RCIA tonight

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roman_Catholic_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Roman_Catholic_1

Guest
Tonights topic of discussion was the Eucharist… And the leader of our RCIA tonight said that along with Catholics not reading the Bible prior to 1881 they also did not part take in the Eucharist. I dont remember what she said changed in 1881 but that was the year she said Catholics started reading the Bible and taking the Eucharist.

Does anyone know what she was talking about? To me this flies in the face of everything I have read on my own since entering RCIA but I wasnt sure so I didnt speak up. I thought it was a terrible thing to say that Catholics just started reading the Bible in the last 150 years with a room filled with protestants :eek:

Also she indicated that the proper way to take communion was in the hand, but I have heard on this site that it is supposed to be by mouth.

Can someone help clear up some of this. More precisely what happened in 1881 that Catholics started reading the Bible or did she make that up like I think she did?

BTW I dont know if this is the right forum for this… Thinking about it now it probably should have gone in the sacraments part. Sorry
 
40.png
Roman_Catholic:
Tonights topic of discussion was the Eucharist… And the leader of our RCIA tonight said that along with Catholics not reading the Bible prior to 1881 they also did not part take in the Eucharist. I dont remember what she said changed in 1881 but that was the year she said Catholics started reading the Bible and taking the Eucharist.

Does anyone know what she was talking about? To me this flies in the face of everything I have read on my own since entering RCIA but I wasnt sure so I didnt speak up. I thought it was a terrible thing to say that Catholics just started reading the Bible in the last 150 years with a room filled with protestants :eek:

Also she indicated that the proper way to take communion was in the hand, but I have heard on this site that it is supposed to be by mouth.

Can someone help clear up some of this. More precisely what happened in 1881 that Catholics started reading the Bible or did she make that up like I think she did?

BTW I dont know if this is the right forum for this… Thinking about it now it probably should have gone in the sacraments part. Sorry
Click to expand...
I have no idea what she is talking about about the Bible. I do know that it used to be that Latin rite Catholics did not take the cup at communion, because the Church didn’t want people spilling it. They were worried about this because of the… different classes of people that would attend Mass in the past centuries. For example, a peasent in 1300 may not have been the most trustworthy person to give the cup to if you wanted to make sure it didn’t spill.

As far as receiving communion, you have the option. Frequently in the early days of the Church it was taken in the hand. In the Tridentine rite of Mass which was used for 500 years until 1965 or so, reception on the tongue was the only way allowed. Many extreme traditionalist Cathoics insist that this is the only acceptable way to receive even though it was often done early on. Other Catholics will say it is acceptable to receive in the hands but it is less reverant. It is aceptable to receive either way, the choice is up to you which you find more reverant or best.
 
I’m not sure what would have happened in 1881, but I can try to find out. I agree that these statements are at best incorrect, and simply not very helpful. One of the nuns who helps out at our RCIA class said she was not permitted to have a Bible before Vatican II. I was upset by that, but chalked it up to the Rule of her Order.
Anyway, I agree that in general the Catholic Church has done a very poor job of catechising over the past few decades. As a result, we have lukewarm Catholics who don’t believe what the Church teaches, but they don’t know what the Church teaches either. Many of them don’t care.
Anyway, I had a few instances at my Church where my RCIA coordinator said something that was not quite correct according to Church doctrine, not during lessons though. In her case, I could chalk it up to the fact that she is not comfortable at all speaking in front of a crowd; she prefers to work behind the scenes. However, I do think that, in general, there are way, way, way too many Catholics who don’t know what their faith teaches. If they don’t know, how can they possibly be expected to teach converts? How can converts hope to explain their faith to confused, and in some cases even hostile, family members?

