Recieving the Eucharist more than once a day and dispensation

[Matthew_Holford]

No because such has already be provided for in Canon Law (see above all the canons). The definition of the day here as meaning 24 hours beginning from midnight and that one may only receive a second time during Mass on that day…and exception that one may receive a third time (only!) in the case of viaticum is also stated in Canon Law.

And the Dubium was about Canon 917 not Can. 921 §3.

§3. While the danger of death lasts, it is recommended that holy communion be administered often, but on separate days.

Also it is important to not the the Church even explicitly states that even Viaticum is to be given on “separate days”. People are to take “day” as specified in law ( the normal understanding of “day”)

The Code is very explicit. A day IS to be taken as 24 hour day beginning at midnight unless expressly otherwise stated.

This becoming a circular argument. It also has a high chance of the post getting closed. I fully understand the points you are making. I remain unconvinced that when we talk about the number of times we can receive communion per day is strictly linked to the calendar day. For most days this of course makes no difference. For Sundays and solemnities it might. I can only regard it as your personal opinion that the documents referred to by Fr. David have been abrogated by the 1983 Code of Canon Law. While I have no intention of trying to prevent you from responding to this post, quite the contrary, I feel it would be better to leave this matter alone: I do not envision any agreement between us.

 

[Bookcat]

This becoming a circular argument. It also has a high chance of the post getting closed. I fully understand the points you are making. I remain unconvinced that when we talk about the number of times we can receive communion per day is strictly linked to the calendar day. For most days this of course makes no difference. For Sundays and solemnities it might. I can only regard it as your personal opinion that the documents referred to by Fr. David have been abrogated by the 1983 Code of Canon Law. While I have no intention of trying to prevent you from responding to this post, quite the contrary, I feel it would be better to leave this matter alone: I do not envision any agreement between us.

This is all not just my opinion…

(and I noted what the code states regarding past laws etc)

Anyone who might wish to assert that day is to be taken liturgically will need to provide express statement from the Church that it is to be understood so. And such would need to be post 1983.

I do not think one will find any canon lawers, theologians or Church officials holding what Fr. David has proposed here. It simply is not the way the Law is understood.

I will not leave the matter itself alone…for such is what how the discipline is understood.

But of course you need not continue to discuss the matter…I will not address anymore posts directly to your past posts here.

Have a very blessed Lords Day!

 

[Bookcat]

For readers.

Besides the actual Code of Canon Law.

And In addition to Helen Hull Hitchcock of Adorumus (whose area is exactly the Liturgy)

Here are examples of others who affirm what I have highlighted from Canon Law.

Catholic Answers: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=44742&highlight=communion+second+time

Jimmy Akin: jimmyakin.org/2005/02/how_many_times_.html

Dr. David M. Gregson, Ph.D. of the EWTN Theology Dept : ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=598265&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2010&Author=&Keyword=liturgical+day&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=1&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

 

[Matthew_Holford]

This is all not just my opinion.

I wish to clarify what I meant when said your personal opinion. My previous post may not have been clear. I meant it is your opinion, with regards to what you have posted, concerning Canon 6 §1 2°. It seems to me that you imply that the 1983 Code abrogated all laws in existence when the Code came into effect. It did not: the wording itself makes this clear. I do not see where you have demonstrated that the documents in question were abrogated by this Canon.

 

[Bookcat]

I wish to clarify what I meant when said your personal opinion. My previous post may not have been clear. I meant it is your opinion, with regards to what you have posted, concerning Canon 6 §1 2°. It seems to me that you imply that the 1983 Code abrogated all laws in existence when the Code came into effect. It did not: the wording itself makes this clear. I do not see where you have demonstrated that the documents in question were abrogated by this Canon.

It abrogated those it stated are abrogated.

Certainly it is clear that those regarding Communion are replaced by that which is in now in the 1983 code.

And the code itself is clear that a day is to be understood as 24 hours beginning at midnight unless otherwise expressly provided. The burden of proof would be on anyone who would propose the novel interpretation that has been proposed in this thread (via an honest misunderstanding). The burden would fall on them to produce where it is** expressly **provided. But such I would say does not exist --so I would not recommend anyone taking such a singular interpretation into practice.

The understanding I have noted and have provided examples of others noting is the way it is understood. I do not think one will find any theologian or canonist who understands it differently.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

It abrogated those it stated are abrogated.

It says: “When this Code comes into force, the following are abrogated: … other laws, whether universal or particular, which are contrary to the provisions of this Code, unless it is otherwise expressly provided in respect of particular laws…”. It does not give an exhaustive list of what is abrogated. It is a generalisation. You have not demonstrated that the documents in question are “contrary to the provisions of this Code”.

