Fasting before recieiving the Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter newone
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
otjm said:
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.
Click to expand...
But the BC doesn’t say it’s an automatic sacrilige. We have to receive the Eucharist prepared, right? Well, even in the CCC, fasting is part of the preparation. Sacrilige is mortally sinful, but in order to sin mortally the three conditions must apply.

If one is aware that fasting isn’t a choice for the reception of the Eucharist (aside from medical exceptions), realizes that they’ve broken the fast, and *receives anyway * (again, knowing that they are not prepared as the Church directs) then they sin mortally and commit the sin of sacrilige.

If it sounded as though I were implying that it’s a sacrilige no matter what, I apologize for the ambiguity.
 
jmcrae said:
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:
Click to expand...
:clapping: :clapping: Very well put. Truth *and *charity. I will certainly try to imitate.
 
otjm said:
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.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with you on this. I tried to make the point on one of my previous posts that the whole issue is really about intent. But it looks like it got missed in the flurry of posts.

One thing that I read, but I cannot reference it now because of logistics, is the definition of intent in mortal sin. Let me paraphrase the concept that I think was from JPII. If we know that the action that we are going to commit is grave matter and if we choose to commit it with free will, then it is a mortal sin even if we say that we do not want to offend God by doing it.

It is somehow like saying : I know that it is going to offend you but I am going to do it anyway because I really do not want to offend you and so you should not be offended. The whole concept would put the responsibility of the offense on the recipient of the action and not on the provider. This is an interesting ethical perspective, that might work with humans; however, personally, I would not test it with God. I do not feel that it would be smart on my side to tell Him it is You and not I the one with a problem.
 
I don’t have time to read all the posts. But I truly pray intently when we pray together: "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you … "

We’re supposed to predispose ourselves to receiving the Blessed Sacrament, Jesus. We’re not to take it lightly. When we don’t take the Church’s precept (law) about fasting for one hour seriously, we can more easily fall into a habit of not consciously thinking of what we’re going to do (receive our Lord, body, soul, blood and divinity). We begin to take this Sacrament for granted. And it’s easy to begin receiving with indifference, as if we have a right to receive Jesus.

I try to look forward to receiving HIm for HOURS (sometimes DAYS). But I haven’t always done this – in the past, I could be entertaining myself in front of the TV, then go in robot mode to Mass. Preparing for Mass involves more than finding an appropriate outfit to wear and getting there on time. Fasting is supposed to help remind us we’re to hunger more for God than for anything, or anyone, else, and to focus on Jesus, not on ourselves. This simple precept is not asking a whole lot from us.

When we reflect on whether we are worthy to receive, we hopefully will discern if we have sincerely asked for God’s forgiveness for our venial sins during Mass, and whether we’ve truly prepared our hearts to receive the Lord. When we are casual and unthinking about our fasting, are we truly preparing our hearts for this wonderful Sacrament?

Message from Jesus to Saint Margaret Mary Alocoque as she was praying before the Blessed Sacrament: “Behold this Heart, which has so loved men that it has spared nothing, even to exhausting and consuming itself, in order to testify its love. In return I receive from the greater part only ingratitude, by their irreverence and sacrilege, and by the coldness and contempt they have for Me in this sacrament of love. And what is most painful to Me is that they are hearts consecrated to Me…”
 
otjm said:
Post 14 seems to say otherwise.
Click to expand...
I should’ve “without *every *possible example.”:o

It does give examples, but I’m sure you’ll agree that those aren’t the only ways to commit a sacrilige, even if we disagree and *what *they are.
 
The practice of the Church for centuries was to fast from sundown the night before or midnight at the very least. This is still the practice in the Orthodox Church and as far as I know it is still the practice in the Eastern Catholic Churches. Isn’t it odd that while the practice has been made incredibly easy for Latin Catholics, almost being reduced to nothing, there are some who find it difficult even to do this 🤷
Apparently the mass has also been shortened to such a degree that one hour has not passed from the beginning until the receiving of the Eucharist. Attending an Eastern Catholic Liturgy from the beginning of Matins would mean a fast of close to two hours, and at least one and a half hours from the beginning of Divine Liturgy.

