What Does Cannon Law Say ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

deedward

New member
Original thread was closed today 🤷
and can be found here : forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=218862

Q: Can you recieve Eucharist aka Communion twice in one day ?

OK … so my Catechal preist insists the Cannon doesn’t negate the stipulations in Immensae Caritatis, Section 2 which dictates the special Eucharistic Celebrations where one can receive twice.

There was metion of an AAS document but it was said to be found in the GIRM, but I located the document, entitled Redemptionis Sacramentum which the article 95 is found with footnotes referring to the Canon 917 and to a document AAS v.s 76 (1984) as indicated by cameron_lansing … 🙂
Here’s the document, and the article is found on pg 25/26 doxaweb.com/assets/redemptionis_sacramentum.pdf

I look and look for the footnoted document to no avail, then FINALLY find a link from this link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authentic_interpretation

…which still it doesn’t specifically negate Immensae Caritatis, section 2 stipulations which are :

** at ritual Masses in which the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, anointing of the sick, orders, and marriage are administered, as well as at Masses in which there is a first communion;
** at Masses for the consecration of a church or an altar, for a religious profession, for the conferral of a “canonical mission”;
** at the Masses for the dead on the occasion of the funeral, news of the death, the final burial, or the first anniversary;
** at the principal Mass celebrated in a cathedral or parish church on the solemnity of Corpus Christi and on the day of a pastoral visitation; at a Mass celebrated on the occasion of a major religious superior’s canonical visitation to a particular religious house or chapter;
** at the principal Mass at a Eucharistic or Marian congress, whether international or national, regional or diocesan;
** at the principal Mass of any kind of meeting, pilgrimage, or people’s mission;
** at the administration of viaticum, when communion may be given to the members of the household and the friends of the sick person who are present.
** Over and above the cases already mentioned, the local Ordinary is allowed to grant for a single occasion the faculty to receive communion twice on the same day whenever, because of truly special circumstances. a second reception is warranted on the basis of this Instruction.

So I go to the AAS documents site: vatican.va/archive/aas/index_en.htm

I look and find the said AAS v. 76 (1984) …

and then page 746… 😃

IN LATIN … :eek:

Does anyone have the English translation per chance ? :o
 
ANSWER … ONLY IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES

*Appendix II – Question on canon 917 – Whether, according to canon 917, one who has already received the Most Holy Eucharist, may receive it on the same day only a second time, or as often as one participates in the celebration of the Eucharist?

Response: Affirmative to the first; negative to the second.

Explanations:
1.The Holy Eucharist is not an ordinary food; it is the Body of Christ, the food that comes down from heaven and gives us spiritual nourishment and eternal salvation (“He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood will have everlasting life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”).As such, therefore, receiving communion once a day during a Eucharistic celebration gives us enough graces for that day. Hence, receiving communion more than once a day is not anymore necessary. More so, receiving communion more than once a day on a regular basiscould pose danger to our faith, as for instance, the loss of respect and reverence for this sublime sacrament. “The objective of the new legislation is to promote active participation in the celebration of the Mass and to prevent possible abuses such as the repeated reception of the Eucharist out of misguided devotion, habit or superstition” (Fr. Testera, OP, Canon Law Digest).
1.However, the Church allows communion a second time during the day, but only for specified cases. These are: 1.on Holy Thursday, when a person attends the Chrism Mass, and then participates also in the Evening of the Lord’s Supper Mass;
2.when one attends the Easter Vigil Mass and participates also in the Easter Sunday Mass;
3.when one goes to Mass on that day and receives communion as Viaticum on that same day, as mentioned in canon 921, §2;
4.when one goes to Mass on Saturday, and then attends the anticipated (Vigil) Sunday Mass in the evening of that Saturday;
5.when one attends another Mass wherein there is the Ordination to the Priesthood or a Solemn Profession of Vows of a religious;
6.when one attends another Mass which is a ritual Mass (a celebration of a sacrament within the Mass: e.g. Baptism, Confirmation, Wedding, et al), or a funeral Mass.

1.The practice of receiving communion as often as one participates in a Eucharistic celebration is clearly prohibited. The key word in the canon is “iterum”. It is not “iterumque”. The meaning is “only one more time on the same day”. The maximum number of times one may receive communion in one day is twice, but only on the abovementioned cases. Only priests are allowed to receive communion as often as they preside or concelebrate in the Mass. Deacons who assist at Mass can receive communion no more than twice. If he assists in three Masses in one day, he is allowed to receive communion only in two Masses.

