Receiving Eucharist multiple times in a day

[Bookcat]

No time to search for more at the moment …but one can go to Canon Lawers etc…you can ask Adoremus etc --It is from midnight to midnight.

Here is one Priest I found in a quick search…

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

Quote:

“Saturday ends at midnight. At midnight Sunday begins. You can receive even twice on Saturday and then twice on Sunday.”

and then note someone asks in the comments:

“Doesn’t each day begin at Vespers, liturgically?”

To which the famed Canon Lawyer (consultant to the Holy See --Ed Peters) responds:

“Sure. In some contexts. But so what? The law on reception of Communion is canonical,as Fr. Z observed, not liturgical. It’s canonical days that count, not liturgical.”

Dr. Edward Peters says:
25 May 2013 at 12:52 pm

 

[Bookcat]

N

No time to search for more at the moment …but one can go to Canon Lawers etc…you can ask Adoremus etc --It is from midnight to midnight.

Here is one Priest I found in a quick search…

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

Quote:

“Saturday ends at midnight. At midnight Sunday begins. You can receive even twice on Saturday and then twice on Sunday.”

and then note someone asks in the comments:

“Doesn’t each day begin at Vespers, liturgically?”

To which the famed Canon Lawyer (consultant to the Holy See --Dr. Ed Peters) responds:

Dr. Edward Peters says:
25 May 2013 at 12:52 pm

“Sure. In some contexts. But so what? ]The law on reception of Communion is canonical,as Fr. Z observed, not liturgical.** It’s canonical days that count, not liturgical.”**

 

[FrDavid96]

The Church does not intend the Code of Canon Law to be a thing which people might manipulate in order to prevent Catholics from participating fully in the Sunday Mass by receiving Holy Communion.

I cannot understand why there are some here who see a greater value in their own personal interpretations and their own personal value of “I said midnight to midnight!!!” rather than the value of Catholics participating in the Sunday Mass by receiving the Eucharist.

The words “I say midnight to midnight” are more important to some people than the words “Take this, all of you, and eat of it, for this is my Body…”

Which is the greater value here? More importantly, what is the priority of those who want to prevent Catholics (in good standing) from receiving the Eucharist when they attend the Sunday Mass?

If a Catholic attends two funerals on Saturday morning, then attends the Mass of Sunday on Saturday evening: why does it seem so important for some people to say “you can’t receive Communion!” ?

What if that same Catholic attends the Sunday Mass on Saturday, not from convenience, but out of true necessity? Do people get some satisfaction from knowing that they were an obstacle to a Catholic receiving Communion at the only Sunday Mass which he was able to attend?

What if that same Catholic is elderly and attends the funeral Masses of many friends and this sort of thing happens often? How many Sundays must that Catholic be deprived of the opportunity to receive Communion merely for the sake of someone who gets to say “midnight to midnight!”?

Does it harm you in any way if that Catholic is able to receive Communion at the Sunday Mass?

If you hear the words “Well done, good and faithful servant. You prevented Catholics from receiving Communion at the only Sunday Mass they were able to attend. Come, share your Master’s joy,” you will have my congratulations.

 

[Vico]

Article 28 of Eucharisticum Mysterium dates from 1967. It has been abrogated by the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

You say that the Solemnity is “midnight to midnight period.”

That is categorically false and contradicts the teaching of the Church. It contradicts the very words of the Church that you posted.

The solemnity (including Sundays) begins on the evening of the previous calendar day—just as the numerous Church documents which you yourself quoted prove quite clearly.

You are inserting your own “period” to substitute where the Church says “unless other provision has been expressly made.”

