The Frequent Reception of Sacraments

  • Thread starter Thread starter TK421
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TK421

Guest
Today I often hear from contemporary theologians on how the frequent reception of the sacrament is spiritually beneficial to us, but for vast periods of time in the past, the reception of the Blessed Sacrament was a rarity.

How has this view developed over time? Was the reception of the Eucharist among laity common on a weekly/daily basis in the early Church, and then eventually faded out of favor, before eventually becoming common again? What was their justification for this? Is it possible for both them and us to be right, or was somebody in history clearly in error?
 
TK421 said:
Today I often hear from contemporary theologians on how the frequent reception of the sacrament is spiritually beneficial to us, but for vast periods of time in the past, the reception of the Blessed Sacrament was a rarity.

How has this view developed over time? Was the reception of the Eucharist among laity common on a weekly/daily basis in the early Church, and then eventually faded out of favor, before eventually becoming common again? What was their justification for this? Is it possible for both them and us to be right, or was somebody in history clearly in error?
Click to expand...
Nice question I I am too really interested in.
 
Two things as far as I can tell.

(1) Relaxation of the 3-hr fast

(2) Changing of the view that one must go to confession before receiving.
 
I think the contemporary view is based on the Jesuit view, contra the Jansenist view.

The Jansenists, who were basically Catholic Calvinists, argued that one should only approach the Sacrament if one is clean of both venial and mortal sin. They thought of the Sacrament as too precious for sinners, and should only be taken in the optimal circumstance. They emphasized “do not cast pearls before swine.”

On the other hand, the Jesuits argued that the Sacrament is for healing, and so those with bad habits, yet not in mortal sin, should receive. They emphasized “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

When the Jansenists were rightly condemned, their view died out, and the Jesuit view prevailed, even though the Jansenist view isn’t heretical when applied in discipline, but is when applied in doctrine (to say that it is recommended for a venial sinner to abstain is an orthodox opinion, but to say that it is necessary for a venial sinner to abstain is heterodox). The relaxation of many fasting rules regarding the Eucharist after the Second Vatican Council also seems to have an impact on the current trend.

That’s all I know regarding the historical circumstances that seems to have led to the contemporary view.

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
I have a high school religion book set that claims frequent reception was common until the fourth century and the fight against Arianism. From then on it waxed and waned but the ideal is frequent reception and hope is expressed for a “great Eucharistic age.” The set was published in 1945.

It also mentions something by Pope Leo XIII or Pius X about the Church’s position on the matter.
 
ProVobis said:
Two things as far as I can tell.

(1) Relaxation of the 3-hr fast

(2) Changing of the view that one must go to confession before receiving.
Click to expand...
Didn’t the fast used to be after midnight and was changed to three hours?
 
I think people aren’t as strict about going to Confession before receiving the Sacrament. I find it hard to believe that all of the people who attend the service I attend at the local RCC all go to Confession. I’m sure some of them do, but I doubt all of them do.
 
Does any of it relate to Christ’s burning desire to be received into the human person? (i.e. if he could suffer the sacrilege of being received in a soul dead to sin 50 times over, in order to be received into a reconciled soul once, he would do it without hesitation). I recall reading about a vision somewhere where Christ expressed a desire to be received often, though I don’t remember the name of the account.

This is contra to the view that the Sacrament required “protection”, ergo it was primarily consumed only by the clerics.
 
There are several reasons. The first is our perception of sin. Today, most Catholics have very little sense of sin at all. There are many today who receive Communion who are not in a state of grace, but they don’t understand (a) the gravity of the sin that they have, nor (b) understand that they are committing another sin by taking Communion unworthily.

In the past, though, the perception of sin was exaggerated. Many would refuse to partake of Communion because they might have committed a sin that they were unaware of. The thought during much of the Middle Ages, in fact, was that only the clergy were ever truly worthy of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. This was part of the reason why the Church instituted the “Easter duty” of at least receiving Communion once a year during Eastertide.