Main Sources:

CODE OF CANON LAW, ANNOTATED. E. Caparros, M. Thériault, J. Thorn, eds., Univ. of Navarra and St. Paul Univ., Wilson & Lafleur Limitée: Montréal, 1993.

CANON LAW DIGEST of the PHILIPPINE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Fr. Florencio Testera, O.P., UST Press: Manila, 1995. pp. 54-55.
 
It is permissible for the celebrant to receive each time (they must in fact) where permission is given to celebrate three Masses on the same day. For the faithful, twice if at a participatory eucharistic celebration, or even more, in danger of death. From 1984
CIC:

Can. 905
§1. A priest is not permitted to celebrate the Eucharist more than once a day except in cases where the law permits him to celebrate or concelebrate more than once on the same day.
§2. If there is a shortage of priests, the local ordinary can allow priests to celebrate twice a day for a just cause, or if pastoral necessity requires it, even three times on Sundays and holy days of obligation.

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. 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.

Can. 919
§1. A person who is to receive the Most Holy Eucharist is to abstain for at least one hour before holy communion from any food and drink, except for only water and medicine.
§2. A priest who celebrates the Most Holy Eucharist two or three times on the same day can take something before the second or third celebration even if there is less than one hour between them.

Exceptions are made, however, see DIOCESE OF DALLAS PRIEST FACULTIES as of October 3, 2011:Eucharist (See canons 905 §2, 919 §1, 930 §1, 934 §1, 2°, 936, 938-940, and 951 §1)
  1. Bination for a “just cause” and trination for a “pastoral necessity” on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation are implemented in this diocese. Permission also is given, when such circumstances warrant, on a Sunday or Holy Day of Obligation, for a priest to celebrate more than the three Masses for his parish community.
cathdal.org/files/PRIEST_FACULTIES_Oct_3_2011-Internal.pdf
AAS 76

PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI AUTHENTICE INTERPRETANDO

Responsa ad proposita dubia Patres Pontificiae Commissionis Codici iuris canonici authentice interpretando, propositis in plenario coetu diei 26 iunii 1984 quae sequuntur dubiis, respondendum esse censuerunt ut infra ad singula:

I.
D. - Utrum, ad normam Can. 917, fideles qui Sanctissimam Eucharistiam iam recepit, possit eam eadem die suscipere altera tantum vice, an quoties eucharisticam celebrationem participat.
R. - Affirmative ad primum; Negative ad secundum.

II.
D. - Utrum ad comprobandum statum liberum eorum qui, etsi ad canonicam formam adstricti, matrimonium attentarunt coram civili officiali aut ministro acatholico, necessario requiratur processus documentalis de quo in Can. 1686, an sufficiat investigatio praematrimonialis ad normam Cann. 1066-1067.
R. - Negative ad primum; Affirmative ad secundum.

III.
D. - a) Utrum, ad normam Can. 502, § 1, membrum Collegii Consultorum quod desinit esse membrum Consilii Presbyteralis remaneat in suo munere consultoris.
R. - Affirmative.
D. - b) Utrum perdurante quinquennio, si quis consultor a munere cesset, Episcopus dioecesanus alium in eius loco nominare debeat.
R. - Negative et ad mentem. Mens autem est ut obligatio alium consultorem nominandi adest tantummodo si deficiat numerus minimus in Can. 502, § 1 requisitus.

Summus Pontifex Ioannes Paulus II in Audientia die 11 m. iulii a. 1984 infrascripto concessa, de supradictis decisionibus certior factus eas publicari iussit.

© ROSALIUS CASTILLO LARA, Archiep. tit. Praecausen., Pro-Praeses Iulianus Herranz, a Secretis
 
I assume our priests have special dispensation to receive more than twice because every Sunday we have 10 Masses but only 3 priests.
 
Hi Vico

Thanks for speaking to priests … my concern was with laity …

SO … to be perfectly clear about laity … your highlighing of : AAS 76

D. - Utrum, ad normam Can. 917, fideles qui Sanctissimam Eucharistiam iam recepit, possit eam eadem die suscipere altera tantum vice, an quoties eucharisticam celebrationem participat.
R. - Affirmative ad primum; Negative ad secundum.