These are the words of Bl. John Paul II, who, was the very Pope who promulgated the 1983 Code of Canon Law49. Because the faithful are obliged to attend Mass unless there is a grave impediment, Pastors have the corresponding duty to offer to everyone the real possibility of fulfilling the precept. The provisions of Church law move in this direction, as for example in the faculty granted to priests, with the prior authorization of the diocesan Bishop, to celebrate more than one Mass on Sundays and holy days, the institution of evening Masses(86) and the provision which allows the obligation to be fulfilled from Saturday evening onwards, starting at the time of First Vespers of Sunday. From a liturgical point of view, in fact, holy days begin with First Vespers. Consequently, the liturgy of what is sometimes called the “Vigil Mass” (praefestivae) is in effect the “festive” (festiva) Mass of Sunday, at which the celebrant is required to preach the homily and recite the Prayer of the Faithful.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_05071998_dies-domini_en.htmlThere is a sentence clause in the original Latin which is missing from the English translation.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.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_05071998_dies-domini_lt.html

He teaches “dominici diei est” it is the day of the Lord.

In fact, the 1967 document Eucharisticum Mysterium proves the point that one who receives Communion twice on Saturday is eligible to receive at the Sunday Mass even if that Sunday Mass is celebrated on Saturday evening. At the time, Catholics could only receive Communion one time on a given day. The fact that they could receive on Saturday evening even after receiving in the morning proves the mind of the Church that the evening Communion pertains to Sunday, not Saturday.

Whatever applies to the whole applies to every part of the whole.
The whole of the Sunday Mass on Saturday evening is the Sunday Mass.
Every part of the Sunday Mass on Saturday evening pertains to Sunday.
Therefore receiving Communion at the Sunday Mass on Saturday pertains to Sunday.

A Catholic who receives two times on Saturday may receive at the Sunday Mass celebrated on Saturday evening. Period.

I showed a portion of Eucharisticum Mysterium as an example of the origin of twice a day, without any representation of being current law, and also made no statement regarding “unless other provision has been expressly made” as you have.

What I posted is not in conflict with the “liturgical point of view” expressed by Bl. Pope John Paul II, which speaks of the observance. Particularly interesting is praefestivae for Vigil Mass.

The quote below, clearly shows that the day itself and the observance of the day are not entirely co-incidental:“The liturgical day runs from midnight to midnight, but the observance of Sunday and solemnities begins with the evening of the preceding day.”

When we meet our liturgical observance on Sunday or Holy Day of Obligation, it may be the 24 hours of the day itself, or the evening of the previous day, even when the liturgical observance is of another feast.

Regarding “Whatever applies to the whole applies to every part of the whole”: the canon law allowing reception on the previous day is required because it applied to the whole day of Sunday (or day of Solemnity). The prefest is on the day before that.

I’ve noticed these type of threads rapidly get closed.

 

[Gorgias]

The Church clearly allows the Masses of Solemnities to be celebrated on the evening before. If this were in violation of some “midnight to midnight” requirement in Canon Law then that would mean that the entire Church for decades now has been violating the canons without knowing it—certainly that is not the case.

Agreed. For the purposes of liturgical norms, “midnight to midnight” does not hold – vigil Masses are, in fact, Masses of the celebration which they ‘anticipate’.

There is no doubt that in the praxis of the Church, everything (absolutely everything with no exceptions) pertaining to the Mass on Saturday evening pertains to Sunday to the complete exclusion of Saturday.

Ok, then: when you celebrate Mass on Saturday morning and then a vigil Mass on Saturday evening, do you binate? When you celebrate a vigil Mass on Saturday evening and two Masses on Sunday, do you binate or trinate?

Furthermore, we need to keep in mind that the Code of Canon Law exists for the good of souls. It does not exist so that the Church can have some arbitrary code that causes harm to the faithful.

Agreed. And, “for the good of souls,” Catholics are only two receive communion a maximum of twice in a day.

The Church allows the Sunday Mass to be celebrated on Saturday evening. This is done for the good of souls—see JPII’s Dies Domini.

The Church also encourages Catholics (those who are otherwise eligible) to participate more fully in the Mass by actually receiving Communion. Again, this is for the good of souls.

