Eucharistic Fast

  • Thread starter Thread starter blaskoman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I dont know when the rule change went into effect, but wondering why those who had to hold the midnight fast were held to a much higher standard than today?

since God has is not constricted to time and space, perhaps God will have mercy on people who received Communion (during midnight fast rules) unworthily, by applying the new 1 hr rule to take precedence over all previous standards.
 
If every law was subject to “God is merciful” than heck, than dressing up like going to the beach at church is ok because “God doesn’t want us to sweat, He is pure love”

:mad: No slacking!!!
 
blaskoman said:
I dont know when the rule change went into effect, but wondering why those who had to hold the midnight fast were held to a much higher standard than today?

since God has is not constricted to time and space, perhaps God will have mercy on people who received Communion (during midnight fast rules) unworthily, by applying the new 1 hr rule to take precedence over all previous standards.
Click to expand...
Well of course God is merciful. I can’t recall many people in those days however, who said ‘well, I’m going to have breakfast before Mass, I don’t care what the rule is.’ The point is, you went to Mass every Sunday; you didn’t have to go to communion every Sunday. Why break the rule for no good reason? If you didn’t keep the fast, don’t go to communion. Simple.
 
The point I was trying to make was my perplexity regarding how could the Church relax its standards regarding the Eucharistic fast. If the Church apparently didnt hold the initial period of time for the fast in high esteem, thereby reducing the time to merely an hour. What ensued was taking away at least an 8-10 hr period of time where previous fasters would be liable for a mortal sin…maybe it’s like saying the old law regarding fornication is now revised to allow only friday night couplings as non-sinful whereas the rest of the week is mortal.
 
Blaskoman, I hear what you are saying, but maybe we should look at it this way: The fasting rule is a discipline - it helps us to be aware of the sacredness of what we are about to do. When we can’t receive because we didn’t adhere to the discipline, it is not so much a “punishment” but a way to make us appreciate the sacrament. Receiving Holy Communion only benefits us to the extent that we are in the proper state of mind, soul and body to receive. A physical discipline such as fasting helps to prepare our mind, body and soul to be more receptive to the grace received from the Eucharist. You have to kind of come in somewhere between overscrupulosity and “Oh well, a little fudging here and there won’t make a difference”.

Another example, the rule against receiving communion when you have divorced and remarried. Yes, these people need the graces flowing from the Holy Eucharist every bit if not more than the rest of us. Forbidding the receiving of the Eucharist is not so much a punishment as it is a way to make people aware of the need to be vigilant and careful with the state of the soul. It keeps us aware that we have separated ourselves from God and the Catholic community by our sin. If there were no consequence, then why have the rule in the first place?
 
blaskoman said:
I try to observe the 1 hour rule before receiving Communion. Is it a mortal sin to receive Communion without observing the hour fast, when broken with full knowledge? thx
Click to expand...
Yes it is a mortal sin because you knew with full knowledge.
 
The fast from midnight was not so difficult to keep, because in those days there were no Saturday vigil Masses, and the Sunday Masses were early! So the family got up early on Sunday, went to Mass, received communion or not,* then came home and fixed breakfast.

(A lot of parishioners still work this way. They go to early Mass on Sunday morning, then everybody goes out to breakfast somewhere, or they make a big breakfast at home.)

The fast was initially reduced to three hours, and then later to one hour. The downside is that we have perhaps come to view communion as a routine, and an entitlement, rather than a remarkable encounter with the living Christ for which we ought to be properly prepared.

(*It was not unheard of for someone conscious of mortal sin to take a sip of water, then use the fact that they had accidentally broken their fast as a reason for not receiving communion. That wasn’t really necessary, because communion, then as now, is optional, not required.)
 
There are somethings that need to be considered.

A minute is not terrible, 5 is a limit and 10 is shameful.

But there are somethings that must be considered:
  • Is it the second communion of the day?
  • If I don’t recieve now, the next mass is when I have to be at work .
  • I do this often.
I mean do you love God more than a snicker bar?

Or god Belly more than God?

The Church loosened so that we have more access, but not to abuse.
 
A thilrd little dillemma, when I catch my daughter with gum in her mouth on the way in to church, should I keep her from going to communion?

She should be made to spit out the gum before she gets to church–or even better, NOT chew it on the way to church.
 
I would venture to guess that a very small percentage of catholics know that a fast prior to the reception of the Eucharist actually exists.

I have never heard of a priest mention about the fast prior to Communion, nor during any homily. I have attended catholic grammer school for 8 years, and may have heard it mentioned a few times.

For that matter, it is hardly mentioned during mass that those conscious of grave sin, or non-catholics in attendance should abstain from receiving. The only instances in which this is mentioned is during Christmas and Easter masses. Guidelines for reception of the Eucharist are mentioned on the back of the missalettes, but no mention of the proscribed fast is made.
 
