My understanding is that Pope John Paul II has changed the norms --- if one assists at both Masses, one can receive Holy Communion at both Masses.

The norms for Holy Communion have changed a lot over the centuries. There used to be a Pope in the Middle Ages who would say Mass nine times in one day.

Again, as far as Catholics go, we just follow whatever legislation the Church gives us.

I think priests can say more Masses under different circumstances, as well. In case of necessity, as well as Christmas day and Nov. 2nd.

I've also been semi-reliably informed that receiving twice is fine when you're fully engaged with the Mass. Popping in for a quick Communion on the way to something else probably wouldn't qualify.

The logic of "body and blood coursing through your veins" doesn't seem to give you any conclusion. If you "need" it once a day, why not once an hour? If once a day is "good enough", then why not once a week, once a year, or once a lifetime? All these distinctions are so artificial anyway. God is outside time, so He probably just laughs at all this anyway.

We need what we need to help us stay close to God. The Church tries to help us do that, but by necessity it's based on millions of people.

What is the problem, exactly?

Canon law specifies the regulations for how often one may receive communion:

Canon 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."

This is codified to allow for cases when one might receive communion outside of mass (in the hospital, in hospice care, etc.), but later is able to attend a mass; canon 917 gives them permission to receive communion a second time when it is at a Mass. One is not allowed to receive communion twice when the second time is not in the context of a Mass. Canon 921 speaks of receiving Viaticum--in danger of death the law is relaxed and you are allowed to receive communion possibly a third time... [Edited: Hmmm, three times...not sure really if canon law envisions this and I haven't yet run across this as a priest either. Maybe a canon lawyer can comment!]

It is a relevant question for the forum though, since more than a few here might sing or serve at multiple Masses on Sunday.

Hmmm. I'm in the situation Fr. Spencer mentions: I often attend two or more Masses in a single day as part of my musical responsibilities. I know one person who, trying to make rent, plays for 6 Masses per weekend. Neither he nor I have ever received communion at more than one Mass on a given day, though we have received at both a Saturday vigil and a Sunday morning, which liturgically is the same day. In your roommate's position, we would probably choose one Mass at which to receive.

But, if he or she decided to do otherwise, with healthy intensions, I don't see that it's feeding oneself in opposition to serving others. Unending, non-sacramentally mediated unity with the Lord is, after all, the goal of this entire project.

I'd find it odd if a particular person felt they -needed- to receive communion multiple times daily, except in the most extreme of circumstances such as danger of death. But, if they did feel that way, I wouldn't find reason to forbid it as harmful. A priest might be able to help the person find enough of a sense of stability and peace that they would no longer feel the need, but who knows? I would hesitate to find fault, in the absence of some clearly warped motive or consequences. I think this is above my pay grade.

I don't notice whether musicians receive or not unless they're placed in the sanctuary, where I can't help but notice them.

Nevertheless, canon law allows for people to receive TWICE in one day max... not six times. So that organist would be outta luck at four masses anyway.

I'm wondering at the reasoning behind the rules. Why only once or twice a day? Why did it change from once to twice for laypeople and not just priests (whose reception of communion is in the rubrics)?

The East doesn't have a tradition of daily Mass, either, except in a few rare instances (usually resulting from Western influence), so even once a day is not the norm for the whole [sacramental] Christian world. Why are norms what they are? What did they used to be, what are they now, what might they be in the future? That's the kind of stuff I'm curious about.

Here is a minimally detailed answer from CUF. Too minimal to be truly satisfying, but still, it's something.

According to Dom Dix in The Shape of the Liturgy, the Eucharist was first celebrated with bishops and priests concelebrating, or "corporately." The Eucharist was not normally celebrated daily in pre-Nicene times. During Augustine’s time (c. 400), daily Eucharist was introduced in Africa, but the rest of the Church simply observed the feast days on the calendar. As more feast days were added to the calendar, the Church moved gradually closer to daily Eucharist. Where there was daily liturgy in the fifth century, it was celebrated with the bishop. Daily Eucharist in some regions in the fifth and sixth centuries was tied to the bishop’s devotion to the Eucharist. Therefore, the largest leap to widespread daily Eucharist was the assignment of priests to parishes. Priests who wanted to exercise more fully their priesthood began to celebrate the Eucharist daily.

