Question about Metamucil and Holy Communion

[FrDavid96]

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 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.

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.

You are confusing the concept of fasting as a Christian virtue with the law of the Communion fast.

Again, the Communion fast is a discipline of the Church, and as such the Church has every authority to define it and revise it. The Church defines the Communion fast quite clearly as not applying to water or medicine. There is no ambiguity here. Medicine simply does not break the fast.

People are certainly not saved by pharisaic interpretations of the law, which multiply burdens which the Church has not placed there.

If the Church says in canon 919 that medicine does not break the fast, by what right do you tell people that they cannot take medicine unless it is a necessity? You are trying to enforce your own law above and beyond the law of the Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You are confusing the concept of fasting as a Christian virtue with the law of the Communion fast.

I am not Father. They have to come together. If we separate the law from what it represents, then the law is nothing more than a set of specific instructions to do something specifically without any meaning or reason.

Again, the Communion fast is a discipline of the Church, and as such the Church has every authority to define it and revise it. The Church defines the Communion fast quite clearly as not applying to water or medicine. There is no ambiguity here. Medicine simply does not break the fast.

A fast is a fast. There are many “kinds” of fasting throughout the year, but ultimately fasting is fasting. The difference only is when we are applying fasting. The Lenten Fast has the same meaning and significance as the Eucharistic Fast. We are to know and believe that we need Christ more than anything. The context of Lent is repentance, and we sin because we choose something over Christ. Same for the Eucharistic Fast. Because in Communion we seek to become one with Christ, we should choose Christ only and take nothing but ourselves to Christ. So fasting is always about giving up everything but Christ.

People are certainly not saved by pharisaic interpretations of the law, which multiply burdens which the Church has not placed there.

Any interpretation of the law does not save people, Father. Only Christ saves people. If the law is not viewed with the light of Christ, then it does nothing.

This reminds me of something I read recently, about Fundamentalists claiming that God’s revelation to man is the Bible. Which is wrong, because the Bible is not God’s revelation to man, Jesus Christ is God’s revelation to man. We should see anything in everything in our faith that way.

You know what the problem with being legalistic is? People are more concerned about being right, rather than being righteous. Did Christ come to earth to make us good obeyers of the law? Or did He come to redeem us from sin and death? The law, for sure, does not redeem us from sin and death.

If the Church says in canon 919 that medicine does not break the fast, by what right do you tell people that they cannot take medicine unless it is a necessity? You are trying to enforce your own law above and beyond the law of the Church.

I am not forcing any laws, Father. I’m afraid that is your own interpretation of what I am doing. I am telling people how to fast properly as I have learned how to fast. Like I said earlier, I am not rewriting canon law here. I am sharing what I have learned about fasting.

You haven’t answered my 2 questions:

1. Is forgoing medicine that is unnecessary to be taken 1 hour before Mass a sin?
2. Is forgoing medicine that is unnecessary to be take 1 hour before Mass breaking canon law?

At homily today, our bishop spoke of an example from today’s Gospel (Jesus justifying work during Sabbath). One seminarian went to his instructor and asked, “is it okay to smoke while I pray?” The instructor said, “NO! Never!” Then the next seminarian asked, “is it okay to pray while I smoke?” And the instructor said, “of course it is right to pray no matter what you are doing.”

I’m afraid Father that you are seeing the issue here as nothing more than what the law says, the same way the pharisees see Jesus as nothing more than doing work during the Sabbath. But Jesus asked the pharisees, “is it okay to do good during the Sabbath?” So Father, is it a sin to forgo medicine that you do not need to take immediately? The answer is quite obvious. Why are we content with doing the bare minimum for Christ then?

The law should not be seen as what defines fasting, rather fasting is what defines the law. We should understand the law in the context of fasting, and fasting says we must give up all we can for Christ.

 

[centurionguard]

Many of the implications make in this thread are absolutely ridiculous.

If I felt I needed to take Metamucil before going to Mass as being any different than taking my insulin or any other medication I’d take it and feel no guilt a half hour later disposing my soul worthily receiving Holy Communion.

Gee; how many people in this thread are over fifty and don’t have a body for whatever reason that doesn’t function like a young twenty year old.

I can’t figure out what all the fuss is about. I don’t take Metamucil, but I take another prescribed med that acts similarly.

