Why not EMHC's
#11
(04-14-2011, 10:36 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(04-14-2011, 10:31 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(04-14-2011, 10:19 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: I would ask, why does anyone need to receive Communion every day? True, Saint Pius X promoted it. But before him, most people received only once or a few times a year.

A much safer course of action to adopt, I might add.

Definitely safer. Due to my less than frequent use of the sacrament of Penance, I usually follow the practice of infrequent reception of holy Communion myself. As I said above, though, St. Pius X did have a point about the multitude of graces available to the faithful who devoutly receive holy Communion on a regular basis.

The number of faithful who "devoutly receive holy communion on a regular basis" will always be necessarily small. Most faithful regularly live in habitual sin and exhibit uncontrite hearts. Most commit sacrilege and eat their own damnation when going to communion. A cursory knowledge of our fallen nature coupled with Christian history clearly points in that direction. That was why the Christian laity received holy communion only sporadicly, prior to the 20th century.

It was a decision that clearly backfired, as you said. With the benefit of analysing things a posteriori, I'd say it was disastrous.
Reply
#12
(04-14-2011, 10:44 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: The number of faithful who "devoutly receive holy communion on a regular basis" will always be necessarily small.

Without a doubt. Mostly nuns and devout old church ladies, with a few over-zealous lay people thrown in for good measure.

(04-14-2011, 10:44 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Most faithful regularly live in habitual sin and exhibit uncontrite hearts. Most commit sacrilege and eat their own damnation when going to communion.

Maybe today, but I definitely don't think that was the case when the frequent reception of holy Communion was first being supported on a wide scale. I'd say that the early Jesuits' policy on the matter was pretty good.

(04-14-2011, 10:44 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: It was a decision that clearly backfired, as you said. With the benefit of analysing things a posteriori, I'd say it was disastrous.

Doubtless. I think the best thing for the faithful today would be for there to be some sort of requirement of having gone to Confession within a week prior to receiving holy Communion. This would necessarily limit frequent recipients to a handful of folk far more pious than myself.
Reply
#13
It doesn't really matter.  I've never seen a lay person touch a validly consecrated host so as far as we know, Our Lord has been saved from this abuse.
Reply
#14
I have to say I disagree with most. As long as you aren't in a state of mortal sin then I believe frequent reception of Holy Communion is good. Holy Communion gives you the grace to avoid sin. It is Satan that wants to keep us from receiving Holy Communion. I also believe in frequent confession also. Weekly is good and even daily if possible. If daily Communion is good then certainly daily confession would be just as good.

Reply
#15
(04-14-2011, 10:53 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: Maybe today, but I definitely don't think that was the case when the frequent reception of holy Communion was first being supported on a wide scale. I'd say that the early Jesuits' policy on the matter was pretty good.

The Jesuits were always known for their laxity (and casuistry). The faithful of the early 20th century were as much sinful as those of any age.

What is fundamentally different today, after Vatican II, from back then is the heterodoxy being preached by churchmen everywhere as if it were orthodoxy, the disintegration of the liturgy and the growing numbers of faithful who have become alienated from the church or who, in one way or another, have fallen into heresy.

Reply
#16
(04-14-2011, 10:53 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(04-14-2011, 10:44 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Most faithful regularly live in habitual sin and exhibit uncontrite hearts. Most commit sacrilege and eat their own damnation when going to communion.

Maybe today, but I definitely don't think that was the case when the frequent reception of holy Communion was first being supported on a wide scale. I'd say that the early Jesuits' policy on the matter was pretty good.

??  What was that?
Reply
#17
(04-14-2011, 11:04 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: The Jesuits were always known for their laxity (and casuistry).

They were also known for their great missionaries, martyrs, and even Saints. ;)
Reply
#18
(04-14-2011, 11:13 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(04-14-2011, 11:04 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: The Jesuits were always known for their laxity (and casuistry).

They were also known for their great missionaries, martyrs, and even Saints. ;)

They had their moments. Long gone, though.

Their initial suppression in the 18th century should have been upheld. They would have died a dignified death.
Reply
#19
(04-14-2011, 11:07 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(04-14-2011, 10:53 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(04-14-2011, 10:44 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Most faithful regularly live in habitual sin and exhibit uncontrite hearts. Most commit sacrilege and eat their own damnation when going to communion.

Maybe today, but I definitely don't think that was the case when the frequent reception of holy Communion was first being supported on a wide scale. I'd say that the early Jesuits' policy on the matter was pretty good.

??  What was that?

"The Jesuits played a major role in promoting increased fervor for the reception of this Sacrament. Although Ignatius of Loyola did not initiate this increased enthusiasm, he did establish it as an important goal of the new order and this promotion was articulated in the foundation documents of the Society of Jesus: the Spiritual Exercises, the Formula of the Institute, and the Constitutions. Included in this body of literature, although not considered of the same canonical status, are the recommendation given by Loyola in his private correspondence. These fundamental documents, the letters included, encourage members of the order to promote monthly Communion, and even weekly Communion for the laity if they were so disposed."

http://books.google.com/books?id=PKgA7KTIB40C&pg=PT44&lpg=PT44&dq=Jesuits+frequent+Communion&source=bl&ots=5MEOXJTHGX&sig=SjeOaI2HUVl0OxaYlf-wb9Sprbg&hl=en&ei=5LenTYrEI463twf2v6jdBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Jesuits%20frequent%20Communion&f=false
Reply
#20
(04-14-2011, 10:30 PM)bkovacs Wrote: Better question. Why do we need EMHC?. We did fine without them for over 1000 years. Same goes for Altar Girls.

This is related to my post. Catholics today tend to believe they should receive Communion whenever offered. The somewhat more devout types believe they should receive every day. This may be true, but at the expense of observing the proper use of Holy Orders? This is where trads and most Church hierarchs disagree.

We did fine because until recently, most people didn't receive Communion daily or even weekly. At various times in history we also had more priests, more deacons, more men in minor orders, etc. Now Catholics have a renewed, invigorated focus on the Eucharist, but without the manpower to properly distribute Communion to everyone, nor the will to emphasize the restrictions (no mortal sin, etc.).
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)