Whatever happened to Christ’s body and blood being the first thing to enter our mouth on Sunday?
 
newone said:
well I did it without thinking. I drank some chocolate milk and didn’t even think. that was about 6:30 ish and I received communion somewhere around 7:20ish I think, so it might have been an hour or a little less than an hour. I was thinking about not receiving communion but I felt it was ok because it was a mistake and it was probably close to an hour if not an hour after I drank. If I had known it to be mortal sin before hand I wouldn’t have received communion but I just assumed which I shouldn’t have. so I should probably go to confess not fasting and receiving the Eucharist without fasting.
Click to expand...
From the Baltimore Catechism:
Q. 902. What should a person do who, through forgetfulness or any other cause, has broken the fast necessary for Holy Communion?
Click to expand...
A. A person who through forgetfulness or any other cause has broken the fast necessary for Holy Communion, should again fast and receive Holy Communion the following morning if possible, without returning to confession.** It is not a sin to break one’s fast, but it would be a mortal sin to receive Holy Communion after knowingly breaking the fast necessary for it.**baltimore-catechism.com/lesson23.htm
Click to expand...
The Baltimore Catechism might be outdated, and I haven’t looked through all the posts so if someone has an accurate statement let me know:thumbsup:
 
S_V7 said:
From the Baltimore Catechism:

…it would be a mortal sin to receive Holy Communion after knowingly breaking the fast necessary for it.

The Baltimore Catechism might be outdated, and I haven’t looked through all the posts so if someone has an accurate statement let me know:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
As far as I know, nothing from Rome says otherwise, therefore it’s still in effect (as if morality could change).
 
latinmasslover said:
As far as I know, nothing from Rome says otherwise, therefore it’s still in effect (as if morality could change).
Click to expand...
It’s a discipline of the Church; not a moral precept, but as it happens, this particular discipline has not changed. 🙂

For what it’s worth, I like the Baltimore Catechism for its no-nonsense clarity, and I don’t think a person could go wrong by following it, even on those issues of discipline that have been lightened in the meantime. 👍

If one is in a position to teach others, it would be important to learn which disciplines have been lightened, though, so as not to impose greater burdens on others than what the Church does. But with regard to one’s personal practice of the faith, I do not think there would be any harm in following them.
 
latinmasslover said:
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.
Click to expand...
Read through the posts in this thread and see who has been the most judgmental.

Someone asks a question in all honesty and humility, and later clarifies that he made a mistake, wasn’t even sure of the time frames, and most everyone has tried him, found him guilty of mortal sin, and condemned him to hell if he doesn’t get to Confession quickly.

If that’s the kind of God you believe in, then we follow two different faiths.

If the original poster had said something like, “Hey, guys, what do you think of this? I went to the game, had a half dozen beers, some hot dogs, a few pretzels, and topped it off with a few more beers. Then I just managed to make it to Church, and I received. I think it was about an hour, maybe less, after the last beer. You think I did something wrong?” That’s not what he said happened, and was concerned enough to write for an opinion of his actions.

I suppose you think his attackers are greater “saints” than I?
*“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
 
GemmaRose said:
Read through the posts in this thread and see who has been the most judgmental.

Someone asks a question in all honesty and humility, and later clarifies that he made a mistake, wasn’t even sure of the time frames, and most everyone has tried him, found him guilty of mortal sin, and condemned him to hell if he doesn’t get to Confession quickly.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that I made a comment like that? If so, re-read my posts.

The OP admitting to goofing up, fine. Confess it and be done with it. This thread went on to debate if it was a sin to receive the Holy Eucharist *after *realizing that the fast was not observed. The answer is no, as that would be sacrilige. Nobody was attacking the OP for a mistake.
 
I too ask Bro Rich for the documented source of his statement. The reply “any Catholic should know” begs the question entirely. Your source please?
Deacon Ed B
 
latinmasslover said:
As far as I know, nothing from Rome says otherwise, therefore it’s still in effect (as if morality could change).
Click to expand...
As a matter of fact, morality could change in this circumstance, as this is a disciplinary matter. There is nothing morally intrinsic demanding a fast; it is a matter of discipline (which is not to say that it is wrong; only that it is a matter of obedience to Church rules, not a matter of intrinsic morality such as sins of adultery are, for example).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top