Ironically, it may very well be the converts who end up teaching Catholics what’s what. But that’s no reason for Catholics to slack off. It’s time for every Catholic, priest, religous, laity, to step up to the plate. It’s time for Parishes and Dioceses to make sure that the Catholics who teach RCIA programs are well educated in the Catholic Faith. It’s time for laity to begin to study, ask questions, and learn about what the Church teaches. Perhaps they should even demand better teachings about the faith from their Parishes and Dioceses. It’s time for priests and religous to do the same. They also need to consider demanding a little bit more from the laity; ie not teaching to the lowest common denominator. They also should be ready, and willing, to teach what the Church teaches at all times; in class, in homilies, and opportunites. The dioceses and Catholic schools also need to re-examine what, and how, they teach the faith. And they need to work on making sure that the RCIA catechists are knowledgable about the Catholic Faith.

Sorry for rambling, but I feel VERY strongly about this.
BTW, if you want to know how much knowledge about the Catholic Church is enough, my answer is, just a little bit more. 😉
 
This isnt the first weird thing she has said. It kind of makes me question everything else that she has said and the value of this class. I mean it is just plain common sense that tells you Catholics read the Bible before 1881… ITS A CATHOLIC BOOK! I should have said something. When I looked around the room I saw wheels turning in peoples head when she made that comment.

All I got to say is thank God for this web-site.

By the way thanks for clearing up how to take the host for me.
 
What else has she said that seemed iffy? We can help with that 🙂
 
40.png
Roman_Catholic:
Tonights topic of discussion was the Eucharist… And the leader of our RCIA tonight said that along with Catholics not reading the Bible prior to 1881 they also did not part take in the Eucharist. I dont remember what she said changed in 1881 but that was the year she said Catholics started reading the Bible and taking the Eucharist.

Does anyone know what she was talking about? To me this flies in the face of everything I have read on my own since entering RCIA but I wasnt sure so I didnt speak up. I thought it was a terrible thing to say that Catholics just started reading the Bible in the last 150 years with a room filled with protestants :eek:

Also she indicated that the proper way to take communion was in the hand, but I have heard on this site that it is supposed to be by mouth.

Can someone help clear up some of this. More precisely what happened in 1881 that Catholics started reading the Bible or did she make that up like I think she did?

BTW I dont know if this is the right forum for this… Thinking about it now it probably should have gone in the sacraments part. Sorry
Click to expand...
Ummm… I have a copy of the Haydock Douay-Rheims Bible which dates to the 1850s. It is chuck full of commentaries so that the faithful could understand the scriptures. In the front they even have a chart saying which were the scripture readings for Sunday Mass and Holy Days. Also in the 1870s Pope Leo XIII granted an indulgence to anyone who read and meditated on scripture for half an hour each day (it’s still atainable today.)

As for communion, Pius XII encouraged the faithful to recieve regularly, but that does not mean people were bared from it before. Prior to 1955, the only day in which the faithful (except they dying) could not recieve was Good Friday.
 
It’s a wonder people who go through RCIA become Catholic. My girlfriend (or whatever) had to leave RCIA in order to continue the conversion process. She’s pretty much up to speed on everything and will be taking the plunge this Easter, but it was a close call. Remedial and limp-wristed theology almost had her rejecting the Catholic Church even though she KNEW it was true.

I would talk to the priest about your RCIA leader. And if he’s another wishy-washy “leader,” then send a letter to the bishop. It is literally insane that we entrust the passing-on of the Gospel message to such ignorant people. Heck, given the choice between an ignorant, wishy-washy Catholic and a Bible-thumping Baptist to teach RCIA, I’d take the Baptist. And as everyone who knows me knows, I’m no fan of Baptists.
 
40.png
Roman_Catholic:
Tonights topic of discussion was the Eucharist… And the leader of our RCIA tonight said that along with Catholics not reading the Bible prior to 1881 they also did not part take in the Eucharist. I dont remember what she said changed in 1881 but that was the year she said Catholics started reading the Bible and taking the Eucharist.

Does anyone know what she was talking about? To me this flies in the face of everything I have read on my own since entering RCIA but I wasnt sure so I didnt speak up. I thought it was a terrible thing to say that Catholics just started reading the Bible in the last 150 years with a room filled with protestants :eek:

Also she indicated that the proper way to take communion was in the hand, but I have heard on this site that it is supposed to be by mouth.

Can someone help clear up some of this. More precisely what happened in 1881 that Catholics started reading the Bible or did she make that up like I think she did?

