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.
Check out post number 6 and the first paragraph referring to the bread of life I think …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
Well … unfortunately I can’t go back to change it and I won’t be clarifying it. The documents & references are there …If you can help me with what I am seeking that would be great.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.
In post #17 you wrote: “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.”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 explicitly countering the caritatas (caritatis defining receiving Eucharist 2X and stipulations below) …and I do respect my priest for that, however I am disheartened with finding dead ends.
Explanations: …
, 1:AAS 76 (1984) 746].In post #17 you wrote: “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.”
CIC Can. 10 is on invalidating laws and disqualifying laws. “Can. 10 Only those laws must be considered invalidating or disqualifying which expressly establish that an act is null or that a person is effected.”
Look at Canon 2 below: Can. 2 For the most part the Code does not define the rites which must be observed in celebrating liturgical actions. Therefore, liturgical laws in force until now retain their force unless one of them is contrary to the canons of the Code.
Any limitations that exist in the earlier documents is no longer in force where it is contrary to the 1984 Canon law (and later CIC modifications):
The response given in AAS 76 [1984] p, 746 Dubium makes the meaning of Can. 917 clear, and is also reflected in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
- Inter oecumenici (September 26, 1964),
- *Tres abhinc annos *(May 4, 1967),
- Eucharisticum Mysterium (May 25, 1967), and
- Immensae Caritatis (January 29, 1973).
1388 It is in keeping with the very meaning of the Eucharist that the faithful, if they have the required dispositions, 221 receive communion when they participate in the Mass. 222 As the Second Vatican Council says: “That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest’s communion, receive the Lord’s Body from the same sacrifice, is warmly recommended.” 223
221 Cf. CIC, can. 916.
222 Cf. CIC, can. 917; The faithful may recieve the Holy Eucharist only a second time on the same day [CF. *Pontificia Commissio Codici luris Canonici Authentice Intrepretando, Responsa ad proposita dubia
Caritatis applies limits that are not applied in the 1984 CIC Canon 917 which allows reception of the Eucharist a second time on the same day (midnight to midnight) at any Mass. Caritatis is more limiting therefore in accord with Canon 2, the limitations are not in force according to the law. The 1984 CIC is authoritative since it was promulgated by the Holy See.The caritatis isn’t contrary to the canon as it too says you can receive twice a day
Secondly … I am in need of a formal church document where it is explicity stating that the stipulations in the caritatis are no longer applicable …
Thanks
Correct … it applies limitations …Caritatis applies limits that are not applied in the 1984 CIC Canon 917 which allows reception of the Eucharist a second time on the same day (midnight to midnight) at any Mass. Caritatis is more limiting therefore in accord with Canon 2, the limitations are not in force according to the law. The 1984 CIC is authoritative since it was promulgated by the Holy See.
In this comparison the* limitation* that exists in Immensae Caritatis is a contradiction with Canon 917 because there are more possible combinations of first and second receptions permitted by Canon 917: 1st) at a Mass or Communion Service, and 2nd) at a Mass in which one participates (or case of Canon 921.2).Correct … it applies limitations …
So just to be clear, is it your contention that limitations and contradictions are the same thing ?
Communion services and Eucharistic masses being two different things, and you can watch the YouTube video again to get clarification, it’s only the first reception that can be at a communion service.In this comparison the* limitation* that exists in Immensae Caritatis is a contradiction with Canon 917 because there are more possible combinations of first and second receptions permitted by Canon 917: 1st) at a Mass or Communion Service, and 2nd) at a Mass in which one participates (or case of Canon 921.2).
Interestingly the eastern Canon law (CCEO) does not include an equivalent to Canon 917 limiting reception for eastern Catholics.
Hi Dan,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
Immensae Caritatis limits to particular Masses, which is contrary to Canon 917 permitting the second reception at any Mass that one participates in, therefore per Canon 2, those limitations to particular Masses are not now in force.Can. 2 For the most part the Code does not define the rites which must be observed in celebrating liturgical actions. Therefore, liturgical laws in force until now retain their force unless one of them is contrary to the canons of the Code.Communion services and Eucharistic masses being two different things, and you can watch the YouTube video again to get clarification, it’s only the first reception that can be at a communion service.
My impression is you are personally perceiving that contradiction and limitations are the same in this case because you haven’t provided any formal church documentation that negates or broadens the terms of the caritatis explicitly.
