Isn't a one hour fast before Communion a bit redundant?

[Mrs_Sally]

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.

This is a great post. As Christianity has spread throughout the globe, and as the world has simultaneously (sadly) become less Christian, we need every support the Church can offer. The discipline of how long the fast should be is changable without negating the need to be properly disposed. The requirement is to keep the Eucharistic fast, the definition of that is up to the Pope.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

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.

The Eucharistic fast is a discipline that the Church can change. I don’t think fainting necessarily makes anyone more holy.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

The Eucharistic fast is a discipline that the Church can change. I don’t think fainting necessarily makes anyone more holy.

The point isn’t “fainting”…

 

[ProVobis]

This is a great post. As Christianity has spread throughout the globe, and as the world has simultaneously (sadly) become less Christian, we need every support the Church can offer. The discipline of how long the fast should be is changable without negating the need to be properly disposed. The requirement is to keep the Eucharistic fast, the definition of that is up to the Pope.

When I attend an English Mass, I observe that almost everyone receives. When I attend a Spanish or Polish Mass, about half in attendance receive generally, if that many. Last Spanish Mass I attended only two in my pew of about 20 rose to receive. I’m afraid there is much more in play here than a token fast prior to receiving. Wrong focus IMO.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

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.

Who would ask you? No one would ask that question of me, except my husband. Maybe my younger son, but he’d also know a likely reason would be mortal sin.

 

[thewanderer]

When I attend an English Mass, I observe that almost everyone receives. When I attend a Spanish or Polish Mass, about half in attendance receive generally, if that many. Last Spanish Mass I attended only two in my pew of about 20 rose to receive. I’m afraid there is much more in play here than a token fast prior to receiving. Wrong focus IMO.

The problem with the English speaking Church goes much deeper, receiving the Eucharist without confessing mortal sins is not an aid towards sanctity, so the fact that almost everyone receives the Eucharist when so few confess is a huge problem, and really doesn’t have anything to do with this discussion that I can see.