BTW I dont know if this is the right forum for this… Thinking about it now it probably should have gone in the sacraments part. Sorry
Click to expand...
In the years before 1900 many Catholics only received Holy Communion a few times a year. This was not a Church law but just something the faithful did. They attended Sunday Mass but few received Holy Communion. The Popes did through a number of documents try to encourage the faithful to receive more often. About this same time there were beginning to be some documents issued about Catholics and the reading and interpretation of the Scriptures. Leo XIII - Providentissimus Deus - 1893
 
40.png
Roman_Catholic:
Tonights topic of discussion was the Eucharist… And the leader of our RCIA tonight said that along with Catholics not reading the Bible prior to 1881 they also did not part take in the Eucharist. I dont remember what she said changed in 1881 but that was the year she said Catholics started reading the Bible and taking the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
Challenge her on this and ask for her documentation.
40.png
Roman_Catholic:
Does anyone know what she was talking about?
Click to expand...
No. Although, like some others have posted there were various exhortations to the faithful regarding receiving communion more frequently and also on reading the bible more frequently.
40.png
Roman_Catholic:
Also she indicated that the proper way to take communion was in the hand, but I have heard on this site that it is supposed to be by mouth.
Click to expand...
The traditional way to receive is on the tongue. Receiving communion in the hand is now allowed (and has been for only a short time in the history of the Church).

Either method of receiving is equally acceptable. So, I would not call communion in the hand the “proper” way to receive.
40.png
Roman_Catholic:
Can someone help clear up some of this. More precisely what happened in 1881 that Catholics started reading the Bible or did she make that up like I think she did?
Click to expand...
I think you need to ask her for her source and then maybe we can clear up the misunderstanding.
 
Hi

I found this on New Advent:
(3) It is only in the beginning of the last five hundred years that we meet with a general law of the Church concerning the reading of the Bible in the vernacular. On 24 March, 1564, Pius IV promulgated in his Constitution, “Dominici gregis”, the Index of Prohibited Books. According to the third rule, the Old Testament may be read in the vernacular by pious and learned men, according to the judgment of the bishop, as a help to the better understanding of the Vulgate. The fourth rule places in the hands of the bishop or the inquisitor the power of allowing the reading of the New Testament in the vernacular to laymen who according to the judgment of their confessor or their pastor can profit by this practice. Sixtus V reserved this power to himself or the Sacred Congregation of the Index, and Clement VIII added this restriction to the fourth rule of the Index, by way of appendix. Benedict XIV required that the vernacular version read by laymen should be either approved by the Holy See or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned and pious authors. It then became an open question whether this order of Benedict XIV was intended to supersede the former legislation or to further restrict it. This doubt was not removed by the next three documents: the condemnation of certain errors of the Jansenist Quesnel as to the necessity of reading the Bible, by the Bull “Unigenitus” issued by Clement XI on 8 Sept., 1713 (cf. Denzinger, “Enchir.”, nn. 1294-1300); the condemnation of the same teaching maintained in the Synod of Pistoia, by the Bull “Auctorem fidei” issued on 28 Aug., 1794, by Pius VI; the warning against allowing the laity indiscriminately to read the Scriptures in the vernacular, addressed to the Bishop of Mohileff by Pius VII, on 3 Sept., 1816. But the Decree issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Index on 7 Jan., 1836, seems to render it clear that henceforth the laity may read vernacular versions of the Scriptures, if they be either approved by the Holy See, or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned Catholic authors. The same regulation was repeated by Gregory XVI in his Encyclical of 8 May, 1844. In general, the Church has always allowed the reading of the Bible in the vernacular, if it was desirable for the spiritual needs of her children; she has forbidden it only when it was almost certain to cause serious spiritual harm.
Click to expand...
which is found here: Full Article

As for the Eucharist see HERE
Where it begins with the words (down by: (4) The Necessity of the Holy Eucharist for Salvation) “Since Christ has left us no definite precept as to the frequency…” and you will have your answer.

I am in RCIA as well, and YES: Thank God for CAF!!