And the code itself is clear that a day is to be understood as 24 hours beginning at midnight unless otherwise expressly provided.

Canon 202 §1 refers to the determination of a calendar day. This is clear from its context. It states that a day is twenty-four hours in length. It says, that unless provision is otherwise made, it begins at twelve midnight. Thus, a law can say for a particular purpose a twenty-four period could begin at another time other than midnight. The phrase: “unless expressly provided otherwise” refers to a day commencing at 12 midnight. It does not refer to the number of hours in a day.

Canon 202 does not support either side of this particular argument. It makes no mention of the liturgical days, which we know exist.

 

[Elizium23]

Canon 202 §1 refers to the determination of a calendar day. This is clear from its context. It states that a day is twenty-four hours in length. It says, that unless provision is otherwise made, it begins at twelve midnight. Thus, a law can say for a particular purpose a twenty-four period could begin at another time other than midnight. The phrase: “unless expressly provided otherwise” refers to a day commencing at 12 midnight. It does not refer to the number of hours in a day.

I’m afraid that’s not true, taking into account Canon 200. Especially considering that liturgical Sunday is 32 hours long. The statement ‘In law, a day is understood as a period consisting of 24 continuous hours and begins at midnight unless other provision is expressly made’ is all one phrase. If they had meant the “unless” to apply only to the latter phrase, it might have been written ‘In law, a day is understood as a period consisting of 24 continuous hours and, unless other provision is expressly made, begins at midnight’

Can. 200 Unless the law expressly provides otherwise, time is to be computed according to the norm of the following canons.

Therefore, the proviso that “express provision” must be made, is attached to the whole of Canon 202, not just the part you want.

 

[Bookcat]

It says: …

I will let my fellow poster’s response above be the response …

Like you I do not wish to keep going in circles…

If you wish…send a dubium to Rome.

Have a most blessed --final hours of the Lords Day!!!

 

[Bookcat]

For readers.

Besides the actual Code of Canon Law.

And In addition to Helen Hull Hitchcock of Adorumus (whose area is exactly the Liturgy)

Here are examples of others who affirm what I have highlighted from Canon Law.

Catholic Answers: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=44742&highlight=communion+second+time

Jimmy Akin: jimmyakin.org/2005/02/how_many_times_.html

Dr. David M. Gregson, Ph.D. of the EWTN Theology Dept : ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=598265&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2010&Author=&Keyword=liturgical+day&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=1&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I’m afraid that’s not true, taking into account Canon 200. Especially considering that liturgical Sunday is 32 hours long. The statement ‘In law, a day is understood as a period consisting of 24 continuous hours and begins at midnight unless other provision is expressly made’ is all one phrase. If they had meant the “unless” to apply only to the latter phrase, it might have been written ‘In law, a day is understood as a period consisting of 24 continuous hours and, unless other provision is expressly made, begins at midnight’

Therefore, the proviso that “express provision” must be made, is attached to the whole of Canon 202, not just the part you want.

Please read the Canon again. It says: "§1In law, a day is understood to be a space of twenty-four hours, to be reckoned continuously and, unless expressly provided otherwise, it begins at midnight; a week is a space of seven days; a month is a space of thirty days, and a year a space of three hundred and sixty-five days, unless it is stated that the month and the year are to be taken as in the calendar. §2If time is continuous, the month and the year are always to be taken in the calendar.

I have taken my English translation of the canon from: the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland, the Canon Law Society of Australia and New Zealand, and the Canadian Canon Law Society (1997) The Code of Canon Law: new revised English Translation. London: Harper Collins Liturgical. The English translation at Intratext (here) is the same.

Let’s look at what the start (relevant part) of the canon says:

• A day is a period of twenty-four hours
• To be reckoned continuously
• Unless expressly provided otherwise it begins at midnight

This canon is saying all days are 24 hours in length. A day normally begins at midnight. A law can provide for a continuous period of 24 hours to commence at a time other than midnight.

This canon does not say a day is 24 hours long unless provision is made otherwise. It is not saying that a day can be other than 24 hours long.

Is this just my opinion, no.

A day is canonically is understood to be a period of 24 continuous hours beginning at midnight, unless otherwise expressly provided otherwise (e.g. in particular or proper law).*

*Beal, J. P., Coriden, J. A., and Green, T. J. (2000) New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law. New York: Paulist Press (ISBN 0-8091-4066-7) pp 236-7.

