Jimmy Akin

A reader writes:

I have a sacrament and liturgy question; to wit:  In your reading of canon Law ( Canon 917 in particular), and any additional notations or opinions on that canon (or pronouncements from the US CCB), how many times may an individual (not the celebrant) receive communion in one day (my definition of "day" being one calendar day of the same date, vs. any 24 hour period)? 

Your definition of "day" is the same as the Code of Canon Law’s definition:

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.

Since other provision is not made in Canon 917, that’s the definition of "day" that is operative there.

Canon 917 deals with the number of times one may receive Communion:

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.

Canon 921, §2 deals with the case of Viaticum for the dying, so it does not concern us here.

As a result of canon 917 and Canon 202, a member of the lay faithful can receive holy Communion twice in a twenty-four hour period spanning midnight to midnight, barring the exception of receiving it a third time as Viaticum.

The reader continues:

The specifics arose recently when two Extraordinary Ministers for Holy Communion attended 2 funeral masses during the day on a Saturday (receiving Holy Communion at both), and then participated (as EMs) in the vigil mass that evening.  Should they have declined to receive communion at the vigil Mass? 

Yes, they should have declined, as per the above.

I understand the general rule is that one may receive communion at a second Mass if the whole sacrifice of the Mass is participated as part of the second reception. 

This is mostly correct, but there is no requirement that one be participating in the whole of the Mass at the second reception. Canon 917 simply refers to participating in the Mass, not participating in the whole of it or the whole of any part of it (if one is considering the sacrifice as occurring, e.g., in the Liturgy of the Eucharist). This provision of Canon 917 is meant to distinguish the second reception from Communion from cases where one receives it outside of Mass altogether. This is provided for in the following canon:

Can.  918
It is highly recommended that the faithful receive holy communion during the eucharistic celebration itself. It is to be administered outside the Mass, however, to those who request it for a just cause, with the liturgical rites being observed.

So the first time one receives Communion, it may be in a Mass or outside of Mass (Can. 918), but the second time it must be in a Mass in which one is participating (as opposed to one where one happens to walk through Church at Communion time). This would indicate substantial participation in the Mass, but not participation in all of it.

I argued with our pastor that the vigil Mass (considered as meeting our Sunday obligation) could be treated as Mass for the next day for the purposes of this "rule."    Is there anything published within the Church that further addresses or elucidates this matter?

Yeah, it seems to me that Canon 202 deals with the definition of "day." There isn’t anything in 202 or 917 allowing for a "vigil" Mass. This concept is never mentioned in the Code of Canon Law (the relevant canon simply speaking of fulfilling one’s Sunday/holy day obligation at a Mass falling on the evening of the preceding day, not a special "vigil" Mass occurring then). While Masses are celebrated on the vigils of certain days using the following day’s readings under liturgical law, it is not liturgical law that determines how many times one can receive Communion.

Canon law does that, and in the absence of a re-definition of the word "day" in Can. 917 to allow for this,  Can. 202 is going to govern the situation, meaning that one cannot receive twice and then receive again at a "vigil" Mass later in the day.

Hope this helps!

A reader writes:

Hi Jimmy,

You had a post on your blog about staying home from Mass when sick.
Beside infirmity, are there any other legitimate reasons for staying
home from Mass?  The particular situation I’m wondering about is going
away on a camping trip.

There are other reasons. The care of children is one, for example.

As to camping trips, business trips, and vacations, your obligation is to go to Mass if you reasonably can get to one on Sunday, based on where you are that day. The Church does not understand the obligation to ensuring that you are in a place where you can reasonably get to Mass. Thus if you are in a place where you cannot reasonably get to Mass on a Sunday or holy day, you do not have to go, and you are not legally obligated to cancel or avoid planned trips on this account.

As to what counts as being able to reasonably get to Mass, St. Alphonsus Ligouri spoke of having to ride to Mass for more than fifteen minutes by donkey as being enough. The donkey isn’t the essential part of this though, as people were used to travelling by donkey back then (it was easier for them to do this than it would be for us).