There’s no ill behavior or disrespect taking Metamucil before Mass anymore than it is taking any required medication that helps your overall health.

Taking Metamucil breaks no Fast rules.

The Flesh is Weak, The Spirit is Willing.

 

[TrueLight]

I am not Father. They have to come together. If we separate the law from what it represents, then the law is nothing more than a set of specific instructions to do something specifically without any meaning or reason.

A fast is a fast. There are many “kinds” of fasting throughout the year, but ultimately fasting is fasting. The difference only is when we are applying fasting. The Lenten Fast has the same meaning and significance as the Eucharistic Fast. We are to know and believe that we need Christ more than anything. The context of Lent is repentance, and we sin because we choose something over Christ. Same for the Eucharistic Fast. Because in Communion we seek to become one with Christ, we should choose Christ only and take nothing but ourselves to Christ. So fasting is always about giving up everything but Christ.

Any interpretation of the law does not save people, Father. Only Christ saves people. If the law is not viewed with the light of Christ, then it does nothing.

This reminds me of something I read recently, about Fundamentalists claiming that God’s revelation to man is the Bible. Which is wrong, because the Bible is not God’s revelation to man, Jesus Christ is God’s revelation to man. We should see anything in everything in our faith that way.

You know what the problem with being legalistic is? People are more concerned about being right, rather than being righteous. Did Christ come to earth to make us good obeyers of the law? Or did He come to redeem us from sin and death? The law, for sure, does not redeem us from sin and death.

I am not forcing any laws, Father. I’m afraid that is your own interpretation of what I am doing. I am telling people how to fast properly as I have learned how to fast. Like I said earlier, I am not rewriting canon law here. I am sharing what I have learned about fasting.

You haven’t answered my 2 questions:

1. Is forgoing medicine that is unnecessary to be taken 1 hour before Mass a sin?
2. Is forgoing medicine that is unnecessary to be take 1 hour before Mass breaking canon law?

At homily today, our bishop spoke of an example from today’s Gospel (Jesus justifying work during Sabbath). One seminarian went to his instructor and asked, “is it okay to smoke while I pray?” The instructor said, “NO! Never!” Then the next seminarian asked, “is it okay to pray while I smoke?” And the instructor said, “of course it is right to pray no matter what you are doing.”

I’m afraid Father that you are seeing the issue here as nothing more than what the law says, the same way the pharisees see Jesus as nothing more than doing work during the Sabbath. But Jesus asked the pharisees, “is it okay to do good during the Sabbath?” So Father, is it a sin to forgo medicine that you do not need to take immediately? The answer is quite obvious. Why are we content with doing the bare minimum for Christ then?

The law should not be seen as what defines fasting, rather fasting is what defines the law. We should understand the law in the context of fasting, and fasting says we must give up all we can for Christ.

Great post Constantine.

Legalism aggravates scrupulosity in those who already have that tendency.

 

[Pug]

Gee; how many people in this thread are over fifty and don’t have a body for whatever reason that doesn’t function like a young twenty year old.

I can’t figure out what all the fuss is about. I don’t take Metamucil, but I take another prescribed med that acts similarly.

I take a similar-ish medication as well. I dislike consuming it. I would love to never drink that cocktail again. But if I want to go out in public, I need to drink it regularly or else, ironically, resort to a long fast. That’s why I ended up on the thread, to express that their timing sometimes can be quite important, since there seemed to be some sort of question about that on this thread.

 

[Pug]

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

My (Latin rite) prayer books have never had anything in them for the day before communion, well, other than the traditional act of spiritual communion of course, but nothing to prepare for communion the next day specifically. That is interesting.

I don’t typically start preparing for communion that early, since I often go to the Sat vigil, and that doesn’t lend itself to that type of preparation. Sunday mornings make it relatively easy to do. It happens naturally, almost, if you get up not that long before you attend mass.

 

[ConstantineTG]

My (Latin rite) prayer books have never had anything in them for the day before communion, well, other than the traditional act of spiritual communion of course, but nothing to prepare for communion the next day specifically. That is interesting.

I don’t typically start preparing for communion that early, since I often go to the Sat vigil, and that doesn’t lend itself to that type of preparation. Sunday mornings make it relatively easy to do. It happens naturally, almost, if you get up not that long before you attend mass.

