Question about the hour fast before receiving

[peter26]

A one hour fast is not remotely onerous. Technically, for a Sunday Mass, you’d probably be okay if you don’t eat after you leave home since communion is about 45 minutes into a one hour Mass (though an hour before Mass starts is a nice pious custom for those who want to do more than the minimum). However, accidentally eating a trivial item and then not receiving because of it is legalism and an attitude that leads to scrupulousness.

 

[ProVobis]

I think 1ke captures it above. It is an obedient observance to a discipline of the Church, designed to help us focus on the holiness of the Eucharist.

I do agree with you that it is not spiritually developmental to become legalistic, but in leaning so far to the “Mercy of God” we can also lose perspective of the meanings and purpose for such disciplines. Fasting is one of the best ways to put our flesh into submission, and turn our spirit toward God. If we cannot do this for one hour, are we really prepared for Mass?

Precisely.

One other thing, why are people asking strangers on the internet whether they can receive communion after breaking the required fast, among other things? They seem to know the rules already, but somehow hope they might have changed them in the past month or so?

However, accidentally eating a trivial item and then not receiving because of it is legalism and an attitude that leads to scrupulousness.

OTOH, a trivial item can become deadly, especially when used to rationalize eating more than a grape. All it took was one bite of the apple before Adam and Eve were thrown out of the garden of Eve.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Here’s a reflection for anyone abstaining from the Eucharist for legalistic reasons, from our Anglican patrimony the BCP which expresses itself very well on the subject

Excellent post, no. 18.

I didn’t go up for communion one Sunday and after Mass I told the priest why on the way to our cars. He told me I was wrong - he said I should always receive when there is no mortal sin. He said receiving communion was more important than anything that could keep me from it.

Exactly what your post says.

Fran

 

[1ke]

However, accidentally eating a trivial item and then not receiving because of it is legalism and an attitude that leads to scrupulousness.

It doesn’t matter if it you “accidentally” eat something. It matters that once you do, you refrain from the Eucharist. Not out of “legalism” but because it is an actual requirement of the Church. The exceptions are duly noted-- medicine, those who are ill and their caretakers visited by a priest or extraordinary minister, in danger of death, with dispensation.

If none of those is you, the fast is binding. To deliberately receive when you know you have eaten within the fast time is grave matter.

No one is saying it is sinful to realize after you receive that you hadn’t fasted, or to receive in ignorance of the fast. But to eat, realize you are within the hour, and THEN receive with full knowledge that you are within the fast-- yes that is grave matter.

 

[ProVobis]

To paraphrase St. Augustine if you are going to err then err on the side of God’s mercy…

And that, I suggest, is presumption.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Precisely.

One other thing, why are people asking strangers on the internet whether they can receive communion after breaking the required fast, among other things? They seem to know the rules already, but somehow hope they might have changed them in the past month or so?

OTOH, a trivial item can become deadly, especially when used to rationalize eating more than a grape. All it took was one bite of the apple before Adam and Eve were thrown out of the garden of Eve.

Here’s the thing ProVobis

First of all not eating one hour before receiving can hardly be considered “fasting” which is something all together different and should not be made light of.

Second - to equate the eating of a grape with a bite from the forbidden fruit (whatever that fruit may have been) is not a very serious thought. The fruit has been eaten, sin has entered - this act cannot be repeated.

People are asking strangers on a forum because they are obsessed with sin. They’re obsessed because of posters who see sin and death in every little act.

So, let me get this straight, you say that eating that grape 30 minutes before receiving is going to cause the recipient to be in disobedience to the church. And to God, I guess.

Okay. That means that for the whole week prior to that they were ABSOLUTELY PERFECT in thought, word and deed, in acts or in omission of acts and did nothing to sin - but then they eat this one grape.

I mean, do we sometimes think about what we’re saying?

You posted the rules from the Baltimore Catechism. But could you still tell me, in your own words, WHY we’re asked to abstain from eating one hour before communion? I mean, I’m sure you’ll agree the magisterium must have had a reason.

