Cafeteria Traditionalists

[Will_S]

The fast before Holy Communion has always been in a state of flux since the early days of the Church. From what I can gather, it seems to have always existed. However, the number of hours has never been consistent. There were always differences between East and West. In the West, it has been changed several times. It was no eating after midnight, then no eating three-hours before, then no eating one hour before. In between there, over the past 2,000 years, there have been different rules, most of which were changed quickly, as was the three-hour fast. I don’t think that rule lasted 10-years.

That’s all true, Brother JR, but lets be honest, the one hour fast before Holy Communion is basically no fast at all. The only thing it prohibits is eating in the car on the way to Mass (maybe) and eating during Mass. As I mentioned recently, one could go pig out at the all-you-can-eat buffet and then after stuffing oneself silly, head off to Mass and receive Holy Communion, having “fasted” for one hour.

Yes, it’s the law. Yes it is licit. Yes it is ridiculous.

 

[JReducation]

That’s all true, Brother JR, but lets be honest, the one hour fast before Holy Communion is basically no fast at all. The only thing it prohibits is eating in the car on the way to Mass (maybe) and eating during Mass. As I mentioned recently, one could go pig out at the all-you-can-eat buffet and then after stuffing oneself silly, head off to Mass and receive Holy Communion, having “fasted” for one hour.

Yes, it’s the law. Yes it is licit. Yes it is ridiculous.

We have to remember why it began in the first place. It was never a penance. The idea was to preven the sacred speceis being mixed with food or wose, someone getting sick and vomitting the consecrated host.

I think people are looking for some kind of penitential fast before Holy Communion. That was not the original intent. The intent was to create some separation between a temporal mean and the Eucharist. It’s not even required for everyone.

Under the old code priests could not eat until they finished their Sunday masses. The Code of 1983 says that if you have two masses on the same morning, you may eat between the masses. If you have health issues, you may also eat. It’s not a moral issue. It’s a practical one.

If a person wants to do penance and fast longer, they can do so. It’s just inappropriate for us to say that the current rule is wrong. As I said, that type of statement places us in positions of authority, which we don’t have.

Fraternally,

Br, JR, OSF

 

[babochka]

Well, Pope Paul VI did call the Novus Ordo Missae a “new rite of Mass.” But now Pope Benedict XVI calls the OF and the EF two expressions of the same Roman rite. What was once TWO is now ONE.

I think the confusion come from two different definitions of the word “rite”.

Rite - the “liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each autonomous [sui iuris] Church” according to the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches.

Rite - The prescribed or customary form for conducting a religious or other solemn ceremony: the rite of baptism.

 

[PaulinVA]

We have to remember why it began in the first place. It was never a penance. The idea was to preven the sacred speceis being mixed with food or wose, someone getting sick and vomitting the consecrated host.

I was speaking to my pastor many years ago, and a practical benefit of the three hour fast was that people not properly disposed to receive Holy Communion could play the “broke the fast” card and have some cover not to receive. Now the only reason one would not receive is for mortal sin, which no one wants to admit in public.

I remember in my younger years that everyone did not receive on any given Sunday.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I was speaking to my pastor many years ago, and a practical benefit of the three hour fast was that people not properly disposed to receive Holy Communion could play the “broke the fast” card and have some cover not to receive. Now the only reason one would not receive is for mortal sin, which no one wants to admit in public.

I remember in my younger years that everyone did not receive on any given Sunday.

1. Its no ones business why someone does not receive the Eucharist.
2. There are other reasons besides mortal sin why a person may chose not to receive.

 

[PaulinVA]

1. Its no ones business why someone does not receive the Eucharist.
2. There are other reasons besides mortal sin why a person may chose not to receive.

I was referring to the fact that everyone receives nowadays. In the past all people did not receive, and breaking the fast was a good “excuse”. This is in context of the recent discussion here about the one hour fast versus three hour.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I was referring to the fact that everyone receives nowadays. In the past all people did not receive, and breaking the fast was a good “excuse”. This is in context of the recent discussion here about the one hour fast versus three hour.

I am aware of that. But that does not change the fact that it is no one’s business who is receiving and who is not and the reasons why.

It also does not affect the fact that there are others reasons to not receive besides mortal sin.

