Holy communion fast, and mortal sin, please help

  • Thread starter Thread starter mymamamary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mymamamary

Guest
Hey everyone, I have a question

On thursday, i went to a Priests house (he is a good friend). We prayed the Rosary, and after, he asked me if i wanted to recieve the LORD. HOWEVER, i told him, that i had ate lunch before and unfortunatley, no, i didnt want to recieve. he said he would dispense me (i didnt know that only a Bishop can do that) and i recieved Our LORD, after making confession. I didnt even fully know, that it is a mortal sin, so, today i went to confession and didnt confess this, because, well i forgot, i had other sins to confess, and maybe .00001 % didnt think this was confession material. Now i do. Does this render my confession a sacrelige and me gulity of big time sin!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: can i recieve Our LORD tommorrow at Mass, or should i go to confession. Or is this sin already forgiven, and i just have to mention it at my next confession? Please help me, i appreciate all answers!!!
 
mymamamary said:
Hey everyone, I have a question

On thursday, i went to a Priests house (he is a good friend). We prayed the Rosary, and after, he asked me if i wanted to recieve the LORD. HOWEVER, i told him, that i had ate lunch before and unfortunatley, no, i didnt want to recieve. he said he would dispense me (i didnt know that only a Bishop can do that) and i recieved Our LORD, after making confession. I didnt even fully know, that it is a mortal sin, so, today i went to confession and didnt confess this, because, well i forgot, i had other sins to confess, and maybe .00001 % didnt think this was confession material. Now i do. Does this render my confession a sacrelige and me gulity of big time sin!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: can i recieve Our LORD tommorrow at Mass, or should i go to confession. Or is this sin already forgiven, and i just have to mention it at my next confession? Please help me, i appreciate all answers!!!
Click to expand...
If a priest says he can dispense you, it is reasonable to believe that he can dispense you. There are in fact two kinds of people who can dispense someone from the requirement. First, bishops, as you said. Second, any priest or deacon who has been granted the power to grant the dispensation by the bishop. I would assume that this priest would not have presumed to grant the dispensation if he had not been given the power by his bishop.

Furthermore, as far as I know not observing the Eucharistic fast is a venial matter, not grave. It would still be a sin if you are not legally exempt or dispensed from it, but it would be a venial sin rather than a mortal one unless I’m quite mixed up on the subject (I’m no expert, mind you).

Finally, you confessed all grave sins to the best of your knowledge. Thus, the absolution ought to have been valid, and certainly not a sacrilege.

If you have concerns about the reception of communion without having fasted, you could ask your priest about it, but there’s no need to panic. 🙂
 
Aelred_Minor said:
If a priest says he can dispense you, it is reasonable to believe that he can dispense you. There are in fact two kinds of people who can dispense someone from the requirement. First, bishops, as you said. Second, any priest or deacon who has been granted the power to grant the dispensation by the bishop. I would assume that this priest would not have presumed to grant the dispensation if he had not been given the power by his bishop.

Furthermore, as far as I know not observing the Eucharistic fast is a venial matter, not grave. It would still be a sin if you are not legally exempt or dispensed from it, but it would be a venial sin rather than a mortal one unless I’m quite mixed up on the subject (I’m no expert, mind you).

Finally, you confessed all grave sins to the best of your knowledge. Thus, the absolution ought to have been valid, and certainly not a sacrilege.

If you have concerns about the reception of communion without having fasted, you could ask your priest about it, but there’s no need to panic. 🙂
Click to expand...
Leaving dispensation aside not observing the one hour fast before receiving is a sin of grave matter and not venial. Even logically it could not be venial. Receiving the Eucharist removes venial sins so you are saying in this case committing a venial sin will remove that venial sin.
 
On thursday, i went to a Priests house (he is a good friend). We prayed the Rosary, and after, he asked me if i wanted to recieve the LORD. HOWEVER, i told him, that i had ate lunch before and unfortunatley, no, i didnt want to recieve. he said he would dispense me (i didnt know that only a Bishop can do that) and i recieved Our LORD, after making confession. I didnt even fully know, that it is a mortal sin, so, today i went to confession and didnt confess this, because, well i forgot, i had other sins to confess, and maybe .00001 % didnt think this was confession material. Now i do. Does this render my confession a sacrelige and me gulity of big time sin!!!*****can i recieve Our LORD tommorrow at Mass, or should i go to confession. Or is this sin already forgiven, and i just have to mention it at my next confession? Please help me, i appreciate all answers!!!
 
On thursday, i went to a Priests house (he is a good friend). We prayed the Rosary, and after, he asked me if i wanted to recieve the LORD. HOWEVER, i told him, that i had ate lunch before and unfortunatley, no, i didnt want to recieve. he said he would dispense me (i didnt know that only a Bishop can do that) and i recieved Our LORD, after making confession. I didnt even fully know, that it is a mortal sin, so, today i went to confession and didnt confess this, because, well i forgot, i had other sins to confess, and maybe .00001 % didnt think this was confession material. Now i do. Does this render my confession a sacrelige and me gulity of big time sin!!!*****can i recieve Our LORD tommorrow at Mass, or should i go to confession. Or is this sin already forgiven, and i just have to mention it at my next confession? Please help me, i appreciate all answers!!!
 
