Fasting before Holy Communion

[Joe_5859]

I’m not aware of a particular, post-conciliar Church document explicitly stating something like, “We still recommend a longer fast,” but neither has the Church stated, “We no longer think the faithful should fast for so long.”

In other words, I’m going on the principle of the hermeneutic of continuity, that what our fathers held sacred, we hold sacred also. The Church’s mind on this matter has been expressed in documents like Christus Dominus (1953); and although the legal norms issued therein are superseded, I think the general principles and teaching still apply.

But I’m open to correction on this point.

Okay. I think if one wants to personally practice a longer fast, there is certainly spiritual benefits that can be gained.

I’m just cautious about making it sound like the Church requires more than She actually does and/or giving the impression that one is not as good of a Catholic because they only fast one hour.

I certainly wouldn’t tell people I don’t think they should fast for longer. But I wouldn’t tell someone who is following the rule that is presently in place that they’re not doing as much as they should. I cannot demand more of them than the Church demands (unless they’re my kids ).

 

[Memaw]

Okay. I think if one wants to personally practice a longer fast, there is certainly spiritual benefits that can be gained.

I’m just cautious about making it sound like the Church requires more than She actually does and/or giving the impression that one is not as good of a Catholic because they only fast one hour.

I certainly wouldn’t tell people I don’t think they should fast for longer. But I wouldn’t tell someone who is following the rule that is presently in place that they’re not doing as much as they should. I cannot demand more of them than the Church demands (unless they’re my kids ).

Maybe we are supposed to start acting like adult Catholics and don’t always rely on the Church to tell us exactly what to do and not do. If we know what the Church sets before us, like sacrificing something besides meat on Fri., then we should but willing to do that on our own. A sacrifice is truly a sacrifice when it’s done with love. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Joe_5859]

Maybe we are supposed to start acting like adult Catholics and don’t always rely on the Church to tell us exactly what to do and not do. If we know what the Church sets before us, like sacrificing something besides meat on Fri., then we should but willing to do that on our own. A sacrifice is truly a sacrifice when it’s done with love. God Bless, Memaw

Sure. I just want to avoid the danger of telling Catholics they need to go above and beyond every requirement the Church lays out in order to be good Catholics.

 

[otjm]

“No longer have to” does not equal “ought not to anymore.” In one case an obligation under pain of mortal sin is removed; in the other (non-existent) case, the practice is discouraged.

Take Friday abstinence for example. The U.S. conference of bishops removed the legal obligation for U.S. Catholics to abstain from meat on Fridays throughout the year. Many people took this as “We shouldn’t abstain from meat anymore,” but they missed the point. The pastoral letter says:

(21) . . . the Catholic bishops of the United States, far from downgrading the traditional penitential observance . . . urge our Catholic people . . . (23) Friday should be in each week something of what Lent is in the entire year. . .(24) Among the works of voluntary self-denial and personal penance which we especially commend to our people for the future observance of Friday, even though we hereby terminate the traditional law of abstinence binding under pain of sin, as the sole prescribed means of observing Friday, we give first place to abstinence from flesh meat. We do so in the hope that the Catholic community will ordinarily continue to abstain from meat by free choice as formerly we did in obedience to Church law. . . . We shall thus freely and out of love for Christ Crucified show our solidarity with the generations of believers to whom this practice frequently became . . . evidence of fidelity to Christ and His Church.

I don’t recall using the words “ought not”. It was crystal clear to all of us when the fast changed from midnight on, to three hour before, that we were not required to fast from midnight on. If you are reading more into that statement, I can assure you nothing more is there.

Adults - at least those I knew - stopped fasting from midnight on, and in fact, rejoiced tha the fast was no longer required for such a great time. And it was a clear start of more frequent Communions.

 

[SMHW]

B

I too grew up in the age when fasting was from midnight .

But , good heavens , where have you been all these years ? The fast of one hour prior to receiving the Eucharist was introduced way back in 1964 .On Nov 21st of that year to be precise .

I was wondering the same thing…

I have great respect for those who wish to fast for longer time periods before they receive. But I am in my middle 50s and I am too young to have ever been subject to the three hour requirement, let alone the requirement to fast from midnight onward.

Perhaps I should thank you all for making me feel so young!

 

[thistle]

I usually try to follow the 3 hr rule… Mostly because the Mass I usually go to (EF) is at 4pm. If it were earlier, I’d go earlier… However, its at 4pm. That said, I follow the 3 hr rule. If I know I won’t be able to make it to the EF Mass, I go to an OF Mass in the AM (8 or 10)… I fast from Midnight then.

We are free to fast longer than the one hour required before receiving.
There is no 3 hour rule.

 

[SMHW]

We are free to fast longer than the one hour required before receiving.
There is no 3 hour rule.

Not now. But there was. Just as there is not currently a fast from midnight until reception rule. I don’t think anyone was implying that such “rules” are currently in force. But those former rules are handy “goals” for those who wish to fast for longer than what is required.

(Obviously we are talking about Latin Catholics.)

 

[thistle]

Not now. But there was. Just as there is not currently a fast from midnight until reception rule. I don’t think anyone was implying that such “rules” are currently in force. But those former rules are handy “goals” for those who wish to fast for longer than what is required.

(Obviously we are talking about Latin Catholics.)

“was” is not relevant. The applicable rule is one hour before receiving. Anything else is voluntary, which I am not against. The thing is that many Catholics are not well versed in the rules so we should only apply that word if there is such a rule in place otherwise it will confuse people.

