Question about Metamucil and Holy Communion

[ConstantineTG]

Essentially, this is what it seems ConstantineTG is doing: reducing the law to a specific among a more relative necessity. In other words, there are no specific reasons, but ConstantineTG wants to say that there is a need of necessity, based on his own understanding of what is necessary. What would stop another from coming along and saying “I declare that by ‘medicine’ the Church means those drugs regulated by the FDA”; and another could say, “I declare that acceptable drugs are those which absolutely cannot be delayed until after Mass.” This is the underlying fallacy in ConstantineTG’s “two questions” he posed FrDavid96. He turns the real question around, asking if it a sin to wait to take the medication. The direct answer: no, it’s not a sin…but that means absolutely nothing to the question at hand, for neither is it a sin to take the medication before Mass. Simply, it is not a sin to take the medication, regardless of when the medication is taken.

Mere relative necessity? You have read through what I said far deeper than what I have intended to say. Do you believe that fasting are specific actions in specific defined amount of times?

Let me ask you this, is being a good citizen in your community just about not breaking the law? Of course not. To be a good citizen involves contributing to the community. Being a good Christian is not just about breaking the law. Its about contributing to our spiritual life in the life of God. The law is not meant to tell us to do more, it only sets the limit so that we don’t do less. The problem with legislating something with a higher standard is those who cannot do more will look at the law and be scrupulous about it. So you legislate the minimum. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do more. In fact, we are expected to do more. That is why when we fast, we shouldn’t fast mechanically following the rules as if its merely just a set of instructions. Like when we exercise, we don’t just start running around. There’s preparation (stretching), working every part of our body properly, and as we strengthen, we push to do more.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Sure, some saints have went for long periods of time. Father, my point is not the amount of time, 1, 6, 12, 5000 hours, it doesn’t matter. If we know why we fast, it would be easier to fast more because of our love for Christ.

When discussing what others should do why don’t we just stick to what the Church has to say and then let others decide for themselves if they want to do more?

 

[ConstantineTG]

When discussing what others should do why don’t we just stick to what the Church has to say and then let others decide for themselves if they want to do more?

Is Canon Law all the Church have to say?

 

[asd72]

Is Canon Law all the Church have to say?

In regard to the question from the OP: Does ingesting Metamucil less than an hour before Holy Communion break the one-hour Eucharist fast? It would seem the Canon law says no.

I don’t know why an accurate answer to this question bothers you so much.

If the question from the OP was why do we fast prior the receiving Holy Communion?, then obviously the answer would draw more upon theology, but this was not the question.

I don’t know why you assume no one is concerned about why we fast. That is a judgement from you, not a fact in any case.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t know why an accurate answer to this question bothers you so much.

Because as I have stated earlier, I have my eyes opened and it bothers me that people care more about the law than about what we do for our spirituality. Fasting is not just a checklist of not eating and a sub-checklist of what we can eat.

Also I do not view Metamucil as medicine. Its a dietary supplement. Is Centrum medicine? No. Its a vitamin supplement. Some people may have medical conditions which require the regular intake of Metamucil. But thats a different case for someone who just wants to take it just because they can. So think again if my exaggerations are really out of line here. Viagra for example is a prescription drug. Its actually more of a medicine that Metamucil. Yet no one wants to answer the question if one can take Viagra before Mass. But that is really a great example of how to abuse the law if the law is simple and straightforward as people here claim. But the law should be interpreted only in light of what the law is for. If we detach the law from what fasting really is about and why we do it, then the law does not make any sense.

 

[asd72]

Because as I have stated earlier, I have my eyes opened and it bothers me that people care more about the law than about what we do for our spirituality. Fasting is not just a checklist of not eating and a sub-checklist of what we can eat.

Also I do not view Metamucil as medicine. Its a dietary supplement. Is Centrum medicine? No. Its a vitamin supplement. Some people may have medical conditions which require the regular intake of Metamucil. But thats a different case for someone who just wants to take it just because they can. So think again if my exaggerations are really out of line here. Viagra for example is a prescription drug. Its actually more of a medicine that Metamucil. Yet no one wants to answer the question if one can take Viagra before Mass. But that is really a great example of how to abuse the law if the law is simple and straightforward as people here claim. But the law should be interpreted only in light of what the law is for. If we detach the law from what fasting really is about and why we do it, then the law does not make any sense.

Well I think at this point we will have to agree to disagree.

I don’t disagree with the importance of understanding why we do things, but I just think it is not worth getting so technical on medicine. I’m a nurse and I can tell you now that many patients would not even know if it was safe to change the times for the medicine they take. I think the teaching of the Church is sensible and safe.

 

[centurionguard]

Is Canon Law all the Church have to say?