I’m sure you know that receiving communion removes venial sins. Do you think eating that grape represents a mortal sin?

Just some thoughts.

P.S. Just read your last post on God’s mercy.
God’s Mercy. Mercy.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m sure you know that receiving communion removes venial sins. Do you think eating that grape represents a mortal sin?

So eating that grape doesn’t constitute breaking a fast?

As they say, advance at your own risk…

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

It doesn’t matter if it you “accidentally” eat something. It matters that once you do, you refrain from the Eucharist. Not out of “legalism” but because it is an actual requirement of the Church. The exceptions are duly noted-- medicine, those who are ill and their caretakers visited by a priest or extraordinary minister, in danger of death, with dispensation.

If none of those is you, the fast is binding. To deliberately receive when you know you have eaten within the fast time is grave matter.

No one is saying it is sinful to realize after you receive that you hadn’t fasted, or to receive in ignorance of the fast. But to eat, realize you are within the hour, and THEN receive with full knowledge that you are within the fast-- yes that is grave matter.

Exactly. The sin in this situation is not accidentally eating a grape, it is receiving Holy Communion knowing that you have eaten food within the hour since you will then not be obeying the Church’s precept of fasting in reverence for Our Lord’s Body & Blood.

The Church is quite clear as to what the fast consist of: NO food or drink (except water or medicine) for one hour prior to the reception of Holy Communion. It doesn’t say no meals nor snacks, but says NO food whatsoever.

 

[peter26]

^ This attitutde reminds me of a certain passage of scripture

At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

^ This attitutde reminds me of a certain passage of scripture

I doubt Our Lord would condone disobedience to His Church.

The fast of one hour is exceptionally lenient already considering that the Church used to require a fast from midnight in which no food or drink (even water) was allowed to be taken.

 

[peter26]

Take a step back and listen to yourself. Or better still, imagine going into the confessional and confessing that you ate one grape.

Here’s one for you: De minimis non curate lex. Look it up. That’s how not to be a pharisee.

 

[frangiuliano115]

I doubt Our Lord would condone disobedience to His Church.

The fast of one hour is exceptionally lenient already considering that the Church used to require a fast from midnight in which no food or drink (even water) was allowed to be taken.

Interesting. The church used to require a fast from midnight before the morning Mass.

Now it’s an hour.

The church changed its mind? Was it wrong before ? Is it wrong now?

I’m reminded of Mathew 15:7-9
Ezekiel 36:26

The law must be written in our heart, not in a rule book. God judges our heart. God would like us to be a merciful people, as He is merciful. As we judge, so will we be judged.

I’m not saying we should go ahead and eat an hour before. But let’s understand why.

You say:

The sin in this situation is not accidentally eating a grape, it is receiving Holy Communion knowing that you have eaten food within the hour since you will then not be obeying the Church’s precept of fasting in reverence for Our Lord’s Body & Blood.

Can I not revere our Lord even if I swallow that grape? Is that what all depends on? Is it my heart that loves Him or the fact I didn’t swallow? Is love an external act or an internal state?

Here’s what I think the answer should be:
You should abstain from food and drink for one hour before communion (there are exceptions) but if you forget and swallow something by mistake, God will forgive you and you should receive communion.

The only sin that keeps you from communion is a mortal sin. The above case is not a mortal sin because not all 3 elements are present.

We’re to quick to judge IMHO. And I guess that’s a judgement…

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Take a step back and listen to yourself. Or better still, imagine going into the confessional and confessing that you ate one grape.

Here’s one for you: De minimis non curate lex. Look it up. That’s how not to be a pharisee.

I wouldn’t confess to eating a grape, I would confess to receiving Holy Communion without fasting since that is the sin. If I were to explain the situation of eating the grape to the priests at my parish, I assure you that they would tell me that it was a mortal sin to receive Holy Communion since it is even in the Baltimore Catechism. I wouldn’t think that you would accuse the writers of the Baltimore Catechism of being Pharisees.