 

[JReducation]

The fast before communion may have given some people an excuse to refrain from receiving, rather than say that they had not gone to confession. That is a collateral effect.

The truth is that it was not a penitential fast. It was always practical. You didn’t want to mix the Eucharist with the lunch or breakfast that you just had.

There is no reason in the world why someone cannot fast longer than the required one hour. No one should tell another person that they cannot do that. The other way around is also true. No one can say that the rule is wrong. Whatever the Church allows is good and is meant for the common good. If one does not like the one hour fast, then fast longer; but let’s not engage in a campaign to change Church law, because we disagree.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Will_S]

The truth is that it was not a penitential fast. It was always practical. You didn’t want to mix the Eucharist with the lunch or breakfast that you just had.

And precisely this practical purpose is completely failed by the current fasting regulation. You might as well have no fasting regulation at all. That is why it is ridiculous.

No one can say that the rule is wrong. Whatever the Church allows is good and is meant for the common good. If one does not like the one hour fast, then fast longer; but let’s not engage in a campaign to change Church law, because we disagree.

I think everyone agrees that no one can say that an older rule must be obeyed, rather than the current rule. But certainly one may personally oppose the current rule on prudential grounds and advocate for its change. You may not be able to do that given your state in life, but others can.

 

[Bluegoat]

The 2nd Vat. Council was a Pastoral council and in no way , even though Protestants were present has any “AUTHORITY”…just in pastoral matters…Study both of them and you’ll se I am correct…The innovations are more in line with Protestant beliefs…Go to an Episcolpalian service…It is non distinguishable from the N.O…Ecumenism is one thing but flopping over to mimic a Protestant service is not God’s will…Read some of the Papal “Bulls”…You’ll see where this act is the ruination of the Catholic true Catholic faith and has been declining at a fast pace…Tell us all where the reverence went.

Actually, I believe the Episcopalians followed Rome (unfortunately) in the new style of liturgy. Not the other way round.

 

[white_sheep]

I think you got some screwball answers. You can get those at any parish.

 

[JReducation]

And precisely this practical purpose is completely failed by the current fasting regulation. You might as well have no fasting regulation at all. That is why it is ridiculous.

I think everyone agrees that no one can say that an older rule must be obeyed, rather than the current rule. But certainly one may personally oppose the current rule on prudential grounds and advocate for its change. You may not be able to do that given your state in life, but others can.

The bold is mine.

Here is the thing, our state in life is not meant just for our good, but for the sanctification of the religious and the edification of the faithful. It’s meant to be an example for the faithful to follow and a sign of things to come in the eschaton.

Our focus has to be on great love, not on changing rules. If our love is great, the rules will not be that important, because the rules are meant to define a minimum that is expected from the Christian. The greater the love, the greater the gift of self. Then the rule becomes unimportant.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pataburd]

Our focus has to be on great love, not on changing rules. If our love is great, the rules will not be that important, because the rules are meant to define a minimum that is expected from the Christian. The greater the love, the greater the gift of self. Then the rule becomes unimportant.

Br.JR,
I respectfully disagree (see my bolded emphasis). The greater the love, the more insightful my understanding and appreciation for (the aptness of) the rule, and the more generous my loving response to Holy Mother Church via the rule/discipline. (Of course, we must assume that the rule is just.)

That is, I grasp and respond to the rule understood as an expression of God’s love for me articulated by the Church. Correspondingly, I am given the grace and greater capacity to elucidate the rule/discipline to others (who may initially react to it as an unnecessary imposition) as something whose antecedent and end are Charity.

Maybe that is the intent of your statement (i.e. those who operate according to the Law of Charity effectively fulfill, or supersede in perfection, the “Law of Commandment”), yet your commensurate use of the term “unimportant” seems ill-chosen.

Brother, I write in such a manner because I regularly encounter professed Catholics who equate “unimportant” with “may therefore be ignored”, and their particular obedience to a rule/precept/discipline of the Church as now somehow “optional” as-per their self-professed “maturity”.

In short: loving, attentive obedience to the Church’s rule should be the exemplary norm for mature, filial response.

That said, ones capacity for Charity should enable him to discern, between two rules allegedly targeted toward the same end, which (of the two) indeed encourages/occasions the greater capacity to tender loving obedience in/through him.