I think to understand all what is discussed in this thread is a good exercise in understanding the theology we all live by. What is the law for? Fasting. So we need to understand fasting. But what is fasting for? Communion. So we need to understand Communion. But what is Communion for? To be one with Christ. So we need to understand Christ. I know this is a big task. But the simple way to think about here is, we are seeking to be one with Christ through the Eucharist. And so we prepare for the Eucharist by fasting. If we see all this, then the context of the law is clear.

 

[tjwdsssc2015]

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.
,]
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.
…]
(thus my enormous time devoted to CAF ).

JMJ

Perhaps I can add two words to the first part of the quote and it could be something agreeable:

“…If it is not, then it [may be] violating the spirit of the fast.”

This afternoon, I mentioned this topic to one of the older priests on the faculty at my seminary. He made an interesting mention of intentionality as underscoring the liceity of Metamucil consumption before Mass. See, I’ve never taken Metamucil before (and I’m okay with keeping it that way…); the priest answered, when I told him about this thread, “if the person is taking it in order to break the fast, then it is breaking the fast.” He explained: Metamucil can make one feel full. So if one takes it in order to not feel hungry at Mass, then it is clearly breaking the “spirit of the fast”, as you said. However, if one is taking it for its medicinal benefits, then it is perfectly licit. And, as we’ve agreed, this is where the spiritual director comes in.

I agree wholeheartedly with FrDavid96 about the scrupulosity, and about your confusing fasting as a Christian virtue with the Eucharistic Fast. TRUE, as you said, there is overlap. However, there is on the one hand the bare minimum requirements outlined by the Church’s practical law which allow one to be properly disposed to receiving communion, while on the other hand there are practices which advance the spiritual life. The question of this thread is, as I have said repeatedly, the legality of receiving communion after consuming Metamucil. And as FrDavid96, myself, and many others have said, YES it is legal. Is it a sin to stave off the medication? No. Will one be spiritually worse off if he/she consumes the medicine? No. One shouldn’t be made to feel guilty about taking a medication within the communion fast. And if one takes medication during the communion fast, there are thousands of other ways to develop the spiritual life. In a very direct answer: consuming medication within the fast period is not sacrilege. No one is going to hell for taking medication within the fast period.

Being as I am in the midst of constant studies, even on the weekends, and daily Mass here is at 11:30am, I must take my medicine if I want to be able to do anything productive that afternoon.

I have to be careful that I don’t spend too much time writing on these forums when I should be writing papers, reading articles, and studying for exams

Last comments:

First, with no offense intended, I think you were way off base to instruct FrDavid96 about the need to catechize people. Reading over his scenario, it is clear that the hypothetical priest has attempted to catechize the hypothetical penitent numerous times, but the hypothetical penitent wasn’t willing to accept the catechesis. Sometimes people are too stubborn to acknowledge Church authority over personal interpretation. Sometimes we need to humbly submit our will to the instruction of the Church.

Second, as I read and re-read your posts, despite the fact that many of us have repeatedly explained the same things to you, it seems you do not offer anything new, but only repeat your same arguments, saying that we are not considering the purpose of fasting in Christian spirituality. But we address that question, and you only repeat again that we are ignoring the purpose of fasting in Christian spirituality. You’ve yet to offer anything new to the topic. When, clearly, your argument continues to remain unconvincing, it’s time to introduce new premises or thoughts…or consider correcting your opinion. The debate began when your position was criticized; thus the fact that we have been arguing the same point back to you (though we have taken various perspectives, examples, and sources) is a consequence of your not changing anything about your position, even taking a different approach to explaining it. Nearly every post you’ve made follows the same structure (I’m paraphrasing): “You don’t get it. You’re ignoring the meaning behind fasting.” … “You still don’t get it. You’re ignoring the meaning behind fasting.” … “You’re still not getting it. You’re ignoring the meaning behind fasting.” …and so on and so forth.

In short, ConstantineTG, I’d like to see you offer more perspective, legitimately respond to our counter arguments (with more than just, “that’s right, but…” or “you’re not getting it”), and be willing to submit your interpretations under the authority of the Church. Also, if, in your personal piety, you don’t take medication before Mass, that’s great, keep on with it, and let God be praised by your offering. Just don’t make people feel like they’re in the wrong when they are doing something which the Church allows them to do.

