Frequent Holy Communion

Frequent Holy Communion

By

Stefano Wolfe

  

First, let’s start with two quotes from the Council of Trent:

“If anyone says that in the Mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God, or that the act of offering is nothing else than Christ being given to us to eat: let him be anathema” (Denz. 948).

“The Holy Council wishes indeed that at each Mass the faithful who are present should communicate, not only in spiritual desire, but sacramentally, by the actual reception of the Eucharist.”

That “de fide” statement from Trent is clear and concise. However, let’s expound on it just a little bit. Fr. Cekada, in his book, “Work of Human Hands,” describes the situation and attitude of frequent Holy Communion before the Second Vatican Council,

 “The two-fold rite (second Confiteor and Ecce Agnus Dei) expresses the distinction between the role of the priest at Mass and that of the faithful who are present. The priest receives Communion because this is an integral part of the Sacrifice. Reception by the faithful present, though praiseworthy, is not integral to the Sacrifice itself, and the rubrics of the traditional Mass reflected this. In many places, moreover, it was not customary to distribute Holy Communion to the faithful during Solemn Mass or Pontifical Solemn Mass, either because doing so would have greatly lengthened the time for the service or because many people found it easier to Communicate at an earlier Low Mass, due to the fasting rules.”

Now we come to St. Pius X and his desire for frequent Communion in the Catholic world. “Without specifying how often the faithful should communicate, Christ simply bids us eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, and warns us, that if we do not do so, we shall not have life in us (John 6, etc.).”[1] In the early Church at Jerusalem, Holy Communion was received everyday. This was so for number of different reasons. Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Jerome, and St. Ambrose mention frequent Communion, and Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. beautifully teaches that, “nothing is more gratuitous and desirable than the Beatific Vision, and in this life nothing is more so than Holy Communion.”[2]

The prescriptions for worthy reception by St. Pius X are:

·       Being in a state of grace (free from mortal sin)

·       Observation of the Eucharistic Fast.

·       Right Intention. (e.g., receiving not out of vanity or because everybody is receiving).

·       Dispositions. (e.g., Disposition of body: suitable dress, external cleanliness, Eucharistic fast, proper preparation to receive the Blessed Sacrament & proper thanksgiving after receiving the Blessed Sacrament. Disposition of soul: freedom from excommunication and personal interdict, freedom from mortal sin, actual devotion, cf. Prümmer, Handbook of Moral Theology, pg. 269-270).

Dispositions used to be highly debated but as Fr. Dominic Prümmer, O.P. states in his Moral Theology manual, “After the promulgation of this decree (Sac. Cong. Conc., Dec. 16, 1905), all ecclesiastical writers are to cease from contentious controversy concerning the dispositions required for frequent and daily Communion.”

A lot of places don’t follow all the prescriptions. Couple that with the current state of the Holy See and post-modern society some say it’s a dangerous time for frequent reception of Holy Communion. When St. Pius X and a few other popes before him (Clement(?), Pius IX, Leo XIII) were advocating frequent reception of Holy Communion, the Western world at the level of the faithful (obviously not entire countries at this point) were still Catholic and completely believed in the True Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament - Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. That’s obviously not the case anymore. Belief in the True Presence had dwindled drastically and enemies of the Church are always trying to find opportunity to commit sacrilege against the Blessed Sacrament and steal Our Lord from the tabernacle. And these terrible, sacrilegious instances are multiplying. So, I wouldn’t mind seeing Holy Communion Services Outside-of-Mass again and making that a semi-norm. Frequent Communion should be the norm, and it’s a wonderful and necessary teaching for the interior life of a Catholic, and everybody should be in a position to practice frequent Holy Communion. However, at the same time the Blessed Sacrament needs to be protected. And in order for there to be frequent Holy Communion there needs to be the proper education of what all the requirements are for it, and the proper environments for it.

