I accept what you are saying. I began my last post by saying that I agree that I think the number of times communion can be received is linked to a liturgical rather than a calendar day. You are preaching to the converted, as they say. What I found troublesome was re-reading Canon 202. As far as I can tell it doesn’t support what we both believe.OK. Perhaps I’m trying to hard to force the issue into canon 202.
My point though is that the Church does clearly say that the liturgical day begins on the evening before the solemnity. How that gets reconciled with canon 202, I’m still considering (or re-considering). Obviously, there must be some way.
The point I’m making though is that the Saturday evening Mass is completely the Mass of Sunday, and therefore everything that pertains to that Mass pertains to Sunday, not to Saturday.
I have yet to hear anyone who disputes this state anything to the contrary.
We already know that every single part of the Saturday evening Mass is the Sunday Mass. I can go through each part of the Mass and list it, but that would be pointless. What I am saying is that it simply makes no sense for us to say that while every other part of the Mass pertains to Sunday, the one singular exception to that is made when one counts the number of times he has received Communion on that day. It simply makes no sense.
It also doesn’t make sense when one looks at the totality of the Church’s life and asks the simply question “does the Church really intend to tell people that going to Mass on Saturday evening is perfectly legitimate and fulfills your Sunday obligation in every possible way, but at the same time, if a person happens by sheer coincidence to have received Communion twice on Saturday morning, that person is prohibited by the Church from receiving Communion at the Sunday Mass?”
If the answer to that is “yes.” The next question is “why?” The only answer to that is “because a day must be reckoned from midnight to midnight.” What’s the value here? Preserving the idea that a day runs from 12 to 12 is more important than allowing Catholics to receive Communion at the Sunday Mass?
I can’t accept the idea that the Church would intend to prevent Catholics who are otherwise eligible to receive Communion at a Sunday Mass from receiving for no other reason than the fact that they happened to have received twice on the previous day. That’s not exactly in harmony with the overall purpose of canon law that it is intended “for the good of souls.”
I agree that Canon 202.1 supports your argument to a point. It says each day must be 24 hours long. That however, only accounts for calendar days it makes no provision for liturgical days. As you will be aware Can 2 states that for the most part the code of Canon Law doesn’t deal with liturgical law. You know, of course, that the greater part of liturgical law is found in documents other than the Code itself. Is there no where in that vast body of uncodified liturgical law that says the number of times we are to receive communion on a day means a liturgical day rather than a calendar day.Canon Law.
(202.1 and the canon dealing with Holy Communion)
A day is considered the 24 hour day unless otherwise stated in Canon Law. The Canon that treats of Holy Communion does not specify anything otherwise.
Canon Law governs the number of Holy Communions one may receive …not liturgical calendars etcI agree that Canon 202.1 supports your argument to a point. It says each day must be 24 hours long. That however, only accounts for calendar days it makes no provision for liturgical days. As you will be aware Can 2 states that for the most part the code of Canon Law doesn’t deal with liturgical law. You know, of course, that the greater part of liturgical law is found in documents other than the Code itself. Is there no where in that vast body of uncodified liturgical law that says the number of times we are to receive communion on a day means a liturgical day rather than a calendar day.
Ok. So you have 3 opinions from private persons.Canon Law governs the number of Holy Communions one may receive …not liturgical calendars etc
(Jimmy Akin also treats the q in the link below)
jimmyakin.org/2005/02/how_many_times_.html
As do the “Ask the Apologist” Catholic Answers: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=44742&highlight=communion+second+time
Helen Hull Hitchcock over at Adoremus also agrees that such is how it is to be understood. As a 24 calendar day …midnight to midnight.
I noted above…Canon Law.What is your basis for saying it must be the calendar day that counts rather than the liturgical day?
Father with all due respect it is your “opinion” that stands by itself.Ok. So you have 3 opinions from private persons.
That’s nice. :clapping:
And yet, with all due respect, you seem not to be able to find any fault in that interpretation because you have yet to present anything to dispute it.Father with all due respect it is your “opinion” that stands by itself.
You will not find agreement for your private interpretation of the matter.