In reality, we need to have a sense of sin that is healthy and allows us to acknowledge when we have sinned mortally, but also one that doesn’t lead us into scrupulosity. Both extremes are from the evil one.

As for the Eucharistic fast, quite frankly, the fast used to be from midnight - and it was a total fast (that is, from both food and drink - one could not have had even a sip of water during the prescribed fasting time). There were no medical exceptions, either (as diseases such as diabetes were not understood at the time).
 
Duane1966 said:
Didn’t the fast used to be after midnight and was changed to three hours?
Click to expand...
The fast now is only one hour prior to communion, and the sick and the elderly do not need to observe that, but are encouraged to do so if they can.

Of course we can drink water and take medication as needed without breaking the fast.
 
I think it is because people don’t regard the Sacrament with as much reverence. My mother recalled how, in the older days, few people relative to the congregation at Mass would go up to receive Holy Communion (and this was after the fast was relaxed to just one hour) because they were not in the state of grace. Now, people barely go to Confession and yet everyone receives Holy Communion, at least in all the parishes I have been to.

The Church always promoted frequent reception of the Sacraments, it is just that today people are usually not catechized well enough to understand their necessity and the reverence that must be paid to them.
 
Confiteor_Deo said:
I think it is because people don’t regard the Sacrament with as much reverence. My mother recalled how, in the older days, few people relative to the congregation at Mass would go up to receive Holy Communion (and this was after the fast was relaxed to just one hour) because they were not in the state of grace. Now, people barely go to Confession and yet everyone receives Holy Communion, at least in all the parishes I have been to.

The Church always promoted frequent reception of the Sacraments, it is just that today people are usually not catechized well enough to understand their necessity and the reverence that must be paid to them.
Click to expand...
The lack of contemporary catechesis is an open secret, but this post still seems very unsettling in its reasoning. Few people went up to receive because they allegedly weren’t in a state of grace? If you’re an orthodox Catholic that loves the Lord, “being in a state of grace”, is suppose to be your ordinary, default condition. It’s not something you briefly have after Confession and then lose shortly afterwards. If you persevere in daily prayer, God (and every Doctor of the Church that I know of) even promises that this won’t happen. The Zealous Doctor Alphonsus Liguori (a contemporary and rival of the Jansenists) goes as far as to say that it is metaphysically impossible to persevere in authentic prayer and fall into mortal sin at the same time.
 
TK421 said:
The lack of contemporary catechesis is an open secret, but this post still seems very unsettling in its reasoning. Few people went up to receive because they allegedly weren’t in a state of grace? If you’re an orthodox Catholic that loves the Lord, “being in a state of grace”, is suppose to be your ordinary, default condition. It’s not something you briefly have after Confession and then lose shortly afterwards. If you persevere in daily prayer, God (and every Doctor of the Church that I know of) even promises that this won’t happen. The Zealous Doctor Alphonsus Liguori (a contemporary and rival of the Jansenists) goes as far as to say that it is metaphysically impossible to persevere in authentic prayer and fall into mortal sin at the same time.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is true, but sadly many Catholics are not orthodox nor do they love the Lord. Many people just go to Mass and that’s it. They don’t pray at home or go to Confession.
 
Duane1966 said:
Didn’t the fast used to be after midnight and was changed to three hours?
Click to expand...
True. I think the 3-hr fast came into being so that one could receive at the later Masses. So if you wanted to receive at the 11am Mass, you would have gotten up earlier than 8am to finish your breakfast by then. Which prompts the question, why didn’t one just go to the 8am Mass?

Now, if you plan to go to the 11am Mass, you can eat up to 10:30 or so, depending on how long the Mass will take. The fast is up till you receive communion now, not 1 hr before Mass starts.
 