Peace

John
 
I just googled “catholic bible 1881” and got absolutely nothing supporting this claim (not that I’m surprised). I didn’t even get any anti-Catholic sites making such a claim. So the internet, at least, has no idea what she’s talking about.
 
Open memo to all candidates and catechumens: challenge your catechists and directors whenever they make statements you don’t understand, especially when they seem to conflict with what you know of Catholic teaching. do not sit there in silence, in so doing you are either compounding error, or missing out on a vital part of your instruction. This is supposed to be Q&A time.

Challenge them to provide authoritative sources for such statements. Ask the priest to step in if necessary, and if the entire program seems problematic, call the person in the diocese in charge of RCIA and liturgy and ask for an appointment, or write a detailed letter with specifics of false instruction. However, you have to be very sure of your ground when doing so. see CA for help on this. do not take bad teaching lying down, you have the canonical right to good instruction and teaching.

re the long post above on the background of the papal pronouncements on scripture reading: bear in mind that each of these popes was responding in a climate when many vernacular translations, unauthorized by the Church, published by heretical teachers, were floating around, many with notes attacking Church teaching. The popes quite rightly reserved to the Church the authority to approve and circulate vernacular translations, as she does to this day.
 
Ok I called her and she went into further detail. She said that prior to 1881 reading the Bible was not encouraged because they didnt want people to read it and understand it wrong. The Bible is hard to interpret so the Church was afriad of people getting the wrong interpretation and leaving the church.

About not taking the communion prior to 1881, she said it was not uncommon for Catholics not too because everyone figured they were living in such a corrupt and immoral time that they didnt deserve to take communion. Then in the 1880’s a monk had been reading up on the Church fathers and realized that communion was a big part of the early church and that communion on a regular basis needed to be encouraged.

RCIA is over now, we had our last class wednesday, but if this is wrong let me know and I will talk to her so she doesnt make the same mistakes next year. If she is right, I will let it go.

God Bless
 
It certainly was not common for the average Catholic to receive communion every day or even every Sunday 150 years ago. We have the journals of St. Therese, among others, as evidence of this, as she was given permission by her confessor to receive more frequently. There is an evolution in attitudes toward communion, and in emphasis on teaching about the sacrament of Eucharist that began after the French Revolution, and in part as response and recovery to the Jansenist heresy that was prevalent in Europe from the 17th c onward. But your catechist gave a very incomplete background for her statement. No doubt if you give us time we can come up with a lot of abstruse history if you want it, but why not concentrate for now, in your preparation period, on the theology of the Eucharist now and what it means as you approach the sacrament.
 
40.png
Roman_Catholic:
This isnt the first weird thing she has said. It kind of makes me question everything else that she has said and the value of this class. I mean it is just plain common sense that tells you Catholics read the Bible before 1881… ITS A CATHOLIC BOOK! I should have said something. When I looked around the room I saw wheels turning in peoples head when she made that comment.

All I got to say is thank God for this web-site.

By the way thanks for clearing up how to take the host for me.
Click to expand...
Start using the saints. Look at how much St. Thomas Aquinas quotes the bible. St. Francis de Sales, St. John of The Cross, the author of The Cloud of Unknowing, St. John Climacus, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Bonaventure. These are all Catholic saints and they all knew the bible better than any protestant. They all also quoted the bible in all their writings. In fact, St. Thomas wrote commentaries on St. Johns gospel and on the letters of Paul and on Hebrews and on Psalms. St. Bonaventure wrote a commentary on The Gospel of Luke. St. Augustine wrote a commentary on Johns gospel and on Johns first letter. St. John Chrysostom wrote commentaries on pretty much every book of the bible.

Look at what these saints say about the Eucharist as well. They all say something about it.
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
Open memo to all candidates and catechumens: challenge your catechists and directors whenever they make statements you don’t understand, especially when they seem to conflict with what you know of Catholic teaching. do not sit there in silence, in so doing you are either compounding error, or missing out on a vital part of your instruction. This is supposed to be Q&A time.

