1 hour fast before receiving the Eucharist

[maryjk]

Didn’t work with that very holy sixth grade nun who used to line all the non-communicants on Monday morning in the hallway before she would ask them why they hadn’t received the day before.

Hopefully, we don’t have any more of those “very holy sixth grade nuns.”

 

[houston1]

First: trust your priest.

Second, by way of explanation:

Canon 1245 allows a pastor to dispense from the obligations of observing a feast day. More narrowly, a pastor can dispense from the obligation to attend Sunday Mass (for a just cause, etc. etc.)

A pastor can dispense from the obligation to attend Mass.
Since he can dispense from the whole Mass, he can likewise dispense from any part-of-the-whole.
The Eucharistic fast is a part-of-the-whole of Mass.
Therefore he can dispense from the 1-hour fast.

Additionally, many bishops expressly delegate to pastors, or even to all priests, the specific faculties to dispense from the Eucharistic fast. While there’s no guarantee that every bishop does this, it is a rather common clause in the Pagella of Faculties given to priests by their bishops.

I notice that you’re in the Houston area.

The Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston is kind enough to make their policies for the Diaconate available online.

The Ordinary has given deacons the faculty to dispense from the Eucharistic fast.

While this is not a given, it does stand to reason that if he has given such faculties to deacons, it is very likely that he has also given such faculties to priests. I repeat: not a given, but very likely.

E. Dispensations: A deacon may dispense in individual cases and for a just
reason from days of precept and penance or commuting these obligations to
other pious works and dispensing from Eucharistic abstinence for parishioners
and those visiting within the boundaries of the parish to which he is assigned.
Page 33 gwdupont.com/Forms/DeaconHandbookFinalrevisedAugust2008v2.pdf

I agree that if deacons can then, it is likely that priests can dispense as well. In this document, it does not mention specific reasons for dispensation. And, does abstinence imply that it is also reasonable to conclude fasting as well?

So, is it okay to assume that my priest was okay in dispensing me last night?

Thanks for everyone who posted to this.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I am not going to address any of the debate regarding the dispensation and I think that much of the information in this thread is wonderful, but it is not addressing the elephant in the room, and that is the rampant “legalism” that is all too common in this forum.

Houston, this is original your post, with my emphases added-

Tonight, I went to Mass and received the Eucharist. Just moments before it began, I asked the priest for a dispensation from the hour fast because* I had thoughtlessly took a sip of tea which I came to realize would likely break the 1 hour rule (probably between 5 and 10 minutes)*. He readily gave me the dispensation. So, I believe that I am safe from a moral standpoint.

However, was my priest acting within his power to do this? I’ve heard that bishops can only dispense persons from this rule and that pastors can dispense in so much as the bishop has delegated his power to the pastor. Is this correct? Is “accidental consumption” a legitimate reason for dispensation? In my case, I greatly wanted to receive the Eucharist.

Thanks for your help.

houston1

If I am reading this correctly, you took a sip sip a tea, I am guessing shortly before you left the house for Mass, then realizing what you’d done, stopped drinking and went on your merry way?
Now with my next statement I am not, in any way, mocking the rules of the fast, or saying that we should not follow them, but REALLY??

You took a sip of tea, you didn’t just finish a five course meal before you rushed out the door to Mass! Do you really think that this is what God wants for us, to make sure all the “t’s” are crossed and the “i’s” dotted, and be filled with worry when we, in our human nature, find some way to make mistakes?

Please, trust your priest, and be at peace!

 

[friarpark]

And of course, you do not have to receive Communion at every Mass. My rule of thumb is a half hour before Mass, although I try for the hour before Mass. It is rare, even in a daily Mass to have Communion before the half hour mark of the Mass. If I’m not sure, then I don’t receive. It gives others something to talk about.

 

[FrDavid96]

I agree that if deacons can then, it is likely that priests can dispense as well. In this document, it does not mention specific reasons for dispensation. And, does abstinence imply that it is also reasonable to conclude fasting as well?