I believe that a priest or deacon may offer dispensation of the one hour fast if they have been specifically granted that authority to do so by the Bishop.

-Tim-
 
mymamamary said:
On thursday, i went to a Priests house (he is a good friend). We prayed the Rosary, and after, he asked me if i wanted to recieve the LORD. HOWEVER, i told him, that i had ate lunch before and unfortunatley, no, i didnt want to recieve. he said he would dispense me (i didnt know that only a Bishop can do that) and i recieved Our LORD, after making confession. I didnt even fully know, that it is a mortal sin, so, today i went to confession and didnt confess this, because, well i forgot, i had other sins to confess, and maybe .00001 % didnt think this was confession material. Now i do. Does this render my confession a sacrelige and me gulity of big time sin!!!*****can i recieve Our LORD tommorrow at Mass, or should i go to confession. Or is this sin already forgiven, and i just have to mention it at my next confession? Please help me, i appreciate all answers!!!
Click to expand...
I think you are being very scrupulous here. What exactly is your sin? You did not sin when you received the Eucharist because you did not know better. A mortal sin has to be serious, willful, you have to know it is a serious sin, and then go ahead and do it anyway. Nothing here meets that requirement, and your confession was not a sacrilege.

I think you may need some spiritual direction on the matter of sin and perhaps on being scrupulous.
 
I am a bit confused here as to why the priest had the Blessed Sacrament available so readily at his house. Does he have a private chapel with a tabernacle where it is reserved? Did he have it in a pyx? Normally, the Eucharist is to be reserved in a tabernacle unless one is traveling directly to visit the sick and homebound.
 
thistle said:
Leaving dispensation aside not observing the one hour fast before receiving is a sin of grave matter and not venial. Even logically it could not be venial. Receiving the Eucharist removes venial sins so you are saying in this case committing a venial sin will remove that venial sin.
Click to expand...
I’m under the impression, at least, that Church has never named failing to observe the Eucharistic fast as a mortal sin (the way it has for failing to fulfill one’s Sunday Obligation, for example). If it has directed us to do something but not made it a grave obligation, the logical conclusion is that the sin of failing to observe the discipline is not grave matter.

Also, I don’t know that the Eucharist takes away all venial sin. I’ve heard the idea proposed once or twice, and I’ve heard the idea refuted many more times.

The Code of Canon Law says this:
Can. 919 §1. A person who is to receive the Most Holy Eucharist is to abstain for at least one hour before holy communion from any food and drink, except for only water and medicine
Click to expand...
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P39.HTM
 
I have seen priests on retreats and such dispense with the 1 hour fast for communion. They were not bishops, just parish priests, and it wasn’t something planned or known ahead of time, so to the best of my knowledge, they didn’t get the bishops approval either, they just did it.
 
Aelred_Minor said:
I’m under the impression, at least, that Church has never named failing to observe the Eucharistic fast as a mortal sin (the way it has for failing to fulfill one’s Sunday Obligation, for example). If it has directed us to do something but not made it a grave obligation, the logical conclusion is that the sin of failing to observe the discipline is not grave matter.
Click to expand...
Is the Eucharistic fast a grave matter?

It has long been considered a grave matter (indeed which did not admit of parvity (smallness) of matter).

Though I have read that some moralists think that it admits of parvity of matter.

Catholic Answers’ apologist take on it (it is grave):

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=475644&highlight=eucharistic+fast

(and by the way there are exceptions in the law…see regarding the sick etc)

(I will note though for some readers out there who are scrupulous – discuss your situation with your regular confessor – this is not something to scruple over --I note this some can do just that)
As to the OP – one does not commit a mortal sin retroactively. If one took the Priest at his word that he could dispense you (I am getting into here if he could or not --such is besides the point here) --and received thus in good faith --it does not become a mortal sin later if the Priest was incorrect. And later making a confession and omitting this event due to judging it did not need to be confessed --does not make it an invalid confession.

Mortal sin involves not just grave matter–but full knowledge and deliberate consent.
 
Bookcat said:
Is the Eucharistic fast a grave matter?

It has long been considered a grave matter (indeed which did not admit of parvity (smallness) of matter).

Though I have read that some moralists think that it admits of parvity of matter.

Catholic Answers’ apologist take on it (it is grave):

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=475644&highlight=eucharistic+fast

(and by the way there are exceptions in the law…see regarding the sick etc)

(I will note though for some readers out there who are scrupulous – discuss your situation with your regular confessor – this is not something to scruple over --I note this some can do just that)
As to the OP – one does not commit a mortal sin retroactively. If one took the Priest at his word that he could dispense you (I am getting into here if he could or not --such is besides the point here) --and received thus in good faith --it does not become a mortal sin later if the Priest was incorrect. And later making a confession and omitting this event due to judging it did not need to be confessed --does not make it an invalid confession.

