Communion Fast observance

[SueKrum]

I’m not sure if I’m a “trad” or not. I try really hard to be obediant to the Church as best I can. I miss a lot of the old TRADitions (ex. I wish I knew laten so I could go to an old mass to see what it’s like). I get annoyed with irreverence for the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and do what ever I can to prepair my heart to recieve the best gift a poor girl like me can get. So a year or so ago, I was moved to try and not eat at all before going to mass. I feel that if I am hungry when receiving Holy Communion, the need for food will become so small once I have taken the Host in. if that makes any sense. so I put that I am not a “trad”, but maybe I am. I’m not really sure.

 

[MTD]

The Lord doesn’t need to be protected from us.

I think that’s quite beside the point in the first place. The reason for any fast at all is not to protect the Lord from us but to prepare us for Him. So your statement doesn’t make much sense to me.

Suppose the fast requirement were two hours. If we take as the ‘deadline’ the moment of communion, and if we say that a Mass starting at 6:30 am will have a communion time of 6:50 am, then one would have to be finished eating at 4:50 am. A little self-discipline is a good thing, but not if it makes receiving Our Lord basically impossible. The sacrifice we must make is an interior one. The exterior one is to help us make the interior one.

Even a one-hour fast would require one to cease eating at 5:50am. It’s doable, but most people would probably find the morning a little easier to manage if they could eat through about 6:05 or even 6:15 depending on where they live.

A discipline that cuts us off from our Lord when we’ve done nothing wrong is an irrational discipline that needs to be re-thought.

If I had access to a Mass at 6:30 in the morning, I wouldn’t even have time to eat before Mass. What on earth is so difficult about waiting till 7 to eat! If your health can’t stand it, you’re excused anyway.

I’m not sure if I’m a “trad” or not. I try really hard to be obediant to the Church as best I can. I miss a lot of the old TRADitions (ex. I wish I knew laten so I could go to an old mass to see what it’s like). I get annoyed with irreverence for the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and do what ever I can to prepair my heart to recieve the best gift a poor girl like me can get. So a year or so ago, I was moved to try and not eat at all before going to mass. I feel that if I am hungry when receiving Holy Communion, the need for food will become so small once I have taken the Host in. if that makes any sense. so I put that I am not a “trad”, but maybe I am. I’m not really sure.

It seems you’re not a Traditionalist. A “Traditionalist,” if I’m not mistaken, is one who prefers the Traditional Latin Mass. But there are many of us who love the old traditions and yet are fine with a reverent NO. It looks to me like you’re one of these.

Maria

 

[Pug]

It can get tricky though. After I have fasted from the night before, confessed at Saturday evening vespers and said my prayers I have to keep focused. I have had discussions with friends about this, a major concern is that sometimes a girl will show up in church too provocatively dressed. That’s it, no communion for me today! Attitude is everything.

Michael,

I think I understand you. I can see choosing not to receive when your mind is full of junk. However, if you are *often *choosing not to receive on account of this, I’d discuss it with your spiritual advisor. I know you are Eastern, so perhaps your practice differs here, but it seems to fall in that category that might be best discussed, just to be sure you are on track with it. :twocents: Maybe it is just my basic lunacy speaking, though.

 

[ctos]

I disagree. I still have a responsibility to see everyone I worship with not so much as their street persona, but as an icon of Christ, I have to work at it. I am not considering myself a sinner in such a case, but not fully prepared for the Holy Eucharist.

I agree with your general comments about modesty.

The general idea about this other topic is simply this: if a thought flitters across your mind, and you brush it aside, you’re done. No problem. As you grow in sanctification, there will be fewer such thoughts. They will be brushed aside more easily. This is a certainty. (And sometimes the problem will get briefly worse: the path is not straight as an arrow.) The problem is when you entertain a thought that you know to be inappropriate. Remember the joke? (Said the priest to the boy ‘did you entertain these thoughts?’ Replied the boy, ‘No, they entertained me!’)

Give us this day our daily bread. Not, Give us this day our daily bread as long as we are immaculate. We’re not immaculate. What we will makes the difference.

 

[ctos]

ctos:

The Lord doesn’t need to be protected from us.

I think that’s quite beside the point in the first place. The reason for any fast at all is not to protect the Lord from us but to prepare us for Him. So your statement doesn’t make much sense to me.