I thought that might come up. Canon 919 says
A person who is to receive the Most Holy Eucharist is to abstain for at least one hour before holy communion from any food and drink, except for only water and medicine.
Even though we usually call it the “1 hour fast” or the “Communion fast” the law itself say that “one is to abstain” from food. I suppose that’s why the Ordinary worded it that way–to use the same word that the canon uses. After all, it’s hard to use the word “fast” when we’re only talking about 60 minutes.

The reason why the faculty does not list reasons why the deacon can dispense (as delegated by the bishop, mind you) is, apparently, because the bishop leaves that to the deacon’s own prudential judgement. If the Ordinary wanted to say “you can dispense from drinks, but not food” or “you can dispense only if the pastor is unavailable” or “you can dispense for the following reasons…” or anything else, he would have said as much. He didn’t. He left that to the individual deacon. He does say “for a just reason”—that’s a typical phrase in canon law, and it’s the lowest standard. In practical terms it means “if he thinks it’s a good enough reason, then it’s good enough”—but there does still need to be some reason.

So, is it okay to assume that my priest was okay in dispensing me last night?

It certainly seems that way to me–that’s as far as I can go. More importantly though what you should do is trust your priest, that if he said he can give you a dispensation, he knows that he can.

 

[ProVobis]

Hopefully, we don’t have any more of those “very holy sixth grade nuns.”

Whatever they are these days, I don’t have a chance of outdoing them in holiness. I conceded that a long time ago. If only fasting were the worst of my worries.

And of course, you do not have to receive Communion at every Mass. My rule of thumb is a half hour before Mass, although I try for the hour before Mass. It is rare, even in a daily Mass to have Communion before the half hour mark of the Mass. If I’m not sure, then I don’t receive. It gives others something to talk about.

 

[Benedict108]

It’s not uncommon that the local ordinary, in his grant of faculties to his priests, would provide such ‘express permission’. If the OP’s pastor granted her a dispensation in this case, then you have two choices: either you presume he’s competent to know what his faculties are, or you presume that he’s clueless and carelessly granted a ‘dispensation’ that he has no right to grant. Which is it, then?

I actually presume nothing. If you look at my response it was to a different poster. I said what was required to grant dispensation.

As far as the OPs situation, I already stated what I thought was correct. It is not for me to say whether or not he has the ‘express permission’ or not. I do not know him, but there are a good number of well meaning priests who are sometimes unaware of such nuances, and there are some who are indifferent. I can say nothing about this priest, again, as I don’t know him. My reply when I mentioned CIC 89, was simply making the point that it must be granted to the priest and that not all priests have the authority. Whether is has been expressly granted in one bishops’ conference or another, or abounds in one diocese or another is another matter.

 

[Gorgias]

I actually presume nothing.

Actually, in your post to the OP, you presumed that dispensation wasn’t possible, but you seem to have changed your mind:

Benedict108:

the priest, as far as I know cannot grant dispensation in this event

It is not for me to say whether or not he has the ‘express permission’ or not. I do not know him, but there are a good number of well meaning priests who are sometimes unaware of such nuances, and there are some who are indifferent. I can say nothing about this priest, again, as I don’t know him.

Fair enough; yet, your mention of this seems to imply a concern that the priest wasn’t capable of granting the dispensation; otherwise, why mention it? So that the OP, who’s already worried about the fast, might now worry that her pastor invalidly dispensed from the obligation?

 

[Bklynguy]

Tonight, I went to Mass and received the Eucharist. Just moments before it began, I asked the priest for a dispensation from the hour fast because I had thoughtlessly took a sip of tea which I came to realize would likely break the 1 hour rule (probably between 5 and 10 minutes). He readily gave me the dispensation. So, I believe that I am safe from a moral standpoint.

However, was my priest acting within his power to do this? I’ve heard that bishops can only dispense persons from this rule and that pastors can dispense in so much as the bishop has delegated his power to the pastor. Is this correct? Is “accidental consumption” a legitimate reason for dispensation? In my case, I greatly wanted to receive the Eucharist.