You make it seem that every Catholic must follow the letter of the Law on Fasting or they be damned or at least have sinned against God. What about those Catholics who are exempt for medical reasons from following the Communion Fast? You can’t simply rewrite or change the laws as meaning something else. Nor is it any of our right to (Judge) those who may not chose to stay within the frame-work of the liturgical laws for whatever reason legitimate or illegitimate. Everybody who understands the Communion Fast, judge themselves accordingly to their commitment to the Fast.

You seem to be making your own judgmental law that those who take Metamucil before Mass have no medical cause to do so. Who cares if Metamucil is not officially listed as a medicine. It can be a non-medical supplement that’s prescribed by doctors for medical reasons.

With all due respect I find this thread bordering on the absolute ridiculous.

 

[Catholic90]

Also I do not view Metamucil as medicine. Its a dietary supplement. .

YOU do not view it that way, but we know NOTHING about why the OP must take it. As several others have pointed out on this very thread, they must take it with other medicines for them to work properly or to avoid side affects, so for them, it is a medicine, not a dietary supplement. In regards to the OP, we do not know what other factors are coming in to play. Perhaps there are other medicines that are being taken at specific times, and the Metamucil is carefully regulated around those. But you know what? The bottom line is that it DOES NOT MATTER! Metamucil is a medicine. It is not food. As Father has pointed out several times, medicine does not break the fast. So Metamucil may be taken before mass. Period.

This IS ridiculous.

For me, fasting is not a sacrifice at all! I never eat for breakfast. I just have coffee, and then only after having been awake for several hours. So when I get up for morning mass, not having breakfast is normal! Not having coffee until after mass fits well within the regular timeframe for me! I am not bragging, and no, that makes me no better nor no worse than anyone else. It just is what it is. Just like the medicine of Metamucil does not break a fast. It is what it is. Period.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well I think at this point we will have to agree to disagree.

I don’t disagree with the importance of understanding why we do things, but I just think it is not worth getting so technical on medicine. I’m a nurse and I can tell you now that many patients would not even know if it was safe to change the times for the medicine they take. I think the teaching of the Church is sensible and safe.

But thats the problem with legalism, really. If the law is just meant to be followed without anything else taken into consideration, as Father David has pointed out, does the scrupulosity stop there? What is medicine? Its not defined in Canon Law. Is medicine just anything chemical that would have a positive healthy effect on the body? What about protein shakes, are they medicine? Multi-vitamins? Is it limited to prescription drugs? Viagria is a prescription drug. What about herbal medicine? And if we get into herbal medicine, what about any vegetable? Surely eating vegetables have positive effect on one’s health.

 

[ConstantineTG]

YOU do not view it that way, but we know NOTHING about why the OP must take it. As several others have pointed out on this very thread, they must take it with other medicines for them to work properly or to avoid side affects, so for them, it is a medicine, not a dietary supplement. In regards to the OP, we do not know what other factors are coming in to play. Perhaps there are other medicines that are being taken at specific times, and the Metamucil is carefully regulated around those. But you know what? The bottom line is that it DOES NOT MATTER! Metamucil is a medicine. It is not food. As Father has pointed out several times, medicine does not break the fast. So Metamucil may be taken before mass. Period.

This IS ridiculous.

For me, fasting is not a sacrifice at all! I never eat for breakfast. I just have coffee, and then only after having been awake for several hours. So when I get up for morning mass, not having breakfast is normal! Not having coffee until after mass fits well within the regular timeframe for me! I am not bragging, and no, that makes me no better nor no worse than anyone else. It just is what it is. Just like the medicine of Metamucil does not break a fast. It is what it is. Period.

You are right. Because anything not readily a medicine could have a medicinal value to a person. Read my previous post. When do we define what is medicine with what is not? Its not addressed in Canon Law. I though Canon Law should settle this issue. Clearly it is not. But if we know about fasting, such questions need not be asked anymore.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You make it seem that every Catholic must follow the letter of the Law on Fasting or they be damned or at least have sinned against God. What about those Catholics who are exempt for medical reasons from following the Communion Fast? You can’t simply rewrite or change the laws as meaning something else. Nor is it any of our right to (Judge) those who may not chose to stay within the frame-work of the liturgical laws for whatever reason legitimate or illegitimate. Everybody who understands the Communion Fast, judge themselves accordingly to their commitment to the Fast.

You seem to be making your own judgmental law that those who take Metamucil before Mass have no medical cause to do so. Who cares if Metamucil is not officially listed as a medicine. It can be a non-medical supplement that’s prescribed by doctors for medical reasons.

With all due respect I find this thread bordering on the absolute ridiculous.

Did I make it seem that? Have you read the thread? I am the one who is on the side of “know the spirit of the law to understand the law”. Everyone else seems to be claiming that the law is all there is to it.

Also, I am not rewriting the law. Did my suggestion change the law? Of course not! The law says one may take medicine and water and not break the fast. So not taking medicine and water doesn’t change the law. And I’m not saying that they conclusively should not take. That is why one must ask what is the urgency of the need.

 

[Catholic90]

. That is why one must ask what is the urgency of the need.

