How many times can we receive Holy Communion on Christmas Day ?
#11
(12-24-2019, 04:37 PM)ThatGladTrad Wrote: When read in context the new Canon Law is also obviously trying to allow you to communicate at Mass even if you've already particapted in another communion outside Mass. If you received Holy Communion after a Liturgy of the Word say, because you didn't think you'd be able to go to Mass that day, but then in the afternoon you have the luck of getting to Mass anyway. Here the Church wants to ensure you can receive as there are many graces of receiving Holy Communion at Mass.
I think it was never intended to be read "you can always receive Holy Communion twice so long as the second time is at Mass."

Plenty of things in the modern Church can be read in different ways. That's the point of the ambiguity. The question isn't what might have been intended, but what de facto happens.

This is particularly obvious with interpretations of documents from Vatican II, especially liturgical things. Sacrosanctum Concilium says that Latin deserves pride of place, but vernacular may be allowed. What happened? Latin is forbidden in place of the vernacular. Gregorian chant is the highest form of liturgical music in the West, but other forms are allowed. Voila, Gregorian is out and the awful 1970s and 1980s junk takes its place. Communion in the hand is a widespread abuse in the Netherlands, so the Pope says, okay, but only there, and it should be eliminated as soon as possible. The result : Communion in the hand everywhere.

Canon Law was changed, though, not with this limited view in mind. There were not a large number of "Liturgy of the Word" services when it was changed, so to suggest this idea seems to be inventing a response. If that really were the intention, perhaps you could cite some original documents from the early 1980s suggesting that was the reason. Otherwise, it's just idle speculation. In the face of no information, but a pattern of ambiguity and a law which allows receiving at multiple Masses, that is the natural conclusion.

Even if you are correct, the difference is a material one only, and reinforces the erroneous idea that Mass is primarily a memorial meal (which was the heretical definition of the Mass introduced in the first edition of the GIRM, which the Pope himself, had to correct). If I go to a priestless service on a Sunday morning (which does not satisfy my Sunday obligation, which is to attend Mass, not a priestless service), and there receive Communion from the tabernacle, but then find out I can go to Mass and do, why do I need to Communicate again? The obligation is to attend Mass, not Communicate. I participate fully in Mass by attendance. Communion is an accidental (i.e. added) benefit, but since I've already received, I've already received the graces from the Sacrament.

The only way the scenario you suggest is if by not Communicating at a Mass one does not actually fully participate. The only way that makes logical sense is if one redefines what the Mass is from what the Church has always taught (it is a Propotatory Sacrifice), to the Protestant and heretical notion that it is a memorial meal.

Either way, the change in the law, barring some proof that the intention was other, matches the heresy pushed by the New Theology and Neo-Protestant influences before, at, and especially after Vatican II.
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  â€¢ gospel654, jovan66102, MiserereMeiDeus
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)