True; but that doesn’t mean that the two, considered together, trump canon law. Marriage is permitted to single men; holy orders are normatively given to single men; this does not imply that marriage and holy orders are normatively given to single men…

However, attempting to impose ones own notion of “midnight to midnight” to discourage Catholics who attend Sunday Mass from receiving Communion a the very Mass which the Church says pertains exclusively to Sunday, is not for the good of souls–it’s to their detriment.

You’re changing the playing field, aren’t you? The question isn’t which Mass is most oriented to the good of the souls, it’s whether reception more than twice is. If you wish to make the argument that it would be better to defer receiving Communion at one of the Saturday morning or afternoon Masses, in order to receive Communion at the vigil Mass, then you could make that argument (and, in fact, I’d agree with you). However, we’re not arguing “don’t receive Communion at the vigil Mass,” but rather, simply “don’t receive Communion more than twice in a day.” Big difference.

If the Church were to say (which She does not) “you can attend Sunday Mass on Saturday evening, and everything about that Mass pertains to Sunday, but if you’ve received Communion twice on Saturday, GOTCHA! you’re now prohibited from fully participating in that Sunday Mass”

Well, that’s begging the question now, isn’t it? Yet, it’s not that “everything about that Mass pertains to Sunday”! The obligation to assist at Mass – that is, a consideration that is part of liturgical law – is met by assisting at any Mass from sundown Saturday through Sunday. But, the readings at the Mass do not have to be the readings for the Sunday celebration: if one should attend an evening Nuptial Mass on Saturday, then the obligation to assist at Mass has been met. Yet, the readings for the Nuptial Mass aren’t (necessarily!) the readings for that Sunday’s celebration. So, it’s not the case that “everything about that Mass” on Saturday evening “pertains to Sunday”, although the obligation to assist, does!

The canons were not meant to be an obstacle to the good of souls.

I completely agree. And, for the good of souls, we’re not to receive Communion more than twice a day. Simple, when you get right down to it!

 

[Gorgias]

I’ve noticed these type of threads rapidly get closed.

Yep… and it’s frustrating, since there are respectable priests on both sides of the question, so it ends up looking like we’re picking a fight with a priest, when really, we’re just looking for a definitive answer to the question!

 

[Bookcat]

famed Canon Lawyer (consultant to the Holy See --Dr. Ed Peters) responds

:

Dr. Edward Peters says:
25 May 2013 at 12:52 pm

“Sure. In some contexts. But so what? ]The law on reception of Communion is canonical,as Fr. Z observed, not liturgical.** It’s canonical days that count, not liturgical.”**

Dr. Edward Peters, JD, JCD, Ref. Sig. Ap.

Edmund Cdl. Szoka Chair, Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit

Referendary, Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, Rome

He knows rather what he is talking about.

 

[ProVobis]

Do you believe that the purpose of Canon Law is the good of souls?

Okay, I’ll accept that. To be fair, I don’t envision myself ever being in that spot. I think I can handle it. My concern first is to fulfill the obligation of assisting at Mass. I try to get to both the OF and EF but in the weather we are having up north, it’s getting more and more difficult.

FWIW, once I stood up for a wedding scheduled to start at 3pm. As the wedding started very late, it occurred later for someone to ask the priest if the nuptial Mass could count for Sunday. He said yes and everyone was good with it.

Thanks for the Latin, by the way. I understand it to be more authoritative, so I’ll trust you rather than the English.

 

[Incomplete]

The Church does not intend the Code of Canon Law to be a thing which people might manipulate in order to prevent Catholics from participating fully in the Sunday Mass by receiving Holy Communion.

I cannot understand why there are some here who see a greater value in their own personal interpretations and their own personal value of “I said midnight to midnight!!!” rather than the value of Catholics participating in the Sunday Mass by receiving the Eucharist.

