Pope Benedicts wishes for communicants

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I assume by “them” and “they” you are referring to the hypothetical person who only frequents the sacraments once-a-year because that is the allowed option. I would not judge them, either. I would judge the practice and not the person. I think it is safe to say that the practice of receiving frequent sacraments is more spiritually beneficial than the practice of receiving once-a-year. I think you might be hesitant to affirm this because you see that it sets a strong precedent for judging the spiritual benefit of allowed practices within the Church.

My feeling on this matter is irrelevant. I would point them to what the Church says in this matter. Judgement never enters the picture.

I do know of people who have had their spiritual father forbid them from reception of the Eucharist. How do you feel about that?

ETA: Just to be clear, judging in this context doesn’t mean condemning, but making a judgement about something. Our relativistic culture has equated judgement with condemning, then said we shouldn’t condemn and therefore we shouldn’t judge. This is a false argument. We are called to judge all the time (and even the argument against judgement is a judgement).

Right, I see that.

But what I see here at CAF about COTT is not this sort of thing. It is judgement pure and simple. Those pushing it think it is more reverent (which is a subjective thing and not something that the Church says). some even push kneeling in this way. There is also a fringe who keep pushing that reception in the hand is a desecration of the Eucharist because of the dust from the host that is spread out.

You are trying to compare apples to oranges my friend.

 

[JReducation]

It seems that the issue here has become that receiving Communion or going to confession 10 times a year is a better spiritual practice than once a year. By the way, I pulled the number 10 out of my cowl.

Here is the problem, the spiritual practice is exactly the same, if you receive Holy Communion once a year or every day. The practice is the reception of the sacrament. The number of times that you receive is the frequency, not the practice.

What becomes more beneficial is the frequency, not the practice. The practice has not changed. Receiving Holy Communion, be it once or 52 times, is still receiving Holy Communion. It is the exact same practice. Practice in Church language has a totally different meaning than it does in secular language. Hence the term practicing Catholic. Practice in Church language is more like practice in medicine. It means the exercise of something. In this case, it’s the exercise of receiving Holy Communion. The frequency does not alter the exercise, neither does the manner in how one receives it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Here is the problem, the spiritual practice is exactly the same, if you receive Holy Communion once a year or every day. The practice is the reception of the sacrament. The number of times that you receive is the frequency, not the practice.

Ok, so we’re playing with semantics. I’ll drop the word “practice.” How about this: the Church offers us the option of receiving Holy Communion on the frequency of once a year. However, popes, saints, bishops, priests, and almost everyone else has said that receiving Holy Communion more frequently is spiritually beneficial. The same applies to confession. So, I have the option of receiving on the frequency of once a year or daily (state of grace and all, of course). The option of receiving daily is more spiritually beneficial than once a year. Therefore, the principle in operation is that the allowed options of the Church are not always equal in spiritual benefit.

Just because something is allowed does not make it equal to everything else that is allowed. The relativism at play to believe otherwise boggles my mind.

And look, I didn’t use the word “practice”

• PAX

 

[newyorkcatholic]

Ok, so we’re playing with semantics. I’ll drop the word “practice.” How about this: the Church offers us the option of receiving Holy Communion on the frequency of once a year. However, popes, saints, bishops, priests, and almost everyone else has said that receiving Holy Communion more frequently is spiritually beneficial. The same applies to confession. So, I have the option of receiving on the frequency of once a year or daily (state of grace and all, of course). The option of receiving daily is more spiritually beneficial than once a year. Therefore, the principle in operation is that the allowed options of the Church are not always equal in spiritual benefit.

Just because something is allowed does not make it equal to everything else that is allowed. The relativism at play to believe otherwise boggles my mind.

And look, I didn’t use the word “practice”

• PAX

You have a point.

We can refrain from judgment here, but we can acknowledge that saints and popes have made broad statements about frequent reception and it’s benefits.

Also, COTT is objectively more reverent, but let’s not go down that rabbit hole.

 

[JReducation]

Ok, so we’re playing with semantics. I’ll drop the word “practice.” How about this: the Church offers us the option of receiving Holy Communion on the frequency of once a year. However, popes, saints, bishops, priests, and almost everyone else has said that receiving Holy Communion more frequently is spiritually beneficial. The same applies to confession. So, I have the option of receiving on the frequency of once a year or daily (state of grace and all, of course). The option of receiving daily is more spiritually beneficial than once a year. Therefore, the principle in operation is that the allowed options of the Church are not always equal in spiritual benefit.