[Again, I think/hope I get your meaning: that once an unbounded Charity governs ones actions, the “gauge marks” proposed by two such rules (as alluded to above) become relative.]

However, while “relative” at the point of ones accession to the greater sacrificial demands of Charity, there may arguably remain graduated differences with respect to comparative efficacy of “this” versus “that” formulation of a rule designated to the same end. For those not yet graced with super-abundant/sufficient Charity, “this” formulation may have a significantly different effect than “that” formulation and thus provide a basis for preferring/advancing one over the other. Relative, yes. Irrelevant, no.

What we have tended to see in the post-Vatican II era is a uniform relaxation of the rules, and not–at least I would argue–strictly in the interests of greater efficacy for nurturing a loving obedience; rather, as concessions to generally lax (or ignorant) attitudes among the Faithful elicited by hostile, secular pressures. At the same time, those in the teaching/governing roles have failed to combat this evil (mainly with failed catechesis) and, worse, have often become themselves complicit in it.

Cordially,
PAB

Psalm 118 (D-R):
[1]Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the Lord. [2] Blessed are they who search his testimonies: that seek him with their whole heart. [3] For they that work iniquity, have not walked in his ways. **[4] Thou hast commanded thy commandments to be kept most diligently. **[5] O! that my ways may be directed to keep thy justifications.

 

[JReducation]

Br.JR,
I respectfully disagree (see my bolded emphasis). The greater the love, the more insightful my understanding and appreciation for (the aptness of) the rule, and the more generous my loving response to Holy Mother Church via the rule/discipline. (Of course, we must assume that the rule is just.)

That is, I grasp and respond to the rule understood as an expression of God’s love for me articulated by the Church. Correspondingly, I am given the grace and greater capacity to elucidate the rule/discipline to others (who may initially react to it as an unnecessary imposition) as something whose antecedent and end are Charity.

Maybe that is the intent of your statement (i.e. those who operate according to the Law of Charity effectively fulfill, or supersede in perfection, the “Law of Commandment”), yet your commensurate use of the term “unimportant” seems ill-chosen.
Cordially,
PAB

Psalm 118 (D-R):
[1]Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the Lord. [2] Blessed are they who search his testimonies: that seek him with their whole heart. [3] For they that work iniquity, have not walked in his ways. **[4] Thou hast commanded thy commandments to be kept most diligently. **[5] O! that my ways may be directed to keep thy justifications.

We ae agreeing. The use of “unimportant” threw my statement off. I’m saying the same thing that you are. The more we love, the greater our chairty, our penance, our sacrifice. In the end, even if the rule (in this case) says one hour, That becomes a non issue for the person who, just as an example, may fast from midnight, out of love, not out of compliance to an older rule. For example, we have two periods of preparation with penance and prayer: Advent and Lent. However, in many of the older religious traditions, there are three. There is what has at times been called the third lent, with a lower case L., which ends on the feast of St. Michael. The love and penitential spirit in these traditions outdo the minum. Therefore, they don’t even think about it. They just do it out of love.

I believe we’re saying the same thing in different words. In other words, no one is bound to do the minimum. With prudence, you can always do more.

Fraternally,

Br. Jr, OSF

 

[Rosa_Centifolia]

JReducation, thank you for taking the time to write all of that. I found it helpful.

 

[5Loaves]

However, in many of the older religious traditions, there are three. There is what has at times been called the third lent, with a lower case L., which ends on the feast of St. Michael.

We have four fasting periods as Eastern Catholics, in addition to nearly every Wed. and Fri.-- Nativity Fast (Advent) of 40 days, Dormition Fast, 14 days before the Dormition of the Mother of God, the Apostles’ Fast which varies greatly in length, up to 6 weeks, depending on the date of Pascha, from the Vespers of All Saints Sunday (the first Sunday after Pentecost) until the feast of Sts Peter and Paul on June 29, only 10 days this year. .

Great Lent begins 42 days prior to Pascha, beginning with Sunday Vespers, prior to Ash Wednesday when the Latin Church begins Lent. Leading gradually up to the Great Lent fast we stop eating meat beginning with Vespers of Meatfare Sunday, two weeks before the beginning of Great Lent , and we stop eating dairy and eggs and drinking wine and using olive oil the Vespers of Sunday one week before Great Lent, Cheesefare Sunday.

