Question about Metamucil and Holy Communion

[Pug]

Its not about making your life irritating as a form of penance. The question really is, do you really need that medicine now or not.

When I wake up in the morning I normally don’t take water unless I eat. So I do not take water as part of my fasting unless I really have to. The symbolism of fasting is that we know that it is the Lord alone who we need to live. I need God more than water, that is for sure.

So, you are more thinking like, only the Lord is necessary, so during the fast time you avoid anything that is unnecessary and/or unrelated to the Lord. Perhaps then you might avoid exercise, cooking, light chats on the phone, unnecessary consumption of medicine, leisure reading, etc. during the fast time as well, to focus as much as possible on the upcoming reception of the Lord. I think it is a good idea to focus and prepare to receive Jesus. Go for it. Set aside that time to devote your attention to him. Pay attention to him as your sole support during that time.

I certainly know that it serves me well to avoid anything before mass that leads to me to not being able to think about Jesus and mass. I want to arrive at mass with the right frame of mind to not be distracted. Hence, I avoid running around town on errands before mass. I go to mass from home, always (unless some emergency, a real one, arises).

But I still don’t think we *have *to fast from medicine.

Am I understanding you better this time?

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m sorry Father, but the law is meant to enrich our spiritual lives in a way that we can sincerely fast without putting our lives in danger. If people use the law merely to circumvent the fasting, then the spirit of the law is dead. I’m not putting my own requirement here. What did I add or take away? People need to be sincere in their fasting. If people just merely follow the letter of the law, what good does that give one’s soul?

You keep writing about “the law” but it isn’t the Church’s law that you’re advocating here. The Church says that medicine does not break the fast.

The Church, not you, gets to determine what constitutes the Eucharistic fast. Why do you not see that?

What you’ve posted repeatedly here completely contradicts the Church’s position that medicine does not break the fast. If it does not, then it does not. It’s as simple as that.

No one here is trying to circumvent any law, because the law itself says that the fast does not apply to medicine.

Yes, you are indeed adding your own requirements.

These are your posts

You did it here

Aren’t those fiber supplements? If they are not for a good medical reason which means you can take them later, then you must take them later.

And here

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.

What you said above is your own words and your own law. It is NOT the Church’s law.

Again, you added your own requirements to the canon when you said this:

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?

Nowhere, again, nowhere does the Church say that one must wait if he is able. This is your law, not the Church’s.

The Church tells us very clearly that medicine does not break the Eucharistic fast.

Medicine does not break the fast, and no one is bound by any rules or laws or interpretations that say that one must, or even should, avoid or delay taking any medicine before receiving Holy Communion.

What you are doing here is no different than if someone were to post a message telling people that they have to observe a two-hour fast before Communion because that would be “better.”

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

This weekend’s Gospel, where Jesus criticizes the practice of the Pharisees, would seem to bear on the rather amazing discussion going on here:

“They tie up heavy burdens hard to carry and lay them on peoples’ shoulders . . . .”

Thank you for your clear and refreshing commentary, Fr. David.

 

[ConstantineTG]

So, you are more thinking like, only the Lord is necessary, so during the fast time you avoid anything that is unnecessary and/or unrelated to the Lord. Perhaps then you might avoid exercise, cooking, light chats on the phone, unnecessary consumption of medicine, leisure reading, etc. during the fast time as well, to focus as much as possible on the upcoming reception of the Lord. I think it is a good idea to focus and prepare to receive Jesus. Go for it. Set aside that time to devote your attention to him. Pay attention to him as your sole support during that time.

Actually that is the traditional way in the East. You have your supper, then you go to Church for evening prayers and Vespers, which is the start of preparation for Sunday Divine Liturgy and Communion. After that you go home and sleep. You wake up next day, head to church, pray the Hours, Matins, then Divine Liturgy. After you receive Communion, then you can eat whatever. Usually antidoron or other blessed bread, water or wine offered (different Byzantine Churches have different traditions on this). My Divine Liturgy book has an extensive “Prayers before Communion” which starts the night before. The evening prayers are short, you can go through it in maybe 10 minutes. I tried doing the morning prayers once arriving 15 minutes before Divine Liturgy, I wasn’t able to complete them before the start of Divine Liturgy.