Correct. The discipline prepares us. When a discipline is impracticable, it becomes harmful, and to insist on it becomes scrupulosity and rigorism, and is premised on an assumption that we are basically un-preparable, that our Lord must be shielded from unworthy receptions. Many trads think that the one-hour fast is a mark of an inferior, derelict Church that is not properly pastoring the flock, but they are wrong to think that.

If I had access to a Mass at 6:30 in the morning, I wouldn’t even have time to eat before Mass. What on earth is so difficult about waiting till 7 to eat! If your health can’t stand it, you’re excused anyway.

Commuters can’t go to Mass, then have breakfast, then get to work. It makes no sense. Even if they went to a restaurant, they would be depending upon a population of non-Catholics: what if they wanted to be Catholic too, and have their daily bread? And even if they ate out on the road, this is a waste of money, and still not practicable in terms of getting to work on time.

So, anyone who truly believes that a one-hour fast is inadequate is insensitive to the needs of real people. A longer fast than that absolutely eliminates the possibility of Communion from really most people. A discipline that prevents union with Our Lord is a discipline that has outlived its usefulness.

 

[MTD]

So, anyone who truly believes that a one-hour fast is inadequate is insensitive to the needs of real people. A longer fast than that absolutely eliminates the possibility of Communion from really most people. A discipline that prevents union with Our Lord is a discipline that has outlived its usefulness.

All I meant in my earlier posts is that if it’s practical, it’s good to keep a longer fast so that one truly fasts. I said nothing about the wisdom of the Church’s requirement of a one-hour fast. In fact, I agree with you that a too strict fast should not be the reason otherwise worthy people refrain from receiving Holy Communion.

Maria

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Commuters can’t go to Mass, then have breakfast, then get to work. It makes no sense. Even if they went to a restaurant, they would be depending upon a population of non-Catholics: what if they wanted to be Catholic too, and have their daily bread? And even if they ate out on the road, this is a waste of money, and still not practicable in terms of getting to work on time.

So, anyone who truly believes that a one-hour fast is inadequate is insensitive to the needs of real people. A longer fast than that absolutely eliminates the possibility of Communion from really most people. A discipline that prevents union with Our Lord is a discipline that has outlived its usefulness.

You forgot about packing a breakfast, and/or making Mass earlier to allow more time to eat afterwards, but those considerations are beside the point. You are evaluating the Church’s discipline based on a standard you have made up that it must allow for every person in the world to commune at Mass every day at a time that works for him. The Church never came up with that standard, and a quick look at Tradition will show it to be very poorly (if at all) rooted in our history of faith and practice.

 

[ctos]

You forgot about packing a breakfast, and/or making Mass earlier to allow more time to eat afterwards, but those considerations are beside the point. You are evaluating the Church’s discipline based on a standard you have made up that it must allow for every person in the world to commune at Mass every day at a time that works for him. The Church never came up with that standard, and a quick look at Tradition will show it to be very poorly (if at all) rooted in our history of faith and practice.

[SIGN]“Give us this day our daily bread”.[/SIGN]

The Church has been eager to encourage daily communion for at least a century, if not longer. To this end, she has been adjusting the times Mass is offered, and disciplinary rules, to avoid making Mass less of an arbitrary burden. Of course people should be able to receive our Lord at a time that works for them.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

[sign]“Give us this day our daily bread”.[/sign]

The Church has been eager to encourage daily communion for at least a century, if not longer. To this end, she has been adjusting the times Mass is offered, and disciplinary rules, to avoid making Mass less of an arbitrary burden. Of course people should be able to receive our Lord at a time that works for them.

You’ve got your horse slightly before your cart. Of course the Church has been encouraging more frequent communion for the past century, but then again it started doing this within the context of the spirituality developed for the previous nineteen centuries. (You’re going to have to do better than a measly 100 years on the traditional Catholicism forum.) Within that framework, frequent communion was perfectly possible according to the fasting standards. In the 1950s, however, the liturgical life of the Church changed, restoring Holy Week Masses to evenings and thus making the standard a bit too burdensome for those occasions, which led to a mitigated communion fast of 3 hours. The Church didn’t start moving Mass times to accomodate our schedules and thus ability to commune daily - she mitigated the fast because she had already moved some times. A three-hour fast is, after all, basically the same as from midnight if Mass is still at 6 or 7 am.

