Question about the hour fast before receiving

[Confiteor_Deo]

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

Of course I know that Almighty God is infinitely merciful and loving, it is basic catechism. However, I also know that God is infinitely just.

 

[peter26]

Dómine, non sum dignus, ut intres sub tectum meum: sed tantum dic verbo, et sanábitur ánima mea.

You will never be worthy to recieve the Lord, but you need to. So don’t put false barriers in the way for yourselves or for others.

 

[frangiuliano115]

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.

See, I think you’re an intelligent guy or I’d be gone by now. I think it’s so important to get across what I’m trying to say. It’s the spirit of the law that counts, not the letter of the law. The law kills, but the spirit is life.

I agree that our external actions are reflections of our internal state, but I don’t quite agree that external acts foster internal devotions. I think the devotion has to be there first, and THEN the external acts could foster more devotion. If I’m not devoted, I could go to adoration every evening and what would it get me? There has to be some kind of encounter with God first. Do you really think I respect God more because I don’t eat anything one hour before Mass/communion?

You ask Peter26 if he thinks the writers of the Baltimore Catechism are pharisees. I’m sure everything written in there is sincere in its intention, but I learned from that catechism method and it did NOT get me close to God. He was far away from me. To me it was just a lot of rules. I thought all I had to do to get to heaven was go to confession and Mass every Sunday. Sin? All I had to do was confess it. it was a terrible way to teach.

Read Luke 24, The Road to Emmaus. Jesus was walking along with two disciples and telling them about all the prophecies about Himself. They didn’t know who He was. When they got to their home, Jesus just kept going. He never forces Himself on anybody. But the disciples invited Him into their home (smart!) and He accepted. When he broke bread with them, they recognized Him. (personally, I think this was the first Mass, but some theologians think the Last Supper was).

Anyway, it was simple. No rules. Sometimes I think we made things a bit too complicated. It moves God farther away. It makes you see the rule more than why you’re following it.

Fran

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Dómine, non sum dignus, ut intres sub tectum meum: sed tantum dic verbo, et sanábitur ánima mea.

You will never be worthy to recieve the Lord, but you need to. So don’t put false barriers in the way for yourselves or for others.

And because we are so unworthy to receive Our Lord, we should prepare ourselves thoroughly through fasting & prayer and in obeying what the Church commands us to do to prepare ourselves. Just because we are never worthy for Holy Communion doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care to prepare ourselves properly.

 

[peter26]

No, that’s donatism and was condemned as heresy in the fourth century.

Like the Novatianist schism of the previous century, the Donatists were rigorists, holding that the church must be a church of “saints,” not “sinners,” and that sacraments, such as baptism, administered by traditores were invalid. Probably in 311,[citation needed] a new bishop of Carthage, Caecilian, was consecrated by someone who had allegedly been a traditor, Felix of Aptungi; his opponents consecrated a short-lived rival, who was succeeded by Donatus, after whom the schism was named.

 

[ProVobis]

Dómine, non sum dignus, ut intres sub tectum meum: sed tantum dic verbo, et sanábitur ánima mea.

You will never be worthy to recieve the Lord, but you need to. So don’t put false barriers in the way for yourselves or for others.

Christus numquam intravit sub tectum centurionis.

(Christ never entered under the centurions roof.) The centurion based his faith on that.

 

[AFerri48]

It seems people here are assuming that this actually happened to me. It didn’t guys, so you can relax, I can’t recall ever eating a grape within the hour, like I said, the fast isn’t very hard to abide to. If this actually happened, I likely wouldn’t receive or I’d ask a priest before mass about it. I was simply asking as a hypothetical.

I feel the need to mention that there have been some really obnoxious responses in this topic btw. That little “joke” about the priest extending the mass was kind of insulting actually.

 

[ProVobis]

It’s the spirit of the law that counts, not the letter of the law.

That’s for a judge to decide, not you or I.

 

[peter26]

Well you can ask Him when you see Him can’t you.

Goodness me, I’m going to bed before I do end up having to go to confession.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

No, that’s donatism and was condemned as heresy in the fourth century.