Such is the Byzantine prayer life

I must admit I am not at that level yet. I am praying that God grant me the grace to get there someday.

I certainly know that it serves me well to avoid anything before mass that leads to me to not being able to think about Jesus and mass. I want to arrive at mass with the right frame of mind to not be distracted. Hence, I avoid running around town on errands before mass. I go to mass from home, always (unless some emergency, a real one, arises).

But I still don’t think we *have *to fast from medicine.

Am I understanding you better this time?

Like I said, there is medicine that is urgently necessary and there is medicine that is not urgent. Antibiotics, as I have said in a recent post, need to be taken within a strict schedule. Even if its in the middle of Mass one should take it if its time to take it. But there are certain medicines that can wait.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You keep writing about “the law” but it isn’t the Church’s law that you’re advocating here. The Church says that medicine does not break the fast.

You’re right Father, I am not advocating any law here. I’m advocating common sense.

The Church, not you, gets to determine what constitutes the Eucharistic fast. Why do you not see that?[/quotes]

And I do not see what I have said violates anything that the Church through the Church Fathers and Saints have said in the last 2000 years. I’m fearing here Father that you are seeing fasting as nothing more than a rule by the Church. Fasting is a spiritual act, not a legal one. The law doesn’t make what fasting is. If we know what fasting is and what is its purpose, then we would understand the law better. We have discussed several pages on this topic discussing what the law says but no one is talking about what is fasting about. Except for myself. Shouldn’t we understand first what fasting is and why we fast before we discuss the law?
FrDavid96;8512365:

What you’ve posted repeatedly here completely contradicts the Church’s position that medicine does not break the fast. If it does not, then it does not. It’s as simple as that.

It doesn’t break the law, but what spiritual advantage do we get from doing something that can be put away for later? This is the failure of the legalistic approach to faith, because faith is not legalistic in nature. The Church adopted legalism to guide us about the faith, not the other way around. If we’re fasting merely by mechanically following the guidelines, then we have achieved nothing spiritually. As I said before, just because you didn’t break the law, doesn’t mean you’re a good citizen. Doesn’t mean that you are not getting driving tickets, doesn’t mean you’re a good driver. Doesn’t mean that you didn’t break the canon law on fasting doesn’t mean you have reaped the spiritual rewards of the fast.

No one here is trying to circumvent any law, because the law itself says that the fast does not apply to medicine.

So I can take Viagra before Mass?

Yes, you are indeed adding your own requirements.

These are your posts

You did it here

And here

Tell me Father, is it a sin to put that medicine for later when its not necessary anyway to take the medicine today? Is the faith judged only by the letter of the law?

I stand by my words. If you understood them in another way, then so be it.

What you said above is your own words and your own law. It is NOT the Church’s law.

And as I said, there is more to fasting than just the law. What I argue for is fasting, not the law. If we can’t fast for what fasting is, then the law is useless.

Again, you added your own requirements to the canon when you said this:

Nowhere, again, nowhere does the Church say that one must wait if he is able. This is your law, not the Church’s.

The Church tells us very clearly that medicine does not break the Eucharistic fast.

Medicine does not break the fast, and no one is bound by any rules or laws or interpretations that say that one must, or even should, avoid or delay taking any medicine before receiving Holy Communion.

What you are doing here is no different than if someone were to post a message telling people that they have to observe a two-hour fast before Communion because that would be “better.”

I am not changing the Canon, Father. I am telling people how to Fast as the Church has taught how to Fast for the last 2000 years.

 

[tjwdsssc2015]

So are you telling me its okay for a person addicted on pain medication or cough syrup to feed their addiction 5 minutes before walking into a Mass?

