Fasting before recieiving the Eucharist

[agapewolf]

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.

We are we continuing to receive? Because we remove ourselves from God’s grace. His grace is infinite every time we receive him, and it is not bound by the accidents of bread and wine in our stomaches. It is when we sin, we remove oursevles from that grace, hence the need to receive again.

I still say that there is no “Should” here. There is nothing about eating after receiving the Eucharist that is putting a false god ahead of God.

 

[Cristiano]

We are we continuing to receive? Because we remove ourselves from God’s grace. His grace is infinite every time we receive him, and it is not bound by the accidents of bread and wine in our stomaches. It is when we sin, we remove oursevles from that grace, hence the need to receive again.

I still say that there is no “Should” here. There is nothing about eating after receiving the Eucharist that is putting a false god ahead of God.

There is a difference between sharing into His divinity and receiving graces from Him. I guess that you do not understand the idea that I am trying to explain about of intent of putting ourselves before God. It is not about food in itself is about our choices. I am sorry if I lack the eloquence to better explain what my thought is.

 

[latinmasslover]

And any Catholic who cites it should be able to provide a reference. I am well aware of the requirements for the Eucharistic fast; I am not aware of a citation indicating that failure to meet those requirements constitutes sacrilege.

I once followed this same line of reasoning myself, and confessed having done this as a mortal sin, only to be corrected by my very stringent, orthodox and well-educated confessor. So I am curious to see what the authority for the statement is.

Betsy

…it would be a mortal sin to receive Holy Communion after knowingly breaking the fast necessary for it…He who receives Communion in mortal sin receives the Body and Blood of Christ, but does not receive His grace, and he commits a great sacrilige.

Baltimore Catechism #3 pg 193.

Happy?

 

[mdgspencer]

I think we should follow the fast even if we aren’t sure how sinful it is. Say if we forget our mother’s birthday, it would be no mortal sin, but still it would be a type of offense against her that most people, at least, would regret. I don’t think we should commit even minor offenses against God’s will, as we ourselves will agree in purgatory.

 

[otjm]

…it would be a mortal sin to receive Holy Communion after knowingly breaking the fast necessary for it…He who receives Communion in mortal sin receives the Body and Blood of Christ, but does not receive His grace, and he commits a great sacrilige.

Baltimore Catechism #3 pg 193.

Happy?

No. The Baltimore Catechism was written at a time that the fast started at midnight; so any eating after midnight and before Communion automatically broke the fast. The “Knowingly breaking the fast” part is knowing that you will be going to Communion that day and eating anything at all before hand.

After the Catechism was written, the fast was reduced to three hours, and then again reduced to one hour. Given that most people take an average of 15 minutes or more to leave the house, get to the Church, go inside, Mass starts, and then Communion is distributed, most people will be well over an hour between the time of eating and the time they would receive as most Sunday Masses run long enough that Communion doesn’t start until about 40 to 45 minuts after the Mass starts.

The OP said clearly that they did not even really know when they had taken the drink of milk. They did not deliberately break the fast; they were not even aware of the time they had the milk in relation to Communion at the time they drank it. There was no deliberate intent to break the fast when receiving the milk. Further, there was no deliberate intent to break the fast - that is, to deliberately receive while not having fasted an hour - at the time of reception; there was only a worry if the fast was actually an hour long. A mortal sin requires serious matter; knowledge, and intent. To begin with, there was no showing that the fast actually had not been completed, as they did not know exactly when they had had the drink; further, the OP was not intending to receive with full knowledge that they had not fasted. The concern about the fast is in and of itself evidence of the opposite; a concern to maintain the fast.

Further, as the fast itself is a moral matter that the Church may declare either removed, or may declare the seriousness of, and given that the Church has said since the Baltimore Catechism that sacrilege of the Eucharist is an intent to scorn or disdain the Eucharist, it would appear that the Church in her authority has redefined sacrilege differently than the Baltimore Catechism.