TK421 said:
The lack of contemporary catechesis is an open secret, but this post still seems very unsettling in its reasoning. Few people went up to receive because they allegedly weren’t in a state of grace? If you’re an orthodox Catholic that loves the Lord, “being in a state of grace”, is suppose to be your ordinary, default condition. It’s not something you briefly have after Confession and then lose shortly afterwards. If you persevere in daily prayer, God (and every Doctor of the Church that I know of) even promises that this won’t happen. The Zealous Doctor Alphonsus Liguori (a contemporary and rival of the Jansenists) goes as far as to say that it is metaphysically impossible to persevere in authentic prayer and fall into mortal sin at the same time.
Click to expand...
Read my post above. Because of the exaggerated concept of sin in the past, a great many who were in a state of grace didn’t think they were - because they thought they might have committed a sin that they were unaware of. As common as scrupulosity can be on the CAF boards today, in the past it was much more common. Remember, at times in the past, penances after confession were much more than just saying a couple of “Our Fathers” and “Hail Mary’s”. Penances were often quite public (even for private sins) and quite intensive. The focus was on God’s judgment, not His mercy.
 
powerofk said:
Read my post above. Because of the exaggerated concept of sin in the past, a great many who were in a state of grace didn’t think they were - because they thought they might have committed a sin that they were unaware of. As common as scrupulosity can be on the CAF boards today, in the past it was much more common. Remember, at times in the past, penances after confession were much more than just saying a couple of “Our Fathers” and “Hail Mary’s”. Penances were often quite public (even for private sins) and quite intensive. The focus was on God’s judgment, not His mercy.
Click to expand...
I agree but wouldn’t you say now there is more rationalization of sin as well? It seems one can more easily convince himself he had no full consent to some grave matter committed, among other things.
 
A better scientific understanding of the effects of Original Sin isn’t without its merits.

Let’s use the contemporary spiritual crisis of the rise of LGBT, which the Church - just like many, many other crises in the past - must now square off with. 250 years ago, if a homosexual offender went to a priest for spiritual direction, the 18th century priest might (in his own presumption and limited awareness) shriek in horror. There was no public knowledge that homosexuality was a cross to be contended with. It was just assumed in ignorance that some people - out of some extreme personal depravity - wanted to have sex with the same gender.

Our understanding of the various disorders of man help us to know that we might be just as bad off in their situation, or worse. This can (and often does) lead to an over-rationalization of sin, but it also leads to a certain humility that may have been lacking in previous centuries, despite the greater piety of the time, because we don’t just assume that we’re better than certain people, or that certain people should be written off. It can also lead us to being better equipped to serve these people and bring their souls to safety & healing.
 
TK421 said:
A better scientific understanding of the effects of Original Sin isn’t without its merits.

Let’s use the contemporary spiritual crisis of the rise of LGBT. 250 years ago, if a homosexual offender went to a priest for spiritual direction, the 18th century priest might (in his own presumption and limited awareness) shriek in horror. There was no public knowledge that homosexuality was a cross to be contended with. It was just assumed in ignorance that some people - out of some extreme personal depravity - wanted to have sex with the same gender.

Our understanding of the various disorders of man help us to know that we might be just as bad off in their situation, or worse. This can (and often does) lead to an over-rationalization of sin, but it also leads to a certain humility that may have been lacking in previous centuries, despite the greater piety of the time, because we don’t just assume that we’re better than certain people, or that certain people should be written off. It can also lead us to being better equipped to serve these people and bring their souls to safety & healing.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that the scientific understanding was necessary in spiritually guiding someone with homosexual tendencies. The priest may have been horrified, but his advice back then would be the same as today. Back then they believed that demons tempted men to commit sodomy with one another, and this belief is present today as well. I may gasp at someone’s sin of murder, but that doesn’t mean I believe I am holier than them, just that their sin is so wicked.
 
But it does go beyond temptation from demons. The netherworld assaults mankind today just like it always has, but it need something that is appealing to begin with in order to tempt you with it. If a person isn’t attracted to the same sex, there is nothing to tempt. Demons cling on to the disorders of man like handle bars.
 
Confiteor_Deo said:
Yes, that is true, but sadly many Catholics are not orthodox nor do they love the Lord. Many people just go to Mass and that’s it. They don’t pray at home or go to Confession.
Click to expand...
You have checked them? Sent out questionnaires? Asked individually?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top