No disagreement there. But canon law doesn’t say the first communion of the day must even be at a Mass, only the second.The fact is that the Church treats the Saturday evening Mass as a Sunday Mass. Everything about Saturday evening Masses pertains to the Mass of Sunday, and to the exclusion of anything having to do with Saturday.
The Latin is vespere, which is the cognate for Vespers. It doesn’t fit the English definition of evening being past 6pm.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.
Even if…such does not change anything.The Latin is vespere, which is the cognate for Vespers. It doesn’t fit the English definition of evening being past 6pm.
And the liturgical laws of the Church do indeed make provision that the liturgical day begins in the evening.Can. 200 Unless the law expressly provides otherwise, time is to be computed according to the norm of the following canons. (Canon Law…)
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; a week is a period of 7 days; a month is a period of 30 days, and a year is a period of 365 days unless a month and a year are said to be taken as they are in the calendar.
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.
–There is no expressly made change here…the day is understood as midnight to midnight.
–Note too that the same understanding is used for those who are in danger of death. It is not referring to a “liturgical day” it is referring to the common 24 hour day of midnight to midnight.
Can 921 §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.
–And also note when the Law actually discusses the vigil Mass it refers to it occurring on the preceding day:
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.
Can. 200 Unless the law expressly provides otherwise, time is to be computed according to the norm of the following canons.And the liturgical laws of the Church do indeed make provision that the liturgical day begins in the evening.
These liturgical laws have as much binding force as the Code of Canon law.
You are trying to force the idea of a midnight to midnight day without looking at the totality of the situation.
In 1967, when the Congregation for Rites said that a person could receive at BOTH the Saturday morning Mass and at the Mass of Sunday on Saturday evening, canon law said that a person could only receive ONE time in a “day.”
If you read the entire section 28 of Euchariscicum Mysterium, it is clear that it intended specifically to allow laity to receive Communion twice on the same 24-hour day* on Saturday Vigil Masses and specific Holy Days. (Other documents had similar instructions: Inter Oecumenici §60, Tres abhinc annos §14, Immensae Caritatis 2). The Code of Canon Law was published in 1983 — after all these documents.
…-
Can. 200 Unless the law expressly provides otherwise, time is to be computed according to the norm of the following canons.
Canon 202 gives us a definition of day: 24 hours beginning at midnight running to midnight.
“Canon 202, 1. In the law, a day is understood as a period of time consisting of 24 continuous hours, and it begins at midnight, unless otherwise expressly provided…”
The liturgical “day” can certainly go longer than 24 hours, as it does on Sunday and Holy days. Such “days” begin at sunset of the vigil day and continue to Midnight at the end of the actual day of the solemnity. The expressions “anticipated Mass” and “Vigil Mass” make it clear the Church is not changing the legal day, as both indicate an anticipation, though one that satisfies the Mass obligation and permits the celebration of the solemnity.
Indeed, Can. 1248 §1 used the term “preceding day”.
And I will also note that we are not required to observe the Sunday rest starting from Saturday Evening (via Evening Prayer 1 or the Vigil Mass)…but rather on Sunday.
Since Can 917 does not expressly spell out how day is to be understood, it necessarily falls to canon 202 to explain it (as is expressly noted in that canon). Thus “day” in Can 917 is to be taken to mean from midnight to midnight. As also in 1248 §1.
If one wanted to argue otherwise one would have to produce a document since 1983 that expressly states that “day” in Canon 917 means the liturgical day.
Both terms “anticipated Mass” and “vigil Mass” (unless referring to a specific Mass such as Easter Vigil or Pentecost Vigil) are outdated.,
The liturgical “day” can certainly go longer than 24 hours, as it does on Sunday and Holy days. Such “days” begin at sunset of the vigil day and continue to Midnight at the end of the actual day of the solemnity. The expressions “anticipated Mass” and “Vigil Mass” make it clear the Church is not changing the legal day, as both indicate an anticipation, though one that satisfies the Mass obligation and permits the celebration of the solemnity.
,.
Since Can 917 does not expressly spell out how day is to be understood, it necessarily falls to canon 202 to explain it (as is expressly noted in that canon). Thus “day” in Can 917 is to be taken to mean from midnight to midnight. As also in 1248 §1.
If one wanted to argue otherwise one would have to produce a document since 1983 that expressly states that “day” in Canon 917 means the liturgical day. .