JMJ

With all due respect, ConstantineTG, you’re way off base with this comment. The issue in this statement has nothing to do with consumption of medication before Mass; it has everything to do with a person suffering from addiction. Addiction is a whole other issue to be tackled. And nowhere in our conversation thus far have we been concerned with anyone being addicted to Metamucil…and I don’t know who would ever want to be…wouldn’t exactly be pleasant…

I agree entirely with FrDavid: what you’re doing, ConstantineTG, is not just extra legem, but verging on contra legem. You’ve taken your interpretation of the law of the Church and tried to force it on the reader as if it were the law of the Church.

I’ve noticed that while defending these accusations, you have begun more and more to lean on the Byzantine Rite (which, tangentially, is only one of multiple Eastern Rites). Yes, the practice in the Byzantine Rite is much more strict when it comes to the Eucharistic fast. At the same time, however, we recognize that it is a violation of Canon Law to “mix rites” (i.e. to blend them into one), and this means that regulations that apply to one don’t necessarily apply to the other (eg. the matter for the Eucharist; law regarding Eucharistic fast, etc.). We can only refer to the law of the Rite in question regarding the regulations and standards.

God love you!

 

[ConstantineTG]

JMJ

With all due respect, ConstantineTG, you’re way off base with this comment. The issue in this statement has nothing to do with consumption of medication before Mass; it has everything to do with a person suffering from addiction. Addiction is a whole other issue to be tackled. And nowhere in our conversation thus far have we been concerned with anyone being addicted to Metamucil…and I don’t know who would ever want to be…wouldn’t exactly be pleasant…

I agree entirely with FrDavid: what you’re doing, ConstantineTG, is not just extra legem, but verging on contra legem. You’ve taken your interpretation of the law of the Church and tried to force it on the reader as if it were the law of the Church.

I’ve noticed that while defending these accusations, you have begun more and more to lean on the Byzantine Rite (which, tangentially, is only one of multiple Eastern Rites). Yes, the practice in the Byzantine Rite is much more strict when it comes to the Eucharistic fast. At the same time, however, we recognize that it is a violation of Canon Law to “mix rites” (i.e. to blend them into one), and this means that regulations that apply to one don’t necessarily apply to the other (eg. the matter for the Eucharist; law regarding Eucharistic fast, etc.). We can only refer to the law of the Rite in question regarding the regulations and standards.

God love you!

Why am I off-base? Father said that the law is simple and direct. It says medicine does not break the fast. Are pain killers medicine? Is cough syrup medicine? They are right? the law doesn’t say anything about intent, right? So taking pain killers or cough syrup due to addiction should not break the fast since Canon Law doesn’t put any restrictions on the reason for taking the medicine.

And as I said in my last post, I am not taking any interpretation I have on Canon Law. I am not arguing Canon Law here. My argument has always been about the spirit and meaning of fasting.

By the way, I am not mixing rites here. I have been Roman Catholic for 95% of my life, I know what the Roman praxis is. I’m not injecting Eastern practices into Roman praxis. I made a few examples only as a comparison, not as a way of forcing one practice into another.

 

[tjwdsssc2015]

We have discussed several pages on this topic discussing what the law says but no one is talking about what is fasting about. Except for myself.

JMJ

I’ve mentioned to you before, ConstantineTG, that the question asked was about liceity (legality) of the consumption of Metamucil. The question in its very nature is about Church law. There’s a reason why you’re talking by yourself: because your discussion is out of place. As they say, “beware the sound of one hand clapping…”

I am not changing the Canon, Father. I am telling people how to Fast as the Church has taught how to Fast for the last 2000 years.

With all due respect, were you around 2000 years ago? I don’t think so. What on earth gives YOU the authority to interpret and enforce what the Church has taught for 2000 years, when clearly your interpretation is extra if not contra legem?

My apologies, but I was also trying to make a secondary point in the previous remark: it means very little when you say “with all due respect” and then write sarcastically thereafter.

Father, with all due respect, why is the law in there in the first place? …] So are you telling me its okay for a person addicted on pain medication or cough syrup to feed their addiction 5 minutes before walking into a Mass?

God love you!

