Is it ok to receive Eucharist twice in one Sunday?

[Digitonomy]

Can. 1247 On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass.

Hmmm… the translation I had seen was “assist at Mass” rather than “participate in the Mass,” but the Latin seems to be “partipating,” unless it’s not the cognate it appears to be:

Can. 1247 - Die dominica aliisque diebus festis de praecepto fideles obligatione tenentur

Missam participandi; abstineant insuper ab illis operibus et negotiis quae cultum Deo

reddendum, laetitiam diei Domini propriam, aut debitam mentis ac corporis relaxationem

impediant.

and the same with 917:

Can. 917 - Qui sanctissimam Eucharistiam iam recepit, potest eam iterum eadem die

suscipere solummodo intra eucharisticam celebrationem cui participat, salvo praescripto

Can. 921, § 2.

The English translation at Intratext, which I cited above using “assist” in canon 1247, uses “participate” in its translation of canon 917.

Can. 917 One who has received the blessed Eucharist may receive it again on the same day only within a eucharistic celebration in which that person participates, without prejudice to the provision of can. 921 §2.

I have to wonder about the history of the Intratext translation (which I believe was the only translation out there at one point) versus the Vatican.va translation. Was the Intratext translation an unofficial translation, which has since been superseded by the official translation at the Vatican website? Or was the Intratext simply an upload of the first official translation, which was tinkered with slightly before the second official translation was posted at the Vatican site?

 

[jkarp]

Do you consider that there is a “compelling” reason for a layman to receive even once in a day? If so, does this same reason suffice compel a second reception? Or to dispel one?

tee

The laity receives the Eucharist for the same reason as the clergy, to receive sanctifying grace. Those who are involved with the celebration of Mass are, more often than not, obligated to attend more than one Mass to perform their duty, i.e. a priest celebrating the Mass; the general laity are not obligated to attend more than a single Mass. I don’t see any compelling reason to receive more than a single time per day; it’s not like I have received more grace if I receive twice in a day (we don’t quantify God’s grace). In fact, as a church musician, when I attend more than one Mass per day, I don’t receive more than once. In fact, I feel that (for myself at least) there is danger in receiving more than once in that it increases my chances of receiving in an unworthy manner.

 

[elizabeth22]

I recently went to a daily Mass (during the week of Nov 1-8). I got to Mass and realized that night the church was having a special Mass in remembrance of our departed loved ones. Well, I did receive communion both times, I hope I haven’t committed a major no-no.

 

[Aramis]

I recently went to a daily Mass (during the week of Nov 1-8). I got to Mass and realized that night the church was having a special Mass in remembrance of our departed loved ones. Well, I did receive communion both times, I hope I haven’t committed a major no-no.

Nope. Latin Rite Canon law permits receiving twice in a day. The first may be either mass or some other form of communion service; the second must be either mass or you must be in obvious danger of death.

Those serving as ministers are permitted to receive once per mass.

 

[jkarp]

Hmmm… the translation I had seen was “assist at Mass” rather than “participate in the Mass,”

This is exactly what I was trying to say, thank you for wording more clearly.

but the Latin seems to be “partipating,” unless it’s not the cognate it appears to be:and the same with 917:The English translation at Intratext, which I cited above using “assist” in canon 1247, uses “participate” in its translation of canon 917.I have to wonder about the history of the Intratext translation (which I believe was the only translation out there at one point) versus the Vatican.va translation. Was the Intratext translation an unofficial translation, which has since been superseded by the official translation at the Vatican website? Or was the Intratext simply an upload of the first official translation, which was tinkered with slightly before the second official translation was posted at the Vatican site?

Good question . . .

 

[jkarp]

The first may be either mass or some other form of communion service; the second must be either mass or you must be in obvious danger of death.

Those serving as ministers are permitted to receive once per mass.

I’m not certain that you are accurate, it has been previously cited on this thread that:

Can. 917 A person who has already received the Most Holy Eucharist can receive it a second time on the same day only within the eucharistic celebration in which the person participates, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 921, §2.

Can. 918 It is highly recommended that the faithful receive holy communion during the eucharistic celebration itself. It is to be administered outside the Mass, however, to those who request it for a just cause, with the liturgical rites being observed.

It only says “. . . within the eucharistic celebration . . .” it says nothing about it being specifically a Mass. Do you have any reference that we can check out regarding the second reception having to be within the context of the Mass?

 

[FightingFat]

Um…ER…?

tee

Sorry, that’s the Extraordinary Rite of the Mass.

 

[Cat]

I play piano at Mass, and usually I receive at two Masses. I asked the priests, and they said that was fine. One of the priests told me that a musician especially needs to receive twice to get through two Masses!

The main reason I receive is because the people notice and question why the pianist didn’t receive Communion. (They don’t necessarily know that I’ve already played at several Masses.)

I feel that this could hurt the faith of weaker Christians and children/teenagers in the congregation. When I receive Holy Communion, I am fully participating in the Sacrifice of the Mass, but when I don’t receive, I look like just a hired musician waiting for my cue.