**TRANSLATES TO **

D - According to canon 917, one who has already received the Most Holy Eucharist, may receive it on the same day only a second time, or as often as one participates in the celebration of the Eucharist?

R - Affirmative to the first; negative to the second

Is that your understanding as well ?
 
Ooops … and Vico … it includes the document from 1973 which indicates when a second time is permissible

Explanations:
1.The Holy Eucharist is not an ordinary food; it is the Body of Christ, the food that comes down from heaven and gives us spiritual nourishment and eternal salvation (“He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood will have everlasting life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”).As such, therefore, receiving communion once a day during a Eucharistic celebration gives us enough graces for that day. Hence, receiving communion more than once a day is not anymore necessary. More so, receiving communion more than once a day on a regular basiscould pose danger to our faith, as for instance, the loss of respect and reverence for this sublime sacrament. “The objective of the new legislation is to promote active participation in the celebration of the Mass and to prevent possible abuses such as the repeated reception of the Eucharist out of misguided devotion, habit or superstition” (Fr. Testera, OP, Canon Law Digest).
1.However, the Church allows communion a second time during the day, but only for specified cases. These are: 1.on Holy Thursday, when a person attends the Chrism Mass, and then participates also in the Evening of the Lord’s Supper Mass;
2.when one attends the Easter Vigil Mass and participates also in the Easter Sunday Mass;
3.when one goes to Mass on that day and receives communion as Viaticum on that same day, as mentioned in canon 921, §2;
4.when one goes to Mass on Saturday, and then attends the anticipated (Vigil) Sunday Mass in the evening of that Saturday;
5.when one attends another Mass wherein there is the Ordination to the Priesthood or a Solemn Profession of Vows of a religious;
6.when one attends another Mass which is a ritual Mass (a celebration of a sacrament within the Mass: e.g. Baptism, Confirmation, Wedding, et al), or a funeral Mass.

1.The practice of receiving communion as often as one participates in a Eucharistic celebration is clearly prohibited. The key word in the canon is “iterum”. It is not “iterumque”. The meaning is “only one more time on the same day”. The maximum number of times one may receive communion in one day is twice, but only on the abovementioned cases. Only priests are allowed to receive communion as often as they preside or concelebrate in the Mass. Deacons who assist at Mass can receive communion no more than twice. If he assists in three Masses in one day, he is allowed to receive communion only in two Masses.

Main Sources:

CODE OF CANON LAW, ANNOTATED. E. Caparros, M. Thériault, J. Thorn, eds., Univ. of Navarra and St. Paul Univ., Wilson & Lafleur Limitée: Montréal, 1993.

CANON LAW DIGEST of the PHILIPPINE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Fr. Florencio Testera, O.P., UST Press: Manila, 1995. pp. 54-55.

IF that isn’t the case, please specify how to obtain your findings so I can provide them to my priest

Thanks !
 
AND …I’m going to have to start using Word so I can make that 20 minute time period for editing …

Ooops … and Vico … Here is the document I found to correlate to my priest’s provision
of his 1990’s article

canonlaw.info/a_cca2.htm

Canon Law Articles & Reviews

Code of Canon Law Annotated, 2d ed.,
Review by Dr. Edward N. Peters

The 1983 Code of Canon Law took effect just over twenty years ago. During the first dozen years of its enforcement, English language explanations of the 1983 Code were dominated, nay, monopolized by the 1,100 page pan-textual commentary published by the Canon Law Society of America published in 1985. Known informally as the “big red book”, and a testament to (almost exclusively) American canonical talent, the [1985] CLSA Commentary immediately established itself as a powerful presence in canonistics. For all its strengths, though, the CLSA Commentary could not and did not represent the last word in canonical interpretation. Other voices would be needed with the passing years.

In the mid-1990s, two more English-language commentaries on the 1983 Code appeared. One was the product of the Canon Law Society of Great Britain & Ireland (though drawing on, in some areas, leading Canadian canonists). This thousand-page work immediately secured high regard among canon lawyers for being true to its title, Letter & Spirit (1996), and ably reflecting both aspects of modern canonistics. The other 1990s pan-textual commentary in English, a precursor in fact to the one being reviewed here, started winning its share of recognition more slowly, for it differed in some significant respects from the commentaries organized by the Americans and the British.