 

[latinmasslover]

No. The Baltimore Catechism was written at a time that the fast started at midnight; so any eating after midnight and before Communion automatically broke the fast. The “Knowingly breaking the fast” part is knowing that you will be going to Communion that day and eating anything at all before hand.

After the Catechism was written, the fast was reduced to three hours, and then again reduced to one hour. Given that most people take an average of 15 minutes or more to leave the house, get to the Church, go inside, Mass starts, and then Communion is distributed, most people will be well over an hour between the time of eating and the time they would receive as most Sunday Masses run long enough that Communion doesn’t start until about 40 to 45 minuts after the Mass starts.

The OP said clearly that they did not even really know when they had taken the drink of milk. They did not deliberately break the fast; they were not even aware of the time they had the milk in relation to Communion at the time they drank it. There was no deliberate intent to break the fast when receiving the milk. Further, there was no deliberate intent to break the fast - that is, to deliberately receive while not having fasted an hour - at the time of reception; there was only a worry if the fast was actually an hour long. A mortal sin requires serious matter; knowledge, and intent. To begin with, there was no showing that the fast actually had not been completed, as they did not know exactly when they had had the drink; further, the OP was not intending to receive with full knowledge that they had not fasted. The concern about the fast is in and of itself evidence of the opposite; a concern to maintain the fast.

Further, as the fast itself is a moral matter that the Church may declare either removed, or may declare the seriousness of, and given that the Church has said since the Baltimore Catechism that sacrilege of the Eucharist is an intent to scorn or disdain the Eucharist, it would appear that the Church in her authority has redefined sacrilege differently than the Baltimore Catechism.

“…it would be a mortal sin to receive Holy Communion after knowingly breaking the fast necessary for it…He who receives Communion in mortal sin receives the Body and Blood of Christ, but does not receive His grace, and he commits a great sacrilige.”

What document of the Church throws this out?

The version of the Baltimore Catechism that I was quoting from is an updated version, with the new fast (if you can call it a fast) regulations.

When one of the three conditions does not apply one does not commit a mortal sin. When one is to receive the Eucharist one must be prepared, and one of the conditions for this is the observance of the Eucharistic fast. If you eat something something accidently, make a spiritualy communion. Receiving the Eucharist is not a right, it is a privilege, and needs to be treated as such.

 

[otjm]

“…it would be a mortal sin to receive Holy Communion after knowingly breaking the fast necessary for it…He who receives Communion in mortal sin receives the Body and Blood of Christ, but does not receive His grace, and he commits a great sacrilige.”

What document of the Church throws this out?

The version of the Baltimore Catechism that I was quoting from is an updated version, with the new fast (if you can call it a fast) regulations.

When one of the three conditions does not apply one does not commit a mortal sin. When one is to receive the Eucharist one must be prepared, and one of the conditions for this is the observance of the Eucharistic fast. If you eat something something accidently, make a spiritualy communion. Receiving the Eucharist is not a right, it is a privilege, and needs to be treated as such.

Pardon me, I said document. Let me try again: the Catechism of the Catholic Church seems to define sacrilege differently, as requiring more than just intentionally breaking a fast. I would think that since the CCC was universally proclaimed, that it would trup a local catechism. The point I am making is that it seems that the Baltimore Catechism overstates the issue, per the definitions of the CCC.

 

[Cristiano]

Pardon me, I said document. Let me try again: the Catechism of the Catholic Church seems to define sacrilege differently, as requiring more than just intentionally breaking a fast. I would think that since the CCC was universally proclaimed, that it would trup a local catechism. The point I am making is that it seems that the Baltimore Catechism overstates the issue, per the definitions of the CCC.

The CCC does not trump the Baltimore Catechism (BC)! Please provide a reference to a formal document from the Vatican or USCCB to support the statement.