The words “I say midnight to midnight” are more important to some people than the words “Take this, all of you, and eat of it, for this is my Body…”

Which is the greater value here? More importantly, what is the priority of those who want to prevent Catholics (in good standing) from receiving the Eucharist when they attend the Sunday Mass?

If a Catholic attends two funerals on Saturday morning, then attends the Mass of Sunday on Saturday evening: why does it seem so important for some people to say “you can’t receive Communion!” ?

What if that same Catholic attends the Sunday Mass on Saturday, not from convenience, but out of true necessity? Do people get some satisfaction from knowing that they were an obstacle to a Catholic receiving Communion at the only Sunday Mass which he was able to attend?

What if that same Catholic is elderly and attends the funeral Masses of many friends and this sort of thing happens often? How many Sundays must that Catholic be deprived of the opportunity to receive Communion merely for the sake of someone who gets to say “midnight to midnight!”?

Does it harm you in any way if that Catholic is able to receive Communion at the Sunday Mass?

If you hear the words “Well done, good and faithful servant. You prevented Catholics from receiving Communion at the only Sunday Mass they were able to attend. Come, share your Master’s joy,” you will have my congratulations.

I’m not sure anybody wants to deprive anyone of anything. In a case where you are going to two funerals and a vigil Mass, you could probably choose not to receive at one of the funerals. Presumably not everyone at each funeral is Catholic, so others also won’t be receiving Eucharist.

But your point about denying people works both ways. Because I have always understood it to be midnight to midnight, I have fairly often attended a Vigil Mass and two Masses on Sunday, and received all three times. If we are talking about liturgical day, then I did the wrong thing. But the reason I went to the Vigil Mass is because my parish doesn’t have a Saturday Mass and I like attending daily. My daughter sang in the choir on Sunday night, so I’d go with her. Sunday morning my husband and I took his mother to Mass…the evening Mass is too late for her. I wanted to worship with family, so I just kept showing up.

One time I went three times on Sunday (because someone needed me to help them get to one of the Masses I hadn’t attended with family.) I only received at the first and third Masses. Even though I don’t think the law is meant to keep anybody from fully participating, it is the law to receive not more than twice. And in fact, in many ways I did fully participate.

So…if it’s liturgy that counts, then I must have done wrong receiving on the vigil and the two Sunday Masses. But how would a layperson know, when there is obviously disagreement as to what the law means?

My point here is that when you say that reading it as midnight to midnight can keep people from participating fully when they should be able to…the same thing applies if you read it as liturgical days, right? Or not?

I don’t think the Church meant for all of this confusion. But it seems even priests don’t agree on what the law reads. Certainly my priest was quite fine with me receiving Eucharist at the multiple Masses.

 

[FrDavid96]

I showed a portion of Eucharisticum Mysterium as an example of the origin of twice a day, without any representation of being current law, and also made no statement regarding “unless other provision has been expressly made” as you have.

I’ll grant you that you didn’t make any statement about it, but the words themselves were in the text that you quoted.

I’m not saying that Eucharisticum Mysterium said anything about “unless other provision.” I’m pointing to the fact that the canon so often quoted says it—even though the tendency here on CAF (by some) is to omit or ignore that clause.

What I posted is not in conflict with the “liturgical point of view” expressed by Bl. Pope John Paul II, which speaks of the observance. Particularly interesting is praefestivae for Vigil Mass.

I take issue with the English translator there. It isn’t that JPII used “praefestivae” when he meant “Vigil Mass”----instead, the translator took the word which means “pre-feast” and instead used “Vigil Mass.” I don’t think that word choice does the text justice when we look at the Latin. JPII’s whole point of the sentence was to say that the Saturday evening Mass is not the pre-feastday but is instead the feast itself. This is made even more clear when the next sentence clause (which the translator omitted) says “it is the Lord’s day.”

JPII was saying (when we read the Latin) that the Saturday evening Mass is not the Mass before Sunday, but the very Mass of Sunday. Remember, he makes it a point to say that it is not the “praefestivae” he wants to correct that misconception.