I Corinthians 8 and 9 talk about “stumbling blocks.” I believe that if I just sit there and ignore the Lord in Holy Communion (at least, that’s how it looks to the congregation), I could become a stumbling block. Kids especially could use this as an excuse to rebel–“Mom, the piano player didn’t receive Communion, so why should I?”

I never receive more than twice on a Sunday (that includes Saturday Vigil Masses, too). As the priest explained the rubrics to me, twice in one Sunday is allowed, but not more than twice. So on Sundays that I play for more than two Masses, I just trust that the Lord will somehow make it clear to the congregation that I am not ignoring Our Lord. I always try to maintain a reverent posture (although I do not kneel because I probably wouldn’t be able to get up again!) and show on my face and with my posture that I am participating fully in the Mass, not just playing piano.

 

[jkarp]

I play piano at Mass, and usually I receive at two Masses. I asked the priests, and they said that was fine. One of the priests told me that a musician especially needs to receive twice to get through two Masses!

I don’t think that there is any debate on this thread whether or not those assisting with the Mass (including musicians) are allowed to receive twice, everyone is in agreement that this is ok; the discussion is whether or not this extends to the rest of the congregation or not.

 

[tee_eff_em]

It only says “. . . within the eucharistic celebration . . .” it says nothing about it being specifically a Mass. Do you have any reference that we can check out regarding the second reception having to be within the context of the Mass?

*The eucharistic celebration *is one of the ways the Church and the CIC refer to the Mass. cf (NB also the word *participate * in §§2 and 3) (Also NB also this is part of a whole chapter of the law regarding THE EUCHARISTIC CELEBRATION):

Can. 899 §1. The eucharistic celebration is the action of Christ himself and the Church. In it, Christ the Lord, through the ministry of the priest, offers himself, substantially present under the species of bread and wine, to God the Father and gives himself as spiritual food to the faithful united with his offering.

§2. In the eucharistic gathering the people of God are called together with the bishop or, under his authority, a presbyter presiding and acting in the person of Christ. All the faithful who are present, whether clerics or laity, unite together by participating in their own way according to the diversity of orders and liturgical functions.

§3. The eucharistic celebration is to be organized in such a way that all those participating receive from it the many fruits for which Christ the Lord instituted the eucharistic sacrifice.

Though perhaps ambiguous in English, I do not believe the phrase *eucharistic celebration *is used with any other meaning in the CIC (but I could be mistaken).

tee

 

[tee_eff_em]

I have to wonder about the history of the Intratext translation (which I believe was the only translation out there at one point) versus the Vatican.va translation. Was the Intratext translation an unofficial translation, which has since been superseded by the official translation at the Vatican website? Or was the Intratext simply an upload of the first official translation, which was tinkered with slightly before the second official translation was posted at the Vatican site?

Dunno?

Intratext lists its source as [noparse]http://www.prairienet.org/nrpcatholic/[/noparse], which seems to be gone (and perhaps the parent site going away?), though it still exists in the Internet Archive.

The Vatican site lists the Canon Law Society of America, and agrees with my paper copy fom the same source, copyright 1983, printed 1984 (so it seems unlikely there was some previous unofficial translataion?)

I have been told (on this forum) that England uses a different translation, but I do not know that to be the case?


tee

 

[jkarp]

*The eucharistic celebration *is one of the ways the Church and the CIC refer to the Mass. cf (NB also the word *participate * in §§2 and 3) (Also NB also this is part of a whole chapter of the law regarding THE EUCHARISTIC CELEBRATION):

Yes, I don’t disagree that Eucharistic celebration can refer to Mass, but the reference seems to differentiate between the two:

Can. 918 It is highly recommended that the faithful receive holy communion during the eucharistic celebration itself. It is to be administered outside the Mass . . .

 

[Seatuck]

I recently went to a daily Mass (during the week of Nov 1-8). I got to Mass and realized that night the church was having a special Mass in remembrance of our departed loved ones. Well, I did receive communion both times, I hope I haven’t committed a major no-no.

No , as long as you participate or assist (as the older language says) you may recieve a second time at a Mass.

 

[Digitonomy]

Yes, I don’t disagree that Eucharistic celebration can refer to Mass, but the reference seems to differentiate between the two:

I think you’re misreading 918 - it basically says “Faithful should receive communion at mass. But they can receive outside mass for good cause.”

Can. 918 It is highly recommended that the faithful receive holy communion during the eucharistic celebration itself.
It is to be administered outside the Mass, however, to those who request it for a just cause, with the liturgical rites being observed.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Yes, I don’t disagree that Eucharistic celebration can refer to Mass, but the reference seems to differentiate between the two:

Can. 918 It is highly recommended that the faithful receive holy communion during the eucharistic celebration

I dunno. Quoting the remainder of the canon seems (to me, anyway) to be plain that the two phrases refer to the same thing.

Can. 918 It is highly recommended that the faithful receive holy communion during the eucharistic celebration itself. It is to be administered outside the Mass, however, to those who request it for a just cause, with the liturgical rites being observed.

