P
ProVobis
Guest
Isn’t this along the lines of what Eve said to Adam?
- Status
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
Getting back to the OP. Sure, it isn’t hard to keep the fast. The time between when you finish eating at home, get organized to leave the house, get to the church and then go through Mass until communion will almost always be at least an hour. I’m not sure the point is to make it hard as much as it is to have a rule that sets communion apart. Like not eating meat on Fridays, and many other rules, being aware of the rule, observing it, and knowing why it exists can be enough. Something doesn’t have to be a hardship in order to make us a better person.
L
LilyM
Guest
It’s more or less exactly what the snake said to Eve - she told it that God had commanded her not to eat the fruit and it said ‘surely you shall not die’.
T
thewanderer
Guest
Maybe in the States… I have been in places where the typical Sunday Mass is between 25-40 min. long. Also, as you noted, even within the States the fact that Mass typically lasts about an hour is only true on Sundays, so no, the rule is not redundant. Also, there are people, believe it or not, that are tempted to eat during Mass, which is within the 1 hour fast time even for the typical Sunday Mass in the US. So again, the rule has a point and is not redundant. Also note that the rule itself refers to itself as a bare minimum, people are certainly free to fast for longer.
M
mattkubes
Guest
I don’t have a problem with one hour in principle - at least it’s something - but calling it a fast is laughable. I attend High Mass on Sundays which is usually 1.5 hours long - under these rules I could walk into church taking my last bite of a cheeseburger and then claim I was fasting as I rested and digested a big meal.
Just another practice that I hope to see restored to a more sensible norm (from midnight…or at least 3 hours).
Just another practice that I hope to see restored to a more sensible norm (from midnight…or at least 3 hours).
K
Kathryn_Ann
Guest
No, it’s not redundant at all, but is aimed specifically at refraining from food or drink exactly one hour before Holy Communion. Not everyone would fast from Midnight on, for example, as that is no longer required. :angel1:
Our Mass begins at ten thirty, and since I believe the fast helps me prepare/be in the right spirit, and is a kind of self discipline (versus just hunger) I eat nothing past nine thirty at the very least. It’s a good discipline. It was much more severe years ago, so I feel it is something I can certainly do.
If I want to fast from Midnight on, that is something I can keep to myself, so as not to boast about it. You know the scripture, “When you fast, don’t go about with a long face…” etc. So, out of respect for the Church’s gentle teaching, I feel that I can at least refrain from food and drink for an hour before the Mass begins, not try to guess what time Holy Communion is offered, (which might give some more leeway) but out of respect and to prepare myself, I refrain from one hour from the time of the start of Mass.:heaven:
Blessings and peace to you,
Kathryn Ann
Our Mass begins at ten thirty, and since I believe the fast helps me prepare/be in the right spirit, and is a kind of self discipline (versus just hunger) I eat nothing past nine thirty at the very least. It’s a good discipline. It was much more severe years ago, so I feel it is something I can certainly do.
If I want to fast from Midnight on, that is something I can keep to myself, so as not to boast about it. You know the scripture, “When you fast, don’t go about with a long face…” etc. So, out of respect for the Church’s gentle teaching,
I feel that I can at least refrain from food and drink for an hour before the Mass begins, not try to guess what time Holy Communion is offered, (which might give some more leeway) but out of respect and to prepare myself, I refrain from one hour from the time of the start of Mass.:heaven:Blessings and peace to you,
Kathryn Ann
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
Just because something used to be the case, doesn’t make it better or more sensible. There were many reasons why the fast was reduced and we should trust the Church - who has a worldwide view - to implement the correct disciplines for the times.
We have to remember that for many years the Church has been encouraging more frequent communion as a wayto build up grace and draw people closer to Christ. A fast from midnight and even in some cases a 3-hour fast precludes many people from receiving.
In the same way Mass schedules have been increased over the years to give more people an opportunity to attend daily Mass, and for some who must work on Sundays, to even attend Sunday Mass each week. Evening Masses in particular have given many people an opportunity to more regularly go to Mass. Before the communion fast was reduced, no one scheduled evening Masses, because not only would the people not be able to receive – the priest would be in difficulties also!
I believe that the best way to help people be more reverant to the Blessed Sacrament is not to increase the fast, but to increase the number of Holy Hours and Adoration chapels.