I will show you why. Immensae Caritatis has this:There may however be special circumstances in which the faithful who have already received communion on the same day or in which priests who have celebrated Mass attend some community’s celebration. It will be lawful for these faithful and these priests to receive communion a second time in the following situations:QUOTE=Vico;10235057]Immensae Caritatis limits to particular Masses, which is contrary to Canon 917 permitting the second reception at any Mass that one participates in, therefore per Canon 2, those limitations to particular Masses are not now in force.Can. 2 For the most part the Code does not define the rites which must be observed in celebrating liturgical actions. Therefore, liturgical laws in force until now retain their force unless one of them is contrary to the canons of the Code.
Contrary: 1 a fact or condition incompatible with another (Merriam-We
:banghead:Immensae Caritatis alows you to partake twice a day THUS IT ISN’T incompatible nor contrary to c.917
1. 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;8
2. at Masses for the consecration of a church or an altar, for a religious profession, for the conferral of a "canonical mission";
3. at the Masses for the dead on the occasion of the funeral, news of the death, the final burial, or the first anniversary;
4. 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;
5. at the principal Mass at a eucharistic or Marian congress, whether international or national, regional or diocesan;
6. at the principal Mass of any kind of meeting, pilgrimage, or people's mission;
7 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.
8. 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.Why the caritatis/1973 came about according to you, isn’t related to the focus of this thread which is : to find something that says those conditions do not apply anymore and this within a Church document.I will show you why. Immensae Caritatis has this:There may however be special circumstances in which the faithful who have already received communion on the same day or in which priests who have celebrated Mass attend some community’s celebration. It will be lawful for these faithful and these priests to receive communion a second time in the following situations:
Canon 917 allows all the above 1 through 6 (but not 7, and 8 is not covered in Canon 917), but also allows others which are not permitted by Immensae Caritatis. This extension was needed in view of Canon 1248. *Canon 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.Code:1. 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;8 2. at Masses for the consecration of a church or an altar, for a religious profession, for the conferral of a "canonical mission"; 3. at the Masses for the dead on the occasion of the funeral, news of the death, the final burial, or the first anniversary; 4. 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; 5. at the principal Mass at a eucharistic or Marian congress, whether international or national, regional or diocesan; 6. at the principal Mass of any kind of meeting, pilgrimage, or people's mission; 7 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. 8. 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.
For example reception a second time at an evening Mass one participates in, such as occurs (but not limited to) an evening Mass anticipatory celebration of Sunday or Holy Day or one of the six Vigils which precede Easter, Christmas, Pentecost, Ascension, Nativity of Saint John the Baptist, and the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul. But this can also be on any day besides those, which is not so by Immensae Caritatis.
** Tres abhinc annos *(May 4, 1967) and Eucharisticum Mysterium (May 25, 1967) were in effect rather than Canons 917 and 1248 when Immensae Caritatis was given.
I did not know if you wanted to know it. However what is significant is that that the Immensae Caritatis is contrary to the 1983 CIC because reception that is not allowed by it, is allowed by Canon 917 on any day besides those.So what makes you think I want to know this ? How the caritatis came into effect isn’t a factor and is irrelevant. Take care.
Vico you keep saying that and continue to fail to document proof of the contradition …You are stating your own opinion a differnent way now… and I’m tired.I did not know if you wanted to know it. However what is significant is that that the Immensae Caritatis is contrary to the 1983 CIC because reception that is not allowed by it, is allowed by Canon 917 on any day besides those.
I do not understand how the proof is negated, would provide the logic?Vico you keep saying that and continue to negate the proof …You are saying the same thing a differnent way.
Bye and God’s bless you, Vico
What would I ask?deedward,
If you want to pursue this further, I recommend that you write the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (see here for their address), wait for the response (I would guess about a year), and then show the response to your priest.
I’m sorry… I looked at this again because I am tired and cranky and thought I probably missed something …, But I am wondering if I am getting your point below.I did not know if you wanted to know it. However what is significant is that that the Immensae Caritatis is contrary to the 1983 CIC because reception that is not allowed by it, is allowed by Canon 917 on any day besides those.
How about: “Is it permitted under current canon and liturgical law to receive communion twice in the same day, as long as the second time is at a mass (c.f. 1983 CIC 917), even if the specific situations described in Immensae Caritatis, e.g., ritual masses, are not present. In particular, is it permitted to receive communion twice in the same day, both times at ordinary Sunday masses with the same readings?”What would I ask?