Fasting before recieiving the Eucharist

[LilyM]

Gemmarose, as much as I sympathise with your point of view, Jesus made clear what He expects - ‘if you love Me you will keep My commandments’, and that means the precepts of the church such as the Communion fast, since they too come from Him - ‘who hears you hears me, who rejects you rejects me’.

So He does expect us to keep strictly to the guidelines the Church sets for us in all matters.

More importantly, He also made clear WHY this obedience is so important - ‘he who is faithful in small things will be faithful in great things’. Think of it as spiritual training - if you can make small sacrifices like the Communion fast faithfully you will be able to do the greater and more difficult things that will inevitably be required of any faithful follower of Christ. If you cut corners in small matters it’s much less likely that you will be successful in anything requiring real spiritual effort.

Put it this way - Christ didn’t say from the Cross ‘oh, I’m 95% of the way dead now, get me down, let me live and we’ll call it even’. He fulfilled to the utmost, and beyond (since His life was more than a sufficient sacrifice for our redemption), what the Father required of Him. We can do no less.

 

[GemmaRose]

Yes, LilyM, you’re right. But He also expects us to be human & thus to fail & fail a heck of a lot of times before we meet Him face to Face.

But, there is a big difference between inadvertent failure & out-and-out deliberate sin. It seems to me that very many of the posts in this thread are all too quick to accuse newone of a mortal sin, and to do so is being no different than the Pharisees. Plain & simple: only God is the Judge.

In addition, I don’t believe that in any of my posts I advocated that newone should not confess it. If I had received Communion in exactly the same circumstances, I would have confessed it. But I would not have deemed it to be a mortal sin since no sacrilege, nor mortal sin, was intended.

From the Catechism:

Q. 282. How many things are necessary to make a sin mortal?

A. To make a sin mortal, three things are necessary: 1.a grievous matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will.

Q. 283. What do we mean by “grievous matter” with regard to sin?

A. By “grievous matter” with regard to sin we mean that the thought, word or deed by which mortal sin is committed must be either very bad in itself or severely prohibited, and therefore sufficient to make a mortal sin if we deliberately yield to it.

I find it difficult to believe that so many feel the remnants of milk, which may or may not have remained in the stomach of one who wasn’t even sure how long before he drank it would in any way, manner, shape or form, constitute matter “grievous” enough to be a mortal sin, especially in someone who loves the Lord enough to receive Him in Holy Communion, and who has not stated in any way that he meant any form of disrespect or sacrilege!

Q. 284. What does “sufficient reflection and full consent of the will” mean?

A. “Sufficient reflection” means that we must know the thought, word or deed to be sinful at the time we are guilty of it; and “full consent of the will” means that we must fully and willfully yield to it.

Likewise, I find it hard to believe that the last minute *“Oh gosh! What time exactly did I drink that milk?!?” *as people are lining up to receive Communion, would constitute the “sufficient reflection” needed for a mortal sin. Additionally, when one’s love for the Lord & desire to receive Him is so strong, that might also affect the "full consent of the will needed for a mortal sin.

If I were a priest confessor hearing newone’s confession, I would judge this to have been a slight offense rather than a major one.

Q. 292. Can slight offenses ever become mortal sins?

A. Slight offenses can become mortal sins if we commit them through defiant contempt for God or His law; and also when they are followed by very evil consequences, which we foresee in committing them.

There isn’t a hint of “defiant contempt for God and His law” in newone’s post, and I doubt that his receiving the Lord was followed by “very evil consequences”.

However, when in doubt,

Q. 291. Can we always distinguish venial from mortal sin?

A. We cannot always distinguish venial from mortal sin, and in such cases we must leave the decision to our confessor.

Why?

Q. 288. Why is it wrong to judge others guilty of sin?

A. It is wrong to judge others guilty of sin because we cannot know for certain that their sinful act was committed with sufficient reflection and full consent of the will.

