Question about Metamucil and Holy Communion

[Oneofthewomen]

In short, the fast is kept as due reverence for the most blessed sacrament. Surely to quibble over technicalities isn’t really in keeping with the reverence due. As people have posted, if the metamucil is taken as medicine and NEEDS to be taken at a precise time within the hour preceding the reception of the Eucharist, there is no problem.

But why on earth would it NEED to be taken at such a time?

Just a thought about this…
many people, who take a variety of medications, are instructed to take the medication at the same time every day. Of course, there is always a "window of opportunity, generally an hour before or after, but serious consequences can be had if certain medications are not at the proper levels. Metamucil can be used in conjuction with drugs of this type to stave off side-effects.

 

[underacloud]

Just a thought about this…
many people, who take a variety of medications, are instructed to take the medication at the same time every day. Of course, there is always a "window of opportunity, generally an hour before or after, but serious consequences can be had if certain medications are not at the proper levels. Metamucil can be used in conjuction with drugs of this type to stave off side-effects.

Thanks, I didn’t know that. That would, of course, be an acceptable reason.

 

[LilyM]

Thanks, I didn’t know that. That would, of course, be an acceptable reason.

Of course! If one may bleed out without taking Metamucil at a particular time of day, then of course it wouldn’t break the fast.

Just like someone who has diabetes and dangerously low blood sugar can have jelly beans whenever necessary and such wouldn’t break the fast. We can consume whatever is required for our health and receive the Eucharist in good conscience.

However, you wouldn’t say that EVERYBODY could eat jellybeans less than an hour before communion, would you? Those not suffering from dangerously low blood sugar, those who have no urgent medical necessity to consume them?

Well, same goes for your Metamucil.

Apologies for the offence you’ve unwittingly been caused, not many people would be aware that there are some conditions which may require use of Metamucil in the manner you’ve described. Prayers for your health.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Apologies for the offence you’ve unwittingly been caused, not many people would be aware that there are some conditions which may require use of Metamucil in the manner you’ve described. Prayers for your health.

No offence taken, it is not me who has the health problem,
just a tidbit of information I have gained in nearly 15 years of work in health care!

 

[Immaculata90]

Just a thought about this…
many people, who take a variety of medications, are instructed to take the medication at the same time every day. Of course, there is always a "window of opportunity, generally an hour before or after, but serious consequences can be had if certain medications are not at the proper levels. Metamucil can be used in conjuction with drugs of this type to stave off side-effects.

From working with patients, I’ve learned you can almost always throw a fiber supplement or whatever in when it is convenient for people to take (most of them are actually to be taken in the evening). The only reason I could see for needing to take Metamucil at an exact time is if a drug had it’s “peak action” at a certain time and could automatically cause constipation or other harmful effects. That being said, I have never heard of any such drug that could ever cause cause that serious of an adverse reaction. It could be good to take it at the same time every day to promote regularity, but it could be modified to be a time that wouldn’t conflict with the fast. Basically if you don’t absolutely need it, just don’t take it. Just change the time and let it be.

I also realize some people do have a good reason and need for metamucil. It can be extremely beneficial for people on a variety of medications. But you can still most likely change it to a different time.

So, moral of the story: When it’s absolutely necessary to take the metamucil at the particular time to avoid severe adverse reactions or problems from a medical conditions, there is no issue to breaking the fast. Take only what you need, and don’t bend the rules. If it’s not absolutely necessary that it be at that time, just change the time you drink your Metamucil and observe the fast.

 

[Pug]

Metamucil and some other medications like it can interfere with other drugs that the person may be taking, by messing with how they absorb as they pass through your digestion, or some such thing. It can be very important to space the doses of the bulking product in such a way as to minimize how it interferes with essential medications. For that reason, I think it could be quite necessary to either skip the dose entirely (which will cause negative effects) or else take it at the time of day that is required.

I know that if I mess up the timing, I have to wake up in the middle of the night to take my particular medication, so that it doesn’t wipe out my other medication. I don’t take Metamucil, though. I take something else.

Be sure you ask your doctor just how important the timing is when you take your various doses of stuff. I know doing it incorrectly for me wipes one of the drugs out of my system.

Take your medication when your doctor tells you to take it. That is what the exception is for.

