Why Fewer Communions Back In The Years Before VII?

  • Thread starter Thread starter I_Believe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

I_Believe

Guest
This line from a letter written by a priest, now in his 90’s, has aroused my curiosity…
The churches were not air-conditioned in those days and in the hot summer days it was not uncommon to omit the sermon; Low Mass might last for only 20 minutes, and Communions were much fewer in those days.
Click to expand...
Here is the entire letter…
newoxfordreview.org/letters.jsp?did=1004-letters

Any thoughts on why there were fewer Communions ?

I do have the privilege of living near the parish this priest prays the Mass, and I plan to ask him myself, perhaps tomorrow or this Sunday.
 
It was Pope St. Pius X who urged frequent Communion–decades before Vatican II.

Frequent Communion among the Laity was VERY rare (East and West) until then. The general custom prevailing (from what I have gathered) required a layman to get his confessor’s permission each time before s/he went to Communion.

Also (again from what I’ve gathered in my reading), people did not make their First Communions in the West until Confirmation. Again, it was Pius X who directed children receive Communion before Confirmation in the West.
 
Yes, communion was so infrequent that the Church had to require that Catholics receive at least once a year; thus the Easter duty.

Don’t think Vatican II had anything to do with it, although it seems that, while the percentage of Catholics who attend Mass is much smaller, the percentage that receive now is extremely high if you compare the practice with, say, those receiving four hundred years ago.
 
Cluny said:
It was Pope St. Pius X who urged frequent Communion–decades before Vatican II.

Frequent Communion among the Laity was VERY rare (East and West) until then. The general custom prevailing (from what I have gathered) required a layman to get his confessor’s permission each time before s/he went to Communion.

Also (again from what I’ve gathered in my reading), people did not make their First Communions in the West until Confirmation. Again, it was Pius X who directed children receive Communion before Confirmation in the West.
Click to expand...
Yes, St Pius X did.
Thanks for your thoughts, I suspected it had a connection to making sure one was in a state of grace via the Sacrament of Confession.
 
Back then, in the days of good catechesis, everyone knew that you had to be in the state of grace to receive, and thus many did not receive. Now everyone seems to run under the assumption that Mass=Communion.

The “golden age” of Communion reception was the time between the (very much needed) reforms of Pius X and the 50’s/60’s, where people received frequently but (for the most part) only in the state of grace. The not so golden age, besides nowadays, was ironically the middle ages (the “Age of Faith”) to the 20th century. Back then, if you were a religious brother or sister you could expect to receive Communion once a month and on major feast days.

Dominic Savio received only once a month and that was considered very devout; by the time he died he received Communion every day and that was considered astounding, a mark of highest holiness.
 
ProVobis said:
Yes, communion was so infrequent that the Church had to require that Catholics receive at least once a year; thus the Easter duty.

Don’t think Vatican II had anything to do with it, although it seems that, while the percentage of Catholics who attend Mass is much smaller, the percentage that receive now is extremely high if you compare the practice with, say, those receiving four hundred years ago.
Click to expand...
Yes, and the Easter duty still remains a precept today doesn’t it ?

I was just using VII as a point in time, but yes, I notice the high percentage, probably over 95%, receiving at both the OF Mass and EF Mass.
 
JuanCarlos said:
Back then, in the days of good catechesis, everyone knew that you had to be in the state of grace to receive, and thus many did not receive. Now everyone seems to run under the assumption that Mass=Communion.
Click to expand...
That will get some play here for sure ;). But, yes that is also one of my thoughts and I’m in agreement with you.
The “golden age” of Communion reception was the time between the (very much needed) reforms of Pius X and the 50’s/60’s, where people received frequently but (for the most part) only in the state of grace. The not so golden age, besides nowadays, was ironically the middle ages (the “Age of Faith”) to the 20th century. Back then, if you were a religious brother or sister you could expect to receive Communion once a month and on major feast days.
Click to expand...
Dominic Savio received only once a month and that was considered very devout; by the time he died he received Communion every day and that was considered astounding, a mark of highest holiness.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the additional info. Interesting stuff. 🙂
 
Cluny said:
It was Pope St. Pius X who urged frequent Communion–decades before Vatican II.