Thus as I said before every day is 24 hours long. It begins at midnight unless a law says it may begin at another time. For example, the law may say something is to be fulfilled within a day commencing at 9 a.m. So in that case the day runs from 9 am on one calendar day to 9 am the next calendar day.

The consequence of all this is that this canon does not provide support to either side of the argument because it makes no cognisance of the liturgical day, which may be longer or shorter than the calendar day.

 

[Elizium23]

How do you reconcile this with Sunday lasting 32 hours? I’ll give you a concrete example.

Sunday begins on Saturday evening at 4pm. This is when my parish holds its first Mass. My parish holds its final Sunday Mass on Sunday evening at 5pm. Another parish in my diocese holds Masses at 7:00pm and 9:30pm on Sunday night. Sunday cannot last 24 hours if all these services are licit.

Are you saying that Sunday lasts from 4pm to 4pm? Or does it begin around 10pm? Or does Sunday begin at midnight, and something convoluted is made up for Saturday, keeping in mind what FrDavid96 has already posted.

 

[Bookcat]

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

Moreover, they are to abstain from those works and affairs which hinder the worship to be rendered to God, the joy proper to the Lord’s day, or the suitable relaxation of mind and body.

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.

 

[Vico]

The time used for fasting/abstinance is a day midnight-to-midnight, just as it is for the canon laws, which comes from the Roman tradition. The Jewish day begins with sunset and pertains to liturgical celebration, which is also about a 24 hour day. If someone wanted to argue that the day begins with vespers, then the next day would also begin with vespers, so it would be about 24 hours long, not 32.

The laws needed to account for some situations because originally it was one Communion in a day only.

Take the example of the Nativity of Our Lord or the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception holy days of obligation occuring on a Saturday or Monday, days of midnight to midnight, with allowance for observance on the previous days vigil. Say these examples are not aborogated or transferred (as in the USA) so are both to be observed on the proper day. That means that two successive observances are obligatory, even though, due to the allowance in the canons for it, on the vigil. Many combinations may work in those situations.

And communion would be possible each time in every combination without duplication, but only one combination results in communion twice in one day.

1 Th Vigil
2 Sa Day
3 Sa Vigil
4 Su Day
5 Su Vigil

Saturday Holy Day: 1 or 2 or 3
Sunday: 3 or 4 or 5
Must be twice.

1/3 Th + Sa
1/4 Th + Su
1/5 Th + Su

2/3 Sa + Sa (communion twice)
2/4 Sa + Su
2/5 Sa + Su

3/3 no, cannot use Saturday vigil for both
3/4 Sa + Su
3/5 Sa + Su

Same pattern for Sunday with Monday.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

How do you reconcile this with Sunday lasting 32 hours?

That answer to that question is quite simple. You are missing two elementary points. The canon in question refers to the calendar day not a liturgical one. The second is that your are assuming that the situation in USA is the same as the rest of the world. In USA it has been determined that Sunday (the liturgical day; not the calendar one) begins at 4 pm on the calendar Saturday. That certainly does not apply here.

There is no binding time for First Evening Prayer. It is left to the decision of individual diocesan bishops what is the earliest time at which the Sunday obligation can be fulfilled on Saturday.

 

[Bookcat]

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

Moreover, they are to abstain from those works and affairs which hinder the worship to be rendered to God, the joy proper to the Lord’s day, or the suitable relaxation of mind and body.

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.

Note the wording.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Note the wording.

What is the point you are making? That might be a response to several things.

 

[Bookcat]

What is the point you are making? That might be a response to several things.

Just what it says.

And it can be important I imagine for various parts of the discussion.

Canon Law takes that evening Vigil Mass as the preceding day.

And calls the day that begins at midnight…the day “itself”.

Pope Benedict XVI too in speaking of the importance of the Lords Day has also emphasized the importance of the “day itself”. Of Sunday itself.

(even though one can fulfill the ones Sunday obligation the evening prior).

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Just what it says.

And it can be important I imagine for various parts of the discussion.

Canon Law takes that evening Vigil Mass as the preceding day.

And calls the day that begins at midnight…the day “itself”.

Pope Benedict XVI too in speaking of the importance of the Lords Day has also emphasized the importance of the “day itself”. Of Sunday itself.

(even though one can fulfill the ones Sunday obligation the evening prior).

I am still not sure what you want to say.

Anyway, why have you moved away from using Canon 202 as support for your argument.

I have no doubt what Pope Benedict XVI said and meant.

It appears that you are trying to argue the non-existence of the liturgical day.

 

[Bookcat]

I am still not sure what you want to say.

