Is it ok to receive Eucharist twice in one Sunday?

[tee_eff_em]

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.

I’d never put much thought to it before, but a UK/British translation seems more and more likely the Intratext source.

In addition to the evidence of honour/honor:
I first heard of such a translation from the latter part of this thread [thread=2887813]In The Nicene Creed: Is it “Human” or “Man”[/thread], where the term in question was “pastor” for which office the UK is said to prefer “parish priest”. From the statistics at each site:

|Vatican|Intratext
pastor|162|9
parish*|90|257
(* Whether in the phrase “parish priest” or otherwise)

Interesting.
tee

 

[tee_eff_em]

[Thanks for posting this]

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.

What she said.

It is no other congregant’s business whether or not I receive, and my reason for doing so.

:twocents:
tee

 

[Just_Lurking]

I’d never put much thought to it before, but a UK/British translation seems more and more likely the Intratext source.

I believe the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland (see here) did a translation of their own.

 

[jkarp]

I’m a little concerned about this post. Receiving Communion is between that person and the Lord only.

I agree with most of what you have said with one exception. Communion is not a singular act between a person and the Lord only. Yes, it is true that receiving the Lord in the Eucharist is an extremely personal & intimate act with the Lord, however there is also another part. Communion is also an external sign of the reality of the communion of the Body of Christ. From the USCCB:

". . . Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship . . . "

usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/mass/communion.shtml

While I don’t disagree that we don’t know the state of any one’s soul and should mind our own business, it is also true that there is an external, visible truth expressed in the reception of the Eucharist.