God love you!

 

[ConstantineTG]

Great post Constantine.

Legalism aggravates scrupulosity in those who already have that tendency.

Thank you. Its one of the things that my eyes were opened to in the recent weeks. And if you notice the tone of my posts as of late, I’ve been arguing towards less reliance on legalism. I realized this when I was at our cantors training session and we had a guest from another of our parish. We had just attended Divine Liturgy for that morning and the person from the other parish commented about us standing for the entire Divine Liturgy. Their parish kneels during equivalent parts in the Latin Rite Mass (consecration/anaphora and prayers before Communion). So everyone gave an explanation of why. I said one of the canons of the council of Nicaea stated we stand during Sundays. The others shared the explanation given to them by our bishop (which I forgot ). But then I realized, I gave the worst answer. We stand throughout Divine Liturgy not because an Ecumenical Council tells us so, because it has symbolisms, from resurrecting with Christ, to being in a posture of joy given the joyous nature of us receiving the Divine Gift of the Eucharist.

I am not trying to add or change the law. But we should ask ourselves if its beneficial to our souls merely to just meet the law. And I’m not saying that its not, for some people probably it is. But we have to learn about our faith and know that we can do more than just meet the law. Another problem with legalism is you cannot legislate the maximum. Legislation always deals with the minimum. That is why in the Eastern Rites, we have ridiculously high standards for fasting. Because its not law. Its instruction. In the Latin Church its the bare minimum that is legislated. Thats the nature of legislation.

Someone pointed out earlier in this thread about Lobster dinners during Lent. That is the problem here. Sure, lobster fulfills what is in the law for fasting/abstinence. But is it really fasting? I guess if you buy the lobster and cook it yourself at home. But what if you’re in a fancy high-class restaurant? Is that still fasting? Halibut steak in a fancy New York restaurant?

 

[anp1215]

…Is this thread really 6 pages long?

 

[asd72]

Constantine,

Remember the Pharisees when they accused the Apostles for plucking corn on the Sabbath.

Plucking corn was allowed and wasn’t considered harvesting (Deut 23:25), but the Pharisees wanted to go beyond the law, be extra strict.

Fr has made it quite clear what the requirements are. What fasting you do beyond that should be done with an oiled head and a smile, not with the intention to place extra burdens upon others.

 

[TrueLight]

JMJ

Perhaps I can add two words to the first part of the quote and it could be something agreeable:

“…If it is not, then it [may be] violating the spirit of the fast.”

This afternoon, I mentioned this topic to one of the older priests on the faculty at my seminary. He made an interesting mention of intentionality as underscoring the liceity of Metamucil consumption before Mass. See, I’ve never taken Metamucil before (and I’m okay with keeping it that way…); the priest answered, when I told him about this thread, “if the person is taking it in order to break the fast, then it is breaking the fast.” He explained: Metamucil can make one feel full. So if one takes it in order to not feel hungry at Mass, then it is clearly breaking the “spirit of the fast”, as you said. However, if one is taking it for its medicinal benefits, then it is perfectly licit. And, as we’ve agreed, this is where the spiritual director comes in.

I agree wholeheartedly with FrDavid96 about the scrupulosity, and about your confusing fasting as a Christian virtue with the Eucharistic Fast. TRUE, as you said, there is overlap. However, there is on the one hand the bare minimum requirements outlined by the Church’s practical law which allow one to be properly disposed to receiving communion, while on the other hand there are practices which advance the spiritual life. The question of this thread is, as I have said repeatedly, the legality of receiving communion after consuming Metamucil. And as FrDavid96, myself, and many others have said, YES it is legal. Is it a sin to stave off the medication? No. Will one be spiritually worse off if he/she consumes the medicine? No. One shouldn’t be made to feel guilty about taking a medication within the communion fast. And if one takes medication during the communion fast, there are thousands of other ways to develop the spiritual life. In a very direct answer: consuming medication within the fast period is not sacrilege. No one is going to hell for taking medication within the fast period.

Being as I am in the midst of constant studies, even on the weekends, and daily Mass here is at 11:30am, I must take my medicine if I want to be able to do anything productive that afternoon.

