Going to communion within one hour of eating

[Polak]

I just wanted to check if going to communion within one hour of eating is a sin.

I had something for breakfast today not long before going to church and thought I timed it well enough, but the holy communion took place quite a bit earlier in the mass than it normally does, so I would say I probably went about 55 minutes after having eaten. I thought it would be better to go than to not go because it was a few minutes before an hour had passed.

Is this is a sin and also if so, would it still be a sin if I wasn’t completely sure it was a sin when I went?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

If you knew for sure it wasn’t an hour, then it was wrong to receive.

If it was so close timing that you weren’t sure if an hour had passed, then might not have been wrong because you weren’t sure and had to make a decision on the spot. I was in this situation a few years ago when I wasn’t sure if it had been an hour or just 55 minutes. I mentioned it in confession explaining that I wasn’t quite sure if it had been an hour but there was a significant chance it hadn’t been.

If I were you I would mention this in confession and explain it.

 

[1ke]

I thought it would be better to go than to not go

Next time, simply refrain. You are not obligated to go to communion and should not do so if you haven’t observed the full hour fast.

 

[Polak]

Okay thank you for the responses and advice.

On another note related to this topic, one of the things I find odd here is that with this particular sin, the Church seems to change its definition of what makes it a sin, and that doesn’t sit well with me.

Unlike many other denominations of Christianity, the Catholic Church is generally pretty clear on what’s right and what’s wrong. You either commit a sin or you do not. There is no middle area. A sin also doesn’t stop being a sin after a long period of time just because people want that, hence why not matter how much pressure LGBT groups put on the Catholic Church to do it, the Church won’t say homosexual acts aren’t sinful just because 'we’re in the 21st century and it needs to get with the times and whatnot.

With that being said, we have a situation where some time ago, if you consumed food within 3 hours prior to receiving communion, it was sinful. I think before that the rule was possibly even stricter. Now, what used to be a sin, isn’t a sin anymore, and you only need not to consume food within one hour before a mass. Why is the Church tweaking the definition of sin?

 

[Kaliaa]

The fasting law for communion is a discipline of the church hence it can and has been changed several times. It used to be that you had to fast from midnight. Now the rule is one hour. If you haven’t fasted for the hour then don’t take communion. I always try to count the fast from the beginning of mass rather than when communion might start. It can totally distract you for the mass if you are looking at your watch all the time… not fun.

The church has the authority to change disciplines and whether a sin is attached or not. In this case it is a sin not to fulfill the fast prior to going to communion.

 

[Polak]

But if it’s a discipline of the Church does that make it a sin if you break it?

 

[Kaliaa]

It is a sin. See my edited reply above.

You can always talk to your priest about it.

 

[umamibella]

like waiting for an hour before swimming, it’s a myth and nothing wrong whatsoever. However, i wouldn’t roll into Church minutes after eating an all you can eat Rib buffett.

Fasting an hour before Communion is not a myth. It is Church.

There are good reasons not to swim within a certain time frame after eating.

 

[phil19034]

With that being said, we have a situation where some time ago, if you consumed food within 3 hours prior to receiving communion, it was sinful. I think before that the rule was possibly even stricter.

Yes, before the 3 hour rule, one used to have to refrain from eating from midnight

 

[phil19034]

But if it’s a discipline of the Church does that make it a sin if you break it?

Yes. If you knowingly break it on purpose, it’s a sin.

If you break it by accident, it’s not.

 

[Anesti33]

Why is the Church tweaking the definition of sin?

The apostles have been given the power to bind and loose. The Church can decree ecclesial laws such as this, which are binding on the faithful, but do not have a component in Divine Law, other than the precept to fast and do penance.

The Church gives ample notice when she changes her laws. I am sure you heard all about it when the length of the Eucharistic fast was made one hour.

You also know the 3 components of mortal sin: grave matter, full knowledge of the gravity, and full consent of the will. The rest you can discern for yourself.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

It’s a discipline of the Church, not a doctrine or a dogma.

A discipline is a Church rule that can be changed.

Examples of disciplines would include

• fasting time before Communion
• other fasting requirements
• receiving Communion more than once in one day
• age at which children receive First Communion
• permissible ways of receiving Communion
• time frame for Easter duty
• whether priests can be married
• women covering their head in church

The Church has made changes to all of these over time.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

like waiting for an hour before swimming, it’s a myth and nothing wrong whatsoever.

It’s a Church rule. The intent is to show respect for Jesus in the Eucharist.

Please comply with the Forum rules regarding respect for Catholic beliefs and practices.
Thank you.

 

[LilyM]

Okay thank you for the responses and advice.

On another note related to this topic, one of the things I find odd here is that with this particular sin, the Church seems to change its definition of what makes it a sin, and that doesn’t sit well with me.

Unlike many other denominations of Christianity, the Catholic Church is generally pretty clear on what’s right and what’s wrong. You either commit a sin or you do not. There is no middle area. A sin also doesn’t stop being a sin after a long period of time just because people want that, hence why not matter how much pressure LGBT groups put on the Catholic Church to do it, the Church won’t say homosexual acts aren’t sinful just because 'we’re in the 21st century and it needs to get with the times and whatnot.