The first is a tool for teachers and the second is a tool for the students. The USCCB has never suspended the BC. Both documents are in full agreement with the teachings of the Church and if we find apparent discrepancies about the teachings then it is due to our limitations.

I would refer to the thread “Baltimore Catechism vs. CCC?” for further discussion on the two.

In my own opinion there is no overstating an issue when it comes to sacrilege and mortal sin.

 

[otjm]

The CCC does not trump the Baltimore Catechism (BC)! Please provide a reference to a formal document from the Vatican or USCCB to support the statement.

The first is a tool for teachers and the second is a tool for the students. The USCCB has never suspended the BC. Both documents are in full agreement with the teachings of the Church and if we find apparent discrepancies about the teachings then it is due to our limitations.

I would refer to the thread “Baltimore Catechism vs. CCC?” for further discussion on the two.

In my own opinion there is no overstating an issue when it comes to sacrilege and mortal sin.

The CCC is the universal catechism, from which others are to be drawn. It is not designed as a tool for teachers; it was designed as a tool for bishops. That was what lead to a hot and loud discussion, mostly from the left, who tried to minimize it. That it can be a tool for teachers is not the issue; it’s primary purpose was to address the abysmal state that catechesis had gotten into, and to provide a baseline for other catechisms to the bishops who would then design local catechisms.

As to the issue of sacrilege and mortal sin, it is within the powers of the Church to define moral behavior and attendant consequences for disobedience to laws it imposes, such as laws regulating the reception of the sacraments. And if it does so, then the universal catechims is the one that will need to be followed in determining such. Since it appears that the CCC is defining sacrilege of the Eucharist differently than the Baltimore Catechism - that is, the CCC does not define breaking fast as sacrilegeous, then it would appear that the Baltimore Catechism may be defining breaking fast as sacrilegeous as beyond what the Church appears to be defining it as.

As the CCC defines it, breaking fast could be sacrilegeous, but is not necessarily so; as the Baltimore Catechism defines it, it appears to be per se. Per se appears to be an overstatement.

 

[Paten]

The CCC is the universal catechism, from which others are to be drawn. It is not designed as a tool for teachers; it was designed as a tool for bishops. That was what lead to a hot and loud discussion, mostly from the left, who tried to minimize it. That it can be a tool for teachers is not the issue; it’s primary purpose was to address the abysmal state that catechesis had gotten into, and to provide a baseline for other catechisms to the bishops who would then design local catechisms.

Blarney. Such comments are not only wrong, they are pernicious. The CCC is designed for ALL Catholics – teachers (including bishops) and students.

 

[Paten]

**The CCC does not trump the Baltimore Catechism (BC)! **Please provide a reference to a formal document from the Vatican or USCCB to support the statement.

Yes it does…

 

[Cristiano]

The CCC does not trump the Baltimore Catechism (BC)! Please provide a reference to a formal document from the Vatican or USCCB to support the statement.

Yes it does…

Thanks for being a living formal document from the Vatican and/or USCCB.

 

[otjm]

Blarney. Such comments are not only wrong, they are pernicious. The CCC is designed for ALL Catholics – teachers (including bishops) and students.

Where were you when it was issued? I was paying attention to what Rome said was the purpose. It is neither blarney nor pernicious; it is fact. It was meant for the bishops, and those working for them and yunder them who were responsible for creating local catechisms.

The arguement was made by the liberals that it was isolated; obviously all can use it. I did not say it was not of use to anyone; I said who it was in particular designed for, and if you were paying any attention when it was issued, you would know this.

It was not designed to be a common catechism; it was designed for the bishops to create common catechisms. That does not mean or imply that others could not or should not use it. Ask anyone who has had problems finding their way through it and you should have a clue that it is a foundational work. It is footnoted somewher between very well and extremely well; that alone should clue you into the fact that it is a reference work.

The fact that it is not a common catechism does not mean that it cannot or should not be used by many. The fact that it was desigend as a base for local catechisms also does not mean or imply that it should not be used by many.