Challenge them to provide authoritative sources for such statements. Ask the priest to step in if necessary, and if the entire program seems problematic, call the person in the diocese in charge of RCIA and liturgy and ask for an appointment, or write a detailed letter with specifics of false instruction. However, you have to be very sure of your ground when doing so. see CA for help on this. do not take bad teaching lying down, you have the canonical right to good instruction and teaching.
re the long post above on the background of the papal pronouncements on scripture reading: bear in mind that each of these popes was responding in a climate when many vernacular translations, unauthorized by the Church, published by heretical teachers, were floating around, many with notes attacking Church teaching. The popes quite rightly reserved to the Church the authority to approve and circulate vernacular translations, as she does to this day.
Click to expand...
Puzzleannie has provided very good advice.

To many times by staying silent, we are condoning false information.

Some people, find forums like these, to double check what is being taught, but many do not, and end up believing wrong information.

And as Puzzleannie stated, have the proper information, to back you up.
 
Please Read “Where we got the Bible” by Henry Graham. It details the history of the Catholic Churches attempts to save and expand the availablity of the Bible. Graham had been a Presbytarian minister before he converted to Catholicism and became a Priest back around 1900. He debunks the ideas of your RCIA teacher concerning the Bible, I’ll send her or you my copy if she/you will mail it back.
 
hilde the dog:
Please Read “Where we got the Bible” by Henry Graham. It details the history of the Catholic Churches attempts to save and expand the availablity of the Bible. Graham had been a Presbytarian minister before he converted to Catholicism and became a Priest back around 1900. He debunks the ideas of your RCIA teacher concerning the Bible, I’ll send her or you my copy if she/you will mail it back.
Click to expand...
Speaking of this book, I’ve found a site (geocities.com/militantis/biblecontents.html) which appears to contain the entire text. Haven’t compared it word for word with my hard copy but it appears accurate at first glance. There are also some pesky pop-ups. Enjoy. Its a great read!
 
40.png
Roman_Catholic:
Tonights topic of discussion was the Eucharist… And the leader of our RCIA tonight said that along with Catholics not reading the Bible prior to 1881 they also did not part take in the Eucharist. I dont remember what she said changed in 1881 but that was the year she said Catholics started reading the Bible and taking the Eucharist.

Does anyone know what she was talking about? To me this flies in the face of everything I have read on my own since entering RCIA but I wasnt sure so I didnt speak up. I thought it was a terrible thing to say that Catholics just started reading the Bible in the last 150 years with a room filled with protestants :eek:

Also she indicated that the proper way to take communion was in the hand, but I have heard on this site that it is supposed to be by mouth.

Can someone help clear up some of this. More precisely what happened in 1881 that Catholics started reading the Bible or did she make that up like I think she did?

BTW I dont know if this is the right forum for this… Thinking about it now it probably should have gone in the sacraments part. Sorry
Click to expand...
It is perhaps worth noting that literacy rates had only recently risen to appreciable figures. It would be safe to say that 250 years ago, few people read the bible because few people could read, protestant or Catholic. I don’t think it is a terribly anti-Catholic thing to say that in years prior to widespread literacy, common sense indicated that it was more practical and safer(less likely to have misinterpretation) to have a few educated people read and study scripture and share it orally with those who had to work dawn to dusk at hard labor just to survive. This wasn’t a perfect system but before we had machinery that allow 5 people to farm enough food for 50,000 it was the best that circumstances allowed.

Perhaps the Catholic Church was a little slow to encourage the faithful to read the Bible. That is not a surprising characteristic of a large beaurocracy (sp?)

Jim
 
Well after reading these responses, I think that maybe what she said may not have been far from the truth meaning that if it was uncommon to read the Bibile prior to 1881 there were reasons, whether it was the availability of the Bible or literacy rates, but it wasnt like the Church demanded them not to read it. Maybe it was how she just bluntly said “Catholics didnt read the Bible before 1881” She should have worded it better because I am sure someones fear that Catholics dont read the Bible was reinforced last night by this statement (If anyone in the class had had this fear, the only reason I have this in my mind is because of my anti-Catholic father in law said Catholics dont read the Bible, which is complete hogwash).

Thanks guys
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top