Also, what helps me with practicing frequent Holy Communion is the frequent recitation of the Litany of Reparation. I absolutely love it and, once and while, I offer my Communions in reparation for all the sacrileges, profanations, impieties, blasphemies, and crimes committed against Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Making multiple spiritual Communions throughout the day is also praiseworthy and can help one with maintaining the proper dispositions for receiving Holy Communion. Fr. Prümmer states, “A spiritual Communion is the desire for receiving the Eucharist sacramentally when there are obstacles making this impossible. All ascetical writers strongly recommend the exercise of making a spiritual Communion,  as productive of many fruits from the act of charity inspiring it” (cf. Prümmer, Manual of Moral Theology, pg. 269). And St. Thomas Aquinas defined a spiritual Communion as “an ardent desire to receive Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament and in lovingly embracing Him as if we had actually received Him.” Also, “Our Lord showed St. Catherine of Siena two chalices, saying, “In this golden chalice I put your sacramental Communions. In the silver chalice I put your spiritual Communions. Both are quite pleasing to Me.”” From these two Saints and the moral theologian Fr. Prümmer, it can be seen that it is very wonderful to make frequent Spiritual Communions. And this will help cultivate affections and thereby aid in our intentions and dispositions for Holy Communion. 

And of course, sixty to seventy years ago, frequent Holy Communion Services outside-of-Mass were common, and there was also no Holy Communion on Good Friday, and the precept of the Church to receive at Easter also included Christmas (so twice a year in total). These practices helped inculcate a proper notion of receiving Holy Communion not only frequently but worthily as well. And so the pre-55 liturgy in general, will help educate the Faithful and they will see what has always been taught in Dogmatic Theology, that “the Mass can be validly offered without the distribution of Holy Communion to the faithful, or even the presence of the congregation or even the Mass-server. We note that the Protestants’ feast theory corresponds to their heretical rejection of the private Mass.”[3] 

So, instruction from the clergy on this topic will be good for frequent reception of Holy Communion and not drive people away from it, because it will make them realize how special it is and that there is something truly wonderful and awesome going on.  Because I think we want people to practice frequent Holy Communion for the right reasons and in the right way, and I think the right reasons and right way haven’t been taught, nor observed, for a long time because of the current state of Catholic schools, with their lack of catechism and the downward spiral of liberal, post-modern society.

It is important to fully understand the prescriptions of St. Pius X and so we present in full the Saint’s prescriptions from the Sacred Congregation of the Council from Dec. 16, 1905:

1.     Frequent and daily Communion, as a practice most earnestly desired by Christ our Lord and by the Catholic Church, should be open to all the faithful, of whatever rank and condition of life; so that no one who is in the state of grace, and who approaches the Holy Table with a right and devout intention (recta piaque mente) can be prohibited therefrom.

2.     A right intention consists in this: that he who approaches the Holy Table should do so, not out of routine, or vain glory, or human respect, but that he wish to please God, to be more closely united with Him by charity, and to have recourse to this divine remedy for his weakness and defects.

3.     Although it is especially fitting that those who receive Communion frequently or daily should be free from venial sins, at least from such as are fully deliberate, and from any affection thereto, nevertheless, it is sufficient that they be free from mortal sin, with the purpose of never sinning in the future; and if they have this sincere purpose, it is impossible by that daily communicants should gradually free themselves even from venial sins, and from all affection thereto.

4.     Since, however, the Sacraments of the New Law, though they produce their effect ex opere operato, nevertheless, produce a great effect in proportion as the dispositions of the recipient are better, therefore, one should take care that Holy Communion be preceded by careful preparation, and followed by an appropriate thanksgiving, according to each one's strength, circumstances and duties.

5.     That the practice of frequent and daily Communion may be carried out with greater prudence and more fruitful merit, the confessor's advice should be asked. Confessors, however, must take care not to dissuade anyone from frequent or daily Communion, provided he is found to be in a state of grace and approaches with a right intention.