Frequent Communion among the Laity was VERY rare (East and West) until then. The general custom prevailing (from what I have gathered) required a layman to get his confessor’s permission each time before s/he went to Communion.

Also (again from what I’ve gathered in my reading), people did not make their First Communions in the West until Confirmation. Again, it was Pius X who directed children receive Communion before Confirmation in the West.
Click to expand...
It was the Example of Little Nellie. Tan books has a book about how Pope St. Piux X lowered the age to receive Holy Communion from 12 to 7.

tanbooks.com/index.php/page/shop:flypage/product_id/717
 
I can only answer from my own experiences and people that I knew. As a general rule, most people would not receive if they were not properly disposed, ie: State of Grace, broek the fast, in a foul mood etc. More than a few would not receive if they had not gone to Confession that week for whatever reason.

These days, I don’t see a lot of people who still adhere to those ways of thinking.

As I said, that is just from what I have seen in my own life.
 
Cat said:
Wait–are you saying that Pope Pius X (is he a saint yet?) made a change to the Mass?

Maybe I’m not awake yet, but I thought this was the Pope who said that no changes could ever be made to the Mass? Or was that another Pope?
Click to expand...
There was no change to the Mass, only a change on what age First Holy Communion was given to children.

The correct order for the Sacraments of Initiation are
  1. Baptism
  2. Confirmation
  3. Communion.
This is the order in which the Eastern Catholics still do it ( and two diocese here in Michigan do now).

But St. Pius X allowed Communion to be given earlier than Confirmation. Not ideal from a theological sense, but allowable as a pastoral decision.
 
palmas85 said:
I can only answer from my own experiences and people that I knew. As a general rule, most people would not receive if they were not properly disposed, ie: State of Grace, broek the fast, in a foul mood etc. More than a few would not receive if they had not gone to Confession that week for whatever reason.

These days, I don’t see a lot of people who still adhere to those ways of thinking.

As I said, that is just from what I have seen in my own life.
Click to expand...
These comments track with what I remember from “back in the day.” I would also add – that while not official Church teaching – there was in some quarters the sense that engaging in marital relations the night before made one unworthy of Communion on Sunday. Not saying this was correct, only that I know some - as late as the 50’s - still had this “feeling.”
 
Cat said:
Wait–are you saying that Pope Pius X (is he a saint yet?) made a change to the Mass?

Maybe I’m not awake yet, but I thought this was the Pope who said that no changes could ever be made to the Mass? Or was that another Pope?
Click to expand...
  1. At what age a person receives First Communion is not a “change to the mass.”
  2. The Mass, believe it or not, has always been a fluid thing. Even after the promulgation of the Tridentine Missal by St. Pius V, it was constantly tinkered with, despite Quo primum. There was even a new typical edition promulgated by St. Pius X. And then shortly after him there was yet another one to conform it to the rubrics of the radically revised Breviary.
BTW–The Pian breviary itself was prefaced with a bull Ad nos, which used similar language to Quo primum, including invoking the wrath of God and Ss Peter and Paul upon anyone who dared change the breviary.
 
Cat said:
Wait–are you saying that Pope Pius X (is he a saint yet?) made a change to the Mass?

Maybe I’m not awake yet, but I thought this was the Pope who said that no changes could ever be made to the Mass? Or was that another Pope?
Click to expand...
Pope St. Pius X was the last Pope to be canionized a Saint. His was strict against the evils of Modernism and Liberialism.
 