Just because something is allowed does not make it equal to everything else that is allowed. The relativism at play to believe otherwise boggles my mind.

And look, I didn’t use the word “practice”

• PAX

No we’er not playing with semantics here. We’re speaking about a very specific issue in Sacramental Theology. The reception of Holy Communion is of great spiritual benefit to the soul. That’s the starting point.

The more frequent reception of Holy Communion is not more beneficial than receiving once a year in this sense. The benefit is in the reception, not in the number of times that one receives.

When we say that it is of great benefit to receive the sacrament frequently we’re not talking about something cumulative. We’re speaking about the singular event. Each time that you receive the sacrament you receive sanctifying grace. But you’re not going to have more sanctifying grace, because you receive daily as opposed to once a year. What you have is the reception of sanctifying grace more frequently.

The great spiritual masters and teachers are saying that if you want to be in a constant state of sanctifying grace, you have to constantly receive the sacraments. Why? Because we tend to blow the sanctifying grace that we received, by the effects of sin. So, we need to go to confession again and receive Communion again. They’re not saying that sanctifying grace accumulates because you receive more often. If we said that, then it would be relative.

By the way, the term relativism is not a dirty word. Some things are relative, but they are meant to be relative. When the Church uses the word, she uses it in different contexts and not all of them are bad. For those reading, don’t panic every time you see that word. Look at the context in which it’s being used.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Melchior_1]

So Brother JR, correct me if I’m wrong; but you’re saying that we all have a Sanctifying Grace Meter, from 0 - 10. Receiving the Eucharist will bring us up to a 10. Frequent reception of the Eucharist allows us to be at a 10 more often due to topping us up on Grace each time we receive.

It does not allow us to go over 10 though, 10 is the highest.

So if we go to Mass three times a week, that would mean for those three days we’d be at Grace Level 10 each day, NOT Grace Level 30,

Because going up to 11 would mean we’re in Heaven.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

So Brother JR, correct me if I’m wrong; but you’re saying that we all have a Sanctifying Grace Meter, from 0 - 10. Receiving the Eucharist will bring us up to a 10. Frequent reception of the Eucharist allows us to be at a 10 more often due to topping us up on Grace each time we receive.

It does not allow us to go over 10 though, 10 is the highest.

So if we go to Mass three times a week, that would mean for those three days we’d be at Grace Level 10 each day, NOT Grace Level 30,

Because going up to 11 would mean we’re in Heaven.

I’ll follow this analogy. It is a better option to frequently receive the Eucharist because it is better to be at a 10 more often. So yes, the option to frequently receive is better than the option to only receive once a year. Thus the principle holds: not all allowed options are equal in spiritual benefit.

• PAX

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

But you’re not going to have more sanctifying grace, because you receive daily as opposed to once a year. What you have is the reception of sanctifying grace more frequently.

Is it better to have the reception of sanctifying grace more frequently or less frequently?

• PAX

 

[Melchior_1]

Is it better to have the reception of sanctifying grace more frequently or less frequently?

• PAX

It’s possible the Church listed “once a year” because it’s appealing to those who are lost. Some people will only try to hit the minimum requirement, and wouldn’t set into a church at all with it being any more than that. With that minimum, you never know; God could work through them. So in that sense, having a minimum works, because that gets people who’d have no Grace “top up” at all have a dose of it.

I dunno, a hypothesis, this is.

 

[clem456]

So Brother JR, correct me if I’m wrong; but you’re saying that we all have a Sanctifying Grace Meter, from 0 - 10. Receiving the Eucharist will bring us up to a 10. Frequent reception of the Eucharist allows us to be at a 10 more often due to topping us up on Grace each time we receive.

It does not allow us to go over 10 though, 10 is the highest.

So if we go to Mass three times a week, that would mean for those three days we’d be at Grace Level 10 each day, NOT Grace Level 30,

Because going up to 11 would mean we’re in Heaven.

Is grace quantifiable? Can it be reduced and “boxed” in this way?
I would observe that atheists use similar thinking to deny God:: reality is only observable and quantifiable, measurable. Don’t we try to limit God when we do this? Or when we attempt to validate certain very particular forms of worship as "more grace filled’ or reverent, when the reality of grace transcends the particular physical practice?

 

[TimothyH]

Is it better to have the reception of sanctifying grace more frequently or less frequently?