The original edition of Code of Canon Law Annotated (1993), although edited and released in Canada by a leading legal publishing house therein (Wilson & Lafleur in Montreal), was not originally an English language or even a culturally Anglo work: it was a translation of a Spanish canonical commentary first developed by the University of Navarra in Spain. This fact worked both for and against reception of the work in North America. The advantage of an English version of Code Annotated (a French version had been released in 1990) was that it made immediately available to English readers impressive scholarship from a leading continental canonical community, Spain. The disadvantage, though, was that some of the categories, issues, and lines of reasoning used by the Spanish did not relate well, or at least easily, to Anglo-American canonical approaches, suggesting at first a rather limited applicability to North American needs. There was, I think, some truth behind this perception, but over time, the value of the Spanish scholarship, beyond being adapted in some places to Anglo concerns by able Canadian editors, proved quite worth the efforts required to utilize the first edition of Code Annotated. It sold nearly 10,000 copies over ten years, a huge number by canonical standards.

Having proven the welcome that the “little red book” (Letter & Spirit being the “medium red book”) had won in English-speaking canonical circles, and a revised edition of the Spanish original coming available in 2001, the decision was taken to revise the English edition of Code Annotated. In 2004 that work became available and is the subject of this review.

Beautifully printed and sturdily bound, the revised edition of Code Annotated, still a “little red book” albeit of 2,000 pages, features canon by canon glosses on nearly every norm of the 1983 Code. Latin originals and English translations (revised from the basic British version) of each canon are given, with commentary following immediately. A conscious effort has been made by the editors to trim materials that were of little canonical interest outside of Spain, and to augment the commentary with information more relevant and available to English-speaking canonists. While Rome’s official fontes (source footnotes to the 1983 Code) are not provided herein, there is more than ample textual citation to both pre- and, even better, post-promulgation canonical documentation as an aid to further research.

In contrast to the 1917 Code, the 1983 Code calls for considerable enabling legislation to be enacted at the episcopal conference level, and Code Annotated does an excellent job of assembling this particular legislation from numerous English-language conferences and organizing it in a useable appendix. The usual correlating tables to Pio-Benedictine and Eastern canon law are provided along with Latin-English versions of apostolic constitutions Divinus perfectionis, Spirituali militum, Pastor bonus and Universi dominici. The topical index is quite extensive.

While canonical commentaries are consulted overwhelmingly by canonists aware of the context in which these tomes arise and comfortable with the inherent limitations on their authority, given the happy resurgence of canonical interest among non-specialists, a few words should be said about the limitations that bear on any scholarly text of this sort. Briefly, one should recognize that, Code Annotated being the work of canonists qua canonists, and not of canonists qua legislators, administrators, or judges, one consults this volume for the opinions of the scholars it contains. Put another way, what one reads in Code Annotated need not, and usually should not, be taken as the only canonically compelling articulation that could be given an issue. Two examples should illustrate the point.
Please see the article as it's too long to post, for the poin illistration
 
Now we get down to it … 2004 is the new version and it states

The gloss on canon 917 in MTF’s Code of Canon Law Annotated (2d ed.):

The possibility of receiving communion a second time in the same day (cf. Immensae caritatis 2 [omit cite]) can only exist within the Mass, since the reasons that justify this are found precisely in the circumstances that characterize this celebration (for example: the fulfillment of the Sunday obligation on the previous evening, evening Mass on Holy Thursday, the second Mass on Easter, ritual Masses, funerals, etc.) The case in which there is danger of death is omitted, as it is addressed directly in c. 921.

THE CARITATIS STANDS !
 
canon law says that you can recieve holy communion a 2nd time during the day provided that you attend mass the second time.
🙂
 
Poesch … we are all aware of Law 917 … AND …

What many lay people are unaware of is when using the letter of the law, it is generally a “topical statement” and to deepen the understanding of Laws of the Catholic Church, there are all sorts of documents to be compiled to understand the “spirit” of the law.

For the english speaking world, the two “go to” items are

Code of Canon Law Annotated (“Red Code”): a single 2,100-page edition that offers concise commentary on every canon in a single hard-bound book. The Red Code provides a portable, easy access to critical issues affecting marriage tribunals, pastoral leaders, moral theologians, students and many others. His Eminence Julian Cardinal Herranz, President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts in the Roman Curia, comments: “I know of no other single resource that offers an up-to-date compilation of the complementary norms that have been promulgated by English language Episcopal Conferences.”