Well, at least you have a missalette! I really miss those.

There are a lot of things you never hear about from the pulpit, unfortunately. All in an effort to just talk about “love”. Unfortunately, they miss the point on “love” as well, and focus on the warm fuzzy feelings instead of the sacrificial aspects of love.
 
She should be made to spit out the gum before she gets to church–or even better, NOT chew it on the way to church.

You are so right! I think I’ll line them all up for inspection and go through my checklist before leaving the house from now on, no, better yet, 30 minutes before leaving the house. Of course, that means they’ll have to remain at attention so they don’t get in any further mischief. Maybe I can find a Von Trapp family-style whistle and train them to come when I blow it. Of course, that means I’ll need to keep a 2 x 4 handy. This is sounding better and better.🙂
 
jacie said:
She should be made to spit out the gum before she gets to church–or even better, NOT chew it on the way to church.
Click to expand...
You are so right! I think I’ll line them all up for inspection and go through my checklist before leaving the house from now on, no, better yet, 30 minutes before leaving the house. Of course, that means they’ll have to remain at attention so they don’t get in any further mischief. Maybe I can find a Von Trapp family-style whistle and train them to come when I blow it. Of course, that means I’ll need to keep a 2 x 4 handy. This is sounding better and better.🙂

How difficult would it be, simply to remind them at the same time that you’re reminding yourself, “The fast for Holy Communion begins in just a few minutes, so please get rid of any gum you might be chewing, and put away your candy, drinks, and snacks.” They’ll see that you’re doing the same, so it shouldn’t be an issue, really.

Depending on their age, after that, it’s up to them to observe the fast (unless you catch them eating something, in which case you just tell them that they should not approach to receive Holy Communion, since they will have not fasted for the full hour).
 
IMO, if I “get lucky” and have the unexpected opportunity to go to Mass, I won’t receive if I am aware of having broken the fast. I’ll be grateful that I get to Mass!

That said, because I was taking Communion to the hospital, my spiritual director told me that anyone who did not know they would have the opportunity to receive did not have to worry about having fasted (speaking of EMHCs and Catholic visitors in the room, not the patient).

It has only happened once that I did not have at least an hour’s notice, and I did choose not to receive. It was definitely a sacrifice, and I thought long and hard about my sd’s counsel. I did not want to be overly scrupulous, but I also knew I would be at Mass the next day, so I chose to offer it up 🙂

We have priests in and out atm, with vacations, and never quite know whether it will be daily Mass or “just” Liturgy of the Hours, so I am fasting just in case, so that I don’t have to worry about it!
 
One of our parish priests said in a homily something like this:

What if you were only allowed to receive the Eucharist once in your life? How well would you prepare for that reception?

We might also recall that during the long history of the Church, the ability to receive as frequently as we do today is a relatively new phenomenon.
 
When was it three hours, and did that allow water?
When did it get to be an hour?
When did the Mass schedules we have now come into being?
What about daily Mass; was that midnight too? Were they earlier too?
Why are the rules easier now? Is it to keep us from leaving the Church or is it because we’re weaker now? I don’t want to be weaker than my forebears; I know I am anyway but maybe I don’t have to be too much weaker?
If I try to do it the old way and I can’t will that be wrong, that I tried and couldn’t do it?😊
 
strngrnrth said:
When was it three hours, and did that allow water?
When did it get to be an hour?
When did the Mass schedules we have now come into being?
What about daily Mass; was that midnight too? Were they earlier too?
Click to expand...
Yes, and one hears horror stories of school aged children being taken to daily Mass during Lent and not being given any breakfast, because Mass was just before school.
Why are the rules easier now? Is it to keep us from leaving the Church or is it because we’re weaker now?
Click to expand...
It could be because under the old rules, it was impossible to do the right things for one’s children, because you had a choice - breakfast, or Mass, but not both.

Under the new rules, children can eat breakfast an hour before they go to Mass. It means getting up a little earlier, but that’s not as much of a sacrifice as not eating breakfast at all.

Also, under the new rules, the kids can go to Mass after school, as well, even if the Mass is less than three hours after they finish their lunch or snack.
 
This shows how weak our generation is. We think we’ll die if we’re not constantly grazing.

My understanding is that the old rule was:

No food at all after 12 midnight for a morning Mass.
Fast for three hours before an afternoon Mass.

If in doubt as to whether it’s licit, don’t eat it. Coffee, gum, whatever. It’s a sacrifice, and it’s lessened if you try to wiggle out of it. Who are you trying to fool?

Personally, I do four for the heck of it, and no food for an hour after communion. I didn’t like the idea of having bacon and saugages immediately after reception of our Lord.

My reasoning is that I don’t want any food in my belly while the Host is being digested.

You can do it, easily. So can kids. It’s just a foreign concept; the idea of being hungry (eek!). Makes you appreciate food much more, too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top