Anyway, why have you moved away from using Canon 202 as support for your argument.

I have no doubt what Pope Benedict XVI said and meant.

It appears that you are trying to argue the non-existence of the liturgical day.

I have not moved away from what is outlined in the other Canons. (But as I noted I do not wish to continue going around in circles)

I am simply noting the additional canon.

It simply continues to point out the fact that the Church takes “day” here as meaning the 24 hour day beginning at midnight.

Even in the case of the vigil is considered the “preceding day” not the day of Sunday itself.

Communion received at the vigil in the evening is received on the “preceding day” not the day of Sunday itself. (Though attendance at the Vigil Mass fulfills the Sunday obligation.)

 

[FrDavid96]

I am still not sure what you want to say.

Anyway, why have you moved away from using Canon 202 as support for your argument.

I have no doubt what Pope Benedict XVI said and meant.

It appears that you are trying to argue the non-existence of the liturgical day.

Matthew,

What’s happening here is that sometimes people get caught up in trying to argue a technicality (one which might or might not even exist), without looking at the practice and intent of the Church.

There is no doubt that the Church tells us that the observance of Sunday begins at the time of Evening Prayer on Saturday evening–this has been the case since 1983.

We need to keep in mind that canon law is meant “for the good of souls.” It reminds me of the Gospel passage where Christ says that Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. We can say the same about canon law. It was made for the good of the Christian faithful. I remember a canon law professor who told us to always ask the question “What is the purpose of this canon? What value does the canon protect?” Not that we were to insert our own values, but that we were to look at the canon and ask ourselves “what value does the Church intend to protect by this canon?”

That brings us back to the original question about receiving Communion on both Saturday morning and at the Sunday Mass on Saturday evening.

The Church tells us that Saturday evening is to be regarded in every way as Sunday. Gone is the mentality that the Saturday evening is an “anticipated” Mass or a “Mass of convenience” (intended to accomodate only those who cannot attend on Sunday morning due to work or other situations). As far as the Church is concerned, the Lord’s Day begins on Saturday evening.

Now when we look at “counting the times one has received Communion” we look at the overall situation and praxis of the Church.

Let’s ask a relatively simple question: would the Church tell the Christian Faithful that Saturday evening is to be regarded as Sunday in every way, that Catholics can not only “fulfill the obligation” of Sunday, but truly celebrate the Lord’s Day beginning on Saturday evening, while at the same time emphasize the true spiritual value of participating in the Sunday Eucharist, but then suddenly say to the faithful: “Gotcha!” or “We fooled you!” ??

Would the Church do this? Is canon law meant to impose a “Gotcha!” from the Church?

Would the Church say to people “yes, regard Saturday evening as Sunday” but with one (and only ONE singular) exception: If you maxed-out your Communion count from Saturday, you are now forbidden by the Church to receive Communion at the Sunday Mass? Again, I’ll repeat the question, would the Church say this to the Christian Faithful?

If we ask the question: “if a person receives twice on Saturday morning, can that person receive once on Sunday morning?” Of course, the answer would be yes.

If we modify the question only slightly to ask “if a person receives twice on Saturday morning, can that person receive once on Sunday, if the Sunday Mass is on Saturday evening?” The answer is still yes.

If the answer is “no” the only reasoning behind that answer is to combine two canons (917 and 202) while completely ignoring the liturgical norms of the Church with regard to the celebration of Sunday, and also ignoring the provision in 202 that the day can be interpreted differently.

If we insist on such a strict interpretation of canon 202, then we must necessarily say that every Saturday evening Mass which uses the Sunday Mass texts, since 1983 has been an illicit Mass. Every one, throughout the world for the past 28 years. Because, if we employ such a strict interpretation of canon 202, then it’s necessarily true that every priest, every bishop, and indeed 2 Popes, who have used the Sunday Mass texts and readings and everything else pertaining to Sunday at the Saturday evening Mass have all been in violation of canon 202. How many millions of illicit Masses would that be? Why has the Church not noticed? Why does the Church not take notice of the fact that the various revisions of the GIRM have all been in violation of canon 202? The same Pope John Paul II who promulgated the Code of Canon Law also promulgated the GIRMs–so why did he not notice this glaring error? Of course, he didn’t notice it because it’s not there.

Custom is the best interpreter of the law. There is no doubt that all these Saturday evening Masses have been licit Masses. Why? because Sunday begins at First Vespers on Saturday. If this were not true, given the widespread celebration of Sunday Mass on Saturday, most assuredly, if this were illicit, the Church would have put a stop to it by now.

continues in the next post…