It is recommended the faithful receive during the eucharistic celebration; however, for just cause and if requested, outside the Mass is also good.

tee
But I Am Not A Canon Lawyer

 

[Digitonomy]

Intratext lists its source as [noparse]http://www.prairienet.org/nrpcatholic/[/noparse], which seems to be gone (and perhaps the parent site going away?), though it still exists in the Internet Archive.

I have been told (on this forum) that England uses a different translation, but I do not know that to be the case?

One probable identity of NRP is National Register Publications, which publishes the Official Catholic Directory. Perhaps they once published an English translation edition of the CIC, but no longer do so. The company is apparently owned by Marquis Who’s Who, and its website says

To satisfy the changing needs of our customers, several of the NRP directory databases have been made available online.

The reference works available at Intratext seem to be very much in line with NRP’s publications, making it a good fit to publish them online. Intratext itself seems to be an Italian site.

None of this really explains why there is a diversity of translation. Perhaps NRP was unable to use the CLSA translation, and had to come up with its own. Why? It doesn’t seem like there would be a huge market for the English translation in book form, since it was available from CLSA. Perhaps CLSA wasn’t making its translation available online, so an online form would have had great value to canon lawyers. Now that it’s free, and there’s no advertising on the site, it’s harder to figure out, but perhaps they provided access only to subscribers for a time…

Your suggestion that the English may be responsible is a good clue… I notice that the Vatican(CLSA) translation spells it “honor,” while the NRP translation spells it “honour.” Also note at the top of the Vatican page, that IntraText was apparently also involved with its online publication.

 

[jkarp]

It is recommended the faithful receive during the eucharistic celebration; however, for just cause and if requested, outside the Mass is also good.

I certainly don’t disagree with this!

 

[Aramis]

I’m not certain that you are accurate, it has been previously cited on this thread that:

It only says “. . . within the eucharistic celebration . . .” it says nothing about it being specifically a Mass. Do you have any reference that we can check out regarding the second reception having to be within the context of the Mass?

Canon 921 is the exception for viaticum.
Eucharistic Celebration IS the mass.

 

[tee_eff_em]

[Man, I was rushing when I posted this morning – My reply hardly makes sense to me, at least not the point I’d intended Luckily, [user]Digitonomy[/user] makes it much more succinctly]

I think you’re misreading 918 - it basically says “Faithful should receive communion at mass. But they can receive outside mass for good cause.”

Concur. :yup:

To me: If 918 were meant to *differentiate *the two, that second sentence, “It is to be administered …”, would be completely superfluous.

FTR, Other canons that use the phrase eucharistic celebration:

• 246
• 530
• 555
• 899
• 907
• 917
• 918
• 926
• 927
• 928
• 932 and
• 1248

I leave it as an exercise to anyone else to determine whether any of these usages positively refers to an occasion other than the Mass.

tee

 

[CAROLOFTHEBELLS]

I play piano at Mass, and usually I receive at two Masses. I asked the priests, and they said that was fine. One of the priests told me that a musician especially needs to receive twice to get through two Masses!

The main reason I receive is because the people notice and question why the pianist didn’t receive Communion. (They don’t necessarily know that I’ve already played at several Masses.)

I feel that this could hurt the faith of weaker Christians and children/teenagers in the congregation. When I receive Holy Communion, I am fully participating in the Sacrifice of the Mass, but when I don’t receive, I look like just a hired musician waiting for my cue.

I Corinthians 8 and 9 talk about “stumbling blocks.” I believe that if I just sit there and ignore the Lord in Holy Communion (at least, that’s how it looks to the congregation), I could become a stumbling block. Kids especially could use this as an excuse to rebel–“Mom, the piano player didn’t receive Communion, so why should I?”

I never receive more than twice on a Sunday (that includes Saturday Vigil Masses, too). As the priest explained the rubrics to me, twice in one Sunday is allowed, but not more than twice. So on Sundays that I play for more than two Masses, I just trust that the Lord will somehow make it clear to the congregation that I am not ignoring Our Lord. I always try to maintain a reverent posture (although I do not kneel because I probably wouldn’t be able to get up again!) and show on my face and with my posture that I am participating fully in the Mass, not just playing piano.

I’m a little concerned about this post. Receiving Communion is between that person and the Lord only. If we look at it as a way to set an example for others it becomes other centered. If a child were to say to a parent, “The piano player, the singer, and the lady sitting across from us didn’t receive communion, so why should I,” it is the parent’s duty to find out why the child thinks that receiving communion is a bad thing or a drag or embarrassing or whatever the case may be and then attempt to explain the personal joy that comes from receiving communion. If a person receives communion just because of the example of others he sees in the church, that person could just be following like a sheep and not feeling a true desire. Also, there is no reason for someone to receive communion if he is not repentient and sees it as just the thing to do. If anyone does not receive communion, they should not be pointed out at all. It is a mystery within the heart and life of that person. Anyone who is noticing whether someone else received communion during a Mass should not be paying attention to that at all. I don’t think it’s necessary to consider what you look like to others. I think it is perfectly fine, as well, to look like just a musician waiting for a cue.