Not receiving communion so often in the past

[Ladyofthehouse]

I’ve seen it mentioned a few times that in the past (pre Vatican II) people didn’t receive communion as often as they do today. Can anyone tell me why besides the obvious (being in mortal sin) that someone wouldn’t have in the past? Thank you.

 

[stuart12]

I’ve seen it mentioned a few times that in the past (pre Vatican II) people didn’t receive communion as often as they do today. Can anyone tell me why besides the obvious (being in mortal sin) that someone wouldn’t have in the past? Thank you.

Reverence for the Sacrament (maybe misguided), feeling unworthy. Saints well before the Second Vatican Council urged souls to receive communion frequently, few took this exhortation up unfortunately.

 

[ProVobis]

I’ve seen it mentioned a few times that in the past (pre Vatican II) people didn’t receive communion as often as they do today. Can anyone tell me why besides the obvious (being in mortal sin) that someone wouldn’t have in the past? Thank you.

(1) Fast was 3 hours before Mass started prior to V2. Fast had been from midnight in the early 50’s and before.

(2) There seemed to be have been more awareness of mortal sin before V2.

(3) More importance was given to spiritual communion before V2.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

There was the requirement that one fast from midnight, which made is difficult for some to receive, especially at a late morning mass. My grandfather had a farm. He would get up at 4, do his chores, spend an hour or more getting to the church. All without eating till around 10.

A major factor was the Jansenist heresy. It was mostly in France, but due to English persecution most Irish priests were trained in France. The Church in the eastern U.S. had a large proportion of Irish priests and bishops. So the heresy infiltrated there.

Jansenists tended to be Puritanical on the unworthiness of man. They extolled the unworthiness of man to receive the Eucharist, and the need for extreme efforts to prepare for it. I think they regarded it as a reward, rather than as a help to salvation. Many would extol the value of fasting from the Eucharist.

I came in just at the end of that period; so have tried to receive at every mass I attended. However, I was often rather lonely at the Communion Rail.

 

[ProVobis]

A major factor was the Jansenist heresy.

From wiki:

The heresy of Jansenism, meaning here its denial of Catholic doctrine, is that it denies the role of free will in the acceptance and use of grace—that God’s role in the infusion of grace is such that it cannot be resisted and does not require human assent. The Catholic teaching is that “God’s free initiative demands man’s free response” (CCC 2002)[3]—that is, the gift of grace can be resisted, and requires human assent.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jansenism

 

[PhanxicoXavier]

Saint Alphonsus recommends visiting Christ in the Blessed Sacrament daily, and receiving Communion weekly, but at least bi-weekly. Its because the Communion of the Faithful actually isn’t a part of the Mass, so it isn’t necessary, also St. Thomas Aquinas says that we should receive Communion often, but if we see that it leads to laxity and not increased piety, we should be more careful to receive Communion worthily and with our whole hearts rather than be worried just about receiving Communion with a cold heart out of habit.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

The fast probably had quite a bit to do with it–particularly for young women and children who would have a very hard time fasting that long. There are plenty of stories of young women fainting in Mass. And the crowded early morning masses may have been full of people hungry for regular breakfast and not necessarily exhibiting any special piousness by being there so early.

Also, the sometimes misguided belief that they were not worthy to receive. In the US, the Jansenist-like teachings fed off the puritanical nature that was also prevalent among the protestants (even into the 1940s and 50s). Saint Margret Mary’s visions of the Sacred Heart did quite a bit to expel Jansenism, but considering that she lived in the late 1600s, the effects of that heresy did linger long all over the world. I think that Saint Faustina’s visions of the Divine Mercy were also a call to more frequent reception of the Eucharist.

As someone said on another thread, it is possible for a Christian to go from year to year without committing a *mortal *sin, and prayer, frequent confession, and frequent reception of communion can help one shed many venial sins and bad habits as well.

 

[bpaynter]

Surprise! Surprise! No-one has mentioned St Pius X who encouraged frequent communion, and wanted children’s first communion to be much earlier than it had been. Fifty years ago at a High Mass communion was commonly not offered to the faithful. I can remember an occasion when a woman went up to the rails and knelt, but was completely ignored and finally returned to her place looking rather sad and embarrassed.

An older generation were rather reluctant to receive often lest they became ‘over-familiar’.
The author Hilaire Belloc (d.1953) received seldom.He said, “I like to remember my Communions”.

 

[Lujack]

For infrequent Communion as the norm, you’d really have to go back to before Pope St. Pius X. He started a push for frequent Communion, and it really spread. At the University of Notre Dame, for example, there was a push for daily reception of the Blessed Sacrament during the 1920’s, and all sorts of lay organizations were founded and sponsored by parish priests to push the regular reception of the Eucharist. I think that by the 1940’s and 1950’s, regular reception was the norm.