Mortal sin involves not just grave matter–but full knowledge and deliberate consent.
Click to expand...
I was prepared to concede that I made a rather serious mistake, but then I read the post and saw that the apologist never actually said it was grave matter. What he said was that we have a “serious obligation” to observe the fast. In a legal Vatican document I would suspect this means it would be grave matter, but this is not a legal document and Mr. Blackburn may have had a more general sense in mind. Furthermore it was from another Catholic Answers apologist that I first heard that not observing the Eucharistic fast is not in fact grave matter, though I haven’t been able to find that source again.

I’ve submitted the question to the Ask an Apologist forum in the hopes someone can provide some definitive documentation, or at least an educated judgment.

Meanwhile though, in the case of the OP it does not sound as though a mortal sin was committed even if one were to grant that not observing the Eucharistic fast is grave matter.
 
Aelred_Minor said:
I was prepared to concede that I made a rather serious mistake, but then I read the post and saw that the apologist never actually said it was grave matter. What he said was that we have a “serious obligation” to observe the fast. In a legal Vatican document I would suspect this means it would be grave matter, but this is not a legal document and Mr. Blackburn may have had a more general sense in mind. Furthermore it was from another Catholic Answers apologist that I first heard that the Eucharistic fast is not in fact grave matter, though I haven’t been able to find that source again.

I’ve submitted the question to the Ask an Apologist forum in the hopes someone can provide some definitive documentation, or at least an educated judgment.
Click to expand...
Serious = grave usually (for example grave sin = serious sin)

One may refer to various works of moral theology one will find what I noted above.
 
I believe that priests and deacons can dispense from the obligation to observe the one hour fast if they have been granted the specific authority to do so by the Bishop.

The whole issue of sin may be moot.

-Tim-
 
Aelred_Minor said:
Meanwhile though, in the case of the OP it does not sound as though a mortal sin was committed even if one were to grant that the Eucharistic fast is grave matter.
Click to expand...
Agree completely.

The person asked his religious superior (a priest) what to do and the priest told him to receive.

As a matter of holy obedience we are to obey are priests. Unless they are ordering us to sin. And in this case, since there was doubt that such an action was a sin, it was clearly right to obey the priest.

For reference, the full cannon is as follows:
Can. 919 §1. A person who is to receive the Most Holy Eucharist is to abstain for at least one hour before holy communion from any food and drink, except for only water and medicine.
§2. A priest who celebrates the Most Holy Eucharist two or three times on the same day can take something before the second or third celebration even if there is less than one hour between them.
§3. The elderly, the infirm, and those who care for them can receive the Most Holy Eucharist even if they have eaten something within the preceding hour.
 
Bookcat said:
Serious = grave usually (for example grave sin = serious sin)

One may refer to various works of moral theology one will find what I noted above.
Click to expand...
Well, the best I can do so far is a passage from Mass Revision by Jimmy Akin.

“Because the Church’s current law does not establish a canonical penalty or a specific moral gravity for violating the eucharistic fast, it should not be considered a grave matter and should not be the subject of scrupulosity. Thus, for example, if one is not entirely sure whether it has been a full hour since one last ate, this should not be an occasion of scruples to prevent one from receiving Communion. In fact, the point of reducing the eucharistic fast was to make it easier for the faithful to receive Communion more frequently.”
 
mymamamary said:
On thursday, i went to a Priests house (he is a good friend). We prayed the Rosary, and after, he asked me if i wanted to recieve the LORD. HOWEVER, i told him, that i had ate lunch before and unfortunatley, no, i didnt want to recieve. he said he would dispense me (i didnt know
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Aelred_Minor said:
Well, the best I can do so far is a passage from Mass Revision by Jimmy Akin.

“Because the Church’s current law does not establish a canonical penalty or a specific moral gravity for violating the eucharistic fast, it should not be considered a grave matter and should not be the subject of scrupulosity. Thus, for example, if one is not entirely sure whether it has been a full hour since one last ate, this should not be an occasion of scruples to prevent one from receiving Communion. In fact, the point of reducing the eucharistic fast was to make it easier for the faithful to receive Communion more frequently.”
Click to expand...
Well I highly respect Jimmy’s work and opinion and I can understand Jimmy’s argument there.

And certainly discipline (and the moral weight of such) can of course change.

I am not saying he is per se correct here (nor incorrect).

It was correct though when I noted: "It has long been considered a grave matter (indeed which did not admit of parvity (smallness) of matter).

Though I have read that some moralists think that it admits of parvity of matter."

“Parvity of matter” there means smallness of matter for venial sin.

I leave the final judgment of course to the Church.
 
[edited]
The people participating in that thread correctly note that many Bishops delegate authority to priests. This would include, for example, sins whose absolution is reserved to the Bishop (such as assisting in an abortion).

The thread goes off the rails when talking about whether failure to respect the fast constitutes mortal sin. The Eucharistic fast is a rule - not a doctrine or a moral teaching. There are only FIVE rules of the Church which failure to obey could be mortally sinful (these are called the “precepts of the Church”).

Failure to adhere to the Eucharist fast is not potentially a mortal sin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top