List price: US $95.00 each.

• Exegetical Commentary of the Code of Canon Law: an 8-book, 8,000-page volume that includes exhaustive commentary on every canon and its original sources. The volume provides a literal “encyclopedia” to Canon Law and is soon-to-be considered a key component in the collection of scholars, clergy and laity pursuing a more in-depth knowledge of the sources of Church law.

His Eminence Cardinal Herranz had this to say, “Indeed, it would seem to me that this publication, carefully translated, clearly presented, and handsomely bound, will be an indisputable resource for English-speaking canonists, pastors, and students of the law.”

List price: US $1,200.00 for the 8-book volume.

Learn more about that here

catholic.org/prwire/headline.php?ID=993

I hope that helps you.

Peace.
 
deedward said:
Exegetical Commentary of the Code of Canon Law: an 8-book, 8,000-page volume that includes exhaustive commentary on every canon and its original sources. The volume provides a literal “encyclopedia” to Canon Law and is soon-to-be considered a key component in the collection of scholars, clergy and laity pursuing a more in-depth knowledge of the sources of Church law.

His Eminence Cardinal Herranz had this to say, “Indeed, it would seem to me that this publication, carefully translated, clearly presented, and handsomely bound, will be an indisputable resource for English-speaking canonists, pastors, and students of the law.”

List price: US $1,200.00 for the 8-book volume.
Click to expand...
This is available for $599.95 on Amazon (see here).
 
deedward said:
Now we get down to it … 2004 is the new version and it states

The gloss on canon 917 in MTF’s Code of Canon Law Annotated (2d ed.):

The possibility of receiving communion a second time in the same day (cf. Immensae caritatis 2 [omit cite]) can only exist within the Mass, since the reasons that justify this are found precisely in the circumstances that characterize this celebration (for example: the fulfillment of the Sunday obligation on the previous evening, evening Mass on Holy Thursday, the second Mass on Easter, ritual Masses, funerals, etc.) The case in which there is danger of death is omitted, as it is addressed directly in c. 921.

THE CARITATIS STANDS !
Click to expand...
AND THEN …I saw a Youtube video with Cardinal Arinze which contradicts this information, BUT my catechal priest/parochial vicar discounts it because it isn’t a formal document to specifically override the Caritatis …:mad: :confused: … hrrrrumph … see the timeframe 3:50 to 5:30

youtube.com/watch?v=0aZOhbCdfwY&list=UUwUTXBYFbWt38GPT_WjsnNw‏
 
deedward said:
AND THEN …I saw a Youtube video with Cardinal Arinze which contradicts this information, BUT my catechal priest/parochial vicar discounts it because it isn’t a formal document to specifically override the Caritatis …:mad: :confused: … hrrrrumph … see the timeframe 3:50 to 5:30

youtube.com/watch?v=0aZOhbCdfwY&list=UUwUTXBYFbWt38GPT_WjsnNw‏
Click to expand...
I didn’t hear any conflict there. Cardinal Arinze agreeed to the canon law and to the examples given: A morning communion service and then a later Mass, and two Masses on a day.

Is that what you mean?
 
Vico said:
I didn’t hear any conflict there. Cardinal Arinze agreeed to the canon law and to the examples given: A morning communion service and then a later Mass, and two Masses on a day.

Is that what you mean?
Click to expand...
Hi …The good Francis Cardinal Arinze, is saying the opposite of what the caritats says … Arinze is saying the second eucharistic celebration does not have to be as outlined in the caritatas, which specifies it must be a special celebration (funeral/marriage/Easter/etc) … Arinze is saying it can be the same liturgy you heard earlier that day, where the caritats explicitly states it can not

In order to convince my priest the Arinze is correct, I need to show him an official document explicity countering the caritatas (caritatis defining receiing eucharist 2X and stipulations below) …and I do respect my priest for that, however I am disenheartened with finding dead ends.