I have to be careful that I don’t spend too much time writing on these forums when I should be writing papers, reading articles, and studying for exams

Last comments:

First, with no offense intended, I think you were way off base to instruct FrDavid96 about the need to catechize people. Reading over his scenario, it is clear that the hypothetical priest has attempted to catechize the hypothetical penitent numerous times, but the hypothetical penitent wasn’t willing to accept the catechesis. Sometimes people are too stubborn to acknowledge Church authority over personal interpretation. Sometimes we need to humbly submit our will to the instruction of the Church.

Second, as I read and re-read your posts, despite the fact that many of us have repeatedly explained the same things to you, it seems you do not offer anything new, but only repeat your same arguments, saying that we are not considering the purpose of fasting in Christian spirituality. But we address that question, and you only repeat again that we are ignoring the purpose of fasting in Christian spirituality. You’ve yet to offer anything new to the topic. When, clearly, your argument continues to remain unconvincing, it’s time to introduce new premises or thoughts…or consider correcting your opinion. The debate began when your position was criticized; thus the fact that we have been arguing the same point back to you (though we have taken various perspectives, examples, and sources) is a consequence of your not changing anything about your position, even taking a different approach to explaining it. Nearly every post you’ve made follows the same structure (I’m paraphrasing): “You don’t get it. You’re ignoring the meaning behind fasting.” … “You still don’t get it. You’re ignoring the meaning behind fasting.” … “You’re still not getting it. You’re ignoring the meaning behind fasting.” …and so on and so forth.

In short, ConstantineTG, I’d like to see you offer more perspective, legitimately respond to our counter arguments (with more than just, “that’s right, but…” or “you’re not getting it”), and be willing to submit your interpretations under the authority of the Church. Also, if, in your personal piety, you don’t take medication before Mass, that’s great, keep on with it, and let God be praised by your offering. Just don’t make people feel like they’re in the wrong when they are doing something which the Church allows them to do.

God love you!

This is also a good post.

I believe the question refers to the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law.

Laws are not just created at random.

This reminds me of a little game I see kids playing.

A parent will say, do not touch the stove. Invariably some kid will put their little finger as close as they can while not touching. They haven’t disobeyed, but they’re going as far as they can.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the reason that medicine is allowed is so that no one’s health will be adversely affected for the cause of Christ? God wouldn’t want that.

So if I need the Metamucil so as not to be be sick during or shortly after mass, of course I can and should take it. If I can take it at any time, then why would I take it …just because I can? So isn’t the intention important as well as the letter of the law?

 

[FrDavid96]

…
I am not forcing any laws, Father. I’m afraid that is your own interpretation of what I am doing. I am telling people how to fast properly as I have learned how to fast. Like I said earlier, I am not rewriting canon law here. I am sharing what I have learned about fasting.

You haven’t answered my 2 questions:

1. Is forgoing medicine that is unnecessary to be taken 1 hour before Mass a sin?
2. Is forgoing medicine that is unnecessary to be take 1 hour before Mass breaking canon law?

…

Both questions are irrelevant because the Church tells us that medicine simply does not break the Communion fast.

And, for the record, I haven’t answered the questions because they’re just plain silly. No one would say that delaying unnecessary medication is a sin.

Again, you are trying to enforce your own additions to the Church’s law, which not only runs contrary to that particular law (canon 919) but also to canon law overall.

The additional requirements that you insist on adding, questions like “is it necessary?” or “can it wait?” are not questions that the Church asks. They are your questions, and your personal additions to the law. You keep denying it, but it’s right here on this thread for all to read.

Why do you not see that it is up to the Church, and not you, to decide what constitutes the Communion fast?

If you think that the additional questions of “is it necessary?” or whatever else should be added to the Communion fast, by all means you’re welcome to write a letter to HH Pope Benedict and suggest that he revise canon 919. Be my guest. But until that happens, you have no business telling others that your questions have any bearing on whether or not they are keeping the Communion fast.

Since the Church tells us very clearly and without any ambiguity that medicine (and for that matter, water) does not break the Communion fast, that means medicine does not break the Communion fast. It is that simple.

No one needs to ask any other questions beyond “is it medicine?”

 

[anp1215]

Both questions are irrelevant because the Church tells us that medicine simply does not break the Communion fast.

And, for the record, I haven’t answered the questions because they’re just plain silly. No one would say that delaying unnecessary medication is a sin.

Again, you are trying to enforce your own additions to the Church’s law, which not only runs contrary to that particular law (canon 919) but also to canon law overall.