The quote below, clearly shows that the day itself and the observance of the day are not entirely co-incidental:“The liturgical day runs from midnight to midnight, but the observance of Sunday and solemnities begins with the evening of the preceding day.”

And what we have to realize here is that the Church is consistent in Her teaching and practice and laws. There’s no doubt that the Church says that we can observe Sunday on Saturday evening. The point I keep trying to make about the law being for the good of souls is that we should interpret the Church’s laws (canon and liturgical) as being consistent with each other rather than in conflict.
To say that the Church prohibits Communion on Saturday (in this context) is necessarily to say that the Church is inconsistent; to say that the Church gives us one set of instructions in canon law, but then a conflicting set of instructions in liturgical law.
The Church is saying to us “you can attend the Sunday Mass on Saturday” (I hope we can all agree on that much). But when we follow that with “but then, even though you can attend, you cannot receive Communion” that makes the Church capricious and even malicious (in this context)

When we meet our liturgical observance on Sunday or Holy Day of Obligation, it may be the 24 hours of the day itself, or the evening of the previous day, even when the liturgical observance is of another feast.

That’s a whole other issue. I’m not going to comment on that here.

Regarding “Whatever applies to the whole applies to every part of the whole”: the canon law allowing reception on the previous day is required because it applied to the whole day of Sunday (or day of Solemnity). The prefest is on the day before that.

I’ve noticed these type of threads rapidly get closed.

I don’t know what you mean by that last paragraph. Would you re-phrase it please?

 

[Gorgias]

Fr David,

I thought of another example that, when viewed in light of your assertions, seems not to make sense.

Let’s suppose that I receive Communion at a Vigil Mass on Saturday evening. Does this mean, then, by virtue of c. 917, that I am not allowed to receive the Eucharist at a Communion service (i.e., not a Mass) that takes place on Sunday?

(Edited to add: this is precisely the same case that Incomplete has likewise raised…)

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m not sure anybody wants to deprive anyone of anything. In a case where you are going to two funerals and a vigil Mass, you could probably choose not to receive at one of the funerals. Presumably not everyone at each funeral is Catholic, so others also won’t be receiving Eucharist.

But your point about denying people works both ways. Because I have always understood it to be midnight to midnight, I have fairly often attended a Vigil Mass and two Masses on Sunday, and received all three times. If we are talking about liturgical day, then I did the wrong thing. But the reason I went to the Vigil Mass is because my parish doesn’t have a Saturday Mass and I like attending daily. My daughter sang in the choir on Sunday night, so I’d go with her. Sunday morning my husband and I took his mother to Mass…the evening Mass is too late for her. I wanted to worship with family, so I just kept showing up.

One time I went three times on Sunday (because someone needed me to help them get to one of the Masses I hadn’t attended with family.) I only received at the first and third Masses. Even though I don’t think the law is meant to keep anybody from fully participating, it is the law to receive not more than twice. And in fact, in many ways I did fully participate.

So…if it’s liturgy that counts, then I must have done wrong receiving on the vigil and the two Sunday Masses. But how would a layperson know, when there is obviously disagreement as to what the law means?

My point here is that when you say that reading it as midnight to midnight can keep people from participating fully when they should be able to…the same thing applies if you read it as liturgical days, right? Or not?

I don’t think the Church meant for all of this confusion. But it seems even priests don’t agree on what the law reads. Certainly my priest was quite fine with me receiving Eucharist at the multiple Masses.

There is a difference.

If you attend 3 Sunday Masses, you have the opportunity to receive Communion at at least one of them. You always have at least one chance for Sunday Communion.

On the other hand, if you receive twice on Saturday and then attend the Saturday evening Mass, that might be your only chance to receive Sunday Communion.

That’s what makes the 2 scenarios different.

If you go SaturdayPM-Sunday-Sunday, then you can receive Communion at least once at a Sunday Mass.