Q. 289. What sin does he commit who without sufficient reason believes another guilty of sin?

A. He who without sufficient reason believes another guilty of sin commits a sin of rash judgment.

Newone, I suggest you go to the EWTN Q&A Forum and ask the same question, including the circumstances around it. See what one of the priests there tells you. If they say you committed a mortal sin, I will stand corrected; although I will still lean towards the goodness and mercy of God. Also, as I said, when you do have the opportunity to go to Confession, don’t only say that you didn’t fast for the hour, explain the circumstances. The priest will be able to make the decision of how serious a sin it was, or even it would be considered sinful in such circumstance.

“I wish that my heart could beat, that I could live and breathe only for Jesus, I wish that my tongue could utter no other name than that of Jesus; that my eye could see only Jesus; that my pen could write only about Jesus, and that my thoughts could soar to nothing but Jesus. O Jesus, seek me in love; I no longer possess anything; you have stolen my heart…” - St. Gemma Galgani

 

[LilyM]

Gemmarose - there’s also a huge difference between inadvertent failure and the sort of lackadaisical ‘near enough is good enough’ attitude that in reality amounts to not caring whether one offends God or not because one presumes overmuch on His mercy.

And one certainly doesn’t need even the slightest hint of defiant contempt, as you put it, for it to be mortal sin. One simply needs the awareness that it’s grave matter and the deliberate choice to do it anyway.

Such a choice can be motivated by something as simple as negligence. There’s nowhere says one can’t commit mortal sin through carelessness. Sin is in its essence simply putting something - anything - else ahead of God. And that can simply mean putting our own convenience first - ie what suits us rather than what pleases God.

With something as serious as receiving the Eucharist there is no excuse to ever do other than err on the side of utmost caution.

One does require sufficient reflection for it to be mortal sin, sure, but since when is the half an hour or forty-five minutes of Mass prior to communion not sufficient time to reflect on whether or not one has eaten and should receive Communion?

If I ever failed to reflect in such a way at Mass I probably wouldn’t receive regardless of whether or not I’d fasted, because I wouldn’t have my mind sufficiently focused on the Eucharist to be worthy to receive it anyway.

To receive is a privilege, not a right, and we certainly shouldn’t receive out of mere habit and with a thoughtless or careless attitude as to what we’re doing.

 

[GemmaRose]

LilyM, I stand by my opinion.

You can’t commit a mortal sin by mere carelessness. I would quote the Catechism, but I have already done so. (“Defiant contempt” is also a phrase I picked up in the Catechism. I didn’t just “put it” that way.)

originally posted by LilyM
One does require sufficient reflection for it to be mortal sin, sure, but since when is the half an hour or forty-five minutes of Mass prior to communion not sufficient time to reflect on whether or not one has eaten and should receive Communion?

Did newone in fact have a half hour or forty-five minutes to reflect, or did he just remember when the time for Communion came? I don’t know, and I don’t think you do either.

Likewise,

originally posted by LilyM
there’s also a huge difference between inadvertent failure and the sort of lackadaisical ‘near enough is good enough’ attitude that in reality amounts to not caring whether one offends God or not because one presumes overmuch on His mercy.

I don’t think that either myself or newone have expressed any “lackadaisical ‘near enough is good enough’ attitude…” If either newone or myself felt that way, we wouldn’t be in a Catholic forum trying to grow and learn and deepen our faith. You may rest assured that I care VERY MUCH about offending God and try as hard as I can not to do so. I NEVER presume on His mercy.

In reading these posts, I cannot help but think of the 2nd Chapter of Mark, which says:

23 As he was passing through a field of grain on the sabbath, his disciples began to make a path while picking the heads of grain.
24 At this the Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the sabbath?”
25 He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions were hungry?
26 How he went into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the bread of offering that only the priests could lawfully eat, and shared it with his companions?”
27 Then he said to them, “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.
28 That is why the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath.”

Luke 6:1 says:

While he was going through a field of grain on a sabbath, his disciples were picking the heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands, and eating them.