• PAX

***I tell you, in just the same way there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need of repentance. *(Luke 15:7)

-Tim-

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

***I tell you, in just the same way there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need of repentance. ***(Luke 15:7)

-Tim-

Can you explain how your quote relates to my question? What point are you trying to make and what is your answer to my question? Thanks

• PAX

 

[JReducation]

So Brother JR, correct me if I’m wrong; but you’re saying that we all have a Sanctifying Grace Meter, from 0 - 10. Receiving the Eucharist will bring us up to a 10. Frequent reception of the Eucharist allows us to be at a 10 more often due to topping us up on Grace each time we receive.

It does not allow us to go over 10 though, 10 is the highest.

So if we go to Mass three times a week, that would mean for those three days we’d be at Grace Level 10 each day, NOT Grace Level 30,

Because going up to 11 would mean we’re in Heaven.

I never heard it put in those terms before. I don’t think you can quantify sanctifying grace. It’s something that we have or don’t have. The more frequently we receive the sacraments, the greater our chances of dying in sanctifying grace.

Is it better to have the reception of sanctifying grace more frequently or less frequently?

• PAX

I just answered that one above. Look up.

***I tell you, in just the same way there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need of repentance. ***(Luke 15:7)

-Tim-

BINGO!!!

I would add something else here. People are saying that the saints and doctors said that we should go to confession and receive Holy Communion more frequently than not. This is not entirely true. This is a rather modern concept, given the age of the Church.

I’ll give a simple example. If you read the rules of St. Benedict and St. Francis, they mention Confession once a year and Holy Communion twice a year. If you study the history of Carmel, you find that the Carmelites did not receive daily Holy Communion until after the 16th century. Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross never mention it as a must do as frequently as possible. Franciscans received Holy Communion only at Christmas and Easter and they gave Holy Communion to the laity on those days alone until the 14th or 15th century.

I’m not sure what doctors and saints people are speaking of. But if you’re speaking of any from the Middle Ages back, they don not advocate for frequent confession or Communion, because it was not the practice. That gradually becomes the practice after the Renaissance. It does not spread equally. It takes hold in some places faster than others. Even daily mass was rare until after the Middle Ages. In some Eastern Churches, they don’t have Divine Liturgy everyday. They’re just as Catholic as we are. Their belief on this point is a little different.

We can’t say, “They all said this.” They did not. They said it when the Church allowed it to be frequently available.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

I never heard it put in those terms before. I don’t think you can quantify sanctifying grace. It’s something that we have or don’t have. The more frequently we receive the sacraments, the greater our chances of dying in sanctifying grace.

I just answered that one above. Look up.

So, it appears from your answer above that you would say yes, it is better to receive frequently because that would increase our chances of dying in sanctifying grace. If so, then we have an example where an allowed option in the Church (receiving frequently) is more beneficial to us (our chances for salvation) than another allowed option (receiving once a year).

So, do we agree that some allowed options are more beneficial than other allowed options?

• PAX

 

[JReducation]

So, it appears from your answer above that you would say yes, it is better to receive frequently because that would increase our chances of dying in sanctifying grace. If so, then we have an example where an allowed option in the Church (receiving frequently) is more beneficial to us (our chances for salvation) than another allowed option (receiving once a year).

The chances of dying in a state of grace increase. There is a benefit there.

So, do we agree that some allowed options are more beneficial than other allowed options?

• PAX

No, we can’t say that. The benefit is not derived from the option, but from the source of grace. If I have an option to receive Holy Communion standing or kneeling, neither is going to more beneficial than the other. The source of grace is the sacrament, not the posture.

The Church does not compare the benefits of options outside of their specific domain. I don’t know why lay people do this. Receiving daily communion instead of annual communion is in a different domain from standing or kneeling to receive. The former is about the reception of the sacrament, which is the source of grace. The latter is about the posture, which is not the source of grace. Therefore, the posture and the sacrament do not belong to the same domain and cannot be spoken of in the same manner.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

No, we can’t say that.

But you just said above that there is a benefit. Can you explain this contradiction?

The benefit is not derived from the option, but from the source of grace. If I have an option to receive Holy Communion standing or kneeling, neither is going to more beneficial than the other. The source of grace is the sacrament, not the posture.

I was talking about general principles and the option of receiving sacraments more frequently. I hadn’t said anything about standing or kneeling.

The Church does not compare the benefits of options outside of their specific domain. I don’t know why lay people do this.