 

[ctos]

The Church didn’t start moving Mass times to accomodate our schedules and thus ability to commune daily - she mitigated the fast because she had already moved some times…

There were some problems also in making Mass more accessible to people. The idea of packing a breakfast to gulp before starting work is probably a good example of uncharitable reasoning that basically rules many people out of daily communion. The Church wants the faithful to receive our Lord more frequently. To truly believe that the one-hour fast is a mark of a weak church with weak disciplines is to be incharitable toward those for whom a two-or-more-hour fast would mean no daily communion. A discipline that accomplishes nothing more than distancing people from our Lord for no reason outside of the discipline itself is a displine that should be dismissed. Many trads, though, sincerely believe that the one-hour fast is somehow emblematic of a derelict Church. This understanding does not take into account the actual needs of real people.

 

[paramedicgirl]

There were some problems also in making Mass more accessible to people. The idea of packing a breakfast to gulp before starting work is probably a good example of uncharitable reasoning that basically rules many people out of daily communion. The Church wants the faithful to receive our Lord more frequently. To truly believe that the one-hour fast is a mark of a weak church with weak disciplines is to be incharitable toward those for whom a two-or-more-hour fast would mean no daily communion. A discipline that accomplishes nothing more than distancing people from our Lord for no reason outside of the discipline itself is a discipline that should be dismissed. Many trads, though, sincerely believe that the one-hour fast is somehow emblematic of a derelict Church. This understanding does not take into account the actual needs of real people.

The two barriers to receiving Communion are sin and breaking the Eucharistic fast. Frequent Communion is a good thing, as long as it is balanced with frequent confession.

There can be social pressure attached to receiving Communion, and in the old days, if someone didn’t go up for Communion, it was assumed that they had broken the 3 hour fast. Now, it is probably assumed they are in a state of mortal sin, since it is almost impossible to break the 1 hour communion fast. It takes much reverence to stay in your seat, rather than go up and automatically receive Communion. Virtually everyone at my NO church receives, even those who only come to Mass irregularly.

I have no problem with the one hour fast, because that is what the Church teaches. It wouldn’t surprise me, though, if the Church changed this discipline back to three hours.

I prefer the overnight fast, though, because it helps me to prepare myself better for Holy Communion.

 

[ctos]

There can be social pressure attached to receiving Communion, and in the old days, if someone didn’t go up for Communion, it was assumed that they had broken the 3 hour fast. Now, it is probably assumed they are in a state of mortal sin, since it is almost impossible to break the 1 hour communion fast. It takes much reverence to stay in your seat, rather than go up and automatically receive Communion. Virtually everyone at my NO church receives, even those who only come to Mass irregularly.

I have no problem with the one hour fast, because that is what the Church teaches. It wouldn’t surprise me, though, if the Church changed this discipline back to three hours.

I prefer the overnight fast, though, because it helps me to prepare myself better for Holy Communion.

I agree that people should go to confession frequently as part of receiving our Lord frequently. I was limiting my discussion to the virtue and effects of communion fasts of different lengths.

Your point that longer fasts make it easier to stay back is intriguing, but the larger point remains that a Communion fast longer than one hour excludes the majority of Catholics from any hope of daily Communion. Therefore we must conclude that increasing the Eucharistic fast is highly unlikely to occur. Commuters on their way to work would be shut out almost entirely, unless they be left to eat on the road or carry a breakfast to work. Very unlikely. Increasing the frequency of receiving our Lord is a concern of the Church going back at least to Cardinal Sarto. That is, reinstating the practice of frequent reception is a concern that goes back.

Your last point is interesting. I am tempted to agree: however, I strive to ensure that I do not suffer from any doubt about Church teaching or practice. If the Church says one hour is sufficient, I make sure I truly believe that it is. Otherwise I risk placing myself above the Church in deciding what is good for me, and becoming a law unto myself.

 

[paramedicgirl]

I agree that people should go to confession frequently as part of receiving our Lord frequently. I was limiting my discussion to the virtue and effects of communion fasts of different lengths.

Your point that longer fasts make it easier to stay back is intriguing, but the larger point remains that a Communion fast longer than one hour excludes the majority of Catholics from any hope of daily Communion. Therefore we must conclude that increasing the Eucharistic fast is highly unlikely to occur. Commuters on their way to work would be shut out almost entirely, unless they be left to eat on the road or carry a breakfast to work. Very unlikely. Increasing the frequency of receiving our Lord is a concern of the Church going back at least to Cardinal Sarto. That is, reinstating the practice of frequent reception is a concern that goes back.

Your last point is interesting. I am tempted to agree: however, I strive to ensure that I do not suffer from any doubt about Church teaching or practice. If the Church says one hour is sufficient, I make sure I truly believe that it is. Otherwise I risk placing myself above the Church in deciding what is good for me, and becoming a law unto myself.