The rhythm of these periods, like a bell curve slowly leading up to the Feast and then gradually leaving the Feast (“Leavetaking Pentecost” is this Saturday) is so useful in helping with the preparation and anticipation of feasts and then the sustaining of the festal period, which is never truly just one day.

I think “lent” just meant “spring”.

 

[khawk2]

Well, Pope Paul VI did call the Novus Ordo Missae a “new rite of Mass.” But now Pope Benedict XVI calls the OF and the EF two expressions of the same Roman rite. What was once TWO is now ONE.

There is one Mass of the Roman Rite but it has two forms, the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form.

 

[khawk2]

I’m sorry but I don’t see what is divisive about suggesting that pastors correct the clear errors of fact in their parishioners’ perceptions. If the prevailing opinion in this forum is that Canon Law does not apply to all the faithful and that there is more than one Latin Rite, so be it. Further discussion will indeed be fruitless.

AMDG
jsa

I think you are entirely correct in feeling that it is the pastor’s duty to correct this. It is also the responsibility of EVERY CATHOLIC regardless of which Form of the Roman Rite they attend to know the Canon Law. It can be found in the Daily Missals, 1962 for those who attend the Extraordinary Form and there is a brand new Daily Missal for the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite being printed with the changes ordered by Our Holy Father as we speak.

For the price of a dinner out one can purchase a leather covered Missal with all that you need to know. Furthermore a Catholic Bible will give every household the Scriptures… Baronius Press, Tan Books, Angelus Press are all good sources.

 

[JReducation]

Well, Pope Paul VI did call the Novus Ordo Missae a “new rite of Mass.” But now Pope Benedict XVI calls the OF and the EF two expressions of the same Roman rite. What was once TWO is now ONE.

When Pope Paul used the term he was not using the term as Rite with upper case R. We have to remember that the term is used for rituals.

The Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults

The Rite of Baptism

The Rite of Religious Profession

and so forth.

When we speak about the Roman Rite of the Latin Church, which is it’s full title, then we are faced with the fact that we have two forms of the same Roman Rite, not to mention several usages that have their own customs and rites. Just look at EWTN. You will see the Franciscan Usage or Franciscan Form. Even the guests are obliged to use it: Fr. Mitch and Fr. Wade. It’s the friar’s chapel. Their form prevails. But we don’t call it a Rite with upper case. However, it has some rites in it that are not used in most parishes and there are other rites that are not in it, which are found in parishes.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I’m sorry but I don’t see what is divisive about suggesting that pastors correct the clear errors of fact in their parishioners’ perceptions. If the prevailing opinion in this forum is that Canon Law does not apply to all the faithful and that there is more than one Latin Rite, so be it. Further discussion will indeed be fruitless.

AMDG
jsa

It is the duty of the pastor to ensure that his parishioners are catechized. He does not have to do it himself.

Canon Law covers many things. Not everything in Canon Law appllies to everyone.

Canon Law does not speak about the rite of the mass. Canon Law speaks about the celebration of the sacraments and limits itself to who should celebrate what, when how, where and who can receive the sacraments.

The rules that govern each ritual: baptism, mass, confirmation, etc are to be found in the General Instructions found in the appropriate book. These rules are not Canon Law. They can be changed by either the Conference of Bishops or religious superiors of men for their religious, as long as they do not violate Canon Law or any other directive given by the Holy See in some other document or provided that they have an indult, when necessary.

As has already been said, there is only one Roman Rite in the Latin Church. It has an ordinary form and an extraordinary form. These are legal terms deliberately used to identify the norm and the exception. The norm is ordinary and the exception is extraordinary. The exception can now be celebrated without an indult if you’re a diocesan priest and with permission from your religious superior if you’re a regular priest. Every priest can celebrate it alone. You don’t need an indult or permission for solo celebrations.

That being said, as I said before, the extraordinary form is not the only form that is not the norm. There are usages particular to certain religious families and even to certain countries that are also allowed. In effect, they are forms. The Church calls them usages, because the deviation (in the good sense) from the norm is almost unobservable. It may be something as simple as where the priest stands or the arrangement of the sanctuary.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF