Could Frequent Reception encouragement be changed?

[PazzoGrande]

I get rather irritated when I read threads like this

Well then don’t bother participating. I got irritated with your post as well.

Follow the rest of the posts on this thread and see where my line of thinking went, especially my most previous post.

 

[Digitonomy]

I get rather irritated when I read threads like this, because the person starting them assumes the worst of others who receive too frequently in their estimation, but somehow does not appear to consider him/herself among those not worthy to receive, or if he does, manages to tell the forums how he/she is pious enough to not receive when they are not worthy. That stinks.

I think your criticism is unwarranted. I do not see anywhere in this thread where the OP has proclaimed his fitness or unfitness to receive communion.
CB Catholic:

There is not a person here who has the wisdom of the Church and the Magesterium and is qualified to suggest the teaching be changed.

I don’t think there was any new teaching by Pius X, just disciplines brought about at his encouragement.

PazzoGrande:

But is it possible that the rules could be changed?

I think so. I haven’t studied it in depth, but it appears that the change under Pius X did not reflect any newly taught doctrine, but only changes to a few disciplines. From the old Catholic Encyclopedia:

he advised all (Deer. S. Congr. Concil., December 20, 1905) to receive Holy Communion frequently and, if possible, daily, dispensing the sick from the obligation of fasting to the extent of enabling them to receive Holy Communion twice each month, and even oftener (Deer. S. Congr. Rit., December 7, 1906). Finally, by the Decree “Quam Singulari” (August 15, 1910), he recommended that the first Communion of children should not be deferred too long after they had reached the age of discretion.

 

[PazzoGrande]

I think your criticism is unwarranted. I do not see anywhere in this thread where the OP has proclaimed his fitness or unfitness to receive communion.

Furthermore I don’t see why it would be wrong for the laity to discuss Church issues. The Church belongs to the people and it’s for us to understand how things work. The Pope wouldn’t expect us to just obey and shut up, but to understand and take part in.

At no part did I declare I know better. Look at the Subject line. Did I write “Frequent Reception encouragement **should **be changed?” No. I asked if it could. And if you read through the thread, I did have worthwhile concerns.

Yes it’s funny when someone points a finger to complain someone else is sanctimonious, and in the process the first person acts even more sanctimoniously, while probably not even really bothering to hear the second person’s argument completely.

I haven’t studied it in depth, but it appears that the change under Pius X did not reflect any newly taught doctrine, but only changes to a few disciplines. From the old Catholic Encyclopedia:

Thanks for the excerpt. Interesting by the way that there was always a dispensation for the sick to not have to fast.

 

[Joe_5859]

I get rather irritated when I read threads like this, because the person starting them assumes the worst of others who receive too frequently in their estimation, but somehow does not appear to consider him/herself among those not worthy to receive, or if he does, manages to tell the forums how he/she is pious enough to not receive when they are not worthy. That stinks.

People need to mind their own business. We know disrespectful things happen, there is no way to always prevent them, but judging a whole church full of people as probably receiving unworthily because they are probably sinning and not confessing is not one of them; and suggesting that frequent Communion be denied to people on the basis that “I” think people are receiving too frequently because they are probably unworthy, isn’t either.

There is not a person here who has the wisdom of the Church and the Magesterium and is qualified to suggest the teaching be changed.

Obviously, receiving the Eucharist unworthily is not something we want to casually dismiss or encourage people to do. But you are right; it is nearly impossible to engage in these discussions without coming across as judging the state of the souls of a large percentage of the Catholic population (even though I’m sure that’s not the OP’s intent).

I always remember that Jesus chooses to make Himself available to us in the Eucharist. Just as He made himself vulnerable to ridicule and death by becoming man, so to he makes himself vulnerable to abuse by taking the form of bread. He’s a big God. He can take it. He obviously thinks we’re worth it to open Himself up to such mockery and desecration.

I figure if this was a good idea, our bishops would be all over it (or perhaps at least one bishop would be). People can certainly think about it all they want, or even bring the idea up to their local pastor or bishop. But I really don’t see it gaining much traction. The only time I encounter such discussions is here on CAF.

 

[Elizium23]

I don’t think that there is any judging of souls involved in simply observing that Confession lines are short, Communion lines are long. Church attendance for many means Christmas and Easter, but give them a funeral or a wedding and they are itching to receive. “Catholic” politicians run afoul of Canon 915. It is an objective fact that people committing mortal sin are not in a state of grace. We aren’t sending them to Hell, we are merely asserting that they need Confession and Absolution for worthy reception of the Eucharist.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Obviously, receiving the Eucharist unworthily is not something we want to casually dismiss or encourage people to do. But you are right; it is nearly impossible to engage in these discussions without coming across as judging the state of the souls of a large percentage of the Catholic population (even though I’m sure that’s not the OP’s intent).

I always remember that Jesus chooses to make Himself available to us in the Eucharist. Just as He made himself vulnerable to ridicule and death by becoming man, so to he makes himself vulnerable to abuse by taking the form of bread. He’s a big God. He can take it. He obviously thinks we’re worth it to open Himself up to such mockery and desecration.

I figure if this was a good idea, our bishops would be all over it (or perhaps at least one bishop would be). People can certainly think about it all they want, or even bring the idea up to their local pastor or bishop. But I really don’t see it gaining much traction. The only time I encounter such discussions is here on CAF.

You make a good point…I think Jesus knew what He was doing when he got into bread and wine. He makes himself vunerable to us as we are always free to choose him or reject him.

While I agree with the need for reconciliation…it seems to me that quite a few people here are assuming that people commit mortal sins quite often and hence need to go to confession quite regularily. I mean I go about once a month…and maybe I’m just not sure…but it’s usually venial sins that I commit.

I like the idea of frequent reception…I’m going through a really rough patch…and it’s helpful when you are in pain…to receive Jesus everyday if you can…

 

[Stylites]

I imagine it would be exceedingly difficult to enforce a change in the rules. But is it possible that the rules could be changed? Has such a thing happened in the past?

It would be exceedingly easy to enforce a change in the rules, if one has authority to do so. Those outside of authority and without responsibility for these things may imagine and wonder all they want to, I suppose.