Have y’all heard of thatI don’ know where your instructor got that bit of information but it is wrong. What.did happen is that very few people received communion, so much so that they had to make it Churh law that you must receive communion at least once a year during the Easter season. Communion was never forbidden to the laity. it was the laity who felt unworthy to receive. Even as recent as the early 1960’s much less people received weekly.Okay, so at my last RCIA meeting, it was about Church history and the teacher said that in like the 1700s or 1800s the Catholic Church had forbid laity from receiving Communion and saying that only Clergy could receive it?
UMMMMMMMM. . .You know, I would ask the teacher exactly what was meant and what the sources for that assertion were.Okay, so at my last RCIA meeting, it was about Church history and the teacher said that in like the 1700s or 1800s the Catholic Church had forbid laity from receiving Communion and saying that only Clergy could receive it?
NOPE! NEVER HAVE AND IT WOULD HAVE TO BE PROVEN FOR ME TO ACCEPT WITH VERIFIBLE EVIDENCE.=CountrySteve;10046902]Okay, so at my last RCIA meeting, it was about Church history and the teacher said that in like the 1700s or 1800s the Catholic Church had forbid laity from receiving Communion and saying that only Clergy could receive it?
These are all very good points, however…UMMMMMMMM. . .You know, I would ask the teacher exactly what was meant and what the sources for that assertion were.
The ENTIRE CATHOLIC CHURCH forbade the laity and reserved communion to the clergy? WHERE exactly? What were the DATES? If this really occurred it ought to be pretty well documented, don’t you think?
Or IS he saying something about a particular PLACE or a group? Perhaps he is referring to France during the Terror, or that a group of Jansenists was trying to impose this on certain places in France. . .
But the WHOLE CHURCH? I’m sorry, I REALLY don’t think he found accurate information there, wherever he came up with this.
I think he misunderstood and thought that the Church’s position on reserving the CHALICE (Sacred Blood) to the priest while the people received the HOST (Sacred Body) meant that the laity was forbidden to receive a ‘complete’ communion --which in itself is also incorrect, VERY incorrect. (He’s also off a couple of centuries if so but considering the average person in the U.S. can’t place the century for the U.S. Civil War, that isn’t surprising either.)
For the sake of you and your fellows in RCIA, this matter should be absolutely verified. Again, it is probably a completely innocent mimsunderstanding, done in good faith–but it is wrong information.
Never happened, you may have misunderstood what he said. If he holds to what he said, tell him to furinsh the documentation.Okay, so at my last RCIA meeting, it was about Church history and the teacher said that in like the 1700s or 1800s the Catholic Church had forbid laity from receiving Communion and saying that only Clergy could receive it?
I think there must be some confusion here: Because of fasting and the fact that High Mass was usually late in the morning, people would attend mass but not communicate (of course some would receive communion at earlier low masses) Also prior to the 20th century weekly reception of communion was unheard of even though everyone went to mass every Sunday. When you look at old church records from that period in Europe, the number of communicants was a tiny proportion of the numbers attending mass each week.Okay, so at my last RCIA meeting, it was about Church history and the teacher said that in like the 1700s or 1800s the Catholic Church had forbid laity from receiving Communion and saying that only Clergy could receive it?
I certainly don’t think it was unheard of, but it was not normative the way it is today.
Yes, I think the way you expressed it above captures what happened in practice better.
My first thought was to bash the preconciliar Church. ?_?
(Taken from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jansenism)