Thanks for your help.

houston1

You took one sip accidentally and spoke to the priest about the situation.

There is no sin and no reason to continue to bother your conscience.

Those on this board arguing otherwise are being extremely pharisaical.

 

[Benedict108]

Actually, in your post to the OP, you presumed that dispensation wasn’t possible, but you seem to have changed your mind:

Fair enough; yet, your mention of this seems to imply a concern that the priest wasn’t capable of granting the dispensation; otherwise, why mention it? So that the OP, who’s already worried about the fast, might now worry that her pastor invalidly dispensed from the obligation?

Firstly, I gave a caveat when I first began to write about my opinion.

Secondly, I pointed out that I did not think that the situation fit those conditions which covered dispensation; however, if that was the case that it was not the OP’s fault and that the OP had done nothing wrong, at worst case scenario mention it at next confession. Essentially, it would be a matter of conscience.

Usually dispensation is given in very difficult circumstances and it has been my understanding that while some priests may dispense with the Eucharistic fast, it is a decision not be lightly taken and usually revolves around health matters or the well being of the person. That was simply why I had said confession may had been the better choice. I don’t know if the scenario in question was really the proper context for the exercise of the dispensation.

Nevertheless, what is done is done. As I stated in my first entry, the OP did nothing wrong following the priest’s counsel. The OP cannot be faulted and is not guilty of anything.

 

[Benedict108]

You took one sip accidentally and spoke to the priest about the situation.

There is no sin and no reason to continue to bother your conscience.

Those on this board arguing otherwise are being extremely pharisaical.

Pray tell who is being pharisaical?

Reading the posts, no one is being a self-righteous hypocrite. There is no one here applying a standard that they themselves are not judged by, nor are they placing themselves above the OP. In fact, anyone who seems to disagree or is unsure seems to lean to side of caution. No one here is maliciously interpreting the actions of the person. That is not being pharisaical.

 

[FrDavid96]

Pray tell who is being pharisaical?

Reading the posts, no one is being a self-righteous hypocrite. There is no one here applying a standard that they themselves are not judged by, nor are they placing themselves above the OP. In fact, anyone who seems to disagree or is unsure seems to lean to side of caution. No one here is maliciously interpreting the actions of the person. That is not being pharisaical.

The problem is that you’re trying to offer an interpretation of canon law, but you don’t understand the canons.

the priest, as far as I know cannot grant dispensation in this event because canon law stipulates that dispensation is only for the ill/infirm and those who care for them, and of course for the various circumstances of priests.

You don’t know. The priest does know.

Even the part where you say “canon law stipulates that dispensation is only for the ill/infirm and those who care for them, and of course for the various circumstances of priests” is untrue. None of those is a dispensation.

If you don’t know what the word dispensation means, then how can you tell someone else that a dispensation that was received is questionable? I cannot understand that.

 

[Benedict108]

The problem is that you’re trying to offer an interpretation of canon law, but you don’t understand the canons.

the priest, as far as I know cannot grant dispensation in this event because canon law stipulates that dispensation is only for the ill/infirm and those who care for them, and of course for the various circumstances of priests.

You don’t know. The priest does know.

Even the part where you say “canon law stipulates that dispensation is only for the ill/infirm and those who care for them, and of course for the various circumstances of priests” is untrue. None of those is a dispensation.

If you don’t know what the word dispensation means, then how can you tell someone else that a dispensation that was received is questionable? I cannot understand that.

To dispense is to do away with or to excuse. A priest can do away with the requirement of the fast when granted express permission, but the dispensation still falls within a parameter. Dispensation is not arbitrary and it is to be considered with prudence. As I said before, my understanding is that the 1 hours fast is indeed a strict fast, and if the person was not ill or in the line of health or well being, that the fast was not done away with, dispensation was not given.

As far as comment regarding CIC 919, the ill or infirm are not dispensation in themselves, but grounds to be given the dispensation. Being that the person is sick and needs to ingest and has to do with their well being. The priest would discern the illness and see if the person should be granted dispensation from the fast and for how long.