Get over it.

 

[Paten]

The CCC does not trump the Baltimore Catechism (BC)! Please provide a reference to a formal document from the Vatican or USCCB to support the statement.

The first is a tool for teachers and the second is a tool for the students. The USCCB has never suspended the BC. Both documents are in full agreement with the teachings of the Church and if we find apparent discrepancies about the teachings then it is due to our limitations.

I would refer to the thread “Baltimore Catechism vs. CCC?” for further discussion on the two.

In my own opinion there is no overstating an issue when it comes to sacrilege and mortal sin.

APOSTOLIC LETTER
LAETAMUR MAGNOPERE

IN WHICH THE LATIN TYPICAL EDITION OF THE

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

IS APPROVED AND PROMULGATED

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/aposletr.htm

The BC is a dated national Catechism…

 

[GemmaRose]

Originally Posted by otjm
No. The Baltimore Catechism was written at a time that the fast started at midnight; so any eating after midnight and before Communion automatically broke the fast. The “Knowingly breaking the fast” part is knowing that you will be going to Communion that day and eating anything at all before hand.

After the Catechism was written, the fast was reduced to three hours, and then again reduced to one hour. Given that most people take an average of 15 minutes or more to leave the house, get to the Church, go inside, Mass starts, and then Communion is distributed, most people will be well over an hour between the time of eating and the time they would receive as most Sunday Masses run long enough that Communion doesn’t start until about 40 to 45 minuts after the Mass starts.

The OP said clearly that they did not even really know when they had taken the drink of milk. They did not deliberately break the fast; they were not even aware of the time they had the milk in relation to Communion at the time they drank it. There was no deliberate intent to break the fast when receiving the milk. Further, there was no deliberate intent to break the fast - that is, to deliberately receive while not having fasted an hour - at the time of reception; there was only a worry if the fast was actually an hour long. A mortal sin requires serious matter; knowledge, and intent. To begin with, there was no showing that the fast actually had not been completed, as they did not know exactly when they had had the drink; further, the OP was not intending to receive with full knowledge that they had not fasted. The concern about the fast is in and of itself evidence of the opposite; a concern to maintain the fast.

Further, as the fast itself is a moral matter that the Church may declare either removed, or may declare the seriousness of, and given that the Church has said since the Baltimore Catechism that sacrilege of the Eucharist is an intent to scorn or disdain the Eucharist, it would appear that the Church in her authority has redefined sacrilege differently than the Baltimore Catechism.

Dear otjm – Aah! Finally! Another voice of reason!!!

I’d advise you to give up trying to educate, reason with, or talk some sense into a bunch of Pharisees. Not even Jesus was able to do it. Their heads are so firmly encased in cement, they wouldn’t be able to hear you even if they wanted to. It’s a shame how they don’t live with, and try to take from others, the joy which Christ came to give us.

---

*“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

 

[Cristiano]

APOSTOLIC LETTER
LAETAMUR MAGNOPERE

IN WHICH THE LATIN TYPICAL EDITION OF THE

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

IS APPROVED AND PROMULGATED

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/aposletr.htm

The BC is a dated national Catechism…

Please quote the passage in the document where it says that the CCC trumps the BC. I did not see any reference to the BC. Just that it should be used as a base for the preparation of new local catechism books.

Please also explain how a document that has received an imprimatur and nihil obstat is now expressing something inconsistent with the teaching of the Church.

 

[otjm]

Please quote the passage in the document where it says that the CCC trumps the BC. I did not see any reference to the BC. Just that it should be used as a base for the preparation of new local catechism books.

Please also explain how a document that has received an imprimatur and nihil obstat is now expressing something inconsistent with the teaching of the Church.

The document doesn’t have to say it trumps others; anyone who understand how the Church works would know that a universal document coming from Rome would take precedence over a document issued by a local jurisdction.