 

[thistle]

Unless a person is required to take medicine at set times of less than one hour throughout the day there is no valid reason to take medicine within one hour of receiving Communion (emergencies excepted).

 

[puzzleannie]

A bit of a tangent - I recall the old days when catechisms used to declare that if, in the course of brushing your teeth, you swallowed even one drop of water, you had broken your fast.
Thank God that sort of snittery is gone!

well I memorized the baltimore catechism for 8 years in parochial school and never learned this bit of trivia, please provide a source

you can use your ordinary prudential judgment on when to take your medication, guided as always by your doctor’s advice.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Unless a person is required to take medicine at set times of less than one hour throughout the day there is no valid reason to take medicine within one hour of receiving Communion (emergencies excepted).

Your statement appears to lay a heavier burden on the faithful than the Church herself does. Canon 919 states:

“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.”

Since the Church clearly states that medicine does not break the fast, why do you hold that only in an “emergency” should medicine be taken? I am concerned that your statement could create medical problems for people in that some might read your statement as Church teaching and ignore their doctor’s instructions. Why are you more rigorous than the Canon?

 

[thistle]

Your statement appears to lay a heavier burden on the faithful than the Church herself does. Canon 919 states:

“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.”

Since the Church clearly states that medicine does not break the fast, why do you hold that only in an “emergency” should medicine be taken? I am concerned that your statement could create medical problems for people in that some might read your statement as Church teaching and ignore their doctor’s instructions. Why are you more rigorous than the Canon?

I’m simply wondering why anyone would take medicine within the fasting hour if its not required, i.e. why could they not take it before or after. How could my statement create medical problems if a person does not have to take medicine within the fasting hour.

 

[ConstantineTG]

JMJ

Thanks for your response, ConstantineTG!

Do you have any documentation to support your claims?

I’ve heard before that acceptible liquids are water-based. For example, one snowy afternoon, after going sledding, when the rest of us were drinking hot cocoa (powder mix in warm milk), a friend of mine who was going to Mass that evening mixed her cocoa powder in hot water instead of milk. Whether this is legit or not, I don’t know; I haven’t seen any documentation either way (which doesn’t mean documentation doesn’t exist…one way or another).

In short, there are many reasons people think explain why we fast before the Eucharist. I don’t know the real answer (not yet, at least). I don’t think anyone who has answered this so far does, either. They’re all ideas. No one has given any sources.

If you have documentation to back up your claim, I’d be interested to see it. Until then, I hold to my claim. (However, I do submit to the fact that the word “liquid” modifies the “medication”. How this interplays with Metamucil, is another story, and I still hold that it is acceptable to take it if needed…note: IF NEEDED.)

God love you!

Why do we always ask for documented proof for everything? When we understand the meaning of fasting, then we know why we do it. The law doesn’t make us holy, God makes us holy. If we do something for the love of God, then there is no law that can ever deny that.

Ask yourself this, could you have survived that day without drinking hot cocoa? If the answer is yes, then you can fast from it. If the answer is no, then it doesn’t break the fast. This is why medicine and water is exempted as a rule. Especially in very hot countries, getting to church would have people losing a lot of water in their bodies. Medicine is obvious, for many they would fall ill or their current condition will worsen if they do not take medicine.

Don’t trivialize it. Don’t try to find loopholes in the law to conform to what you desire. Understand why we fast, and everything else will be understood without need for documented proof.

 

[tjwdsssc2015]

Why do we always ask for documented proof for everything? When we understand the meaning of fasting, then we know why we do it. The law doesn’t make us holy, God makes us holy. If we do something for the love of God, then there is no law that can ever deny that. …] Don’t trivialize it. Don’t try to find loopholes in the law to conform to what you desire. Understand why we fast, and everything else will be understood without need for documented proof.

JMJ

Thanks, ConstantineTG for your reply!

I asked for documented proof because the question at hand was dealing with a matter of liceity; in other words, we’ve been asking if it is lawful to consume Metamucil within the fast period. I do not intend or try to trivialize the matter, reducing it to mere accordance with the law; however, we cannot disregard the law and reduce our actions to what we individually interpret. Such relativism destroys the integrity of the law. Adonai gave particular laws to His people; these laws were accompanied by precepts that provided guidelines for following the laws. In turn, the people developed statutes to protect the precepts that protect the Law. Jesus’ critique of the people was that they lost touch with the actual laws, replacing them with these hand-made statutes (the precepts are given by Adonai, insofar as they are written in the Torah), and it became for them a matter simply of abiding to the Law, not giving Adonai the praise and worship and love (etc.) due Him.