The disciples were hungry…newone was thirsty.
The disciples absentmindedly began to pick and eat the heads of grain… newone absentmindedly drank some chocolate milk.
Jesus did not condemn the disciples who had technically violated the Mosaic Law… Somehow, I just don’t believe that He condemns newone who technically violated a law of the Church.

Why? Because even 2,000 years later, we are still not made for the Sabbath, and the Sabbath still is made for us. And the Lord of the Sabbath has told us so.

---

“I wish that my heart could beat, that I could live and breathe only for Jesus, I wish that my tongue could utter no other name than that of Jesus; that my eye could see only Jesus; that my pen could write only about Jesus, and that my thoughts could soar to nothing but Jesus. I have often wondered where on earth there might be something on which I could center my love. But neither on earth nor in heaven do I find any such thing but only my beloved Jesus… I am the fruit of your passion, Jesus, born of your wounds. O Jesus, seek me in love; I no longer possess anything; you have stolen my heart…” - St. Gemma Galgani

 

[po18guy]

I see two main points:

1. Confess it.
2. Don’t do it again.

Perfect!

Christ’s peace restored. Amen.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

There is no church requrement to fast after receiving communion.

The question was “how long after communion should one wait before eating once again?”

NOT, How long is one required to wait?

The answer to the Original question is about 20 or so minutes.

 

[agapewolf]

The question was “how long after communion should one wait before eating once again?”

NOT, How long is one required to wait?

The answer to the Original question is about 20 or so minutes.

By whose standards? Yours? There is no “should” when it comes to waiting to eat after communion. The way you stated it made it seemed like authoritative church teaching, and that isn’t right.

If you want to put your opinion out there about what one SHOULD do…even if you make it up yourself, please state that it is your opinion and not a requirement.

Posing our opinions as objective reality is dangerous ground…no matter what “Side” it seems to be on.

 

[LilyM]

GemmaRose, the Apostles were literally hungry - physically. Thus they literally needed the food they took. It’s not at all the same situation as choosing to receive the Eucharist which is not at all a weekly necessity - St Joan of Arc used to receive only once a year and even then only after making confession. Obviously no spiritual harm came to her from abstaining from the Eucharist at times.

And I’m not talking any longer about the OPs situation in particular - in charity I can’t and won’t judge his or her soul, rather I’ll educate all y’all on general principles.

In general even forty-five seconds would be more than sufficient for someone to cast their mind back over the past hour, determine they may’ve eaten and thus shouldn’t receive. And if they can’t or won’t take even that much time then they’re probably not suffiiciently mindful or recollected to be receiving anyway.

OK, now let’s look at what the CCC says about mortal sin:

"1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him. "

Doesn’t someone who is careless about waiting an hour for Communion do just this? Don’t they place their own desire to receive (which is surely an inferior good compared to showing proper respect for our Eucharistic Lord by waiting) ahead of God’s own command as given through the Church?

How in this respect are they different from someone who’s, say, in adultery or otherwise in mortal sin but receives anyway and says ‘oh but I love Him so much I couldn’t bear not to receive’. Such an attitude is rooted in selfishness and not true love of Our Lord.

"1856 When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner’s will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.130 "

Jesus SAID what it means to love Him - ‘if you love me you will keep my commandments’. Especially when it’s so easy to do as to reflect for a few seconds and avoid Communion if you think you may’ve eaten.

Again, without wishing to judge the OP, since I know so little about their circumstances, imagine that you were about to take a bungee jump and at the last second couldn’t remember whether you’d tied the rope correctly or not. I’m sure you WOULDN’T go ahead and jump regardless in such a situation.

And yet the safety of your soul from the effects of improperly receiving Communion is infinitely more important than any worry about a botched bungee jump!

To disobey deliberately or carelessly the commandments - including the Church precept about fasting prior to receiving - is not, as I said above, showing true love of Our Lord. Or even requisite spiritual IQ, if I can so express it.