6.     But since it is plain that by the frequent or daily reception of the Holy Eucharist union with Christ is strengthened, the spiritual life more abundantly sustained, the soul more richly endowed with virtues, and the pledge of everlasting happiness more securely bestowed on the recipient, therefore, parish priests, confessors and preachers, according to the approved teaching of the Roman Catechism should exhort the faithful frequently and with great zeal to this devout and salutary practice.

7.     Frequent and daily Communion is to be promoted especially in religious Institutes of all kinds; with regard to which, however, the Decree Quemadmodum issued on December 17, 1890, by the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, is to remain in force. It is to be promoted especially in ecclesiastical seminaries, where students are preparing for the service of the altar; as also in all Christian establishments which in any way provide for the care of the young (ephebeis).

8.   In the case of religious Institutes, whether of solemn or simple vows, in whose rules, or constitutions, or calendars, Communion is assigned to certain fixed days, such regulations are to be considered as directive and not preceptive. The prescribed number of Communions should be regarded as a minimum but not a limit to the devotion of the religious. Therefore, access to the Eucharistic Table, whether it be rather frequently or daily, must always be freely open to them according to the norms above laid down in this Decree. Furthermore, in order that all religious of both sexes may clearly understand the prescriptions of this Decree, the Superior of each house will provide that it be read in community, in the vernacular, every year within the octave of the Feast of Corpus Christi.

9.     Finally, after the publication of this Decree, all ecclesiastical writers are to cease from contentious controversy concerning the dispositions requisite for frequent and daily Communion.

The Church has always supported and taught the frequent reception of Holy Communion and Daily Holy Communion throughout history. Daily Holy Communion is particularly recommended for religious and seminarians.[4] Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, and other spiritual authors support frequent Holy Communion/Daily Holy Communion, even Popes previous to St. Pius X. The “issue” is not the teaching itself but the culture that has developed in post-modernity which makes the implementation of Frequent/Daily Holy Communion difficult. The fact that the majority of American Catholics don’t believe in the true presence is one of the examples of how the circumstances around frequent Holy Communion has changed. In order to continue supporting and enforcing the teaching of frequent Holy Communion it is suggested that Pastors of Souls keep these six suggestions in mind: 

1. Pastors of souls must inculcate the culture that once permeated around the beautiful teaching of Frequent Holy Communion.

Medievalism & the Liturgy

 In our present day one sees the prevalence of medievalism in the liturgy. This can be seen in the Benedictine Order and other apostolates that belong to orders dedicated to the Latin Mass. The United States had a medieval revival in the mid-twentieth century as a part of the liturgical revolution before, during, and after the Second Vatican Council. One could argue that if the liturgical revolution never happened certain liturgists and rubricians would have invoked Mediator Dei of Pius XII to condemn this medieval revival as historicism and archaeologism. Given that the Benedictine Order was a huge contributor to the New Liturgical Movement (the liturgical revolution from 1945-1969) it becomes apparent to see why their traditional houses today keep this medieval revivalism, even the ones that have their lineage from Dom Gueranger. Also, during the novelty period of the reform, many saw how the religious orders celebrated Mass and decided to mimic their practices. For their Rites are medieval and can have conical chasubles, surplices big enough to hide people in, or inferior ministers wearing amice, alb, and girdle. But those Rites are not the Roman Rite. Western? Yes. Borrowed and shared parts from the Roman Rite? Yes. But purely Roman? No. Dom Gueranger would have been most disappointed at this tactic and lack of knowledge. Benedictines are known for being champions of the Roman Rite and employing exactly how Rome wishes it to be. This can be seen by their whole liturgical history, and most notably from:

• St. Benet Biscop, O.S.B.
• Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B.
• Dom Charles Augustine, O.S.B.
• Dom Aurelius Stehle, O.S.B.
• Bl. Cardinal Schuster, O.S.B.
• Archdale King