 

[Orleans_Attny]

I’ve seen it mentioned a few times that in the past (pre Vatican II) people didn’t receive communion as often as they do today. Can anyone tell me why besides the obvious (being in mortal sin) that someone wouldn’t have in the past? Thank you.

I frequently refuse communion, but I do so when I feel that I’ve a serious, unconfessed, sin. (I suppose that’s why I like the mass at the Tokyo Franciscan Center - they offer confession before and during the mass for those who need it.)

I’ve wondered before how it’s possible that so many people from my parish receive communion every Sunday - hundreds! - but during scheduled confession on Wednesdays and Saturdays the church is so empty that one seeking to confess must often look for the priest in his office since waiting in the confessional for 4 hours a week means he sits alone and trys to stay away for 3 hours and 50 minutes!

OK that might be a fib, during the last 2 weeks of Lent you might find a couple of other people waiting for the confessional.

Everyone else in my Parish must be a Saint!!! I’m bringing down the average, for sure.

Pax,
OA

 

[ProVobis]

Surprise! Surprise! No-one has mentioned St Pius X who encouraged frequent communion,

Several hundred years ago, very few ever went to communion. For that reason (I think it was around Pius X’s time) the Church mandated a once-a-year sacramental communion, which is still in effect today.

 

[Lujack]

Several hundred years ago, very few ever went to communion. For that reason (I think it was around Pius X’s time) the Church mandated a once-a-year sacramental communion, which is still in effect today.

I had always thought that the “Easter duty” was significantly older than Pius, who began pushing regular reception of Communion as his major accomplishment. Receiving communion at least once a year, I thought, went way back.

 

[ciero]

I think we need a bit more of this Jansenistic attitude twords the Eucharist today! The pendulum has swung in the totally other direction. Today EVERYONE recieves at every mass!, sometimes more then once a day! I met a woman once who ran around to all the masses in the area so she could receive at each(about 6 a day), she would’nt be there for the masses just for communion. How foolish! No preparation, no confession, no idea that receiving unworthily will bring condemnation upon their soul. Everyone feels ENTITLED, I just dont get it.

 

[DebChris]

I had always thought that the “Easter duty” was significantly older than Pius, who began pushing regular reception of Communion as his major accomplishment. Receiving communion at least once a year, I thought, went way back.

I do not know when the Church began requiring once a year Communion. It may go back to the Council of Trent. The Sacraments were a major dividing point between Catholics and the new denominations. The term Roman was added to Catholic at that time by Protestants emphasizing loyalty to the pope.
Before St. Pius X, First Solemn Communion was not received until a person was about 12 years old. You will find this in the story of St. Bernadette who did not know her catechism well enough to be considered ready to receive First Communion.
One of St. Pius X’s biggest reforms was to encourage more frequent reception of the Sacraments, especially the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the source and summit of our Faith. He lowered the age in which First Communion was received to the age of reason, age 7.

Jansenism was a common heresy during the time of St. Therese of Lisieux. There was an over emphasis on our unworthiness. It is interesting in reading Story of a Soul that Therese actually asked and received permission while receiving the Sacrament of Reconciliation before approaching the altar for Communion.

Yes, the Communion fast has changed with time. Many older than I remembered when the fast was from midnight. It was one of the reasons my parents took us to the earliest Mass. They would go at dawn if it were available. By the time I made my First Communion, the fast was three hours, and later changed to the current one hour.

 

[Lujack]

I think we need a bit more of this Jansenistic attitude twords the Eucharist today! The pendulum has swung in the totally other direction. Today EVERYONE recieves at every mass!, sometimes more then once a day! I met a woman once who ran around to all the masses in the area so she could receive at each(about 6 a day), she would’nt be there for the masses just for communion. How foolish! No preparation, no confession, no idea that receiving unworthily will bring condemnation upon their soul. Everyone feels ENTITLED, I just dont get it.

Well, that’s not allowed in itself; you can receive twice a day and a third time if you’re in danger of death, but you aren’t supposed to receive more than that. On the other hand, people receiving at every Mass is a good thing. Its what Pius X would have wanted, and it is what priests in the 1920’s, 1930’s, 1940’s, and 1950’s were striving for. The problem is the lack of frequent confession. Linking confession and communion is key, not decreasing the frequency of reception, especially since receiving the Eucharist is good for the soul.

 

[ProVobis]

I had always thought that the “Easter duty” was significantly older than Pius, who began pushing regular reception of Communion as his major accomplishment. Receiving communion at least once a year, I thought, went way back.