 

[ConstantineTG]

JMJ

I’ve mentioned to you before, ConstantineTG, that the question asked was about liceity (legality) of the consumption of Metamucil. The question in its very nature is about Church law. There’s a reason why you’re talking by yourself: because your discussion is out of place. As they say, “beware the sound of one hand clapping…”

And I pose my question again, are we satisfied in fulfilling the law? Fasting has a purpose in Christian spirituality. Its a practice done by ALL true Christians, regardless of Rite.

With all due respect, were you around 2000 years ago? I don’t think so. What on earth gives YOU the authority to interpret and enforce what the Church has taught for 2000 years, when clearly your interpretation is extra if not contra legem?

If the fasting I am taught today is not the fasting of Jesus Christ and the Apostles, then I’m in the wrong Church.

My apologies, but I was also trying to make a secondary point in the previous remark: it means very little when you say “with all due respect” and then write sarcastically thereafter.

God love you!

That is not sarcasm. I know its edgy by nature, that is why I said “with all due respect”. I am trying to show the errors of extreme legalism. The law doesn’t cover everything. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be indults and dispensations.

 

[tjwdsssc2015]

the law doesn’t say anything about intent, right? So taking pain killers or cough syrup due to addiction should not break the fast since Canon Law doesn’t put any restrictions on the reason for taking the medicine.

JMJ

That’s because the reasons vary case by case, and, perhaps ultimately, the issue should be taken with one’s spiritual director. If one has concern if a particular practice might be illicit, then one should ask his/her spiritual director and comply out of obedience. We will never draw a conclusion on this matter, you realize this, yes?

Additionally, addictions are grave matter, which could itself hamper one’s disposal to receiving Communion. Granted, when one is truly addicted, he/she is not culpable for the sin, but it remains grave matter nevertheless. If one is addicted but not seeking to overcome the addiction, then he/she is still culpable and is not disposed to receiving the Sacrament (in other words: he/she is in a state of mortal sin). If one is seeking help and has a relapse shortly before Mass, he/she should if at all possible ask the priest to hear the confession before Mass. If the priests is unable (because it’s too close to Mass time, perhaps), ask if he will hear the confession right after Mass. In these cases, one may still receive the Eucharist. If one does not make a confession, he/she should not receive Holy Communion. The grave matter impairs reception of Communion, but it does not necessarily destroy sanctifying grace in the soul. Point being: in your quip about the addict taking cough syrup, the issue is not that he’s taking medicine before Mass–that’s perfectly legal–the problem is that he’s not disposed to receiving Communion because he’s feeding his addiction. These are two completely different situations and you are incorrect to associate them here.

God love you!

 

[ConstantineTG]

JMJ

That’s because the reasons vary case by case, and, perhaps ultimately, the issue should be taken with one’s spiritual director. If one has concern if a particular practice might be illicit, then one should ask his/her spiritual director and comply out of obedience. We will never draw a conclusion on this matter, you realize this, yes?

That has been my point all along. The law isn’t black and white as we would like it to be. Because life isn’t, reality isn’t. And most certainly, God isn’t.

Fasting has a purpose in our life. If we take medicine just because we can take medicine, that clearly violates the purpose of the fast. Does it break the law? No. But it also doesn’t fulfill the purpose of the fast. So whats the worth of abiding by the law when the purpose of the fast is not fulfilled anyway?

Additionally, addictions are grave matter, which could itself hamper one’s disposal to receiving Communion. Granted, when one is truly addicted, he/she is not culpable for the sin, but it remains grave matter nevertheless. If one is addicted but not seeking to overcome the addiction, then he/she is still culpable and is not disposed to receiving the Sacrament (in other words: he/she is in a state of mortal sin). If one is seeking help and has a relapse shortly before Mass, he/she should if at all possible ask the priest to hear the confession before Mass. If the priests is unable (because it’s too close to Mass time, perhaps), ask if he will hear the confession right after Mass. In these cases, one may still receive the Eucharist. If one does not make a confession, he/she should not receive Holy Communion. The grave matter impairs reception of Communion, but it does not necessarily destroy sanctifying grace in the soul. Point being: in your quip about the addict taking cough syrup, the issue is not that he’s taking medicine before Mass–that’s perfectly legal–the problem is that he’s not disposed to receiving Communion because he’s feeding his addiction. These are two completely different situations and you are incorrect to associate them here.