With that being said, we have a situation where some time ago, if you consumed food within 3 hours prior to receiving communion, it was sinful. I think before that the rule was possibly even stricter. Now, what used to be a sin, isn’t a sin anymore, and you only need not to consume food within one hour before a mass. Why is the Church tweaking the definition of sin?

It’s because it is probably the disobedience - the failure to adhere to a discipline legitimately imposed by Church authorities - that really is the sin, and not so much that a particular length of time matters or doesn’t matter. Before the 3-hour fast there was the from-midnight-on-Saturday fast. The issue is not so much that the length of time matters, but the fact you have had a legitimate discipline imposed upon you and failed to comply with it certainly does.

Similarly, the old discipline of having to abstain from meat on all Fridays of the year has changed in most places, either it is only Fridays in Lent or (as in my area) only on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

The point really is to show humble obedience to legitimate authority - same with obedience to speed limits and other just laws of the land. The limits on different roads might be changed from time to time, but the point is we are to obey.

 

[Anesti33]

The point is to show devotion to the Eucharist and a hunger for spiritual things over temporal goods.

 

[stpurl]

No, it’s not a question of ‘changing’ sin into ‘not sin’. It’s a question of changing a discipline (not a dogma or doctrine) based on pastoral reasons.

Same with the norm of Church having meat abstinence on all Fridays, and the US Church asking for an indult back in the 1960s to make it only Lenten Fridays.

Because it’s not about eating meat per se, and it isn’t about the amount of time you spend fasting; the issue is obedience. If you are asked to abstain on all Fridays and then your bishops change to ‘Lent Fridays’ it doesn’t mean that all the years before when you abstained on nonLent Fridays under pain of it being ‘sin then’ changed into ‘no sin now’, it means that the obedience asked of you to abstain for a certain period THEN has been changed to a certain period now, by your bishops. By your shepherds. By, and I know lots of people hate this word, by your leaders. Who have authority to BE your leaders.

So whether the fast is from midnight, or 3 hours before, or 1 hour before, has nothing at all to do with ‘changing from sin to no sin’. It has to do with being obedient to whatever your bishops have determined.

 

[Anesti33]

So whether the fast is from midnight, or 3 hours before, or 1 hour before, has nothing at all to do with ‘changing from sin to no sin’. It has to do with being obedient to whatever your bishops have determined.

Whatever the bishops determine is binding under pain of sin.

 

[stpurl]

I think you didn’t understand what I said.

If the bishops determine that the fast is from midnight on, and the person eats at ANY TIME after that before receiving communion, the person sins. It could be that the person has a 7 a.m. Mass and decides to eat at 6 a.m. Or it could be that the person has a 12:15 p.m. mass at eats at 11:30. Both are sins, even though the first person managed to fast 6 hours from midnight, and the second 11-1/2 hours from midnight.

If the bishops determine that the fast is 3 hours and that same person who before had to fast from midnight now eats a meal at 6 a.m. and has a 9 a.m. Mass, that person is perfectly ok now where before he or she would have sinned eating at 6 a.m. But again, it is not about how long a fast is, or whether it changed, it is all about obedience. It’s a discipline. Disciplines can change. Years ago, one didn’t just abstain from meat on Friday, one abstained on Wednesday and Saturday too. Then the discipline changed. Nobody is running around complaining that ‘what was sin on Wednesdays isn’t sin anymore’ are they?

The point again is not that a discipline existed for ‘x’ hours or whatever and changed and somehow the change made ‘sin’ into ‘not sin’.

It did nothing of the kind.

The person who didn’t follow the 12 midnight fast when it was 12 midnight sinned. If he followed the 3 hour fast, he didn’t sin, even if he ate at the same time in both cases, because the obligation, the discipline, the requirement changed.

In either case, if you obeyed what you were told you do, you didn’t sin. If you did not obey, you sinned.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The communion fast, trivial though it is, does indeed bind under pain of sin. Whether the sin is mortal or venial, I do not know, nor do I know whether it admits of parvity of matter (55 minutes versus 60 minutes). Can anyone shed some light on this?

Nobody ever has to receive communion (except for the priest) any time other than once during the Easter season. A couple of years ago, I attended daily Mass and knew I had eaten (lunch with my son at school), and as best as I could reckon it, it had been about 50 minutes. So I didn’t receive. I explained the situation to the priest after Mass, and asked if he would care to commune me (by that time it was past 60 minutes), which he gladly did. At a Sunday Mass, one probably wouldn’t have this luxury.

 

[AHapka]

I find odd here is that with this particular sin, the Church seems to change its definition of what makes it a sin, and that doesn’t sit well with me.

The issue is disobedience, not the time.

Here’s how I think of it. If, when I was a kid my bedtime was 8 and I stayed up in my room till 10 playing, that is wrong. If my parents tell me I can stay up till 10, there is nothing wrong with staying up that late.