"**1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.“131 **”

Deliberate consent means deliberate consent to do the act - in other words there’s no duress from another person or mental disorder within or anything else that makes the act itself less than voluntary.

You can choose to be careless, you know, and to be aware that your carelessness may mean you’re disrespecting the Eucharist. In a court of law it stands up as a serious offense if one is negligent and knows that that negligence might lead to harm, why wouldn’t it in God’s court?

"1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin. "

Every time we are tempted to plead ignorance we need to examine ourselves very carefully as to this stipulation.

 

[Seatuck]

By whose standards? Yours? There is no “should” when it comes to waiting to eat after communion. The way you stated it made it seemed like authoritative church teaching, and that isn’t right.

If you want to put your opinion out there about what one SHOULD do…even if you make it up yourself, please state that it is your opinion and not a requirement.

Posing our opinions as objective reality is dangerous ground…no matter what “Side” it seems to be on.

It’s based on how long digestion takes. It’s really kind of common sense.

 

[agapewolf]

It’s based on how long digestion takes. It’s really kind of common sense.

I’m sorry, it is not common sense. Not by any means. There is nothing harmful nor wrong about having food touch the Eucharist in our stomachs. Nothing happens from it.

That’s not why we have to fast before receiving either.

 

[Cristiano]

I’m sorry, it is not common sense. Not by any means. There is nothing harmful nor wrong about having food touch the Eucharist in our stomachs. Nothing happens from it.

That’s not why we have to fast before receiving either.

This remind me a comment from Bishop F. Sheen. Let me paraphrase it: “What is the difference between dieting and fasting? After either of them you loose 20 pounds anyway! The difference is that dieting is for your own body while fasting is for God!”

The same reasoning applies here for the post-communion fast! If you are too busy thinking about yourself (eating) instead instead of focusing on God while he is still sharing His divinity with you (digesting the Host) than you are putting another god before Him. That is a grave matter. I think that people tend to forget the sacrificial aspect of our religion.

 

[jmcrae]

I’m sorry, it is not common sense. Not by any means. There is nothing harmful nor wrong about having food touch the Eucharist in our stomachs. Nothing happens from it.

That’s not why we have to fast before receiving either.

That’s true - if it were so, then one hour would not be nearly enough time, unless all one eats is yogurt and other soft foods. Vegetables take a day to digest, I think.

Besides, Baby Jesus might want a bite of lunch after Mass.

(Sorry - inside joke. I had a friend I used to go for lunch with, and when deciding where to go, she would say, “Baby Jesus wants Chinese, today,” or something like that.)

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

By whose standards? Yours? There is no “should” when it comes to waiting to eat after communion. The way you stated it made it seemed like authoritative church teaching, and that isn’t right.

If you want to put your opinion out there about what one SHOULD do…even if you make it up yourself, please state that it is your opinion and not a requirement.

Posing our opinions as objective reality is dangerous ground…no matter what “Side” it seems to be on.

By what standards? Biology! The normal digestive process for a human is about 20 minutes for the Host to be digested.

 

[agapewolf]

By what standards? Biology! The normal digestive process for a human is about 20 minutes for the Host to be digested.

Please read my past post. THere is nothing intrinsically bad or wrong with food touching the Eucharist. If there were, there would be a mandatory fast after receiving, which there is not.

The Fact remains that you stated your preferences and “shouldas” as truth. That is wrong.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Please read my past post. THere is nothing intrinsically bad or wrong with food touching the Eucharist. If there were, there would be a mandatory fast after receiving, which there is not.

The Fact remains that you stated your preferences and “shouldas” as truth. That is wrong.

I don’t recall anyone saying that food touching the Blessed Sacrament was bad or wrong. I think you read that into the posts. Just like you read into my post that a 20 minute post-communion fast was somehow required by Church law. When there was nothing of the sort in my posts.

 

[agapewolf]

Then why would it matter if the Eucharist is digested or not?