God love you!

Ah, but we are not talking about sin. We are just talking about fasting

 

[tjwdsssc2015]

I am trying to show the errors of extreme legalism. The law doesn’t cover everything. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be indults and dispensations.

JMJ

You’re accusing us of being “extreme [legalists]” because we’re answering a question about legal use of medication prior to communion using the law. I dare say, I’m offended.

You’re right that the law doesn’t cover everything. And there are places where it is open to interpretation based on one’s conscience.

But riddle me this:

There are some who will say that the Missal that once required the wearing of a maniple, by no longer requiring it, means that it should never be used. The Missal doesn’t forbid it, either; but they say it’s not mentioned, so it shouldn’t be used. These tend to also be the same people who put the talking Christmas tree in front of the altar and try to say, “the documents don’t forbid it!”

So one must decide with his or her own conscience whether he/she is concerned about the practice interfering with the lawful reception of Communion. I take ADDerall in the morning; I’m not going to die if I don’t take it, but it will not achieve full potency if I do not take it early enough. Am I wrong for taking it before receiving Communion? Again, it’s a medicine, but it’s not life threatening. If I have a headache, should I take an ibuprofen before Mass? I’ll live without it, but I may be able to concentrate better during Mass if I don’t have a headache. Then again, I could unite my suffering to the Passion of Christ. These are issues that must be addressed on an individual basis between one and his/her spiritual director. These are not issues that can be answered on a forum.

God love you!

 

[tjwdsssc2015]

Ah, but we are not talking about sin. We are just talking about fasting

JMJ

You’re right! We’re not talking about sin, we’re talking about fasting…which is why the issue of an addict taking cough medicine is a moot point: it is completely irrelevant in our case. You’re insinuating that if we say the addict can lawfully take the cough medicine, then we are allowing him to satiate his addiction, and that if we say he cannot take the cough medicine, then either we’re contradicting ourselves regarding the law in question, or we recognize that there are certain cases when the medicine should not be taken before Communion, about which you’d say that Metamucil may be considered one of these cases. You are trying to trap us in a fallacious equivocation. The correct response is that the addict should not drink the cough syrup not because of the fast, but because of the addiction. If I have a cold, I sure as heck can drink cough syrup before Mass! And if I’m backed up–if you know what I mean–then it may be necessary to take Metamucil before Mass!

ConstantineTG, let me say, I entirely and wholeheartedly agree that there is a spiritual reality underlying the fasting, a spiritual reality that is the telos and purpose of the fasting. I am not in any way denying this. But like I’ve said multiple times, the question was about legality, and so we answer with discussion about the law. You can’t go into a courtroom and say “though I was driving 45mph in a 25mph zone, the reason for the law is so that we are safe drivers, and I was driving safely, so I shouldn’t get a ticket.” Similarly, you can’t answer the question “is it legal to consume Metamucil before Communion?” with “the spiritual reality underlying it means…”. The question, legal in nature, demands a legal response.

God love you!

 

[ConstantineTG]

JMJ

You’re accusing us of being “extreme [legalists]” because we’re answering a question about legal use of medication prior to communion using the law. I dare say, I’m offended.

You’re right that the law doesn’t cover everything. And there are places where it is open to interpretation based on one’s conscience.

But riddle me this:

There are some who will say that the Missal that once required the wearing of a maniple, by no longer requiring it, means that it should never be used. The Missal doesn’t forbid it, either; but they say it’s not mentioned, so it shouldn’t be used. These tend to also be the same people who put the talking Christmas tree in front of the altar and try to say, “the documents don’t forbid it!”

You are correct here. There’s nothing that forbids it. That is why I said that we shouldn’t look into the law solely to know what to do or not. Because the law is not the be-all, end-all of the faith. We should know and understand the subject of the matter. Is a talking Christmas tree appropriate in Liturgy? Of course not! Do we need Canon Law to tell us that? Of course not!