 

[Brendan_64]

CCC1387 To prepare for worthy reception of this sacrament, the faithful should observe the fast required in their Church

Which is 1 hour.

CCC 1438 The seasons and days of penance in the course of the liturgical year (Lent, and each Friday in memory of the death of the Lord) are intense moments of the Church’s penitential practice.36 These times are particularly appropriate for spiritual exercises, penitential liturgies, pilgrimages as signs of penance, voluntary self-denial such as fasting and almsgiving, and fraternal sharing (charitable and missionary works).

That is a specific reference to the season of Lent and Fridays. No reference to Communion there.

While it is certainly a good thing to do, should an individual feel it of spiritual benefit, there is no recommendation from the Church that people should practice fasting for 3, 12 or any other amount of hours (other than at least 1 hour) before receiving Communion. If people wish to do so, then that’s great, but they are not doing so on the recommendation of the Church.

 

[mcrts]

One hour before reception.

However, water and medicine are allowed. The infirm and elderly are not required to fast.

 

[Brendan_64]

I’ve often wondered what is the theological basis for fasting before Communion. Is it simply a sign of respect, or is there some other significance. Does anybody on here know?

 

[Mintaka]

In general, the custom of the Church from the earliest times was to fast on the days before feasts. This imitates the pattern of salvation history, in which we usually have troubles and then rejoice when the Lord saves us from distress; or we sin, repent, and then rejoice in being saved by Him. Even when we ourselves haven’t done anything bad, we repent for others’ sake. This comes to us from Jewish times and their pattern of fasts and holy days.
In fact, some Jewish brides and grooms fast an entire day before they get married (which is why they usually get to retire to a little room to snack and rest, after the wedding and before the reception).

Fasting before Communion is a little Lent.

 

[dixieagle]

Okay. I think if one wants to personally practice a longer fast, there is certainly spiritual benefits that can be gained.

I’m just cautious about making it sound like the Church requires more than She actually does and/or giving the impression that one is not as good of a Catholic because they only fast one hour.

I certainly wouldn’t tell people I don’t think they should fast for longer. But I wouldn’t tell someone who is following the rule that is presently in place that they’re not doing as much as they should. I cannot demand more of them than the Church demands (unless they’re my kids ).

This sort of thing crops up often on these boards - folks trying to impose their own preferences in place of Canon Law, etc.

Do more if you wish, but don’t try to confuse the faithful.

 

[dixieagle]

“was” is not relevant. The applicable rule is one hour before receiving. Anything else is voluntary, which I am not against. The thing is that many Catholics are not well versed in the rules so we should only apply that word if there is such a rule in place otherwise it will confuse people.

Precisely.

 

[jmcrae]

I think the one hour before receiving thing is silly. Most Sunday Masses don’t distribute Communion until about 45 to 50 minutes into the Mass. That means as long as you don’t eat pretty much on the way to Mass or in the church you’re good to go. One hour prior to the beginning of Mass should be the minimum.

I can see where the midnight thing can be troublesome for people who go to evening Masses. However, I truly feel that three hours should be the standard unless the person is elderly or has health reasons why they cannot fast.

Three hours would certainly be more noticeable. But even with just a one-hour fast, I still see people chewing on their way into Mass, or even during Mass.

 

[Leon_Bloy]

We need to be careful not to impose burdens on our fellow faithful. This is a serious consideration. Remember that there are scrupulous people out there who like to read into things, and make things very hard on themselves. Also, the evil one wants to discourage people from going to communion.

Be mindful:

Church law is Church law. What is required of us to avoid sin is no more, no less.

The law says “at least one hour.” That means… “at least one hour.” Anything else is private/personal opinion.

If you want to fast from midnight, great. If you want to tell, or even suggest to other people, than they are somehow sinning or less than real Catholics because they do not choose to do this, then you are in the wrong.

 

[MissRose73]

I personally stop eating and drinking 1 hour before Mass starts with the exception of water if it is needed. You never know if Mass will run shorter sometimes especially on weekdays.

 

[Chatter163]

I haven’t seen reference here to the presence of afternoon and evening Masses, which was the reason that the midnight fast was shortened to three hours in 1953. At the same time permission was given for Masses to be celebrated after 12 noon. The change to one hour a decade later is a little more difficult to analyze.

 

[Brendan_64]

With the shortage of priests these days, and individual priests having to say up to 4 masses on Sundays, a 3 hour fast before each Mass would be grueling. I’d rather have priests on their feet in Mass than keeling over.

You’re lucky to get 1 priest per parish in the UK. It’s common for several parishes to share a priest. I wouldn’t fancy being a rural priest covering 3 parishes, that are geographically spread (and I know priest who does just that) and having to cover their Masses on a Sunday with a 3-hour fast ruling. You’d be lucky to get to eat in the evening time.

 

[jmcrae]

With the shortage of priests these days, and individual priests having to say up to 4 masses on Sundays, a 3 hour fast before each Mass would be grueling. I’d rather have priests on their feet in Mass than keeling over.

You’re lucky to get 1 priest per parish in the UK. It’s common for several parishes to share a priest. I wouldn’t fancy being a rural priest covering 3 parishes, that are geographically spread (and I know priest who does just that) and having to cover their Masses on a Sunday with a 3-hour fast ruling. You’d be lucky to get to eat in the evening time.

I’m under the impression that priests are only required to fast prior to the first Mass of each day - can anyone verify that?