Explanations:
1.The Holy Eucharist is not an ordinary food; it is the Body of Christ, the food that comes down from heaven and gives us spiritual nourishment and eternal salvation (“He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood will have everlasting life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”).As such, therefore, receiving communion once a day during a Eucharistic celebration gives us enough graces for that day. Hence, receiving communion more than once a day is not anymore necessary. More so, receiving communion more than once a day on a regular basiscould pose danger to our faith, as for instance, the loss of respect and reverence for this sublime sacrament. “The objective of the new legislation is to promote active participation in the celebration of the Mass and to prevent possible abuses such as the repeated reception of the Eucharist out of misguided devotion, habit or superstition” (Fr. Testera, OP, Canon Law Digest).
1.However, the Church allows communion a second time during the day, but only for specified cases. These are: 1.on Holy Thursday, when a person attends the Chrism Mass, and then participates also in the Evening of the Lord’s Supper Mass;
2.when one attends the Easter Vigil Mass and participates also in the Easter Sunday Mass;
3.when one goes to Mass on that day and receives communion as Viaticum on that same day, as mentioned in canon 921, §2;
4.when one goes to Mass on Saturday, and then attends the anticipated (Vigil) Sunday Mass in the evening of that Saturday;
5.when one attends another Mass wherein there is the Ordination to the Priesthood or a Solemn Profession of Vows of a religious;
6.when one attends another Mass which is a ritual Mass (a celebration of a sacrament within the Mass: e.g. Baptism, Confirmation, Wedding, et al), or a funeral Mass.

1.The practice of receiving communion as often as one participates in a Eucharistic celebration is clearly prohibited. The key word in the canon is “iterum”. It is not “iterumque”. The meaning is “only one more time on the same day”. The maximum number of times one may receive communion in one day is twice, but only on the abovementioned cases. Only priests are allowed to receive communion as often as they preside or concelebrate in the Mass. Deacons who assist at Mass can receive communion no more than twice. If he assists in three Masses in one day, he is allowed to receive communion only in two Masses.
 
deedward said:
…• Exegetical Commentary of the Code of Canon Law: an 8-book, 8,000-page volume that includes exhaustive commentary on every canon and its original sources. The volume provides a literal “encyclopedia” to Canon Law and is soon-to-be considered a key component in the collection of scholars, clergy and laity pursuing a more in-depth knowledge of the sources of Church law.
…
Click to expand...
Hello,

The text of that commentary does not limit the second reception to any sort of “special” Mass. It says: “…all those circumstances (including mere devotion or other fitting reasons, which the norm does not exclude) are reasons for a second communion” (commentary on c. 917). By the way, “the norm” means c. 917. Since the law does not include restrictions or special circumstances, there are none which are required and none should be added by anyone (other than the Pope, of course).

Neither of the CLSA commentaries or the CLSGBI commentary suggest the restrictions of Immensae caritatis. I think you are reading too much into the commentary in the Code of Canon Law Annotated–it is not saying those Masses are the only ones where a second reception is allowed, hence the addition of “etc.” at the end of the comment.

Also, recall the norm of canon 6, §1. "When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated: …
  1. other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders."
The pertinent norm of Immensae caritatis has been completely reordered, through a simplification and restatement of the law regarding the possibility of a second reception of Holy Communion in one day.

Dan
 
dans0622 said:
Hello,

The text of that commentary does not limit the second reception to any sort of “special” Mass. It says: “…all those circumstances (including mere devotion or other fitting reasons, which the norm does not exclude) are reasons for a second communion” (commentary on c. 917). By the way, “the norm” means c. 917. Since the law does not include restrictions or special circumstances, there are none which are required and none should be added by anyone (other than the Pope, of course).

Neither of the CLSA commentaries or the CLSGBI commentary suggest the restrictions of Immensae caritatis. I think you are reading too much into the commentary in the Code of Canon Law Annotated–it is not saying those Masses are the only ones where a second reception is allowed, hence the addition of “etc.” at the end of the comment.

Also, recall the norm of canon 6, §1. "When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated: …
  1. other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders."
The pertinent norm of Immensae caritatis has been completely reordered, through a simplification and restatement of the law regarding the possibility of a second reception of Holy Communion in one day.

Dan
Click to expand...
Hi Dan,

I will attempt to show your comments to my priest and see what he thinks. Although, he did inform me that he wouldn’t be engaging me anymore in a “debate” …which I replied I thought it was an exploration …so … I need to clarify if he is open to any further (name removed by moderator)ut.