Now, if the dispensation is granted on a wider basis and I have erred. Then I apologize, yet as I said, I had understood it revolving around health and well being matter.

 

[Elizium23]

To dispense is to do away with or to excuse. A priest can do away with the requirement of the fast when granted express permission, but the dispensation still falls within a parameter. Dispensation is not arbitrary and it is to be considered with prudence. As I said before, my understanding is that the 1 hours fast is indeed a strict fast, and if the person was not ill or in the line of health or well being, that the fast was not done away with, dispensation was not given.

As far as comment regarding CIC 919, the ill or infirm are not dispensation in themselves, but grounds to be given the dispensation. Being that the person is sick and needs to ingest and has to do with their well being. The priest would discern the illness and see if the person should be granted dispensation from the fast and for how long.

Now, if the dispensation is granted on a wider basis and I have erred. Then I apologize, yet as I said, I had understood it revolving around health and well being matter.

You still don’t understand. The verbiage in CIC 919 is not a dispensation. Fr. David and I have explained what a dispensation is and dispensations aren’t written into the Code of Canon law, they are permitted by it and are given by people.

 

[Benedict108]

You still don’t understand. The verbiage in CIC 919 is not a dispensation. Fr. David and I have explained what a dispensation is and dispensations aren’t written into the Code of Canon law, they are permitted by it and are given by people.

No I understand it. It is what allows the dispensation to occur. If canon law did not state what it did, dispensations would not be allowed to be given. The bishop/priest is the one who discerns the situation and decides whether or not it shall be granted. The law in itself does not give it. Each situation is critiqued by the priest. Yet, as I had understood it, the dispensations that are given are not arbitrary, but revolve around health and well being.

 

[FrDavid96]

To dispense is to do away with or to excuse. A priest can do away with the requirement of the fast when granted express permission, but the dispensation still falls within a parameter. Dispensation is not arbitrary and it is to be considered with prudence. As I said before, my understanding is that the 1 hours fast is indeed a strict fast, and if the person was not ill or in the line of health or well being, that the fast was not done away with, dispensation was not given.

As far as comment regarding CIC 919, the ill or infirm are not dispensation in themselves, but grounds to be given the dispensation. Being that the person is sick and needs to ingest and has to do with their well being. The priest would discern the illness and see if the person should be granted dispensation from the fast and for how long.

Now, if the dispensation is granted on a wider basis and I have erred. Then I apologize, yet as I said, I had understood it revolving around health and well being matter.

All you have done there is to prove that you do not know the definition of the word “dispensation.”

The more you try to quote canon law, the more you prove that you have no idea what you’re writing about.

If you don’t know the definition of the word, how can you question the decision of a priest, who does know the definition of the word, and is certainly in a better position to know the limits of his own competence, who grants a dispensation?

 

[Elizium23]

Can. 919, §3 The elderly and those who are suffering from some illness, as well as those who care for them, may receive the blessed Eucharist even if within the preceding hour they have consumed something.

The above is not a dispensation, it is a concession given by the law itself.

A dispensation is permission to derogate from the law, so by definition a dispensation cannot be found in the law itself.

 

[Benedict108]

All you have done there is to prove that you do not know the definition of the word “dispensation.”

The more you try to quote canon law, the more you prove that you have no idea what you’re writing about.

If you don’t know the definition of the word, how can you question the decision of a priest, who does know the definition of the word, and is certainly in a better position to know the limits of his own competence, who grants a dispensation?

So to dispense is not to excuse or to do away with an obligation?

 

[Elizium23]

So to dispense is not to excuse or to do away with an obligation?

It is, but that definition is too broad and is applicable to more animals than merely dispensations.

A dispensation is permission given by competent authority to derogate from the law.

 

[Benedict108]

The above is not a dispensation, it is a concession given by the law itself.

A dispensation is permission to derogate from the law, so by definition a dispensation cannot be found in the law itself.

Now bear with me for a moment, as I am honestly asking. For a person who is sick or infirm, despite the concession being written in the law, would they still not have to approach their priest for his discernment to be given dispensation?