According to Dix, the Eucharist was not celebrated daily on a regional basis until the seventh century. At this time the practice became widespread in Frankish monasteries and many of the secular priests of large rural dioceses were dispatched by their bishops for parish work. While daily Mass eventually became usual for all regions of the Western Church, to this day Eastern Catholics celebrate according to the liturgical calendar.

1 Dom Gregory Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy (London: A & C Black ©1945) 592-593. Includes note: "A useful collection of the early evidence on daily celebration is found in Sacrificial Priesthood by Fr. Joseph Barker, C.R., London, 1941."

The permission started small and was extended over time. At some point permission was granted for Easter and Christmas, for faithful to receive the Sacrament again at a second Mass in the day after having already received at the Easter Vigil or the Christmas midnight Mass.

In 1967 (in the document Eucharisticum Mysterium) permission was granted for faithful who had received on Saturday morning, and then at an evening vigil Mass. Also there was permission for the two Holy Thursday Masses.

In 1973 (in the document Immensae caritatis) the permission was extended for faithful at weddings, baptisms, confirmations, funerals, professions, and other ritual Masses; at first Masses of religious congresses, parish missions, and various other cases; and for Viaticum, and for any one-time case the Bishop allowed.

This was getting uselessly complicated, and the rule was eventually changed, so that the permission applied to any Mass. (I wish I could cite a document for this: there should be one from the CDW.) There might have been some condition attached about attending the whole Mass, but maybe I was misunderstanding something.

Fr. Spencer's quote from the Code, above, gives the current state of things.

So Jam, people don't go to daily Mass in Eastern rite? Then how about the priests? Do they celebrate daily Mass? I'm very interested in this, because I've been thinking about the importance of more spiritual communion lately in daily Mass.

That is correct. Liturgy is only on Sundays and feast days, and during Lent there is liturgy on Sundays and presanctified on Wednesday evenings (and in more hardcore places, Friday morning also). Some monasteries will have Divine Liturgy three days a week or so, I don't know if they choose feast days during the week to celebrate for that or if they just decide what days of the week to have Divine Liturgy on. There are some places in Russia which have a tradition of daily Divine Liturgy but I don't know much about it, and I think it came about due to Western influence.

Ideally Divine Liturgy is for Sundays, and then the Divine Office is for weekdays. So you would have morning, noon, evening, and night prayers daily rather than Liturgy, which is for Sunday. Like Rebecca posted above, this more closely follows the ancient pattern. Only monasteries celebrate all the hours, but there are some parishes with daily or midweek Vespers. And of course rather than a vigil mass on Saturday evening, most Orthodox parishes celebrate Great Vespers instead. Great Vespers (what you would call Sunday Vespers one) is considered preparation for Sunday Matins, which is preparation for the Eucharist, and there are some priests who strongly prefer people to attend Great Vespers and Matins if they are to receive communion.

As for priests, in the East they are not allowed to celebrate the Eucharist by themselves--they need at least a reader in order to licitly celebrate, but the ideal is of course their whole parish.

The sensibility that communion should only be received a few times a year, or within three days of confession, still lingers in a good part of Orthodoxy. In order to receive one must fast from midnight the night before (or for an evening liturgy, sometime before noon), pray certain preparatory prayers, be properly disposed, have been to confession recently (how recently depends on your spiritual father), etc. etc. I mean, I don't mean to make it sound formulaic, because it isn't, but the attitude toward communion is such that a daily or twice daily reception doesn't... make sense. Unless you're living like a monk, and can afford to do all that fasting and praying!