A reader writes:

I was recently visiting relatives in a small town outside Vienna, Austria, called Hinterbruel, and on Sunday assisted at Mass at the local parish, along with my family, to fulfill our Sunday obligation.  Though the Mass in German and so I could understand little of what was said, nevertheless the sacramental graces available through Holy Communion would still be efficacious.

But during distribution of Communion I got a shock.  The pastor, with the Altar servers, stood at the head of aisle holding a large bowl of consecrated hosts about waist level.  An altar server next to him held the chalice down low also.  People processed up, plucked a host out of the large bowl and intinctured it in the chalice themselves.  They then consumed the intinctured host.  The priest did nothing but hold the bowl of hosts out for them.

I was shocked.  The thought immediately struck me that this was an unlawful way of distributing communion.  Given what I thought was this illicitness, I did not feel I could participate, and that to do so knowing it was illicit would itself be a grave sin.  I also told my family not to participate, and explained after the Mass what the problem was.

I know this practice is contrary to the norms for the Latin Rite.  Is it properly termed "illicit"?  If it was illicit, would it not be a grave sin to knowingly receive communion under these circumstances?

It does appear that the situation was illicit, unless Austria has particular law that has been approved by the Vatican to allow such a situation. Here is what the universal law, as found in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) says:

160. The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another.

So that would prevent them taking the Host from a bowl or ciborium being held by the priest or other minister.

Regarding Communion by intinction, the GIRM says:

287. If Communion from the chalice is carried out by intinction, each communicant, holding a communion-plate under the chin, approaches the priest, who holds a vessel with the sacred particles, a minister standing at his side and holding the chalice. The priest takes a host, dips it partly into the chalice and, showing it, says, Corpus et Sanguis Christi (The Body and Blood of Christ). The communicant responds, Amen, receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the priest, and then withdraws.

There may be variation to allow others to perform the intinction, but the law does not envision the communicant himself doing so. So it looks like we have a case of illicit distribution of Holy Communion, barring Austria having particular law allowing this.

That being said, would it be a grave sin to receive under these circumstances?

No.

The faithful have a right to receive their Lord Jesus Christ in Holy Communion that is not trumped by local officials’ insistence on distributing this in an illicit manner. If there are no alternatives, your need and right to receive the Lord Jesus Christ trumps the fact that they insist on an illicit manner of distribution. If the only way to receive Communion is via their illicit method, it is morally licit for you to do so.

That being said, there are several considerations to add:

1) The fact that you were not parishioners but only temporary visitors made it reasonable for you to simply not go to Communion as you would not be deprived of licitly-distributed Communion for a long period, as parishioners might be.

2) If there was a possibility of changing the practice of the parish by refusing to participate then doing so would become more reasonable.

3) There may have been other options that would allow one to receive Communion without making use of the illicit process the parish had established: For example, going up and standing in front of the priest with one’s mouth open (or, if Communion in the hand is allowed in Austria, with one’s hand out) and not moving until Communion is given in a licit manner.

Similarly: Either standing in front of the minister of the chalice with one’s hands out to receive the chalice until one receives it or, if one has received Communion in the hand, approaching the minister of the chalice with hand extended and mouth open until the minister performs the intinction. Or simply not receiving Communion under the form of wine.

The latter (#3) would have been my preferred option, but then I’m an uppity American.

READER A writes:

The question is : as today, many thinks that we baptise babies too

easily (whereas parents life is completly out of the Church despite

their baptism), can’t we say we mary people in the Church too easily?

One can certainly argue this. I suspect it varies considrably from country to country as to what the rate of imprudent Chuch weddings is. However, couples have a right to Christian marriage as long as they fulfill the basic requirements, so we can’t simply leave the matter to the discretion of church staffers to impose all kinds of touchie-feelie requirements on the couple. They can be told what the Church teaches, asked to agree to at least this much, and encouraged to think through the prudence of a marriage in their individual case, but ultimately the faithful have a right to marry that cannot be unduly burdened, particularly by the whims of parish officials.

READER B writes:

Been there, done that, was issued the certificate…now I have to

decide whether to frame it as a reminder to remain celibate and single.

One linguistic quibble: "Celibate" and "single" mean the same thing. "Celibate" means "unmarried."  The state of not having conjugal relations is "continent" rather than "celibate" (continence being morally required of all who are celibate = unmarried).