By that very statement you made: that it takes that long to digest the Eucharist, so we “shouldn’t” eat during that time.

There is nothing else to derive from that but that its wrong for food to touch it.

And yes, the manner that you stated your “opinion” based on “biological standards” (that wasn’t mentioned till later I might add) was stated so bluntly and without explanation or reason, or a caveat that it was your opinion, …that came across as an authoritative proclamation.

It gave the wrong idea. It’s not me reading into it.

BRRichSFO, most of the time, I think you do a decent job in your posts. However, many many times, I think that in your bluntness in wanting to answer a question so directly, that you forget or omit vital information and exceptions. Of course exhaustive lists of exceptions or disclaimers don’t need to be given, but when observing the initial questions, one can sometimes figure what the person is REALLY asking, rather than the literal question posed…many times because the questioner doesn’t even realize they don’t know how to ask it correctly.

You must admit it…look at the opening question…

“I know one is supposed to fast an hour before receiving the Eucharist. Is it a mortal sin to receive it if you have not fasted for an hour? and how long after communion should one wait before eating once again?”

This guy wants to know what the rules are. You stating your answer as such posed it as gospel truth. Taking the OP use of the word “should” as your loophole out of this one doesn’t cut it.

and Cristiano, Christ’s divinity isn’t stopped being shared with us when the Eucharist is digested. Eating something is not putting false gods above God himself. That is ridiculous to call this “grave matter.”

 

[LilyM]

That’s true - if it were so, then one hour would not be nearly enough time, unless all one eats is yogurt and other soft foods. Vegetables take a day to digest, I think.

Besides, Baby Jesus might want a bite of lunch after Mass.

(Sorry - inside joke. I had a friend I used to go for lunch with, and when deciding where to go, she would say, “Baby Jesus wants Chinese, today,” or something like that.)

Which brings up a side question which has just come to me. See, when I was a kid if I said or did something naughty straight after Church my mother would say ‘how could you do/say that with little baby Jesus still inside you!’

I just started wondering why the tendency to think of the Host as ***baby ***Jesus in particular - wasn’t it the full-grown Jesus at the Last Supper who first said the blessed words that instituted the Eucharist?

… ok, now back to our regularly scheduled thread…

 

[jmcrae]

Which brings up a side question which has just come to me. See, when I was a kid if I said or did something naughty straight after Church my mother would say ‘how could you do/say that with little baby Jesus still inside you!’

I just started wondering why the tendency to think of the Host as ***baby ***Jesus in particular - wasn’t it the full-grown Jesus at the Last Supper who first said the blessed words that instituted the Eucharist?

… ok, now back to our regularly scheduled thread…

Because receiving the Eucharist is an Incarnational experience. We become like Mother Mary bearing Jesus in our bodies - other Theotokoses - whenever we receive the Eucharist.

 

[Kielbasi]

Given what we know to qualify for mortal sin, I’d say it’d be a mortal sin if you intentionally ate when you didn’t NEED to for medical reasons just either out of gluttony or to defy the Church teaching on fasting before the Eucharist. If you accidently ate within the hour before, it would be a venial sin as long as it was not intentional and you truly were sorry for it and would try your best to avoid doing so again.

The sin isn’t in breaking the fast, but in receiving when not fasting. If you accidently ate within the hour before, it would be a sin to receive, and presumably mortal, unless you forgot (at the time of the sacrament) that you broke the fast.

In which case, it wouldn’t be a sin at all.

 

[Cristiano]

and Cristiano, Christ’s divinity isn’t stopped being shared with us when the Eucharist is digested. Eating something is not putting false gods above God himself. That is ridiculous to call this “grave matter.”

Please tell me why are receiving communion as often as we may if we can continuously share in God’s divinity?

On which basis can you state that God’s is still sharing is divinity once the accidents of bread and wine are gone?

Eating by itself is not a grave matter. Serving a false god it is! The intention of how a person prioritizes food respect to God determines the serving a false god and thus incurring in grave matter.