Would YOU like to know the results of the removal of communion rails

  • Thread starter Thread starter PJM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’d like to see a compromise, I’d like to see the old 3 hour rule reimplemented.

I personally fast from Midnight the night before - the 1 hour fast is a minimum requirement, the fast from Midnight is still recommended.
 
I like that idea. A fast from midnight would mean going to Mass earlier, and I don’t like getting up early. But three hours would be okay.
 
Not everyone can attend mass in the morning. Some are obligated to work Sunday. Others need to eat frequent small amounts due to medical conditions. Many pregnant women have a lot of nausea, which is eased by keeping food in the stomach. Three hours would be very difficult for many people, even unsafe for some.
 
LittleWay16 said:
Many pregnant women have a lot of nausea, which is eased by keeping food in the stomach. Three hours would be very difficult for many people, even unsafe for some
Click to expand...
Then they could attend Mass and not receive Communion.

Communion has become way too common place. In days past it wasn’t uncommon for people to only receive Communion a few times a year, now the pendulum swung the other way and you have laypeople Communing twice a day, every day, not to mention the fact that literally everyone in Church receives Communion when it’s time.

In the Orthodox Churches today it’s considered normal for people to receive only once a week, and the Communion line is always equal in size to the confession line. In fact, in the Russian Orthodox Church, you are expected to make a Confession before reception of the Eucharist.

Why is it that the line for confession is never more than a dozen people long, yet the Communion line is hundreds of people?

There should be as many or more people at Confession as at Communion, not the other way around.

Either we’ve become a Church filled with literal saints who never sin, or we’ve become a complacent Church which has lost its sense of sin and many or even most people Communing are doing so unworthily, thus committing sacrilege.
 
Last edited:
I am pregnant now. Are you saying that even though I am not under mortal sin, and I went to confession earlier this week, I should not be able to receive the Eucharist simply because my hormones make me nauseous if I go more than an hour or two without some crackers? The Church requires one hour for a reason.
 
Most people at daily Mass are receiving worthily Deacon Jeff.

My comment about many receiving unworthily was mainly about Sunday Masses.
 
LittleWay16 said:
hormones make me nauseous if I go more than an hour or two without some crackers? The Church requires one hour for a reason.
Click to expand...
God forbid me from contradicting Holy Mother Church!

I never suggested or even implied it was wrong to be obedient to current canonical discipline.

I just said I see a lot of potential benefit in changing the discipline to go back to the 3 hour fasting law.
 
I mean, I see nowadays people not going up.
But I don’t think confession is necessary every time if you refrain from mortal sin, which is something that is deliberately chosen by a person to do or not do, and not an accident.

But, I do fear sacrilege from far too many people. If I were to ever become a priest, I think I’d try to add in at the end of the homily to remind people of the seriousness of the Eucharist. I wonder if that is allowed
 
People are so mistaken as to why they were brought into churches.
It was not originally for reverence. Nor reception of communion, even.
 
In @Spyridon 's defense, I don’t think (s)he’s making a prescriptive argument, rather a descriptive one. Questioning common practice in favor of a more traditional one doesn’t necessarily mean the arguer is in favor of putting pregnant women outside of liturgical recourse.
 
Hate to ask, but isn’t 1Peter5 a little rad/trad? The Church was in decline long before Vatican II. The fact that Vatican was ill-perceived, ill-implemented and has produced some poor results is only a confirmation of the attack of the evil one against the Church. It seems to come in 500 year intervals.
 
I am not that familiar with them, but the articles I have seen, like this one are rather weak in the reasoning department. In this case that which is unmeasurable is said to be the result of that which is cosmetic. Even if there could be some objective measurement of reverence, a state of one’s heart, this would still be a post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy.

It is also divisive to the Body of Christ. There are no such people as “Amorites.”
 
Last edited:
As per usual, before I even read the responses, I knew there were going to be some anti-tradition posts complaining about agenda pushing when clearly they also have an agenda to push…

And of course, as per usual, this comment will either likely get flagged or I will get paraded by critical comments.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top