READER C writes:

I wonder if priests get questions like, "My friend and I exchanged

vows when we were in kindergarten. Do I need an annulment?" 🙂

Actually, they do get questions like this. However, people in such a situation don’t need an annulment. Such "ceremonies" aren’t recognized by anybody as constituting a valid marriage. Children of this age do not understand what marriage is and are incapable of committing to it. For a ceremony to require investigation and annulment, it must have some pretense (in someone’s eyes) of having been valid.

READER D writes:

Help me out on a word play. Is it correct to say a marriage was

determined "invalid"? Or does the word "invalid" imply validity

orginally existed but now does not?

"Invalid" means "was never valid/did not come into existence/never existed."

READER E writes:

If a Catholic and a Baptist get married in a Baptist ceremony w/o

dispensation, they lack form and thus the marriage is canonically

invalid; but, had they married in a Catholic ceremony (or w/

dispensation), it would be valid?

Correct.

READER F writes:

But if the ministers of the sacrament are the man and woman, and not

the priest (at least in the Roman Rite), isn’t it possible to have

valid (though illict) marriages that occur outside the Catholic Church,

assuming both parties are baptized, and have the intent of a permanent,

exclusive, and fruitful union which they express in vows? I’m just

curious – but I don’t see, given the requirements for the sacrament,

how not being in a specifically Catholic Church would automatically

invalidate it.

The requirement for Catholics to observe the Catholic form of marriage (i.e., to "get married in the Church") does not arise from the nature of the sacrament itself. The sacrament can and is validly celebrated in non-Catholic services (e.g., by two Baptists getting married in a Baptist church or, for that matter, in front of a justice of the peace or a ship captain). The requirement to observe form is a positive law requirement that used to not be there. Originally, canon law did not require it, but in recent times, as society has changed, the Church has seen fit to introduce it for pastoral reasons. As society continues to change, the Church might see fit to abolish this requirement at some point in the future (and the reinstitute it again later, if needed).

READER F continues:

Are Protestant to Protestant marriages valid in the eyes of the Church?

And, what are the essential elements that constitute the requisite "form"?

Yes to the first question. As to the second, SEE HERE.

READER G writes:

If someone gets married with all the conditions present to make

theirs a valid marriage, but thinks during the ceremony that she will

leave (but not divorce) her husband if he cheats on her, will the

marriage be valid?

(I know there is a requirement that the spouses intend to stay together forever or else it’s not valid)

This marriage will be presumed valid. While there is an obligation to maintain domestic and conjugal life under ordinary circumstances, this obligation is overriden in grave situations, such as when one partner is unfaithful to the other. In such a circumstance, the offended party is within his or her rights to suspend domestic and/or conjugal life, even permanently. It may even be prudent in such situations to obtain a civil divorce (which has no bearing on Church law but may be useful for asset protection, child custody rights, etc.).

What is not entailed in this, however, is the right to remarry someone else. For that to happen, one needs an annulment proving that the first marriage was invalid so one is free to marry.

READER H writes:

Barb and Joe, both baptized Catholics, marry in a Catholic ceremony.

They get a divorce. Barb remarries Fred (both baptized Catholic) before

a jp court, and then divorces. Barb then wants to marry Jebediah, a

Jewish guy, in a civil ceremony.

For Barb’s marriage to Jeb to be recognized by the RCC (thus

allowing her to receive communion), she needs (aside from a little bit

of good spiritual counselling, it would seem):

1) to go to confession (as we all do) TECHNICALLY, NO. WHILE BY ENTERING INTO AN INVALID MARRIAGE WITH FRED, BARB HAS DONE SOMETHING OBJECTIVELY SINFUL, THE STATE OF GRACE IS NOT NECESSARY FOR A SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE TO BE VALID. IT IS REQUIRED FOR IT TO BE LICIT (LAWFUL), BUT NOT VALID. LOADS OF FOLKS ENTER VALID MARRIAGES IN A STATE OF MORTAL SIN.

2) an annulment from Joe (assuming it could be obtained); CORRECT.

3) an annulment from Fred, as the second marriage would not be

recognized (simply to show it was not recognized, and should be more

readily obtainable than #2); and CORRECT.

