Author Topic: Pre V-II Practices (Read 1469 times)

Dolores · « **on:** July 20, 2014, 11:00:53 AM »

I was talking with my husband's grandmother the other day, and the subject of religious practices came up. She says that when she was a girl (1920s and 1930s), the laity were only permitted to receive Communion once per month, and that it was mandatory to go to Confession at least once per week (those who went less often were said to have sinned mortally, the same as if they skipped Mass on Sunday).

Looking back, she realizes that something was a little strange about the practices, given St. Pius X's encouragement of daily Communion, and the fact that it is a precept of the Church that Confession is only required once per year.

Has anyone else heard of these practices? Was it perhaps a certain area or religious order that mandated these things?

Robin · « **Reply #1 on:** July 20, 2014, 10:04:50 PM »

I am not quite that old. However, I did go to Confession every Wednesday
at Visitation Academy~ private all girls Academy in Brooklyn, NY in the 1950's and 1960's. We attended Mass on Wednesdays after confession and would receive Holy Communion. We also attended Mass at the Academy on All First Fridays throughout the school year . Each time we received Holy Communion.
There was silence in Church and during Mass. You could hear a pin drop. And
everyone was dressed and modestly as well. It was a different world both in and outside the Church.

songbird · « **Reply #2 on:** July 21, 2014, 03:59:55 PM »

In the 60's we were encouraged to go to confession once a month, at least. As for Communion as often as possible. There was a group, I believe of the Sacred Heart and it was for those who were alcoholics and such. They were required to receive the sacraments as often as possible. It is the Precious Blood, that is in all the sacraments that give us Grace, powers to resist temptations.

poche · « **Reply #3 on:** July 22, 2014, 01:10:19 AM »

My parents catechism talks about the Easter duty, that is the requirement to recieve the Eucharist at least during the Easter Season. It said that if you recieved Holy Communion in another church you were to inform the pastor of your own church, otherwise he could rebuke you for your failure to make your Easter duty and you could also be refused a Catholic burial if you died.

Nadir · « **Reply #4 on:** July 22, 2014, 03:13:23 AM »

Quote from: poche

My parents catechism talks about the Easter duty, that is the requirement to recieve the Eucharist at least during the Easter Season. It said that if you recieved Holy Communion in another church you were to inform the pastor of your own church, otherwise he could rebuke you for your failure to make your Easter duty and you could also be refused a Catholic burial if you died.

Actually the requirement was to confess and receive Holy Communion at least once "between Ash Wednesday and Trinity Sunday." I remember learning it off by heart

TKGS · « **Reply #5 on:** July 22, 2014, 05:49:44 AM »

Such customs did indeed crop up here and there. A zealous priest was attempting to make his flock holy by commanding things for them over and above what the Church requires.

I have also spoken with elderly Catholics who remember that they went to Confession weekly, others monthly, but it was not thought by them, or at least they did not remember any such thoughts, that it would be a mortal sin to not go to Confession that often. They all seemed to be aware of the duty to confess during Easter time.

As for Holy Communion, many people refrained from receiving Holy Communion often for fear of committing sacrilege. On this point, Catholics in general were, I think, rather scrupulous. While Holy Communion was often not offered at weekday Masses, I wonder if Holy Communion was offered to the faithful less often because the parish couldn't afford to buy enough hosts for the entire congregation to receive every week being in the middle of the Great Depression of the 1930s, especially if the parish was in a poorer neighborhood.

Dolores · « **Reply #6 on:** July 22, 2014, 08:21:56 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Such customs did indeed crop up here and there. A zealous priest was attempting to make his flock holy by commanding things for them over and above what the Church requires.

I have also spoken with elderly Catholics who remember that they went to Confession weekly, others monthly, but it was not thought by them, or at least they did not remember any such thoughts, that it would be a mortal sin to not go to Confession that often. They all seemed to be aware of the duty to confess during Easter time.

I certainly have no objection to priests who encourage their flock to attend Confession regularly. In fact, it is quite laudable. I was just a little surprised when my husband's grandmother said that it was considered a sin to not go weekly. I had never heard of such a thing.

Quote from: TKGS

As for Holy Communion, many people refrained from receiving Holy Communion often for fear of committing sacrilege. On this point, Catholics in general were, I think, rather scrupulous. While Holy Communion was often not offered at weekday Masses, I wonder if Holy Communion was offered to the faithful less often because the parish couldn't afford to buy enough hosts for the entire congregation to receive every week being in the middle of the Great Depression of the 1930s, especially if the parish was in a poorer neighborhood.

While not wanting to commit a sacrilege certainly shows a pious respect for the Sacrament, I agree that placing artificial limits on how often one can receive, even if one is in the State of Grace, is scrupulous. Particularly given St. Pius X's encouragement of daily reception of the Sacrament. I certainly had never heard of limiting the laity to once per month reception before I spoke with her, and I see no benefit from it. I'm curious where it came from and how widespread it was at the time.

You're suggestion about saving money in a poor parish is an interesting one. I would have to think, however, that there were other ways of accomplishing that without disrupting reception of the Most Blessed Sacrament. Hosts could not have cost that much. (Weren't most of them made in convents back then?)

poche · « **Reply #7 on:** July 31, 2014, 04:57:59 AM »

One preVatican Two practice was the emphasis on territorial parishes. Even if you lived across the street from the church, if the boundry ran across the street you were expected to attend mass at the parish in whose territory you lived.