If you go SaturdayAM-SaturdayAM-SaturdayPM, then you only have a single opportunity to fully participate in the Sunday Mass by receiving.

 

[Vico]

I’ll grant you that you didn’t make any statement about it, but the words themselves were in the text that you quoted.

I’m not saying that Eucharisticum Mysterium said anything about “unless other provision.” I’m pointing to the fact that the canon so often quoted says it—even though the tendency here on CAF (by some) is to omit or ignore that clause.

I take issue with the English translator there. It isn’t that JPII used “praefestivae” when he meant “Vigil Mass”----instead, the translator took the word which means “pre-feast” and instead used “Vigil Mass.” I don’t think that word choice does the text justice when we look at the Latin. JPII’s whole point of the sentence was to say that the Saturday evening Mass is not the pre-feastday but is instead the feast itself. This is made even more clear when the next sentence clause (which the translator omitted) says “it is the Lord’s day.”

JPII was saying (when we read the Latin) that the Saturday evening Mass is not the Mass before Sunday, but the very Mass of Sunday. Remember, he makes it a point to say that it is not the “praefestivae” he wants to correct that misconception.

And what we have to realize here is that the Church is consistent in Her teaching and practice and laws. There’s no doubt that the Church says that we can observe Sunday on Saturday evening. The point I keep trying to make about the law being for the good of souls is that we should interpret the Church’s laws (canon and liturgical) as being consistent with each other rather than in conflict.
To say that the Church prohibits Communion on Saturday (in this context) is necessarily to say that the Church is inconsistent; to say that the Church gives us one set of instructions in canon law, but then a conflicting set of instructions in liturgical law.
The Church is saying to us “you can attend the Sunday Mass on Saturday” (I hope we can all agree on that much). But when we follow that with “but then, even though you can attend, you cannot receive Communion” that makes the Church capricious and even malicious (in this context)

That’s a whole other issue. I’m not going to comment on that here.

I don’t know what you mean by that last paragraph. Would you re-phrase it please?

For the last question, the canon law allows the reception on the previous day to the Sunday or Holy Day of Obligation. Here the noun is day, and day is defined as midnight to midnight. There is an extension made of even up to 12 hours depending on the jurisdiction, even if typically from 4PM, which is after ninth hour.

Sometimes the celebration of a Holy Day of Obligation is transferred, for example from the USCCB. The celebration is mutable.Since December 8, 2013, is the Second Sunday of Advent, the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary is transferred to Monday, December 9, 2013. The obligation to attend Mass, however, does not transfer. The Optional Memorial of Saint Juan Diego Cuauhtlatoatzin, December 9, is omitted this year.

The Church has a preference for communion only once on a day (midnight to midnight) but has extended for the purpose of flexibility. Notice the use of “the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day” in Can 1248 §1.

 

[Incomplete]

There is a difference.

If you attend 3 Sunday Masses, you have the opportunity to receive Communion at at least one of them. You always have at least one chance for Sunday Communion.

On the other hand, if you receive twice on Saturday and then attend the Saturday evening Mass, that might be your only chance to receive Sunday Communion.

That’s what makes the 2 scenarios different.

If you go SaturdayPM-Sunday-Sunday, then you can receive Communion at least once at a Sunday Mass.

If you go SaturdayAM-SaturdayAM-SaturdayPM, then you only have a single opportunity to fully participate in the Sunday Mass by receiving.

Sure, but if you go twice on Saturday, you can choose to receive on only one of those, and then receive at the Vigil Mass. And having said that, why is it so important to be able to receive at the Vigil Mass if you have already received Eucharist twice that day? Does the Church teach it is somehow more important to receive on a Sunday Mass than any other day? I am trying to understand.

And…was I being sinful receiving at the Vigil Mass and again twice on Sunday? If I was…how would I know? Even if you say I was, others, even some priests,
disagree. How can we know?