Breaking the fast is no small transgression. It is disobedience to the Church and a dishonor to Our Lord in Holy Communion.

 

[peter26]

The Baltimore Catechism does not reflect modern practice with regard to fasting or even with regard to reception of the Eucharist. It tells us for instance

"Why does not the Church give Holy Communion to the people as it does to the priest under the appearance of wine also?

A. The Church does not give Holy Communion to the people as it does to the priest under the appearance of wine also, to avoid the danger of spilling the Precious Blood; to prevent the irreverence some might show if compelled to drink out of a chalice used by all, and lastly, to refute those who denied that Our Lord’s blood is present under the appearance of bread also."

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Interesting. The church used to require a fast from midnight before the morning Mass.

…

Our external actions are reflections of our internal state, and external acts of devotion fosters internal devotion. That is why the Church has made the requirement of fasting before Holy Communion since it will help the faithful develop deeper respect for Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Our souls are in bodies, and so it would be inappropriate for us to solely focus on honoring Our Lord in the ghost to the exclusion of the flesh.

As I said before, the sin is not in eating the grape. It isn’t a sin that is keeping the person from receiving Holy Communion in this case, but it is the failure to comply with what the Church demands of us when we approach the Communion rail. The sin would be committed upon the reception of Holy Communion. There is nothing for God to forgive the person prior to receiving Holy Communion after accidentally eating the grape since there is no sin.

 

[frangiuliano115]

I wouldn’t confess to eating a grape, I would confess to receiving Holy Communion without fasting since that is the sin. If I were to explain the situation of eating the grape to the priests at my parish, I assure you that they would tell me that it was a mortal sin to receive Holy Communion since it is even in the Baltimore Catechism. I wouldn’t think that you would accuse the writers of the Baltimore Catechism of being Pharisees.

Breaking the fast is no small transgression. It is disobedience to the Church and a dishonor to Our Lord in Holy Communion.

I’m wondering if your priests like Pope Francis??

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

The Baltimore Catechism does not reflect modern practice with regard to fasting or even with regard to reception of the Eucharist. It tells us for instance

"Why does not the Church give Holy Communion to the people as it does to the priest under the appearance of wine also?

A. The Church does not give Holy Communion to the people as it does to the priest under the appearance of wine also, to avoid the danger of spilling the Precious Blood; to prevent the irreverence some might show if compelled to drink out of a chalice used by all, and lastly, to refute those who denied that Our Lord’s blood is present under the appearance of bread also."

The part that I was referencing in the Baltimore Catechism has not changed, which is that it is a mortal sin to receive Holy Communion without fasting the prescribed time even if the fast was broken accidentally. The Church has only altered the length and manner in which we are to fast, but not the moral aspect of it.

By the way, the question you provided is still applicable today since it is the practice of the Traditional Latin Mass as well as the Novus Ordo in more traditional parishes. The reasons for refraining from offering the chalice also remain the same, the Precious Blood used to spill at my old parish and people often are grossed out by the Precious Blood since it has lipstick and oils in It from other people.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

I’m wondering if your priests like Pope Francis??

They do. Father was just talking about how he was planning on implementing the Year of Mercy at our parish while including the Traditional Latin Mass community.

 

[peter26]

Hmm, Year of Mercy. Do you believe God is merciful? Or petty and legalistic?

 

[ProVobis]

Take a step back and listen to yourself. Or better still, imagine going into the confessional and confessing that you ate one grape.

Eating one graph is not the sin. Either you broke the fast or you didn’t before you received.

But say you needed to take a blood test where you needed to fast (to check your sugar levels, among other things). Just before the test you weren’t thinking and ate one grape, enough probably to increase your sugar level. Would you still take the test or try again later?

Here’s one for you: De minimis non curate lex. Look it up. That’s how not to be a pharisee.

It’s clever, I’ll grant you that much. Primum, minima de malis.