TKGS · « **Reply #8 on:** July 31, 2014, 07:31:33 AM »

Quote from: Dolores

You're suggestion about saving money in a poor parish is an interesting one. I would have to think, however, that there were other ways of accomplishing that without disrupting reception of the Most Blessed Sacrament. Hosts could not have cost that much. (Weren't most of them made in convents back then?)

I'm sure virtually all hosts were. But even the convents had to buy wheat and sell the hosts to the parishes. My father, as an 8-12 year old boy used to shine shoes at the railway station in a town in Iowa during the depression. He said he would run home when he had 20 to 25 cents overjoyed to give the money to his mother because the family would be able to have a good supper the next day.

I also wonder if your grandmother is remembering the actual teaching of the priest or how many scrupulous people believed. It may have been one of those things that a lot of the people discuss and talk about that seems to enter the consciousness of a child as an actual rule rather than a pious action. For example, even though not saying the rosary every day is not a sin, my daughter said that we needed to go to Church early one time to go to confession because, as a family, something had come up and we didn't say the rosary one evening during the week.

poche · « **Reply #9 on:** August 03, 2014, 11:18:43 PM »

There was organized patronage. In the 1790s this right was given to Don Andres de Almonester for rebuilding much of the Church's infrastructure after a major fire in 1788.
1795 Jan. 14 (?)
--------
1795 Jan. 4 (?)
Farjon, Theresa de S. Xavier
Superior of the Ursuline Convent

to Father Patrick Walsh
Vicar Judge of New Orleans

In reply to Father Walsh's inquiry of January 3, 1795 concerning the order of the previous Vicar about Don Andres Almonaster, the Superior encloses copies of the order found in her archives. Estevan de Quinones, signs the docuмent as Notary Public. The enclosures are:

--------
1792 Aug. 18

Henriquez, Doctor Theodoro
Auc(?)illiary Vicar

to Sister Margarita de St. Ignatio Duliepre
Superior of the Ursuline Nuns

Henriquez asks for the reasons for granting the right of patronage to Don Andres Almonaster and about the honors given him.

--------
1792 Aug. 18

Duliepore, Sister Margarita de St. Ignacio and
Sister Teresa de San Xavier Farjon
Superiors of the Ursulines of New Orleans
Sister Antonio de St. Monica Ramos, Sec.

to Father Theodoro Henriquez
(New Orleans)

The Sisters granted the right of Patronage to Don Andres: (a) Because Don Andres Almonaster manifested such desire to them; (b) because since in their church there was no chapter, they did not find it inconvenient to satisfy him, especially as he had been their generous benefactor. The copy is signed by Estevan de Quinones, Notary Public, Jan. 14, 1795.

--------
1794 Aug. 14

The King of Spain, Charles IV, through Taranco, Antonio Ventura de, Secretary of the C. of Indies

to the Vicar Forane and ecclesiastical (Judge Patrick Walsh) of the Province of Louisiana

Don Andres Almonaster Roxas, Colonel of militia, Royal governor Ensign of N. Orleans, alleges before the king of Spain that he has the right to occupy a seat of honour in the church of the Ursuline convent, the buildings of which he had caused to be rebuilt at his own expense. D. Theodoro Henrig(?)uez, auxiliary Vicar deprived him of his right causing public scandal. The King addressing the Council of Indies, ordained that Don Andres continue meanwhile, enjoying the use of his right and asked for further information from the Vicar Judge of N. Orleans. -- (There are two copies of the same docuмent).

--------
1794 Aug. 18

Taranco, Don Antonio Venturo de of the Council of the Indies

to (Father Patrick Walsh Vicar of New Orleans)

Don Antonio notifies Walsh of the decision of the Council of Indies in the case of Don Andres Almonaster. Two things are ordained;
a) Don Andres can continue until a decision is given to
occupy his seat in the Ursuline Church;
b) The King asks for information with proof of his right to
the seat of honor.
(Also in duplicate).

--------
1795 Jan. 14

Walsh, Father Patrick Vicar Judge of New Orleans

to Don Antioni(?) Venturo de Taranco Secretary of the Council of Indies

In accordance with the Royal decree of August 14, 1794: (1) Walsh restored to Don Andres Almonaster the use of his seat of honour in the Ursuline Convent. (2) As to the request for further information, he also encloses copies of two papers from the archives of the same convent. (3) It appears that D. Theodoro Henriquez was right in telling Don Andres that he should ask the King the right of patronage; (4) Don Andres could not claim the right of patronage because he did not have such a grant from the King and because this right is not a question merely of good faith; (5) Don Andres deserves that the King grant him the right of patronage since he built the church at his own expense. The letter is witnessed by Estevan de Quinones, Notary Public.

--------

1794 Dec. 19

Walsh, Father Patrick
New Orleans, (Louisiana)

Walsh received a royal order given in St. Ildefonsoon August 14, 1794 that Almonester is to take possession of the seat of honor which he had in the Ursuline Convent on December 21 in the presence of Carondelet. Almonester and the Mother Superior are to be notified; a copy of this decree is to be put into the archives of the convent. Quinones signs as notary.

IV-5-b L. and D.S. and copies 18pp. 4to. (Spanish)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://archives.nd.edu/mano/17950114.htm