P
ProVobis
Guest
This is true, but one has to remember there were reasons why the Church imposed a fast in the first place. I don’t know all those reasons, but after reading some Church history, I think it probably had to do with increasing the worthiness of those receiving among other things. But I’d like to hear other ideas. Relaxing the rules once firmly established may make sense from the standpoint of convenience but isn’t always good from the standpoint of spirituality. Christ never said how often we should eat His Flesh or drink His Blood, so it’s not imperative that we receive twice a day or to the point of where it becomes too perfunctory IMO.
P
ProVobis
Guest
You’re right. I somehow forgot about the serpent.
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
There is a vast difference between the historical practice of receiving once a year or less, and receiving twice a day. I have never heard of anyone encouraged to receive twice a day, but I know that Pope St Pius X, of happy memory, did encourage the faithful to receive frequently.
P
ProVobis
Guest
He may have but he didn’t relax any fasting rules. I think he more emphasized that we should live our lives so that we could receive worthily every day, even if we couldn’t receive daily.
T
thewanderer
Guest
Does that matter? The point is the Church wants people to receive frequently. Having fasting be required from midnight is not going to help with that. I can see a point in 2 or 3 hours, or even just 1 hour before mass, however it is up to the Church to decide the minimum, and while it is true that many people will never do more than the minimum, perhaps for others it really would be too difficult if the minimum were raised higher. I certainly do no know all the reasons for such a minimum as currently exists, there may be places and situations which call for the minimum being as low as it is for the good of the faithful.
E
EcceAgnusDei
Guest
Receiving worthily certainly does!
I think this can be dangerous logic. The end goal is not Communion. The end goal is sanctity. If Communion were the end goal, then we should just do away with the need to be in a state of grace to receive, right? (well, now that I think about it, in some parishes in my town this has de facto occurred, as almost everyone communicates while the confessional remains basically empty)
- PAX
T
thewanderer
Guest
Of course receiving worthily is important, I was asking if it really makes a difference which Pope decided to reduce the minimum.
Of course the end goal is sanctity, but the Eucharist is one of the surest paths to this sanctity. Of course one must receive worthily, one can never receive in the state of mortal sin. One must also be ‘properly disposed’. The requirement to fast for a certain length of time before receiving communion is a a changeable discipline. It is possible to be properly disposed to receive communion without fasting from midnight. Setting the restriction as fasting from midnight places a much larger burden on those who go to Mass later in the day then thosse who go early in the day. If you get up at 5 to go to a 6 AM Mass, the length of fasting will hardly be equivalent to getting up at 6 for your job and then after work going to an evening 6 PM Mass. Why should it be easier to receive the Eucharist in the Morning than in the Evening? Does Christ somehow need more reverence and sacrifice in the evening than in the morning? Of course not. Yes the end goal is sanctity, but we must be careful not to put unnecessary burdens on the access to aids to sanctity, we are fallen and need as much help as we can get.
M
mattkubes
Guest
That wasn’t my point. I stated why I think the older practice is more sensible in the part that you didn’t quote and pointed out that 1 hour without food simply isn’t a fast by any stretch of the imagination.
T
TrueLight
Guest
P
ProVobis
Guest
Good point. I think it takes more than an hour to fully digest many foods. Most places require you to fast for 12 hours before they do your bloodwork. Now that’s sanctity.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
You are certainly free to fast the 3 hours if you wish. Nothing prohibiting it. But as for the rest of us - :dts:
P
ProVobis
Guest
Next time someone asks me why I don’t receive, I’ll tell him or her that I broke my 3-hr fast. Yeh, that’ll work.You are certainly free to fast the 3 hours if you wish. Nothing prohibiting it. But as for the rest of us - :dts:
T
thewanderer
Guest
Of course not, because breaking a 3 hour fast does not in and of itself mean one is not sufficiently prepared to receive the Eucharist. When it was the discipline the reason one could not receive if one did not fast for three hours was not that they were not sufficiently well prepared, but because it was a rule of the Church. It was a matter of disobedience, not necessarily desecration. Now maybe for some people not fasting for 3 hours will mean they are not sufficiently prepared to receive, in which case their reason is not that they broke the fast, but they did not have the proper disposition.Next time someone asks me why I don’t receive, I’ll tell him or her that I broke my 3-hr fast. Yeh, that’ll work.
- Status