You must live in a fast paced society where people rush
everywhere. I live in a small town, and our daily Mass is at 9 AM or 7 PM. So the fasting is easy. When I go to daily Mass I just don’t eat until 10 AM. And I see no problem with eating on the fly after Mass on the way to work. People eat on the fly all the time.

By my last point, do you mean my preference for an overnight fast? I am not holding myself higher than Church teaching on that (which I kind of got the impression you may have implied). I said clearly I don’t have a problem with the 1 hour fast, as that is what the Church teaches. I am allowed to have a preference, after all. I don’t impose it on anyone else, though.

 

[ctos]

You must live in a fast paced society where people rush everywhere. I live in a small town, and our daily Mass is at 9 AM or 7 PM. So the fasting is easy. When I go to daily Mass I just don’t eat until 10 AM. And I see no problem with eating on the fly after Mass on the way to work. People eat on the fly all the time.

By my last point, do you mean my preference for an overnight fast? I am not holding myself higher than Church teaching on that (which I kind of got the impression you may have implied). I said clearly I don’t have a problem with the 1 hour fast, as that is what the Church teaches. I am allowed to have a preference, after all. I don’t impose it on anyone else, though.

Given the objective of not setting Mass times and related fasting disciplines such that the majority of Catholics could not possibly receive Communion, a fast of more than one hour would make your two suggested Mass times implausible. Working people can’t get to 9AM Mass anyway. Their only choice would be 7PM. Even the one-hour fast is very hard for them, at that time. They have to get home and be done eating by 6PM. Very unrealistic.

It is also unrealistic to impose on Catholics the idea of not eating until 10AM. Most people have to get up at about 5 or earlier, and be at work by 7:30 or 8, and to not eat until 10 is just implausible. Most any kind of work takes significant energy. Likewise with carrying food around: it’s just unrealistic. And what would it prove? Why not just alter the discipline so that it makes sense, rather than leaving it in place so that it creates a wierd burden that almost nobody can take seriously? Carrying food, eating out all the time, not eating until hours after getting out of bed… all very bizarre and unnecessary. Also it’s in a certain way uncatholic to eat on the fly. One ought to be able to take time, eat with family, and so on. Why should this impede reception of our Lord?

We are allowed to have a preference, but the risk among trads is beginning to believe that one knows better than the Church what is the good of souls. I don’t intend to imply that you hold yourself above the Church, but I have noticed this tendency in myself in the past.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Given the objective of not setting Mass times and related fasting disciplines such that the majority of Catholics could not possibly receive Communion, a fast of more than one hour would make your two suggested Mass times implausible. Working people can’t get to 9AM Mass anyway. Their only choice would be 7PM. Even the one-hour fast is very hard for them, at that time. They have to get home and be done eating by 6PM. Very unrealistic.

It is also unrealistic to impose on Catholics the idea of not eating until 10AM. Most people have to get up at about 5 or earlier, and be at work by 7:30 or 8, and to not eat until 10 is just implausible. Most any kind of work takes significant energy. Likewise with carrying food around: it’s just unrealistic. And what would it prove? Why not just alter the discipline so that it makes sense, rather than leaving it in place so that it creates a wierd burden that almost nobody can take seriously? Carrying food, eating out all the time, not eating until hours after getting out of bed… all very bizarre and unnecessary. Also it’s in a certain way uncatholic to eat on the fly. One ought to be able to take time, eat with family, and so on. Why should this impede reception of our Lord?

We are allowed to have a preference, but the risk among trads is beginning to believe that one knows better than the Church what is the good of souls. I don’t intend to imply that you hold yourself above the Church, but I have noticed this tendency in myself in the past.

Maybe I’m just not as hung up on food as you are. I can go for extended periods (up to 12 hours) without food on my job. I have no problem fasting until after the morning Mass. You shouldn’t impose your viewpoint as obliging for all Catholics. People are free to hold to the one hour fast. I have no problem with that. But you seem to be telling us that without the one hour fast, no one would be able to receive Communion. Self discipline is all it takes. For those who wish to pursue it.

Oh, and tonight I got off work at 6 PM after working a 36 hour shift, and I went directly to adoration. Dinner came after, at 7:30 PM. It’s really not that hard. It is Lent, after all.

 

[ctos]

But you seem to be telling us that without the one hour fast, no one would be able to receive Communion.