Nope! Father clearly stated we do NOT need to ask the urgency of the need. The Church does not ask, so neither must we!

It is pretty cut and dried! Medicine is not included in the fast. Period.

 

[FrDavid96]

Did I make it seem that? Have you read the thread? I am the one who is on the side of “know the spirit of the law to understand the law”. Everyone else seems to be claiming that the law is all there is to it.

Also, I am not rewriting the law. Did my suggestion change the law? Of course not! The law says one may take medicine and water and not break the fast. So not taking medicine and water doesn’t change the law. And I’m not saying that they conclusively should not take. That is why one must ask what is the urgency of the need.

And that is exactly the extra requirements that you are adding to the law, which you so steadfastly deny doing.

“…one must ask what is the urgency of the need?” is your question. It is not the Church’s question, nor is it the Church’s criteria.

When you say “one must” you are clearly conveying the idea of an obligation. There’s no escaping it. The problem is that it’s your obligation that you are seeking to impose on others. It is not an obligation imposed by the Church.

The only question which need be asked is “is it medicine?”

There is no such thing as a fast from medicine in the current discipline of the Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Nope! Father clearly stated we do NOT need to ask the urgency of the need. The Church does not ask, so neither must we!

It is pretty cut and dried! Medicine is not included in the fast. Period.

So again, what is medicine?

 

[FrDavid96]

So again, what is medicine?

Do we really need to go there?

OK. If you insist.

Pick up a package of the product in question.

Look at the labeling.

It will have a big box with all kinds of medical information about the product.

The title of that box is “Drug Facts”

That’s enough to convince me that it is a medicine.

 

[ConstantineTG]

And that is exactly the extra requirements that you are adding to the law, which you so steadfastly deny doing.

“…one must ask what is the urgency of the need?” is your question. It is not the Church’s question, nor is it the Church’s criteria.

When you say “one must” you are clearly conveying the idea of an obligation. There’s no escaping it. The problem is that it’s your obligation that you are seeking to impose on others. It is not an obligation imposed by the Church.

The only question which need be asked is “is it medicine?”

There is no such thing as a fast from medicine in the current discipline of the Church.

So Father, is it medicine? What is medicine?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Do we really need to go there?

OK. If you insist.

Pick up a package of the product in question.

Look at the labeling.

It will have a big box with all kinds of medical information about the product.

The title of that box is “Drug Facts”

That’s enough to convince me that it is a medicine.

Metamucil doesn’t have Drug Facts. It has nutrition facts. Does that count?

 

[Pug]

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.

Partly this is hard for me to understand, since I am the sort of person who finds the most peace of conscience when I am obeying, and not by deciding for myself what it is that I am to do and whether I have done it well enough.

Do you have a particular web article that you can point to from the Latin perspective that goes over what fasting is about? In general, as you can tell by my first or second post where I mentioned how fasting can be an irritation to the flesh, I often categorize it under mortification and spiritual battle, but fundamentally it is about healing and the orientation of my will. In many ways it seems a gesture motivated by love to say, “I offer you this token.”

I don’t know if it is valid or not, but I also tend to view it as a transition from the ordinary to the sacred. Like Moses took off his sandals to approach.

 

[FrDavid96]

Metamucil doesn’t have Drug Facts. It has nutrition facts. Does that count?

Ok. You caught me.

I plead guilty!

I have the store brand knockoff in my medicine cabinet. That one has a box that says “Drug Facts”

:banghead:
:banghead:
:banghead:

 

[ConstantineTG]

Partly this is hard for me to understand, since I am the sort of person who finds the most peace of conscience when I am obeying, and not by deciding for myself what it is that I am to do and whether I have done it well enough.

Do you have a particular web article that you can point to from the Latin perspective that goes over what fasting is about? In general, as you can tell by my first or second post where I mentioned how fasting can be an irritation to the flesh, I often categorize it under mortification and spiritual battle, but fundamentally it is about healing and the orientation of my will. In many ways it seems a gesture motivated by love to say, “I offer you this token.”

I don’t know if it is valid or not, but I also tend to view it as a transition from the ordinary to the sacred. Like Moses took off his sandals to approach.

I am much like you, I’d rather be a disciple of someone. Which is how Christianity always was in the beginning. Jesus didn’t write laws. The Apostles, I guess especially St. Paul who was a pharisee, wrote some laws. But not extensive laws. The main thrust of the faith has always been discipleship. I’d rather follow someone’s advice and keep asking questions and clarifications, rather than read laws and interpret them by myself. Its as bad as self interpretation of the Bible. Because if we misinterpret the law, then we break the law.

Pope Paul VI wrote something about fasting, but he laid down laws at the end for Lent. But I think its a good source of Latin Rite teaching on Fasting, on why we fast. The degree of fasting for Communion is much less than during the time of Lent. But fasting is fasting and the objective of fasting, no matter to what degree it is practiced, remains the same.