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr David,

I thought of another example that, when viewed in light of your assertions, seems not to make sense.

Let’s suppose that I receive Communion at a Vigil Mass on Saturday evening. Does this mean, then, by virtue of c. 917, that I am not allowed to receive the Eucharist at a Communion service (i.e., not a Mass) that takes place on Sunday?

(Edited to add: this is precisely the same case that Incomplete has likewise raised…)

Yes, but not for the reason you’re asking.

Participation in a Communion Service is specifically limited to circumstances when a Catholic cannot attend a proper Mass. If you’ve already attended the Sunday Mass on Saturday, then you are not eligible to participate in the Communion service on Sunday. That renders the question of “how many times?” entirely moot.

Now, if you’re leading a Communion service on Sunday (technically a “Sunday Celebration in the Absence of a Priest”) remember that in order to do so, you must have a mandate from the bishop—without which the service is already illicit. So, if you have a mandate from the bishop to lead such a service, then you have permission for the “whole” and that permission also applies to the “part”—so you could receive, unless the bishop specified otherwise.

 

[FrDavid96]

Sure, but if you go twice on Saturday, you can choose to receive on only one of those, and then receive at the Vigil Mass. And having said that, why is it so important to be able to receive at the Vigil Mass if you have already received Eucharist twice that day? Does the Church teach it is somehow more important to receive on a Sunday Mass than any other day? I am trying to understand.

If that Sunday Mass on Saturday is the ONLY Mass you’re able to attend, then it’s your only opportunity for “Sunday Communion” and yes, the Church does indeed teach that Sunday Mass is more important than daily Mass. Sunday is, after all, the Lord’s Day. I’m sure you appreciate the value here.

And…was I being sinful receiving at the Vigil Mass and again twice on Sunday? If I was…how would I know? Even if you say I was, others disagree. How can we know?

I would not say that you were being sinful, nor would I think that.
If you’re in a position where you are attending that many Sunday Masses, this is something you should discuss with your own pastor. If this happens on a regular basis than perhaps it’s an opportunity to discuss what is good for your own soul. Please don’t read anything more into that. I’m not discouraging you from attending the Masses, but merely saying that it’s a topic of possible discussion where you might ask “which Masses should I receive and which should I refrain?”

 

[Gorgias]

On the other hand, if you receive twice on Saturday and then attend the Saturday evening Mass, that might be your only chance to receive Sunday Communion.

And yet, I can’t recall ever reading a magisterial document that asserted that there was something ‘special’ about receiving Communion on a Sunday (or holy day) in a way that prioritized it over the reception of Communion on a ferial day. Is it highly recommended to receive Communion when assisting at Mass? Yes. Is it required to assist at Mass on Sundays? Yes. Is there anything that suggests that one must receive Communion, even on one’s “only chance to receive Sunday Communion”? Not that I’ve ever seen. In fact, I can’t recall ever hearing the phrase ‘Sunday Communion’ in any context ever before. You may have just coined that one, there…

 

[FrDavid96]

For the last question, the canon law allows the reception on the previous day to the Sunday or Holy Day of Obligation. Here the noun is day, and day is defined as midnight to midnight. There is an extension made of even up to 12 hours depending on the jurisdiction, even if typically from 4PM, which is after ninth hour.

Only, it’s NOT the Church that’s saying “midnight to midnight.” You are saying that, and others here are saying that. But the Church does not say it.
In order to come to that conclusion, you have to erase one sentence clause (unless other provision…) and then combine two canons into one. That’s what people are doing here.

The Church is not the one saying “you can receive twice from midnight to midnight”—posters are saying that because it is their interpretation of the canons.

Sometimes the celebration of a Holy Day of Obligation is transferred, for example from the USCCB. The celebration is mutable.Since December 8, 2013, is the Second Sunday of Advent, the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary is transferred to Monday, December 9, 2013. The obligation to attend Mass, however, does not transfer. The Optional Memorial of Saint Juan Diego Cuauhtlatoatzin, December 9, is omitted this year.