When we are asking the question as to if it is licit to consume Metamucil within the Eucharistic fast, we cannot rely simply on our own opinions, but we look to the Magisterial teachings of the Church to first realize what is expected of us and why (objectively), and then begin to understand it (subjectively). God makes us holy, true, but we must comply with the law of the Church in order to be properly disposed to God’s grace. Again this is the point of the question: does the consumption of Metamucil during the Eucharistic fast improperly dispose one to receiving Holy Communion? God makes us holy, but we must nevertheless merit heaven by the things we do in accordance with God’s providence and accomplished by God’s grace working in and through us. I must be worthy to receive Communion in order to receive with it the graces of that Communion; if one of the necessary elements for sacramental validity is missing, then there has been no sacrament. That doesn’t mean God’s grace cannot work, but it does mean the sacrament didn’t happen. If a priest does not use lawful matter, or if he significantly changes the words of Institution, or if he himself is not validly ordained, or if he does not intend to do what the Church intends by the Sacrament of the Eucharist: the consecration does not happen. Yet the congregation, participants by no fault of their own in the invalidity of the sacrament, may still receive graces from God, Who can bestow grace as He wills; but if they (not knowing the consecration is invalid) go to receive ‘communion’, they will NOT consume the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ–they will NOT receive the Eucharist.

In conclusion, I am grounded in my reason for asking for documented sources, because the question at hand is a matter of legality in the Church, for one to be properly disposed to receiving the Eucharist and its graces. We are not dealing with a matter of personal opinion or interpretation of the teachings of Holy Mother Church, but with what She requests and why. I am not saying you are incorrect in holding such an opinion, but, not knowing myself if the Church agrees with you, I am asking you for evidence that the Church would support your perspective.

God love you!

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Here is your documentation-

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.

Metamucil is a MEDICATION, and if it must be taken at a time that may interfere with the Eucharistic fast it is still permissible for one to recieve.

I am not so sure what is so hard to understand about this!

JMJ

Thanks, ConstantineTG for your reply!

I asked for documented proof because the question at hand was dealing with a matter of liceity; in other words, we’ve been asking if it is lawful to consume Metamucil within the fast period. I do not intend or try to trivialize the matter, reducing it to mere accordance with the law; however, we cannot disregard the law and reduce our actions to what we individually interpret. Such relativism destroys the integrity of the law. Adonai gave particular laws to His people; these laws were accompanied by precepts that provided guidelines for following the laws. In turn, the people developed statutes to protect the precepts that protect the Law. Jesus’ critique of the people was that they lost touch with the actual laws, replacing them with these hand-made statutes (the precepts are given by Adonai, insofar as they are written in the Torah), and it became for them a matter simply of abiding to the Law, not giving Adonai the praise and worship and love (etc.) due Him.

When we are asking the question as to if it is licit to consume Metamucil within the Eucharistic fast, we cannot rely simply on our own opinions, but we look to the Magisterial teachings of the Church to first realize what is expected of us and why (objectively), and then begin to understand it (subjectively). God makes us holy, true, but we must comply with the law of the Church in order to be properly disposed to God’s grace. Again this is the point of the question: does the consumption of Metamucil during the Eucharistic fast improperly dispose one to receiving Holy Communion? God makes us holy, but we must nevertheless merit heaven by the things we do in accordance with God’s providence and accomplished by God’s grace working in and through us. I must be worthy to receive Communion in order to receive with it the graces of that Communion; if one of the necessary elements for sacramental validity is missing, then there has been no sacrament. That doesn’t mean God’s grace cannot work, but it does mean the sacrament didn’t happen. If a priest does not use lawful matter, or if he significantly changes the words of Institution, or if he himself is not validly ordained, or if he does not intend to do what the Church intends by the Sacrament of the Eucharist: the consecration does not happen. Yet the congregation, participants by no fault of their own in the invalidity of the sacrament, may still receive graces from God, Who can bestow grace as He wills; but if they (not knowing the consecration is invalid) go to receive ‘communion’, they will NOT consume the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ–they will NOT receive the Eucharist.