The additional requirements that you insist on adding, questions like “is it necessary?” or “can it wait?” are not questions that the Church asks. They are your questions, and your personal additions to the law. You keep denying it, but it’s right here on this thread for all to read.

Why do you not see that it is up to the Church, and not you, to decide what constitutes the Communion fast?

If you think that the additional questions of “is it necessary?” or whatever else should be added to the Communion fast, by all means you’re welcome to write a letter to HH Pope Benedict and suggest that he revise canon 919. Be my guest. But until that happens, you have no business telling others that your questions have any bearing on whether or not they are keeping the Communion fast.

Since the Church tells us very clearly and without any ambiguity that medicine (and for that matter, water) does not break the Communion fast, that means medicine does not break the Communion fast. It is that simple.

No one needs to ask any other questions beyond “is it medicine?”

Thanks for your answers Father. The question really is cut and dry.

 

[Catholic90]

Thanks for your answers Father. The question really is cut and dry.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Constantine,

Remember the Pharisees when they accused the Apostles for plucking corn on the Sabbath.

Plucking corn was allowed and wasn’t considered harvesting (Deut 23:25), but the Pharisees wanted to go beyond the law, be extra strict.

Fr has made it quite clear what the requirements are. What fasting you do beyond that should be done with an oiled head and a smile, not with the intention to place extra burdens upon others.

I’m not placing burdens on others. I’m making people realize the reality of the situation. What good is fasting when one merely follows the letter of the law? Fasting should be done out of love for God. If one merely follows the law, is that love of God or fear of punishment? Whats the point of fasting when we fast for the sake of following rules?

Both questions are irrelevant because the Church tells us that medicine simply does not break the Communion fast.

And, for the record, I haven’t answered the questions because they’re just plain silly. No one would say that delaying unnecessary medication is a sin.

Yes, I intentionally asked silly questions because that is what real life is. Viagra, addition to prescription and OTC drugs. Yes it is ridiculous to ask them, but out in the real world there are people who face this ridiculous situations. If the rules are cut fast and dry, then these questions aren’t ridiculous, are they?

Again, you are trying to enforce your own additions to the Church’s law, which not only runs contrary to that particular law (canon 919) but also to canon law overall.

Again I am not adding anything to Canon Law. I’m merely explaining the reality of what fasting is and how it relates to the law. You can’t separate them. Its been said many times in this thread.

The additional requirements that you insist on adding, questions like “is it necessary?” or “can it wait?” are not questions that the Church asks. They are your questions, and your personal additions to the law. You keep denying it, but it’s right here on this thread for all to read.

I don’t know how explaining the reality of fasting in relation to the law is adding to the law. I’ve explained it over and over again, I don’t know if you have been reading my posts even, or just outright accusing me over and over the same thing. Even if we differ in opinion on the matter, I hope you grant me enough respect Father to at least read my entire post and understand what I am saying.

Why do you not see that it is up to the Church, and not you, to decide what constitutes the Communion fast?

I haven’t decided anything. I merely explained what fasting is.

If you think that the additional questions of “is it necessary?” or whatever else should be added to the Communion fast, by all means you’re welcome to write a letter to HH Pope Benedict and suggest that he revise canon 919. Be my guest. But until that happens, you have no business telling others that your questions have any bearing on whether or not they are keeping the Communion fast.

They do not need to rewrite Canon Law. Canon Law isn’t meant to address everything about Fasting. The same way Canon Law isn’t mean to address everything about the Mass or the Eucharist. Canon Law doesn’t even address half of what is in De Defectibus. So you’re constant claim that Canon Law defines all that there is to it about the Eucharistic Fast is wrong. There is more to the Eucharistic Fast than just simply, “have nothing for one hour except water and medicine.” And that is the definition of what Fasting is.

Since the Church tells us very clearly and without any ambiguity that medicine (and for that matter, water) does not break the Communion fast, that means medicine does not break the Communion fast. It is that simple.

No one needs to ask any other questions beyond “is it medicine?”

That is troubling then. Because people should ask “what is fasting” and “why we fast” first before asking that.

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m not placing burdens on others. I’m making people realize the reality of the situation. What good is fasting when one merely follows the letter of the law? Fasting should be done out of love for God. If one merely follows the law, is that love of God or fear of punishment? Whats the point of fasting when we fast for the sake of following rules?

