Break the fast?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MJE
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MJE

Guest
You are getting ready for Mass. You are observing the fast re: receiving the Eucharist. You unconsciously take a bite of toast or something. As you swallow it you realize what you did. Can you receive Holy Communion or not? Ignore the chance that the sermon is long and there is a stall of time.
 
Dont be too scrupulous…if you sincerely forgot, apologized to the Lord, this is easily forgivable as a venial sin when the Priest makes the general prayer professions.

When a man accidently has a nocturnal emission, does that prevent him from recieving? NO. Its an ACCIDENT done without conscious thought, therefore lacking in any malice or ill intent.
 
Faithful 2 Rome:
Dont be too scrupulous…if you sincerely forgot, apologized to the Lord, this is easily forgivable as a venial sin when the Priest makes the general prayer professions.

When a man accidently has a nocturnal emission, does that prevent him from recieving? NO. Its an ACCIDENT done without conscious thought, therefore lacking in any malice or ill intent.
Click to expand...
The difference between the piece of toast and the nocturnal emission is that the person realized he had eaten the toast and had broken the fast. Going on to receive Communion is a fully conscious decision, unlike the nocturnal emission, which is totally out of the person’s control. Only if the person completely forgot about the toast and the fast, would it be the same kind of accident, posing no problem for the reception of Communion. Scrupulosity in this kind of case comes in when one is not certain whether the fast has been broken, worries about it, and stays away from Communion on the remote chance that the fast has been broken. If you are certain you have broken the fast, do not receive; if you are not certain, you may receive. Careful observance is not the same as scrupulosity.

Do you really think it’s a good thing to be committing a venial sin in the course of receiving Communion? Would not a spiritual communion be more pleasing to God and bring with it graces, instead of bringing with it venial sin?

Betsy
 
Why do SO MANY on this board PERSIST in CIRCULAR arguments? ANSWER: Cause they feel a NEED to show off their SUPOSSED debating skills. :cool:

You answered my own response to the person…which if you had DONE SO TO BEGIN WITH…instead of coming off like you had some sort of Church Teaching in your limited original response…I wouldnt have even stepped in to COUNTERDICT YOU…which is what you TRIED to do to me…only you CIRCULARIZED the argument and only REITERATED the INTENT of my post gee thanks! 👍

Could you NOT decipher that I meant if he TRULY FORGOT about his Fast and ate the toast, he wasnt culpable?

You even said so YOURSELF! :rolleyes:
 
Truthfully, unless you live in the rectory, it’s not likely that you will be recieving before your 1 hour fast is up.
 
If one has no intention of breaking the fast, how can one commit a sin? The act was intentional in that one intended to eat. It was not intentional in regards to a sinfual act, in that one did not intend to break the fast in eating.

The purpose of the fast is to heighten our awarness of what we are doing; not to prohibit us from receiving.

To intentionally break the fast ( I am going to eat, and I don’t care about the rule; it’s just stupid) could qualify as a mortal sin of disobedience to the Chruch.

To be intentionally casual (“I don’t know if I am consuming this too close to Communion, oh well, whatever”) would problby qualify as a venial sin; there is at least some awareness of the fast period at the time of eating, a question of time, and an unwillingness to comply with the rule.

To eat with no awareness at the time that one is breaking the fast is not to have any intention of violating the law.

Thus, one should be able to receive; or one could abstain as a prompt to be more careful in the future. But to abstain for a concern about breaking the law where no intent resides is to become scrupulous.
 
Let’s clarify this.

Mass begins at 10:00. Communion occurs at 10:45.
At 9:50, our friend eats a bite of toast.
Materially, the fast has been broken. We’ll leave out the intentional situations covered in otm’s post and stick with the original question.

Situation 1: He never gives it a thought, thinking there’s plenty of time, not realizing it’s less than an hour until Communion OR he is unaware of the 1-hour fasting requirement. He goes on to receive Communion. No problem. (What you had in mind, Faithful 2 Rome)

Situation 2: He says, “Oops, I just broke the fast! Maybe I shouldn’t go to Communion.” And he doesn’t. He makes a spiritual communion and receives graces. (My suggestion)

Situation 3: He says, “Oops, I just broke the fast! But I didn’t do it on purpose - I just forgot.” He receives Communion. This IS a problem, because he is aware that he has broken the fast, but receives Communion anyway. There’s nothing in the rule that specifies some reasons for breaking the fast not mattering (other than the provisions for the sick and those caring for them). This is the other possibility I was referring to, Faithful. It’s not whether he meant to eat, it’s whether he meant to *receive Communion * knowing he had eaten.

Situation 4: He doesn’t think, “Oops, I just broke the fast” at the time he eats the toast, but when Communion time comes, he remembers, but doesn’t know what time it was when he ate it. If he drives himself crazy with worry and stays away from Communion, he is showing signs of being scrupulous. If he says, “I don’t know if I broke the fast or not, but I did not mean to, and since I am not certain, I will receive Communion,” he is doing the right thing.

Faithful 2 Rome, I apologize if I have offended you by this attempt at clarity, or by misunderstanding you in the first place. I don’t see this board as a place to debate. I hate to debate. I do see it as a place where people come for their questions to be answered. We have no way of knowing who is reading these threads, how much formation they have, or whether they tend to be scrupulous. By covering every possible scenario, I hope to give someone clarity and peace, not to prove you wrong or debate with you.