That is the folly here in this thread. Fasting has been reduced to, “as long as I follow canon law, I have done fasting.” But to what spiritual advantage is that? It doesn’t say in the rubrics in Mass that I have to be facing toward the altar, so I can face left, right or back. But again, to what spiritual advantage is that? If we’re doing something without reaping a spiritual benefit from it, then we should consider why we do it at all. Our purpose is to become closer to God and eventually become one with Him through Jesus Christ. If what we do does not serve that purpose, then why do it? Like I said about fasting, its meant to make us realize that God alone sustains us. If we take something because we know we can even though we do not need it right there and then, it violates the spirit of fasting. It doesn’t violate the law of fasting, but it violates its spirit. So what profit did we gain? Nothing. The spirit of fasting has been broken. That is why I said, is Metamucil absolutely necessary within that fasting period? If it is, then take it. If it is not, then its violating the spirit of the fast.

So one must decide with his or her own conscience whether he/she is concerned about the practice interfering with the lawful reception of Communion. I take ADDerall in the morning; I’m not going to die if I don’t take it, but it will not achieve full potency if I do not take it early enough. Am I wrong for taking it before receiving Communion? Again, it’s a medicine, but it’s not life threatening. If I have a headache, should I take an ibuprofen before Mass? I’ll live without it, but I may be able to concentrate better during Mass if I don’t have a headache. Then again, I could unite my suffering to the Passion of Christ. These are issues that must be addressed on an individual basis between one and his/her spiritual director. These are not issues that can be answered on a forum.

God love you!

I have ADD too, and I do not take my medication on weekends. I did one time take on a morning before Divine Liturgy. I made sure its more than an hour before start. But it was only one time. I take Concerta. I used to take Ritalin, thats what I had that one time.

I know there are different levels of ADD. Some people would be extremely jittery, restless, or completely out of focus if they don’t take. And you are right, things like this should be taken up with a spiritual director, not just by reading canon law and fulfilling its letter. For me, I can do without. I really only need it for work. God is my hyperfocus (thus my enormous time devoted to CAF ).

 

[ConstantineTG]

JMJ

You’re right! We’re not talking about sin, we’re talking about fasting…which is why the issue of an addict taking cough medicine is a moot point: it is completely irrelevant in our case. You’re insinuating that if we say the addict can lawfully take the cough medicine, then we are allowing him to satiate his addiction, and that if we say he cannot take the cough medicine, then either we’re contradicting ourselves regarding the law in question, or we recognize that there are certain cases when the medicine should not be taken before Communion, about which you’d say that Metamucil may be considered one of these cases. You are trying to trap us in a fallacious equivocation. The correct response is that the addict should not drink the cough syrup not because of the fast, but because of the addiction. If I have a cold, I sure as heck can drink cough syrup before Mass! And if I’m backed up–if you know what I mean–then it may be necessary to take Metamucil before Mass!

ConstantineTG, let me say, I entirely and wholeheartedly agree that there is a spiritual reality underlying the fasting, a spiritual reality that is the telos and purpose of the fasting. I am not in any way denying this. But like I’ve said multiple times, the question was about legality, and so we answer with discussion about the law. You can’t go into a courtroom and say “though I was driving 45mph in a 25mph zone, the reason for the law is so that we are safe drivers, and I was driving safely, so I shouldn’t get a ticket.” Similarly, you can’t answer the question “is it legal to consume Metamucil before Communion?” with “the spiritual reality underlying it means…”. The question, legal in nature, demands a legal response.

God love you!

I understand. But what I’m saying here is that we should understand the whole concept. Sure, taking Metamucil doesn’t break Canon Law. But not just because means you should especially when you’re trying to reap spiritual benefits from the fast. We can’t isolate the case alone just with the law. Because the law is meant to complement the act of fasting, it wasn’t meant to exist independently of it. That is why in interpreting and understanding the law, we should understand fasting. Not breaking the law and fulfilling it are two different things.

 

[FrDavid96]

…

Ah, but we are not talking about sin. We are just talking about fasting

Yes. You are talking about sin, not only the law.

