Receiving Communion More Than Once Per Day

Is there are rule about this? I’ve always felt wierd if I go to 2 Masses in the same day receiving communion at both.

I believe you can receive no more than 2x per day…so you’re fine.

Do you know where I can find that information?

Canon law.

Can. 917 One who has received the blessed Eucharist may receive it again on the same day only within a eucharistic celebration in which that person participates, without prejudice to the provision of can. 921 §2.

Can. 921 §1 Christ’s faithful who are in danger of death, from whatever cause, are to be strengthened by holy communion as Viaticum.
§2 Even if they have already received holy communion that same day, it is nevertheless strongly suggested that in danger of death they should communicate again.
§3 While the danger of death persists, it is recommended that holy communion be administered a number of times, but on separate days.

By Canon 917, ordinarily a second reception must be in the context of a “eucharistic celebration”, ie a Mass (not a Communion service).

I have heard conflicting explanations of whether the reference to Canon 921.2 means that a second reception in the context of Viaticum is also permitted, or whether it means, in danger of death, Viaticum may be received even if the recipient has already recieved twice previously in the day (ie a third reception). :hmmm:

tee

My situation would be 2 Masses, so according to Canon Law, I’m all good.

And retired?:rolleyes:

Nope, not retired.

I got someone knocking on my door from some obscure church (Church of God I think ). They were pulling passages out of the bible about the passover and Jesus’ new covenant and arguing that we were never meant to be allowed to receive the body and blood more than once a year. Does anyone know how it came about that we are now allowed to take it twice a day?

I think there is one very important time that was missed in the above. If you are at the home of a shut-in and communion is brought, you may receive a second time with them.
Another is if you go to a wedding and a funeral on the same day–receive at both. I usually tell my people when they ask, "If you are at mass for two very specific reasons–then you can receive twice. e.g a wedding and Sunday anticipation Mass on a Sat.

I have received twice on numerous Sundays. Often I have met my father at an early Mass and then gone to the later Latin Mass. :smiley:

Our pastor, who is a monsignor and pretty closely follows the rules of the Church, told our choir when we sang at two Masses one day that it was lawful to receive Communion twice.

I respectfully disagree. In every other occurrence of the phrase “eucharistic celebration” in Canon Law, it is quite plainly referring to the Mass. I know no reason that in Canon 917 it should be otherwise. The carrying of communion to a shut-in is not a eucharistic celebration.

Communion is not administered at weddings and funerals except in the context of a Mass (sepecifically a Nuptial Mass or Mass of Christian Burial respectively), which is a “eucharistic celebration” and so is in accordance with Canon 917.

tee

You can disagree all you want, but bringing the Eucharist to the sick is a Eucharistic celebration. True it is not the Mass. But even the Eucharistic minister, who recieved the Eucharist at the Mass at which he just received the Eucharist to bring to the sick, can also receive with them.

If you read Acts, you will find that the early Christian Community would meet DAILY for the Breaking of the Bread (the first name for the Mass.)

Umm, sorry, that’s not a Eucharistic Celebration. This has been well established. You can receive communion a second time in one day provided that the second time you receive is during a mass. Now, if you are an EMHC (they are NOT Eucharistic Ministers no matter how they are styled in the church bulletin), and you receive with the person and THEN go to mass, you would be okay. But the second time you receive MUST be in the context of the mass.

You are mistaken, and what you are proposing is a liturgical abuse.

You can disagree all you want, but bringing the Eucharist to the sick is a Eucharistic celebration. True it is not the Mass. But even the Eucharistic minister, who recieved the Eucharist at the Mass at which he just received the Eucharist to bring to the sick, can also receive with them.

Terms can be used in a general sense or a precise sense. Linuse appears to use the terms in a more general sense, but Tee and Timothy are correct in the the context of this discussion of Church law.

In the code of canon law, these terms have precise and distinct meanings. In Church law — which is what is being discussed rather than the klōntes . . arton in Acts of the Apostles — the term “Eucharistic celebration” etc. is a technical reference to the Mass throughout canons 897-958 (de sanctissima Eucharistia).

In the code and the liturgical books, the term Holy Communion refers to the administration of the sacrament, either within or outside of the Mass.

The distinction is apparent in canon 918 in particular: “It is highly recommended that the faithful receive Holy Communion (sacram communionem) during the celebration of the Eucharist (eucharistica celebratione) itself, but it should be administered outside Mass to those who request it for a just cause, the liturgical rites being observed.”

But even the Eucharistic minister, who recieved the Eucharist at the Mass at which he just received the Eucharist to bring to the sick, can also receive with them.

I have no idea on what basis of Church liturgical or canon law this might come from. First of all, only a priest is a Eucharistic minister (c. 899, 900, et seq.). Deacons, with priests and bishops, are ordinary ministers of Holy Communion, and acolytes or designated members of the Christian faithful are extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion (c. 910). Second, receiving under that condition would seem to require a dispensation from the diocesan bishop (c. 87) or to present the physical or moral impossibility of returning the Blessed Sacrament to reservation in the tabernacle.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.