I go again later that day? Am I allowed to recieve Commumion again?

Yes, but the second time must be in the context of a Mass.

 

[InLight247]

If I go to Sunday Mass in the morning and recieve Communion, can I go again later that day? Am I allowed to recieve Commumion again?

Yes, you can attend morning Mass with Communion and go to another Mass later the same day receiving Communion again.

 

[1ke]

You can attend Mass as many times as you like, there is no limit.

You can receive the Eucharist twice in one day, the second time being at a mass. Exception is made for Viaticum.

 

[ProVobis]

There is no limit to how many Masses you can attend. And you can go to an EF, an OF, Maronite, and/or Byzantine if you like or wish to learn more about your faith. Two’s the limit on communion, though, assuming you’re properly disposed.

 

[Jon_S_1]

If I go to Sunday Mass in the morning and recieve Communion, can I go again later that day? Am I allowed to recieve Commumion again?

Yes, you can receive Communion two times in one day, One of those times must be in a mass (as opposed to a distribution in a hospital or something).

 

[mlz]

Twice in one day, but a dear priest told me this permissible but not to make it a habit .
Mlz

 

[mlz]

Twice in one day, but a dear priest told me this permissible but not to make it a habit .But it must be in the context of the Mass.
Mlz

 

[Nan_S]

When serving as an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist at my old church, we were instructed to consume the remaining Precious Blood and whatever hosts did not fit into the vessel in the tabernacle. Sometimes there were quite a few extra hosts.

We never thought of this as receiving communion twice, simply as receiving a larger portion at one mass.

Were we wrong?

 

[pianistclare]

When serving as an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist at my old church, we were instructed to consume the remaining Precious Blood and whatever hosts did not fit into the vessel in the tabernacle. Sometimes there were quite a few extra hosts.

We never thought of this as receiving communion twice, simply as receiving a larger portion at one mass.

Were we wrong?

No, but care must be taken by the Sacristan to not put out more hosts than can be reasonably be expected as necessary. We have a large ciborium…so we always have room, plus we take communion to a few hospitals, nursing homes, and homebound. So we rarely need to consume any extras, they get distributed in a couple of days.
And you are correct, the Precious Blood must be consumed, or (worse case scenario) poured in the Sacrarium.

This is not the same as “receiving twice”.

 

[1ke]

, One of those times must be in a mass

The Church’s law is actually more specific than that. It’s not simply that one time must be in the context of mass, it is that the second time must be in the context of the mass, unless it is Viaticum.

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

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.

 

[1ke]

.

Were we wrong?

No.

 

[Jon_S_1]

The Church’s law is actually more specific than that. It’s not simply that one time must be in the context of mass, it is that the second time must be in the context of the mass, unless it is Viaticum.

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

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.

Interesting! Thanks for the clarification!

Any idea why it’s ok with the church to have communion outside mass and then go to mass and have communion verses the other way around ?

 

[SMHW]

Interesting! Thanks for the clarification!

Any idea why it’s ok with the church to have communion outside mass and then go to mass and have communion verses the other way around ?

I’m guessing it’s a matter of perspective. It’s not, “If you want to receive communion a second time you have to go to Mass in order to do so.” It’s probably more, “If you go to Mass after you have already received communion once then you can receive at that Mass.”

(Obviously usual caveats about being properly disposed apply.)

 

[ProVobis]

I’m guessing it’s a matter of perspective. It’s not, “If you want to receive communion a second time you have to go to Mass in order to do so.” It’s probably more, “If you go to Mass after you have already received communion once then you can receive at that Mass.”

(Obviously usual caveats about being properly disposed apply.)

That would be close to my guess as well. Seems like the Church is saying the ideal is to have communion, if at all, within the context of the Mass. Outside of hospitals and nursing homes and such, I don’t even know why or where communion would be distributed outside of Mass.

 

[Jon_S_1]

That would be close to my guess as well. Seems like the Church is saying the ideal is to have communion, if at all, within the context of the Mass. Outside of hospitals and nursing homes and such, I don’t even know why or where communion would be distributed outside of Mass.

My thinking was people who take the Eucharist to the sick or home bound may receive with the sick and home bound as a visible sign of communion with them. But that would normally be after receiving at mass and was purely speculative on my part.

Perhaps there is some similar situation that exists?

 

[pianistclare]

My thinking was people who take the Eucharist to the sick or home bound may receive with the sick and home bound as a visible sign of communion with them. But that would normally be after receiving at mass and was purely speculative on my part.

Perhaps there is some similar situation that exists?

Hmmmm. I don’t know of any of our Eucharistic Ministers to the homebound or sick in hospital that “commune” with them. They exist to take to those who CANNOT receive in Mass. It’s specifically for those in that situation. The ministers, unless going during the week, pick up their pyx’s during Mass and are dismissed from there.

I can’t think of any reason for the first time to be outside of Mass. I’m probably missing something obvious though…

 

[SMHW]

Hmmmm. I don’t know of any of our Eucharistic Ministers to the homebound or sick in hospital that “commune” with them. They exist to take to those who CANNOT receive in Mass. It’s specifically for those in that situation. The ministers, unless going during the week, pick up their pyx’s during Mass and are dismissed from there.

I can’t think of any reason for the first time to be outside of Mass. I’m probably missing something obvious though…

I agree the Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion do not receive with those to whom they minister. That is NOT what the Church wants. In fact if they are hospital ministers they would have to commune multiple times so a single extra time outside of Mass wouldn’t work.

As far as people receiving a first time outside of Mass I can easily think of a couple of circumstances.

One might arrive while a Mass prior to one’s intended Mass was still going on and, for whatever reason, wish to receive from that particular celebrant.

Or one might be with a sick relative or friend when some comes to deliver communion to that person. If one has not yet received communion that day then it would be possible to receive communion.

In both of the cases mentioned above one could later receive at a Mass at which one participated.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I agree the Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion do not receive with those to whom they minister. That is NOT what the Church wants. In fact if they are hospital ministers they would have to commune multiple times so a single extra time outside of Mass wouldn’t work.

As far as people receiving a first time outside of Mass I can easily think of a couple of circumstances.

One might arrive while a Mass prior to one’s intended Mass was still going on and, for whatever reason, wish to receive from that particular celebrant.

Or one might be with a sick relative or friend when some comes to deliver communion to that person. If one has not yet received communion that day then it would be possible to receive communion.

In both of the cases mentioned above one could later receive at a Mass at which one participated.

Thanks!

My example earlier was something I had guessed in my head not something I observed or desired. Just FYI.

Thanks for the insight, a very informative thread!

 

[pianistclare]

I agree the Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion do not receive with those to whom they minister. That is NOT what the Church wants. In fact if they are hospital ministers they would have to commune multiple times so a single extra time outside of Mass wouldn’t work.

As far as people receiving a first time outside of Mass I can easily think of a couple of circumstances.

One might arrive while a Mass prior to one’s intended Mass was still going on and, for whatever reason, wish to receive from that particular celebrant.

Or one might be with a sick relative or friend when some comes to deliver communion to that person. If one has not yet received communion that day then it would be possible to receive communion.

In both of the cases mentioned above one could later receive at a Mass at which one participated.

Receive from a particular celebrant?
That’s not a reason to receive.
The second scenario is possible I suppose