You could be right. I didn’t have the exact date on that Easter duty thing; I only know it’s been around for a while. Christ never said how often we were to eat of His flesh. Or what happens if we don’t sacramentally, for that matter, so it does seem to me to be an overobsession or false worship if the only reason we’re doing it is to set or tie a world’s record, as many seem to be doing.

 

[ProVobis]

Jansenism was a common heresy during the time of St. Therese of Lisieux. There was an over emphasis on our unworthiness.

Maybe, but “Jansen also insisted on justification by faith, although he did not contest the necessity of revering saints, of confession, and of frequent Communion.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jansenism

 

[thomas_jd]

We were required to fast from midnight, to the time we received Holy Communion, in the not too distant past. The Homilys were often on brimstone , fire, hell, damnation, etc.
Confession was available for saturday afternoons. We did not question the priests regarding sin and it’s consquences as is done often today. It was a time of awe and respect. That was from the teaching we received from priests and nuns.

Today the nuns are gone. The Homilys are politicaly correct. We fast one hour before Holy Communion. Last saturday the confessional was visited by less than twenty sinners at a parish of over one thousand. Hundreds of hosts were consumed at the early mass alone. We are hurded to the altar by ushers, thus reducing the reverence the Eucharist demands. The Extraordinary mass , if you wanted to participate properly, forced you to read along in english as the priest recited the prayers in latin. The Ordinary mass of today, which can be just as beautiful, requires so much more Effort on the part of the priest.
I was a server at the Latin mass, I am still a server at the ordinary mass. When I am knelling alongside the priest at mass or at Benediction the AWE of God is the same, the Reverance is the same. When I am back in the pews, I am forced to concentrate a little bit more. Times change, but the Holy Mass is still the center of our lives.Where else can we receive our Lord and Savior? Sorry to be so long winded.

 

[ciero]

Well, that’s not allowed in itself; you can receive twice a day and a third time if you’re in danger of death, but you aren’t supposed to receive more than that. On the other hand, people receiving at every Mass is a good thing. Its what Pius X would have wanted, and it is what priests in the 1920’s, 1930’s, 1940’s, and 1950’s were striving for. The problem is the lack of frequent confession. Linking confession and communion is key, not decreasing the frequency of reception, especially since receiving the Eucharist is good for the soul.

Frequent reception of the Eucharist is NOT good for the soul if one is NOT prepared. The priests of the 1920’s thru 1950’s may have been striving for this, but in my opinion the tradition of less frequent communion of the 1500 years prior to the 1900’s is what we should be striving for. Communion that was properly respected, and prepared for, eg, fasting and prayer, confession, observing the proper lenten fasts and other fast days and ember days of the church. To many SAINTS today for all this asetical discipline.

 

[ProVobis]

Frequent reception of the Eucharist is NOT good for the soul if one is NOT prepared. The priests of the 1920’s thru 1950’s may have been striving for this, but in my opinion the tradition of less frequent communion of the 1500 years prior to the 1900’s is what we should be striving for. Communion that was properly respected, and prepared for, eg, fasting and prayer, confession, observing the proper lenten fasts and other fast days and ember days of the church. To many SAINTS today for all this asetical discipline.

My sentiments exactly. I would, however, stress the importance of spiritual communion more per Catechism of Trent and this can be done in or out of Mass.

Threefold Manner Of Communicating

That the faithful may learn to be zealous for the better gifts, they must be shown who can obtain these abundant fruits from the Holy Eucharist, must be reminded that there is not only one way of communicating. Wisely and rightly, then, did our predecessors in the faith, as we read in the Council of Trent, distinguish three ways of receiving this Sacrament.

Some receive it sacramentally only. Such are those sinners who do not fear to approach the holy mysteries with polluted lips and heart, who, as the Apostle says, eat and drink the Lord’s body unworthily. Of this class of communicants St. Augustine says: He who dwells not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwells not, most certainly does not eat spiritually His flesh, although carnally and visibly he press with his teeth the Sacrament of His flesh and blood. Those, therefore, who receive the sacred mysteries with such a disposition, not only obtain no fruit therefrom, but, as the Apostle himself testifies, eat and drink judgment to themselves.

Others are said to receive the Eucharist in spirit only. They are those who, inflamed with a lively faith which worketh by charity,’ partake in wish and desire of that celestial bread offered to them, from which they receive, if not the entire, at least very great fruits.

Lastly, there are some who receive the Holy Eucharist both sacramentally and spiritually, those who, according to the teaching of the Apostle, having first proved themselves and having approached this divine banquet adorned with the nuptial garment, derive from the Eucharist those **most abundant fruits **which we have already described. Hence it is clear that those who, having it in their power to receive with fitting preparation the Sacrament of the body of the Lord, are yet satisfied with a spiritual Communion only, deprive themselves of the greatest and most heavenly advantages.