4) a dispensation from her bishop(?) to marry Jeb (different cult). CORRECT, BUT HOW MANY JEWISH GUYS ARE NAMED "JEB" THESE DAYS? THAT’S MORE A CHRISTIAN NAME TODAY.

READER I writes:

Note that a Catholic couple, or the Catholic in a mixed marriage, can apply for a dispensation after the wedding — even years after.  I believe this is called convalidation.

Yes, but it’s not quite that simple. If a Catholic failed to observe the Catholic form of marriage then technically what is done is to apply for an annulment and then have the marriage convalidated, typically by a renewal of vows in a simple marriage ceremony in front of a priest (though other arrangements are possible if one of the spouses objects to this). A dispensation from form is only typically needed in the latter case if a non-Catholic is involved. If two Catholics are involved then they simply have their marriage convalidated in front of a priest.

READER J writes:

If there are children involved, just getting an annulment and getting

married may not be fair or just to the children. Her best and most

loving course of action would be to regularize her marriage with the

father of her children. She also may not be capable of a sacramental

marriage and that should be investigated before any steps are taken.

While convalidating the marriage with the children’s father may be the best thing for the children, it also may not be. Some fathers (like some mothers) are more destructive influences than constructive and it may be better to marry someone else or stay single. That being said, the presumption would be for the children’s parents to be married to each other.

The only ways for a person not to be capable of a sacramental marriage (in general) are if the person is (a) unbaptized or (b) incapable of marriage. The former here is precluded by the fact the original correspondent is Catholic and if (b) is the case then she shouldn’t be trying to marry anyone. That, however, complicates the question beyond what the correspondent asked about.

READER J writes:

doesn’t this principle [requiring Catholics to observe form] essentially say that the Church (or any church)

can arbitrarily change what constitutes a valid sacrament based on

discipline? Suppose the Baptists make up a rule that Baptists can’t

marry Methodists, and a Baptist and a Methodist marry and later become

Catholic. They were not following the correct form for their state at

the time. Are they married now or not?

The difference is that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ and so has the power to bind and loose. Unlike other Churches (which may regard themselves as having this power), the Catholic Church genuinely does have the authority to, for pastoral reasons, establish impediments to the celebration of the sacraments.

READER J continues:

So the Church can add requirements as to what constitutes a valid

sacrament? I know that disciplinary changes can change licety, but

validity? And if they do, how are they not dogmatic if they have a

supernatural effect? YES.

This sound like a real theological mess just waiting to happen. MAYBE. What

is to stop someone from arguing that the Church can just as easily

retract requirements for validity (like, say, masculinity in the case

of holy orders)? THERE ARE LIMITS TO WHAT THE CHURCH CAN DO. IT CAN ESTABLISH AN IMPEDIMENT TO THE CELEBRATION OF A SACRAMENT (LIKE OBSERVING PROPER FORM), AND IT CAN REGULATE VARIABLE DIVINE REQUIREMENTS (LIKE WHETHER OR NOT YEAST CAN BE MIXED WITH THE WHEAT TO MAKE ALTAR BREAD), BUT IT CANNOT ABROGATE A FUNDAMENTAL DIVINE REQUIREMENT (LIKE MARRIAGE BEING BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN OR THE EUCHARIST REQUIRING WHEAT BREAD AND GRAPE WINE). THE LAST ARE MATTERS OF DIVINE LAW THAT ECCLESIASTICAL LAW CANNOT CHANGE.

And if the argument is that Catholics marrying in violation of

church disciplines are not married simply because they are being bad,

disobedient Catholics, does this contradict the doctrine that the

worthines of the minister does not affect the validity of the

sacraments? NO, BECAUSE THEY ARE PREVENTED FROM GETTING MARRIED BECAUSE THEY ARE BAD OR DISOBEDIENT. THEY ARE PREVENTED FROM GETTING MARRIED BECAUSE THERE IS AN IMPEDIMENT ESTABLISHED IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.

I hope the host addresses this in a little more depth in another

post. I’m afraid that this one is old enough that it will soon be

forgotten, and I really want to understand this.

Hope this helps!