In conclusion, I am grounded in my reason for asking for documented sources, because the question at hand is a matter of legality in the Church, for one to be properly disposed to receiving the Eucharist and its graces. We are not dealing with a matter of personal opinion or interpretation of the teachings of Holy Mother Church, but with what She requests and why. I am not saying you are incorrect in holding such an opinion, but, not knowing myself if the Church agrees with you, I am asking you for evidence that the Church would support your perspective.

God love you!

 

[ConstantineTG]

And then I go back to my earlier question, is Metamucil absolutely necessary to be taken at the time, or can it wait for later? I know things like antibiotics needed to be taken on a definite schedule. But is Metamucil, which is a fiber supplement, needed to be taken at that exact time? Or can it wait for after Mass? If it can wait, then one should wait. One has to know that one needs God more than one needs Metamucil.

 

[DL82]

The annotation says:

“Water and liquid or solid medicine may be taken by all at any time.”

Metamucil is a liquid.

Therefore, medicinal or not, it is legitimate to consume Metamucil within an hour before the Eucharist is consumed.

God love you!

That is an ambiguous sentence if ever there were one. It could be read as either:
Water and liquid may be taken, and medicine that is solid (with medicine that is liquid already covered by the previous clause).
OR
Water and medicine may be taken, whether the medicine is liquid or solid.

In formal terms:
W^M{L,S}
Or
W^L^M{S}

This explains, perhaps, why some people seem to think drinking coffee before Mass is OK, and others not. I know it sounds not-picky, but I wonder if the Latin is less ambiguous or if there has ever been a dubium issued clarifying.

Sorry, this is an entirely scrupulous distraction from the original question. No need to respond.

 

[DL82]

I’m simply wondering why anyone would take medicine within the fasting hour if its not required, i.e. why could they not take it before or after. How could my statement create medical problems if a person does not have to take medicine within the fasting hour.

If, for example, you start to get a headache just before Mass. It may not be strictly ‘required’ to take a painkiller before Mass instead of after it, but it would still be perfectly legitimate to do so.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

And then I go back to my earlier question, is Metamucil absolutely necessary to be taken at the time, or can it wait for later? I know things like antibiotics needed to be taken on a definite schedule. But is Metamucil, which is a fiber supplement, needed to be taken at that exact time? Or can it wait for after Mass? If it can wait, then one should wait. One has to know that one needs God more than one needs Metamucil.

It CAN be.
Metamucil can be taken in conjunction with some drugs to stave off side effects.
It can also disrupt the absorbtion of some drugs in the digestive tract.

If a person is under a doctor’s care, and is using meamucil as a drug to counter-act these types of side-effects, then one needs to take it as the doctor perscribes.

If one is using it for the daily benefits of “fiber therapy”, there is no reason one should have to take it if it would break the Eucharistic fast.

I have to say, this whole thread is getting ridiculous!!

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Does ingesting Metamucil less than an hour before receiving Holy Communion break the one-hour fast?

Metamucil is a medicine with almost no nutritional value, so I’d say it’s OK.

I will say, why not take it a bit earlier, though? Or before dinner?

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

It CAN be.
Metamucil can be taken in conjunction with some drugs to stave off side effects.
It can also disrupt the absorbtion of some drugs in the digestive tract.

If a person is under a doctor’s care, and is using meamucil as a drug to counter-act these types of side-effects, then one needs to take it as the doctor perscribes.

If one is using it for the daily benefits of “fiber therapy”, there is no reason one should have to take it if it would break the Eucharistic fast.

I have to say, this whole thread is getting ridiculous!!

There is no law that you couldn’t take after Mass, though. After the first few days, it’s all kinda relative anyway,

 

[ConstantineTG]

It CAN be.
Metamucil can be taken in conjunction with some drugs to stave off side effects.
It can also disrupt the absorbtion of some drugs in the digestive tract.

If a person is under a doctor’s care, and is using meamucil as a drug to counter-act these types of side-effects, then one needs to take it as the doctor perscribes.

If one is using it for the daily benefits of “fiber therapy”, there is no reason one should have to take it if it would break the Eucharistic fast.

I have to say, this whole thread is getting ridiculous!!

My question is for personal reflection of every reader. The rules are not black and white. As I said, if the drug is absolutely necessary, then it should be taken. If it can wait, then it should wait. How difficult is it to understand that?