if male priests all fail, should we try women priests?
#31
(05-23-2018, 03:43 PM)Dominicus Wrote: The problem isn't recommending frequent communion. The Eucharist should be received as often as possible unless a spiritual director says otherwise. Obviously excluding multiple receptions on the same day, non-Catholics, and persons in mortal sin.

The problem is that nobody bothers to mention things like sin.

Well, there are occasions when it's feasible to receive Holy Communion twice in a day; like if you went to the Mass of the Day and to a Requiem Mass in the same day. It would also still be feasible to receive Viaticum even if you have already received once or twice in a day.
Corpus Christi, salva me.

Check out my new blog: A Young Popish American
Reply
#32
(05-23-2018, 03:43 PM)Dominicus Wrote: The problem isn't recommending frequent communion. The Eucharist should be received as often as possible unless a spiritual director says otherwise. Obviously excluding multiple receptions on the same day, non-Catholics, and persons in mortal sin.

The problem is that nobody bothers to mention things like sin.

Had the discipline still been to receive rarely, maybe those things would have been more emphasised. It's not a direct cause, but there's a clear chain between frequent reception to loosening the fast to an expectation of reception every time you go to Mass.

I think St Pius X encouraged it for the best of reasons. But it's yet another lesson in being very careful about changing things. Even if you change it for good reasons, there may be consequences that are far worse. He wasn't the first to reform the liturgy, and there had been talks of reforming the Office for centuries - but his radical change of the Psalter really opened the door to the Pope as master of the liturgy, and something the reformers in the 1950s could point to as why the 1960 reforms were needed, then Sacrosanctum concilium, and the books of 1970.
Reply
#33
(05-23-2018, 06:22 PM)Paul Wrote:
(05-23-2018, 03:43 PM)Dominicus Wrote: The problem isn't recommending frequent communion. The Eucharist should be received as often as possible unless a spiritual director says otherwise. Obviously excluding multiple receptions on the same day, non-Catholics, and persons in mortal sin.

The problem is that nobody bothers to mention things like sin.

Had the discipline still been to receive rarely, maybe those things would have been more emphasised. It's not a direct cause, but there's a clear chain between frequent reception to loosening the fast to an expectation of reception every time you go to Mass.

I think St Pius X encouraged it for the best of reasons. But it's yet another lesson in being very careful about changing things. Even if you change it for good reasons, there may be consequences that are far worse. He wasn't the first to reform the liturgy, and there had been talks of reforming the Office for centuries - but his radical change of the Psalter really opened the door to the Pope as master of the liturgy, and something the reformers in the 1950s could point to as why the 1960 reforms were needed, then Sacrosanctum concilium, and the books of 1970.

But again, we're talking occasional causes.

Sure, there's some contribution, but in fact the real problem isn't in the frequent communion but the frequent abuse.

Encourage frequent acts of virtue and yes, there will be some who begin to act more out of routine than virtue, but still you may get may more acts of virtue.

The real problem is, as you suggest, making a change and then not being careful to limit the application. St. Pius X did this well, his immediate successors also did this relatively well, as can be seen from the fact that while the rebels in the Liturgical Movement were abusive, they were often quashed and marginalized. Even a somewhat lax Pope in the liturgical realm tried to reign in these clowns with the various Encyclicals in the 1940s and 1950s.

While some could complain about his allowance of the changes to the fasting regulations to allow evening Masses (the three-hour fast), there was still a fairly serious effort that folks had to make to sustain this level of fasting in order to receive. 

John XXIII rehabilitated these clowns, and gave them places at the council so they could have influences. Paul VI handed them a bottle the keys to the car.

God gave man intelligence and will and the preternatural gifts to keep him in Paradise. That's dangerous since he could abuse them. We can't blame God for man's abuse.

The real blame lies with the end of the chain. We cannot blame St. Pius X for the abuse of communion any more than we can laud the Jansenists for protecting communion. The blame for the abuse lies squarely with the abusers and the parents who naively forgot the abusive behavior of the kids, and those that negligently gave the kids the bottle and keys.

In the same vein Geoffrey Hull can argue that the definition of Papal Infallibility paved the way for such things and allowed for a sort of papolatry under relatively good popes like a Pius XII so when bad ones came in they open the doors for abuse, but still it does not mean that the definition was in error. It's part of the consideration of the history, but the blame lies with the efficient causes, not the occasional ones, unless those occasional ones are culpably negligent.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#34
(05-23-2018, 04:00 PM)LaudeturIesus Wrote:
(05-23-2018, 03:43 PM)Dominicus Wrote: The problem isn't recommending frequent communion. The Eucharist should be received as often as possible unless a spiritual director says otherwise. Obviously excluding multiple receptions on the same day, non-Catholics, and persons in mortal sin.

The problem is that nobody bothers to mention things like sin.

Well, there are occasions when it's feasible to receive Holy Communion twice in a day; like if you went to the Mass of the Day and to a Requiem Mass in the same day. It would also still be feasible to receive Viaticum even if you have already received once or twice in a day.

Yes I am aware but those are exceptions.
Surréxit Dóminus vere, Alleluia!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)