It is a sin to break the precepts of the Church. One of those precepts (though not one of the “main precepts”) is to keep the Eucharistic fast.

It is the Church who defines what is the Eucharistic fast; and the Church says quite clearly that medicine does not break that fast. Period. It does not break the fast, regardless of why one is taking that medicine, or how severe the need might be.

I’ve avoided saying this, but at this point, I will.

You have no idea how difficult it is for priest-confessors in Confession to properly counsel penitents who are scrupulous. You don’t know how difficult it is when someone who suffers from scrupulosity “confesses” the “sin” of breaking the fast over-and-over again and the confessor tries to explain that “what you said is not a sin.”

A purely fictional example based on very real-life experience:

“Bless me Father, for I have sinned, my last confession was yesterday. I took 2 aspirin 10 minutes before Mass this morning and received Communion.”

“You’ve confessed this many times before, and I’ve explained to you that it’s not a sin, because medicine does not break the fast”

“oh yes it does”

“no, it doesn’t break the fast, canon law says that quite clearly”

“you’re wrong, Father, you’re being too liberal”

“why would you think it breaks the fast?”

“I read it on the internet. After the last time you told me that, I went on the internet to verify what you told me, and I learned that it is a sin”

“what do you mean?”

“I read on a Catholic forum that unless it’s absolutely necessary to take the medicine, then it’s breaking the fast. I can live with a headache, therefore taking 2 aspirin before Mass is a sin”

“No, the Church says that medicine does not break the fast”

“No, Father, medicine only doesn’t break the fast if it’s necessary. If it’s optional and I take the medicine, it’s a sin. I read it on the internet”

“It’s not a sin, trust me.”

“I can’t trust you, I’d rather trust the person posting on the internet, because you’re being too lax about the law.”

“Have you read how the Church defines the fast in canon law?”

“Yes, it was on the internet, and I learned that medicine is only allowed if it’s necessary”

“No, the law doesn’t say that”

“It might not say it, but that’s what the law means”

“who says that?”

“the person on the internet says it’s been the constant teaching of the Church for 2000 years”

Do you see where this is going???

The fictional scenario I’ve posted above is quite realistic. Priest-confessors deal with just that kind of conversation on a regular basis.

 

[MissRose73]

If you are using Metamucil as a medicine / for a medical reason, then no issues there as I presume most people who take it do so for some sort of medical issue with their digestive systems. I am not sure if people use it for a non medical reason or not as I’ve never had to use it.

 

[FrDavid96]

I understand. But what I’m saying here is that we should understand the whole concept. Sure, taking Metamucil doesn’t break Canon Law. But not just because means you should especially when you’re trying to reap spiritual benefits from the fast. We can’t isolate the case alone just with the law. Because the law is meant to complement the act of fasting, it wasn’t meant to exist independently of it. That is why in interpreting and understanding the law, we should understand fasting. Not breaking the law and fulfilling it are two different things.

The law of the Eucharistic fast is a discipline of the Church. It is not itself Divine Law.

The laws about the Eucharistic fast have varied greatly over the years and places.

In 1917, the fast started at Midnight and was a fast from everything, even water.

In the 1950s Pope Pius XII allowed for water and medicine, and reduced it to 3 hours (or was it 2? doesn’t matter)

Later, it was reduced to 1 hour (don’t remember the year, but I think it was Paul VI).

In the 1983 code, it is a 1-hour fast, and water or medicine do not break the fast.

As a discipline of the Church, the Church can (and does) change the laws about the Communion fast.

We are bound by the fast as the Church defines it in the present.

We are not bound by an interpretation of the Communion fast based on the teachings of the Church Fathers, or the canons of the early Councils, or the 1917 code of canon law, and certainly not by what we read on the internet.

Since the Church at the present time says that medicine does not break the fast, medicine does not break the fast. Plain and simple.

 

[Catholic90]

The law of the Eucharistic fast is a discipline of the Church. It is not itself Divine Law.

The laws about the Eucharistic fast have varied greatly over the years and places.

In 1917, the fast started at Midnight and was a fast from everything, even water.