If the liturgical revolution never happened the liturgy would still be in the height of its Baroque form. Rome was baroque, including the Papal Court until 1969 A.D. To this day there are many aspects of the reformed Papal Court that are still Baroque. So, for us who preserve the Roman Rite as it should be, we need to realize that if we're picking up where we left off, then we're in the apex of Baroque liturgy for the Roman Rite, this entails cottas instead of gothic surplices for example. Any notion of reviving disciplines or dress before 1570 is going too far. 1570 has to be where it stops, otherwise there's a risk of us becoming the reformers we so desperately oppose. Mediator Dei's condemnation of historicism and archaeologism must have a litmus test and that litmus test is 1570. "The liturgy, like the faith itself, cannot remain static." (Archdale King). That doesn't mean to change in such a way that truth changes but a progression of the same truths that were revealed in the beginning. So let us take after the teachings of Dom Gueranger and St. Benet Biscop and follow Rome loyally and her liturgical praxis instead of making it up ourselves and based on our subjective preferences because the crisis and liturgical revolution has caused confusion. "Trads" taking advantage of the crisis to put forth their subjective whims and fancies is most absurd, and disturbing. And it's dangerous if it involves Liturgy, theology, and philosophy. They should be above such antics. On Romanitas, Benedictine liturgy, and Baroque Papal Court Ritual consider the following:

Giuseppe Baldeschi is a good example of adhering to a stricter uniformity of Roman practice. The object of Baldeschi’s work is the object of bringing ceremonial provisions and practices of churches, into more complete accordance with the rule of Rome – the center of doctrinal unity, and ritual uniformity, which is incidentally connected with it. Doctrinal unity should reflect ritual uniformity, within the Roman Rite. Also, it is a wonderful expression of Roman School Liturgy in the time of the Papal States. He wrote his manual in 1839.

Also, one of the leading trademarks of heretics is their complete rejection of St. Thomas Aquinas in theology and their denial of the use of philosophy. This can also be seen in liturgy. Aside from creating their own services out of thin air, they also strove to make their services different by being the least like the Romans. This entailed, "an older shape of the chasuble, light two candles instead of six and so on" (Fortescue). This shows the anti-Roman character of resorting to medievalism in liturgical taste done by the Protestant heretics themselves.

Mr. T operates a clerical dress forum on Facebook and a liturgical arts journal on the internet. Mr. T's "thesis":

"I was thinking recently how people who get so stylistically tied to one particular era (whatever the era, be it the middle ages, baroque, whatever) to the point of the principled exclusion of others is really so very limiting -- and boring."

"A proper Catholic approach, in my estimation, can look at photos like these and see the wonders and beauty in both of them. They see in both their fundamental unity but in their stylistic differences see that which enriches the liturgical life of the Church."

"Not being able to do this is like having the same meal every single day, or only like savoury but nothing sweet and so on."

Refutation of thesis:

1. The mysteries and beauties of the Mass are transcendent. It is the most beautiful thing this side of heaven. Man can spend his whole life trying to unfold the noble mysteries and beauty of the Mass. The beauty of the medieval and the baroque express invisible truths that transcend us. Beauty is connected with truth. Therefore, it cannot become tiresome or boring. It continually captivates man to penetrate the truths of his faith. So saying that one style or the other is boring by continuously being exposed to it is vehemently not true. Human nature has never reflected this while worshiping in these eras of worship. Can you imagine saying this to a monk, who has a vow of stability, and has never left his monastery? I don't think he would find the liturgy or the aesthetics around him as boring because he walks into the same medieval or baroque abbatial church every day of his life. And comparing all this to a meal - sweet, savoury food - by analogy is really rather tragic and appalling, as if the liturgy is some everyday thing like sustenance. But this is what reducing it to mere subjective whims and feelings will do in terms of how one thinks.

2. Medievalism is a form of archaeologism/historicism condemned by Mediator Dei.

3. Medievalism is a fabrication and novelty from the New Liturgical Movement predominantly in the U.S. and the Benedictines in Europe.