Thanks so much
 
dans0622 said:
Hello,

The text of that commentary does not limit the second reception to any sort of “special” Mass. It says: “…all those circumstances (including mere devotion or other fitting reasons, which the norm does not exclude) are reasons for a second communion” (commentary on c. 917). By the way, “the norm” means c. 917. Since the law does not include restrictions or special circumstances, there are none which are required and none should be added by anyone (other than the Pope, of course).

Neither of the CLSA commentaries or the CLSGBI commentary suggest the restrictions of Immensae caritatis. I think you are reading too much into the commentary in the Code of Canon Law Annotated–it is not saying those Masses are the only ones where a second reception is allowed, hence the addition of “etc.” at the end of the comment.

Also, recall the norm of canon 6, §1. "When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated: …
  1. other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders."
The pertinent norm of Immensae caritatis has been completely reordered, through a simplification and restatement of the law regarding the possibility of a second reception of Holy Communion in one day.

Dan
Click to expand...
Hi again…

The reference made to the text of the commentary not referring to the caritatis … you may want to see my post on this thread of July 12 … look at the bottom of it …You may also want to go back to see all references and read all the materials used, CLSA commentaries or the CLSGBI commentary.

Can. 10 indicates all changes need to be explicitly referred to rendering your contention of Can 6.6, §1, subsection 4 non applicable in reference to this.

You also suggested that I was reading too much into things … I suppose my priest would say to you that you are negating traditional documents.

If you can find something that explicity discounts the caritatus … I would sure like to see it.

Please please please
 
deedward said:
Hi again…

The reference made to the text of the commentary not referring to the caritatis … you may want to see my post on this thread of July 12 … look at the bottom of it …You may also want to go back to see all references and read all the materials used, CLSA commentaries or the CLSGBI commentary.

Can. 10 indicates all changes need to be explicitly referred to rendering your contention of Can 6.6, §1, subsection 4 non applicable in reference to this.

You also suggested that I was reading too much into things … I suppose my priest would say to you that you are negating traditional documents.

If you can find something that explicity discounts the caritatus … I would sure like to see it. …
Click to expand...
Hello again,

Taking some of your statements in order: It’s not that the commentaries don’t refer to Immensae caritatis. They do. But, they don’t suggest that its restrictions are still binding.

I don’t know what post you are referring to (“of July 12”). I looked at the commentaries and all the comments here before saying what I said. I am aware of the one priest’s comments saying the situations in Immensae caritatis are the only ones where a person can receive a second time in one day. I think that’s wrong. If you are suggesting I am overlooking something, sure, I might be. What is it, exactly?

Canon 10 has nothing to do with this. There is no question here of invalidating or incapacitating laws. Canon 6 is certainly pertinent and is the explicit “abrogation” of the corresponding norm of Immensae caritatis.

There really are no “traditional documents” involved here. The “traditional document” was the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which said that a person can only receive Communion once each day, except in danger of death. Immensae caritatis was a modification of that law. The 1983 Code was another, more authoritative and expansive, modification of it.

Dan
 
deedward said:
Explanations:
Click to expand...
I’ll throw my two bits in and say that I agree with dans0622, although he is certainly more qualified in this area. It does appear that the authors of the 2004 book quoted in your post #8 don’t envision people receiving a second time at a mass of the same day, but they don’t explicitly say so. It’s not clear if their view is informed by the belief that Immensae Caritatis is still in effect, or instead perhaps it is uncommon in Spain for such duplicate masses to take place.

But I had to skip over parts of your posts which were confusing. An example would be the end of post #14. It’s not clear if some of this is your reasoning, or if you are entirely quoting an outside source(s). It’s also not immediately obvious whether a given passage is in support of your viewpoint, or if you are quoting something that you hope to counter. Finally, there are three different number 1’s - looks like you gave a reference for the first part, but how the rest of the post fits in is unclear. It might be helpful to use quote boxes to indicate what is being typed by your fingers, and introduce outside quotes as to their source and purpose in your argument. Sorry to go into editor mode, but I did have a tough time deciphering.
 
Hi all,

This is what I need … and if someone has the information, please proide me with the reference information

If you find information that the 1973 document is no longer applicable and binding I would be interested in it.
I am sure you can find tons of information and quotes stating canon law and what it says but to find something that says those conditions do not apply anymore and this within a Church document -

Thanks so much and God bless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top