I can go 12 hours without eating too. Most anyone can. But, most people eat breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and they don’t sin in doing so. It is the pattern that works for most people. It’s not appropriate to say that because they want to eat breakfast, they can’t receive our Lord in the morning, unless they carry a breakfast to work, or eat at a restaurant.

 

[paramedicgirl]

I can go 12 hours without eating too. Most anyone can. But, most people eat breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and they don’t sin in doing so. It is the pattern that works for most people. It’s not appropriate to say that because they want to eat breakfast, they can’t receive our Lord in the morning, unless they carry a breakfast to work, or eat at a restaurant.

No, not as long as they hold to the minimum 1 hour fast imposed by the Church. Oh, and also that other thing called being in a state of grace.

 

[ctos]

No, not as long as they hold to the minimum 1 hour fast imposed by the Church. Oh, and also that other thing called being in a state of grace.

Yes of course, the one-hour fast. My point was that for the fast to be imposed as two or more hours would exclude people who through no fault of their own find it extremely inconvenient to not eat after, say, 4:30am or 5:00am depending on when the morning Mass starts. I have heard trads belittle the one-hour fast as the mark of a derelict Church. A longer eucharistic fast would exclude most everyone from daily communion or force lifestyle changes that have nothing realistically to do with actual sanctity.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

A discipline that accomplishes nothing more than distancing people from our Lord for no reason outside of the discipline itself is a displine that should be dismissed.

This comment exhibits your persistent inability or refusal to understand the purpose of the communion fast. The very fact that you could claim the discipline has no purpose beyond itself shows how incredibly ignorant you are of its spirituality. I try not to recklessly risk offense, but there is no better way to describe that statement than ignorant.

Given the objective of not setting Mass times and related fasting disciplines such that the majority of Catholics could not possibly receive Communion, a fast of more than one hour would make your two suggested Mass times implausible. Working people can’t get to 9AM Mass anyway. Their only choice would be 7PM. Even the one-hour fast is very hard for them, at that time. They have to get home and be done eating by 6PM. Very unrealistic.

It is also unrealistic to impose on Catholics the idea of not eating until 10AM. Most people have to get up at about 5 or earlier, and be at work by 7:30 or 8, and to not eat until 10 is just implausible. Most any kind of work takes significant energy. Likewise with carrying food around: it’s just unrealistic. And what would it prove? Why not just alter the discipline so that it makes sense, rather than leaving it in place so that it creates a wierd burden that almost nobody can take seriously? Carrying food, eating out all the time, not eating until hours after getting out of bed… all very bizarre and unnecessary. Also it’s in a certain way uncatholic to eat on the fly. One ought to be able to take time, eat with family, and so on. Why should this impede reception of our Lord?

I can go 12 hours without eating too. Most anyone can. But, most people eat breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and they don’t sin in doing so. It is the pattern that works for most people. It’s not appropriate to say that because they want to eat breakfast, they can’t receive our Lord in the morning, unless they carry a breakfast to work, or eat at a restaurant.

I notice your ideal conditions contain absolutely no requirement of sacrifice for the sake of spiritual growth. If something is hard, you are automatically of the opinion it is unreasonable. If I could translate the last quoted line above, it would read “It is inappropriate to expect anyone to change their life patterns to advance in his spiritual life.” The whole point of the fast is preparation - communion is something that requires us to change, not something about which we have any reason to expect the world to change for us. Aggiornamento was supposed to find new ways to speak to the world, not new ways to surrender to it.

 

[bear06]

Yes of course, the one-hour fast. My point was that for the fast to be imposed as two or more hours would exclude people who through no fault of their own find it extremely inconvenient to not eat after, say, 4:30am or 5:00am depending on when the morning Mass starts. I have heard trads belittle the one-hour fast as the mark of a derelict Church. A longer eucharistic fast would exclude most everyone from daily communion or force lifestyle changes that have nothing realistically to do with actual sanctity.

I don’t have a problem with the one hour fast rule. In fact, I like it because it give me a chance to do something extra that’s not required when I fast from midnight. I highly doubt a fast from midnight would exclude people from a daily Mass. It might force a lifestyle change but it would be pretty small considering they could bring their breakfast with them to eat on the way to work, at work, etc. And fasting does realistically have to do with sanctity. It’s a long standing tradition with the saints on their path to sanctity so I’d have to disagree with you here. Lifestyle changes are not bad either. For some, actually going to Mass is one. I will agree with you that a one hour fast is not a derelict of the Church. I see it as an opportunity.