In the 1950s Pope Pius XII allowed for water and medicine, and reduced it to 3 hours (or was it 2? doesn’t matter)

Later, it was reduced to 1 hour (don’t remember the year, but I think it was Paul VI).

In the 1983 code, it is a 1-hour fast, and water or medicine do not break the fast.

As a discipline of the Church, the Church can (and does) change the laws about the Communion fast.

We are bound by the fast as the Church defines it in the present.

We are not bound by an interpretation of the Communion fast based on the teachings of the Church Fathers, or the canons of the early Councils, or the 1917 code of canon law, and certainly not by what we read on the internet.

Since the Church at the present time says that medicine does not break the fast, medicine does not break the fast. Plain and simple.

And this should be the final post, since the question has been answered by a priest, who knows these things.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes. You are talking about sin, not only the law.

It is a sin to break the precepts of the Church. One of those precepts (though not one of the “main precepts”) is to keep the Eucharistic fast.

It is the Church who defines what is the Eucharistic fast; and the Church says quite clearly that medicine does not break that fast. Period. It does not break the fast, regardless of why one is taking that medicine, or how severe the need might be.

I agree with this Father. But the line of Canon Law we are debating is not the entirety of what Fasting is, as defined by the Church. To claim that fasting is nothing more than what that Canon says doesn’t do justice to what Fasting is in Christian spirituality as taught and practiced by Christ during his time on earth.

I’ve avoided saying this, but at this point, I will.

You have no idea how difficult it is for priest-confessors in Confession to properly counsel penitents who are scrupulous. You don’t know how difficult it is when someone who suffers from scrupulosity “confesses” the “sin” of breaking the fast over-and-over again and the confessor tries to explain that “what you said is not a sin.”

I wouldn’t say I am completely clueless, but you are right I do not have the whole picture. But just looking at the scrupulous questions here in CAF, I do have an idea what its like.

A purely fictional example based on very real-life experience:

“Bless me Father, for I have sinned, my last confession was yesterday. I took 2 aspirin 10 minutes before Mass this morning and received Communion.”

“You’ve confessed this many times before, and I’ve explained to you that it’s not a sin, because medicine does not break the fast”

“oh yes it does”

“no, it doesn’t break the fast, canon law says that quite clearly”

“you’re wrong, Father, you’re being too liberal”

“why would you think it breaks the fast?”

“I read it on the internet. After the last time you told me that, I went on the internet to verify what you told me, and I learned that it is a sin”

“what do you mean?”

“I read on a Catholic forum that unless it’s absolutely necessary to take the medicine, then it’s breaking the fast. I can live with a headache, therefore taking 2 aspirin before Mass is a sin”

“No, the Church says that medicine does not break the fast”

“No, Father, medicine only doesn’t break the fast if it’s necessary. If it’s optional and I take the medicine, it’s a sin. I read it on the internet”

“It’s not a sin, trust me.”

“I can’t trust you, I’d rather trust the person posting on the internet, because you’re being too lax about the law.”

“Have you read how the Church defines the fast in canon law?”

“Yes, it was on the internet, and I learned that medicine is only allowed if it’s necessary”

“No, the law doesn’t say that”

“It might not say it, but that’s what the law means”

“who says that?”

“the person on the internet says it’s been the constant teaching of the Church for 2000 years”

Do you see where this is going???

The fictional scenario I’ve posted above is quite realistic. Priest-confessors deal with just that kind of conversation on a regular basis.

Father, I know its not my place to tell you how to do your job. But I can see the problem here is that you or someone else isn’t explaining to the person why we fast in the first place. The problem with many of the cases of scrupulosity here in CAF is people know the law but not what the law represents. Therefore they think that breaking the law is the be-all, end-all of the faith. But the faith is more than the law. We have to Catechize, Father. People are not saved by the law, its not enough that people know the law and obey it. Its important that we know, in this case, what Fasting is and why we do it. Besides, it is a sin against God to forgo unnecessary medicine until after Mass? Of course not! If we understand why we fast, then its easy to make that decision.