Yes, I intentionally asked silly questions because that is what real life is. Viagra, addition to prescription and OTC drugs. Yes it is ridiculous to ask them, but out in the real world there are people who face this ridiculous situations. If the rules are cut fast and dry, then these questions aren’t ridiculous, are they?

Again I am not adding anything to Canon Law. I’m merely explaining the reality of what fasting is and how it relates to the law. You can’t separate them. Its been said many times in this thread.

I don’t know how explaining the reality of fasting in relation to the law is adding to the law. I’ve explained it over and over again, I don’t know if you have been reading my posts even, or just outright accusing me over and over the same thing. Even if we differ in opinion on the matter, I hope you grant me enough respect Father to at least read my entire post and understand what I am saying.

I haven’t decided anything. I merely explained what fasting is.

They do not need to rewrite Canon Law. Canon Law isn’t meant to address everything about Fasting. The same way Canon Law isn’t mean to address everything about the Mass or the Eucharist. Canon Law doesn’t even address half of what is in De Defectibus. So you’re constant claim that Canon Law defines all that there is to it about the Eucharistic Fast is wrong. There is more to the Eucharistic Fast than just simply, “have nothing for one hour except water and medicine.” And that is the definition of what Fasting is.

That is troubling then. Because people should ask “what is fasting” and “why we fast” first before asking that.

One more time.

You simply refuse to accept the fact that it is the Church and not you who gets to determine what is or is not the Eucharistic Fast.

You talk about “reality” but the reality here is that you have repeatedly insisted on adding your own personal additions to what we read in canon law. I have read your posts. In fact, earlier I even quoted a series of those posts wherein you do exactly what you keep denying that you are doing: namely, adding your own personal criteria to the Communion fast which is contrary to the Church’s law and which goes beyond the Church’s law.

The Church tells us clearly in the canon that medicine DOES NOT break the Communion fast. What about this do you not understand?

There is no such thing as a Communion fast from-medicine. It does not even exist, and yet you insist on telling people that they must follow your rules that they need to ask themselves if the medicine is necessary? or if it is possible to delay the medicine? These are your rules and they are contrary to the law of the Church.

The Church asks no such questions. They are not the Church’s questions nor are the the Church’s criteria: they are your own personal criteria, and you have no right to impose that upon anyone else.

What you keep insisting upon here is completely contrary to the canon law of the Church. Medicine does not break the fast. Therefore, your attempts to “explain fasting” have no bearing on the topic because the Church says that there is no fasting from medicine in the first place. You are adding requirements to something that does not even exist.

The other point which you refuse to see is that the law of the Communion fast is a discipline of the Church. The Church has every authority to define that Communion fast in whatever way the Supreme Pontiff decides to define it. That is done through canon law–not through your own personal opinion of what the Communion fast “ought to be.” Whatever you think it should be is irrelevant. Only the Pope can define the Communion fast; and the way that it has been defined is that medicine is exempted from the fast–completely and entirely.

There is no such thing as a Communion fast from medicine. It does not exist.

 

[Pug]

But ConstantineTG, we are talking about the communion fast. Most people are voluntarily going to communion often and hence voluntarily keeping this fast. They are not keeping it just for some law. They use the law to know what the fast is and they keep the fast in the manner they have been taught to show the Lord proper respect. This is an act of desire for the Lord and love of him, or at least evidence of possessing the correct understanding of a creature relative to his creator.

If they looked at it as doing the bare minimum to avoid punishment, they simply would choose to avoid all bother and not go up to communion, except Easter Duty.

A reminder of the virtues of generosity, humility, and simplicity, and a reminder that our whole lives are his, not just a few hours, is always in order, however (as you are trying to do, I think).

 

[ConstantineTG]

One more time.

You simply refuse to accept the fact that it is the Church and not you who gets to determine what is or is not the Eucharistic Fast.

You talk about “reality” but the reality here is that you have repeatedly insisted on adding your own personal additions to what we read in canon law. I have read your posts. In fact, earlier I even quoted a series of those posts wherein you do exactly what you keep denying that you are doing: namely, adding your own personal criteria to the Communion fast which is contrary to the Church’s law and which goes beyond the Church’s law.