4. The Liturgy is not static. That doesn't mean it changes, but that it naturally progresses without changing the Faith. The Protestants used medieval elements in their services to make them the opposite of Roman usage. This entailed, "an older shape of the chasuble, light two candles instead of six and so on" (Fortescue). This shows the anti-Roman character of resorting to medievalism in liturgical taste done by the Protestant heretics themselves.

5. The Roman revival in the mid-1800's at France and later with St. Pius X restored Gregorian Chant. It was the baroque Romans who restored it, not medievalists. Gregorian Chant was developed in the Medieval Age but it's not medieval per se. It is the perennial music of the Church through all ages in conjunction with polyphony. And Gregorian Chant is based on influences of Old Roman and Gallican chant. Baroque Romans restored Gregorian Chant in the late 19th and early 20th century. So, the notion that Gregorian Chant proves that the notion "medievalism is okay because Gregorian chant is 'medieval' is refuted. This was an ill-attempted distinguo, against my example of Fortescue relating how Protestants used medieval vestiges and usages, by an anonymous defender of Mr. T.

6. The chasuble was already developing into a shortened fashion during the time before and after the 1570 codification of the Missal.

7. The Religious Orders with their own Rites (Cistercian, Carthusian, Dominican, Carmelite, Norbertine) can have medieval elements because their Rites are intrinsically medieval. I think a lot of confusion comes from individuals seeing these liturgies and then thinking the Roman Rite can have it too. The Roman Rite is ancient going back to St. Peter. The Roman Rite doesn't look how it did in the 1st - 5th centuries. In the history of the Church, she never went back to recreate something until the reformers did this in the Liturgical Revolution with their achaeologism and this includes medievalism. They wanted to bring back ancient things that rightfully didn't last the sands of time, archaeologism in its purest form, which was condemned by Pius XII in Mediator Dei. Here we have a true dissociative disorder where the reformers commit historicism-archaeologism on one hand, and on the other they employ novelty which destroyed what was truly ancient. Medievalism is a part of this.

Ergo, Medievalism is not a subjective preference, whim, or taste. It is not a mere matter of opinion or aesthetics. Medieval liturgy still has its place in the Western Rites, faithful Catholics should go to the Rites of the Religious Orders to enjoy that form of worship. It will broaden their liturgical knowledge and cultivate the appreciation of other patrimonies. If one still insists on having a medieval Rite that is as Roman as possible with Gallican influences, then consider working for the restoration of the Rite of the Sarum. There's also the Ambrosian, and Mozarabic (Visigothic) Rites, of course those are territorial. And don't get me wrong, I like medieval cathedrals and medieval liturgy. There are some instances of Gothic revivalism in architecture that I like. But one must take extreme caution that one is not recreating something to the point that it becomes a novelty. It's not uncommon to see fiddlebacks in Gothic Cathedrals. A great example of this is the Archbasilica of the Most Holy Savior (St. John Lateran) in Rome - the mother church of all Catholics, whose Dedication Feast we celebrated yesterday. Within its baroque face-lift you see the ancient byzantine world on the ground and then your eyes move to the rococo statuary, and then onto the renaissance world with the Sixtus V additions, and then your eyes draw you to the medieval baldachino above the High Altar and then up to the 4th century aspe with 13th century repairs. Then yours eyes fall below the aspe and baldachino back onto the high altar where you see the Solemn Mass being celebrated with its Roman Baroque Court Ritual. The Roman Rite (without its revolutionary dress) is at the apex of its baroque progression with its ritual of the Papal Court. If the liturgical revolution never happened the liturgy would still be in the height of its Baroque form. Rome was baroque, including the Papal Court until 1969 A.D. To this day there are many aspects of the reformed Papal Court that are still Baroque. So, for us who preserve the Roman Rite as it should be, we need to realize that if we're picking up where we left off, then we're in the apex of Baroque liturgy for the Roman Rite. And if one insists on celebrating the Roman Rite with medieval usages and vestiges, you are not sinning or committing error per se, but bear in mind you are participating in a novelty that came about in the mid-twentieth century.