Malkin71 said:
Pope St. Pius X was the last Pope to be canionized a Saint. His was strict against the evils of Modernism and Liberialism.
Click to expand...
And yet, urging the frequent reception of communion while the standard had been receiving once a year can be seen as a “liberal” change, since it did not maintain the status quo. Odd, isn’t it?🙂
 
Timothysis said:
And yet, urging the frequent reception of communion while the standard had been receiving once a year can be seen as a “liberal” change, since it did not maintain the status quo. Odd, isn’t it?🙂
Click to expand...
As far as I know it was never the standard as you say to receive once a year. At one time, many people did not receive at all, ever, and the Church made it a requirement that ALL Catholics must receive at a bare minimum at least once a year. That is a big difference than once a year being the standard.

It is true that many religious orders imposed guidelines which required infrequent reception of Holy Communion in some cases limiting it to several times per year. If I am not mistaken one female religious order could receive only four times per year unless they received permission to receive more often. It is also true that certain priests or Bishops would take it upon themselves to impose restrictions on reception in their particular parishes or dioceses. It is equally true that in other areas and in other religious orders reception of Holy Communion was much more frequent often daily.

I was taught that the denial of Holy Communion was used primarily as an exercise in humility and discipline (note::The Church used to be very very big on discipline as opposed to today:eek:) much more than any other reason. Many of our separated brethren and more than a few progressive Catholics as well have a different opinion and will tell you in that in the dark ages prior to Vatican II, the ordained clergy kept the faithful ignorant alone, hungry and huddled in the dark as it were so that they, the clergy could enjoy the prestige of being Priests. They stated and still do state that by witholding the Sacrament of Holy Communion they forced the faithful to do their bidding.and be toattly helpless and thus dependent upon them for the bestowing of grace:confused:

So in actuality the urging of the restoration of frequent communion was not seen as a liberal change as much as a change in discipline in some areas. No matter how hard to you to spin it.
 
JuanCarlos said:
Back then, in the days of good catechesis, everyone knew that you had to be in the state of grace to receive, and thus many did not receive. Now everyone seems to run under the assumption that Mass=Communion.

The “golden age” of Communion reception was the time between the (very much needed) reforms of Pius X and the 50’s/60’s, where people received frequently but (for the most part) only in the state of grace. The not so golden age, besides nowadays, was ironically the middle ages (the “Age of Faith”) to the 20th century. Back then, if you were a religious brother or sister you could expect to receive Communion once a month and on major feast days.

Dominic Savio received only once a month and that was considered very devout; by the time he died he received Communion every day and that was considered astounding, a mark of highest holiness.
Click to expand...
You are right about Mass= Holy Communion. It seems like the norm is to receive Holy Communion every time you go to Mass. I got into a discussion with different people about it and their reply is, “Who are you to judge who is going and to not let them to receive!” Also, the Priest from the E.F. mentioned in a sermon, “So many people receive Holy Communion and the Confessional lines are short. That means there are so many Saints?”
He made a point with that statement. Holy Communion is treated with so little respect. I truly wonder if the people really believe in it or not.
 
Malkin71 said:
You are right about Mass= Holy Communion. It seems like the norm is to receive Holy Communion every time you go to Mass. I got into a discussion with different people about it and their reply is, “Who are you to judge who is going and to not let them to receive!” Also, the Priest from the E.F. mentioned in a sermon, “So many people receive Holy Communion and the Confessional lines are short. That means there are so many Saints?”
He made a point with that statement. Holy Communion is treated with so little respect. I truly wonder if the people really believe in it or not.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is a good point.

From Bishop Tissier de Mallerais …
Yes, but in general, modern priests do not like hearing confessions, and do not encourage confession. Sin, Original Sin, the need for confession, and satisfaction for sin are no longer talked about. Statistically, there are few confessions in parishes. The result is the majority of Catholics who still may have the Faith cannot live in the state of grace. Let us be realistic, it is such a corrupt world, it is impossible to live in the state of grace without the Sacrament of Penance. uvcarmel.org/2009/02/17/interview-with-bishop-bernard-tissier-de-mallerais-sspx/
Click to expand...
 
palmas85 said:
So in actuality the urging of the restoration of frequent communion was not seen as a liberal change as much as a change in discipline in some areas. No matter how hard to you to spin it.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you are trying a little spinning yourself…:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top