There are many people on this forum who say that all allowed options in the Church are of equal value. This obviously is not true as my example has shown. Now it remains to determine when, where, and how the principle is to be applied. Domains is a good way to start.

No need to poke at the laity here, brother. We’re just using logic

• PAX

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

There are many people on this forum who say that all allowed options in the Church are of equal value. This obviously is not true as my example has shown. Now it remains to determine when, where, and how the principle is to be applied. Domains is a good way to start.

No need to poke at the laity here, brother. We’re just using logic

• PAX

Your not using logic. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Br JR does a good job at showing you the error you are making.

Some options are not equal, such as reception of the sacraments on a more frequent basis. Some options are equal, COTT/CITH or standing/kneeling as they are wholly neutral as to the grace derived from their usage. The grace received when receiving the Eucharist in the hand standing is the same as the grace received when receiving the Eucharist on the tongue while kneeling.

So those options a wholly equal to each other.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Some options are not equal, such as reception of the sacraments on a more frequent basis.

This is as far as I have gotten. It’s taken this many posts to get a clear answer that some options are not equal. I’m glad we’re finally able to agree on this.

Some options are equal, COTT/CITH or standing/kneeling as they are wholly neutral as to the grace derived from their usage. The grace received when receiving the Eucharist in the hand standing is the same as the grace received when receiving the Eucharist on the tongue while kneeling.

I haven’t said one thing about these options. All I’ve been trying to do is to get an acknowledgement that all options are not equal. That statement doesn’t mean that no options are equal, though. I just wanted to dispel the idea that all options are equal and then see where we could go from there.

Again, I’m glad we’ve come to a basic agreement/warrant. Some options are not equal, even though they are legal. This clearly means that there is more to determine what is equal, better, or less than just the fact that it is allowed.

• PAX

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

This is as far as I have gotten. It’s taken this many posts to get a clear answer that some options are not equal. I’m glad we’re finally able to agree on this.

I haven’t said one thing about these options. All I’ve been trying to do is to get an acknowledgement that all options are not equal. That statement doesn’t mean that no options are equal, though. I just wanted to dispel the idea that all options are equal and then see where we could go from there.

Again, I’m glad we’ve come to a basic agreement/warrant. Some options are not equal, even though they are legal. This clearly means that there is more to determine what is equal, better, or less than just the fact that it is allowed.

• PAX

Sorry you see it this way. It has not taken this long to reach this. It just took this long for you to get an answer that you could play with.

Speaking of frequent use of the sacraments. I do not agree that it is always better. I believe, as I have stated, it depends on the individual involved.

You either skipped over it, did not read it, or just refused to reply to it but I did point out that there are numerous cases where spiritual fathers have ordered their directee to refrain from the reception of the Eucharist. If we take your thoughts on this then it would appear that this spiritual father is doing something wrong. I do not believe that is so.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Sorry you see it this way. It has not taken this long to reach this. It just took this long for you to get an answer that you could play with.

Play with? Are you impugning my rhetorical motives?

Speaking of frequent use of the sacraments. I do not agree that it is always better. I believe, as I have stated, it depends on the individual involved.

You either skipped over it, did not read it, or just refused to reply to it but I did point out that there are numerous cases where spiritual fathers have ordered their directee to refrain from the reception of the Eucharist. If we take your thoughts on this then it would appear that this spiritual father is doing something wrong. I do not believe that is so.

There are exceptions to most general rules. For example, there are very nutritious and healthy foods that cause lethal allergies in a very small number of people. Doctors point out that these foods are healthy but then counsel individuals who allergic to refrain from them. For someone who does not have the allergy, the food remains healthy and is a better option than junk food. Rule: Tree nuts are healthier than twinkies. Exception: the person who is allergic to tree nuts is better off eating a twinkie than a tree nut. That exception does not negate the rule.

In the case you state, the general rule is that frequent reception of the sacraments is better than infrequent. The exception is the person whose spiritual director has told them otherwise. It would be silly to argue that because a handful of people have been told that they should refrain from the sacraments, that means that frequent reception is not better than infrequent reception, just as it would be silly for a doctor to say that twinkies are better to eat than tree nuts because that it is true for the handful of people who have allergies.

I think we might have reached the limit for this topic. It seems obvious that we are not going to change the way the other thinks on this. However, something tells me we’ll meet again in another thread when options are being compared

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum, fratre.