The Church tells us clearly in the canon that medicine DOES NOT break the Communion fast. What about this do you not understand?

There is no such thing as a Communion fast from-medicine. It does not even exist, and yet you insist on telling people that they must follow your rules that they need to ask themselves if the medicine is necessary? or if it is possible to delay the medicine? These are your rules and they are contrary to the law of the Church.

The Church asks no such questions. They are not the Church’s questions nor are the the Church’s criteria: they are your own personal criteria, and you have no right to impose that upon anyone else.

What you keep insisting upon here is completely contrary to the canon law of the Church. Medicine does not break the fast. Therefore, your attempts to “explain fasting” have no bearing on the topic because the Church says that there is no fasting from medicine in the first place. You are adding requirements to something that does not even exist.

The other point which you refuse to see is that the law of the Communion fast is a discipline of the Church. The Church has every authority to define that Communion fast in whatever way the Supreme Pontiff decides to define it. That is done through canon law–not through your own personal opinion of what the Communion fast “ought to be.” Whatever you think it should be is irrelevant. Only the Pope can define the Communion fast; and the way that it has been defined is that medicine is exempted from the fast–completely and entirely.

There is no such thing as a Communion fast from medicine. It does not exist.

I have to say for the Nth time Father, you are wrong about your assessment. I will not say what I have said countless times because its going to go around in circles again. You can make this claim all you want but it was not my intention, I have made it clear that what you claim is not my intention. That is that.

But ConstantineTG, we are talking about the communion fast. Most people are voluntarily going to communion often and hence voluntarily keeping this fast. They are not keeping it just for some law. They use the law to know what the fast is and they keep the fast in the manner they have been taught to show the Lord proper respect. This is an act of desire for the Lord and love of him, or at least evidence of possessing the correct understanding of a creature relative to his creator.

If they looked at it as doing the bare minimum to avoid punishment, they simply would choose to avoid all bother and not go up to communion, except Easter Duty.

A reminder of the virtues of generosity, humility, and simplicity, and a reminder that our whole lives are his, not just a few hours, is always in order, however (as you are trying to do, I think).

Pug, unfortunately using the law to know what the law is about is not the right approach. Contrary to what has been levied against me earlier in this thread, its legalism that increases scrupulosity. If people know the law first before the subject of the law itself, there’s a chance they’ll never know anything more than the law. I’m not denying that there are people who learn more through the law. But that’s not an effective way to learn about the faith. We’re Christians because of the faith, not the law. We have to know what Fasting is about, before knowing what the Canons about Fasting is. Because the Canon makes more sense when we know what Fasting is.

What I’m trying to do is make people realize that they should be asking things like what Fasting is, or what Mass is, before asking about things like obligations, canons, dispensations, etc. If you read around the L&S forum, discussions tend to be legalistic rather than catechetical. If we know the matters of our faith more, the laws wouldn’t matter. We’d follow them without even having to know them.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I have to say for the Nth time Father, you are wrong about your assessment. I will not say what I have said countless times because its going to go around in circles again. You can make this claim all you want but it was not my intention, I have made it clear that what you claim is not my intention. That is that.

It may not be your intention Constantine, but I get the same impressions that Father does from your posts in this thread.

Pug, unfortunately using the law to know what the law is about is not the right approach. Contrary to what has been levied against me earlier in this thread, its legalism that increases scrupulosity. If people know the law first before the subject of the law itself, there’s a chance they’ll never know anything more than the law. I’m not denying that there are people who learn more through the law. But that’s not an effective way to learn about the faith. We’re Christians because of the faith, not the law. We have to know what Fasting is about, before knowing what the Canons about Fasting is. Because the Canon makes more sense when we know what Fasting is.

What I’m trying to do is make people realize that they should be asking things like what Fasting is, or what Mass is, before asking about things like obligations, canons, dispensations, etc. If you read around the L&S forum, discussions tend to be legalistic rather than catechetical. If we know the matters of our faith more, the laws wouldn’t matter. We’d follow them without even having to know them.

I do not disagree at all with what you are saying, and I don’t think anyone else here does either.
BUT, a very simple question was asked, and the answer is NO, it does not break the Eucharistic fast to take medication. PERIOD.

Maybe, you should start a new thread about fasting, both from the Eastern & Western perspective. I know that I would find it very interesting.