Betsy
 
I posted this ? looking for reasonable confirmations of my own explanation w/ an ongoing discussion friends are having. Some of them are scandalized because our parish priest in a daily Mass sermon story dismissed a man as being “scrupulous” who was distressed because he unintentionally popped something in his mouth on the way to Mass and realized it afterwards and abstained from Holy Communion. My answer is the same as “otm”. I think this specific one requires an argument of “intent of the law” vs “letter of the law”. However, we are living in times when church rules are routinely ignored by “practicing Catholics” and I don’t want to contribute to that.
 
There is no requirement that one receive Communion at every mass. If one must miss Communion once because of neglect in observing the fast, it may remind one to be more attentive in the future.
 
The sin isn’t in eating and breaking the fast. Whether done accidently or intentionally, this isn’t a sin.

The sin is, if you know at the time of receiving Communion that you have not fasted for an hour, and conciously decide to receive anyway. Now whether this is grave matter, sufficient to keep you from receiving Communion is between you and your confessor.
 
When Christ was confronted on the Sabbath, He and the disciples were shucking heads of grain and eating them. He had a comment about whether man was meant for the Sabbath, or the Sabbath for man.

It seems to me that breaking fast in the manner described (no intent) runs somewhat along the same lines, except that Christ was intentionally breaking the Sabbath rule of no work, and in this instance, there is no intent to break the rule.

It seems to me there are two intents to the rule of fast: a (minimal) mortification, and a reminder that we are about to partake in a Sacred Meal (one should not snack, or eat a sandwich, just before going out to lunch one is invited to, a s a rather poor analogy).

A blatant, intentional act of defiance to the rule could rise to the level of a mortal sin.

A laize-faire attitude to the fast could certainly be a venial sin.

But why do we suggest that when the breaking of the rule is unintentional (and I am presuming that the hypothetical individual is intentionally keeping the fast), one should refrain from Communion? This seems to me to be raising the sacredness of the fast above the sacredness of Communion.

I use the term sacredness of fast to describe an intentional religious act.

Joe: I find the idea of refraining from receiving Communion not wrong, but perhaps a bit misplaced; somewhat along the lines of false humility. The rule has a purpose, but this seems to elevate the purpose of the rule above the purpose of Communion.

MJE, I don’t disagree that we are living in times where much, if not most of the rules of the church are honored in their dismissal. But I hardly see this as a poor attitude. It seems to me that those who were scandalized by the priest’s comments need to reflect on the Gospels a bit more. It would cavalier to dismiss the Gospel reading I mention as “just something Christ could do because He is God”, an answer I’ve heard before. Some people are fearful or personal responsibility; they want every last thing layed out in black and white so they do not have to figure out the “why” of the law. Give them an answer for every possible permutation and they no longer have to be responsible; they just have to comply.

It’sike the issue of meat on Friday; some complain that the law is no longer there in the black and white that it once was; it means they have to be responsible for a Friday observance, which they don’t like. :o
 
otm, excellent point re: personal responsibility. Legalism is an issue and I am frustrated by those who promote it; albeit not calling it that. The “relationship” suffers at the expense of the “rules”.
 
40.png
MJE:
otm, excellent point re: personal responsibility. Legalism is an issue and I am frustrated by those who promote it; albeit not calling it that. The “relationship” suffers at the expense of the “rules”.
Click to expand...
The only time I here about “legalism” is when someone is trying to undermine someone’s objections to rules not being followed. They try to undermine and lesson the objections. Is it “legalism” to want drivers to stop at stop signs all the time. The answer is NO. Neither is it legalism to say that Church Law’s should be obeyed. ALL the time.

baltobetsy has stated the case well.

otm I find that you have no idea of what you are saying. It sounds good in a silly way. You could use the same arguments for not attending Mass on Sunday’s.

It does not matter if he ate intentionally or not. It is only an hour. To say oh well I didn’t meant it and go to communion is disobedience to the Church. How could anyone advocate receiving communion which would be a sin in doing so?

I disagree that “legalism” is an issue. Disobedience wanting are own way on our own terms is the problem. I am more than frustrated by those who promote disobedience in the guise of having a relationship.
 
One more option is available. Catch Father before Mass and ask for a dispensation. This is what my son did when he ate goodies at a CCE party just before a Mass where he was to be a server. Asked, granted, everyone happy.
 
Just sit in the back pew, your hour should be up by the time they get around to you 👍
 
is this post about the spirit of the law or the letter of the law?

what sort of timepiece does God use?

“1 hour and 10 seconds…it’s safe now… Go for communion…GOGOGOGO!!”

Receiving Communion is the apex of Catholicism. Whenever the chance is there to receive the Living God, that opportunity should be seized.
minutes are our measure, the heart is Gods measure.
 
40.png
thechrismyster:
is this post about the spirit of the law or the letter of the law?
Click to expand...
The question and the answers to observe the discipline of the Church are not about spirit “versus” letter (we can have both!) but about personal responsibility and humility.

Balto said it very well. This is a smal discipline, and to refrain from receiving the Sacrament when in violation of it affirms one’s responsibility in relationship with Christ. Just last week, I forgot and ate a couple of pretzels before going to noon Mass and did not receive the Body and Blood of Christ, not only in simple obedience but as a tiny penance and reminder to be more mindful of Him at **all **times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top