And anyone who knows the process of a nihil obstat would know that it is possible that mistakes could be made. I have not said that the Baltimore Catechism is wrong; I have questioned whether or not it is entirely correct. aneone familiar with both catechisms would know that the CCC is mre nuanced than the BC. “Wrong” is an interesting word; perhaps it would be better to say that the BC lacks nuance. Lacking nuance would put it in the position of making a statement that either overstates or understates the issue; and thus it could be both right and wrong at the same time. In other words, it is possible that the BC is right that breaking a fast could be a sacrilege, particularly if it was done with contempt of the Eucharist; and it could be wrong in that it implies that any break of fast is automatically a sacrilege.

One cannot commit the sin of sacrilege if one does not intend sacrilege, as intent is part of the necessity of sin. The CCC seems to be defining sacrilege as contempt for (etc) the sacrament. Black and white answers fail to address grey issues.

 

[jmcrae]

The reason the Pharisees got into so much trouble was not that they were too legalistic, but becuase they were not legalistic enough - they were always trying to get away with the absolute minimum, and their quarrels were about what, exactly, constituted the absolute minimum. Jesus told his disciples that they had to be more perfect than the Pharisees - not that they should ignore the rules altogether.

With regard to the Eucharistic fast, Jesus would want us to fast for the full hour or more, without being scrupulous about it - perhaps by fasting for longer than one hour, rather than looking at one’s watch while eating, and trying to guess at what particular moment you will be receiving the Eucharist.

One way to do this is to arrive at the Church in sufficient time to pray five decades of the Rosary before Mass begins. That way, you will be well past an hour of fasting when it comes time to receive Holy Communion, and you will have please Our Mother, as a bonus.

That way, whether or not it is a sacrilege to receive Holy Communion if you’ve eaten less than one hour before will not be a question that bothers you, since it won’t even apply to you. Rather than having concerned yourself with the absolute minimum, you will have freely added more, and you will have become more perfect, just like Jesus wants for us. :bounce:

 

[latinmasslover]

The CCC is the universal catechism, from which others are to be drawn. It is not designed as a tool for teachers; it was designed as a tool for bishops. That was what lead to a hot and loud discussion, mostly from the left, who tried to minimize it. That it can be a tool for teachers is not the issue; it’s primary purpose was to address the abysmal state that catechesis had gotten into, and to provide a baseline for other catechisms to the bishops who would then design local catechisms.

As to the issue of sacrilege and mortal sin, it is within the powers of the Church to define moral behavior and attendant consequences for disobedience to laws it imposes, such as laws regulating the reception of the sacraments. And if it does so, then the universal catechims is the one that will need to be followed in determining such. Since it appears that the CCC is defining sacrilege of the Eucharist differently than the Baltimore Catechism - that is, the CCC does not define breaking fast as sacrilegeous, then it would appear that the Baltimore Catechism may be defining breaking fast as sacrilegeous as beyond what the Church appears to be defining it as.

As the CCC defines it, breaking fast could be sacrilegeous, but is not necessarily so; as the Baltimore Catechism defines it, it appears to be per se. Per se appears to be an overstatement.

The CCC gives a general definition of sacrilige, without examples. The Baltimore Catechism, in discussing reception of the Eucharist, does give an example as to how a sacrilige can be committed. The CCC does not contradict this what was said in the BC; therefore the argument against that statement doesn’t stand.

 

[latinmasslover]

Dear otjm – Aah! Finally! Another voice of reason!!!

I’d advise you to give up trying to educate, reason with, or talk some sense into a bunch of Pharisees. Not even Jesus was able to do it. Their heads are so firmly encased in cement, they wouldn’t be able to hear you even if they wanted to. It’s a shame how they don’t live with, and try to take from others, the joy which Christ came to give us.

Another humble Saint of God.

FYI: Saints aren’t mocking and judgmental.

It’s okay to have an open mind ONLY when you know what to let in.