True. But I fail to see how that has any relevance to the question of what happens when a person receives Communion twice on Saturday morning, then attends the Sunday Mass on Saturday evening of the same day.

The Church has a preference for communion only once on a day (midnight to midnight) but has extended for the purpose of flexibility. Notice the use of “the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day” in Can 1248 §1.

You’re doing it again.

You start a sentence with the words “The Church has a preference for…” or “The Church says…” then you take the liberty of adding your own words “midnight to midnight.”

You might be getting those words from canon law (indeed, they are there) but you’re combining two different laws into one.

The canon on calculating time has the clause “unless other provision is made” But you’re just snipping that out as if it weren’t there.

That’s why I take such issue with statements like “The Church has a preference for communion only once on a day (midnight to midnight)” The Church does not say that. That’s your interpretation.

 

[Incomplete]

If that Sunday Mass on Saturday is the ONLY Mass you’re able to attend, then it’s your only opportunity for “Sunday Communion” and yes, the Church does indeed teach that Sunday Mass is more important than daily Mass. Sunday is, after all, the Lord’s Day. I’m sure you appreciate the value here.

I would not say that you were being sinful, nor would I think that.
If you’re in a position where you are attending that many Sunday Masses, this is something you should discuss with your own pastor. If this happens on a regular basis than perhaps it’s an opportunity to discuss what is good for your own soul. Please don’t read anything more into that. I’m not discouraging you from attending the Masses, but merely saying that it’s a topic of possible discussion where you might ask “which Masses should I receive and which should I refrain?”

It’s good to know I was not being sinful, and understand your caution in what you are saying. At the time this was happening, I did discuss my frequent Mass attendance with my priest, who knows me quite well. I don’t go that often any longer because situations have changed, but I did for awhile. He was quite fine with me receiving at all three Masses.

My point, though, about going three times on a Saturday, is that people doing that can still receive on the Vigil Mass. They just have to refrain on one of the Saturday Masses. I only bring it up in light of the comments about the law not wanting to prevent people from participating fully.

I do understand that the Church teaches it is more important to worship on the Lord’s day than others, but did not realize the Church teaches that it is more important to receive Eucharist on that day than on other days, to the extent that it is more important to receive on a Vigil Mass then receiving earlier in the day. Is that also in Canon Law? Or the Catechism? Or elsewhere? What I am asking is, how is a person to know that?

I do appreciate your dialogue.

 

[FrDavid96]

And yet, I can’t recall ever reading a magisterial document that asserted that there was something ‘special’ about receiving Communion on a Sunday (or holy day) in a way that prioritized it over the reception of Communion on a ferial day. Is it highly recommended to receive Communion when assisting at Mass? Yes. Is it required to assist at Mass on Sundays? Yes. Is there anything that suggests that one must receive Communion, even on one’s “only chance to receive Sunday Communion”? Not that I’ve ever seen. In fact, I can’t recall ever hearing the phrase ‘Sunday Communion’ in any context ever before. You may have just coined that one, there…

Yes, I did coin it.

I’m using “Sunday Communion” instead of typing out the full “receive Holy Communion at the Sunday Mass”

In similar threads, I’ve explained that in a footnote. It’s probably something I should have done here as well.

If you don’t see that participating in Mass on the Lord’s Day is “more important” than participating in a Mass on a weekday, then I don’t know where to start.

Perhaps the fact that the 3rd Commandment says “remember to keep holy the Lord’s Day” instead of “remember to keep holy Mondays” is a start.

Now, please let’s not get silly–I’m not saying we have a license to sin on Mondays. (And I just KNOW that someone was tempted to accuse me of that, so I’m nipping that one in the bud).

I mean, seriously here, I find it hard to believe that you don’t see Sunday as being more important than other days of the week.