I was simply reiterating the Church’s advice to prepare for Holy Communion. From the Roman Catechism:

Recipient of the Eucharist - Necessity of Previous Preparation for Communion
We now come to point out the manner in which the faithful should be previously prepared for sacramental Communion. To demonstrate the great necessity of this previous preparation, the example of the Saviour should be adduced. Before He gave to His Apostles the Sacrament of His precious Body and Blood, although they were already clean, He washed their feet to show that we must use extreme diligence before Holy Communion in order to approach it with the greatest purity and innocence of soul.

 

[ProVobis]

That little “joke” about the priest extending the mass was kind of insulting actually.

Sorry, but don’t you think, to save time, a thinking priest would mention to everyone “By the way if you’ve eaten within the last hour, don’t worry about it” before every communion? I mean he can do that if he indeed can provide some dispensation, no? The fasting rules are there for a purpose, and the priest knows that.

 

[AFerri48]

Sorry, but don’t you think, to save time, a thinking priest would mention to everyone “By the way if you’ve eaten within the last hour, don’t worry about it” before every communion? I mean he can do that if he indeed can provide some dispensation, no? The rules are there for a purpose, and the priest knows that.

No, because each case is different. I feel that accidentally eating a grape a minute after the hour limit is different than eating a full meal in the back of the Church. Not everything is entirely black and white.

This isn’t to say that I would actually receive in these circumstances, but it’s understandable that the former could be dispensed.

 

[guanophore]

 I think it's so important to get across what I'm trying to say.  It's the spirit of the law that counts, not the letter of the law.  The law kills, but the spirit is life.

I agree that our external actions are reflections of our internal state, but I don’t quite agree that external acts foster internal devotions. I think the devotion has to be there first, and THEN the external acts could foster more devotion. If I’m not devoted, I could go to adoration every evening and what would it get me? There has to be some kind of encounter with God first.

Although I see your point, Fran, if the externals could not lead us to internals, the Church would have figured this out millenia ago, don’t you think? As you have said, we are persons of body, soul, and spirit, and devotion can be fostered in any and all areas.

Do people even go to adoration who are not devoted? I don’t see scores of people in adoration…the ones that are present are the devoted ones. But is adoration such an impossible practice in which to encounter Christ? I agree with you, devotions without an encounter will have limited value, but the purpose of the devotions is to foster the encounter!

Do you really think I respect God more because I don't eat anything one hour before Mass/communion?

Have you ever considered demonstrating respect for God by fasting before communion? I agree, if not, it is an empty ritual, and full of what you tend to call “legalism”. I do agree that fasting for the sake of doing it, separated from the meaning and purpose creates an empty discipline.

  I learned from that (Baltimore) catechism method and it did NOT get me close to God.  He was far away from me.  To me it was just a lot of rules.  I thought all I had to do to get to heaven was go to confession and Mass every Sunday.  Sin?  All I had to do was confess it.  it was a terrible way to teach.

Yes, I had the same experience.

 When they got to their home (Emmaus), Jesus just kept going.  He never forces Himself on anybody.  But the disciples invited Him into their home (smart!) and He accepted.  When he broke bread with them, they recognized Him. (personally, I think this was the first Mass, but some theologians think the Last Supper was).

I agree with your point about the need to encounter Christ.

It is not just “theologians” who teach that the Last Supper was the first Mass, it is the Teaching of the Catholic Church. It is disconcerting to hear a catechist disagree with the church teaching on such matters.

Anyway, it was simple.  No rules.  Sometimes I think we made things a bit too complicated.  It moves God farther away. It makes you see the rule more than why you're following it.

Fran

There were always rules, Fran. As you have pointed out, all the first Christians were Jews, and they had plenty of rules. God created mankind with a need for rules. He then established rules for us. The answer is not to throw out the rules, but to make sure the Encounter brings deep meaning to the rules.

 

[ProVobis]

No, because each case is different. I feel that accidentally eating a grape a minute after the hour limit is different than eating a full meal in the back of the Church. Not everything is entirely black and white.

I’ll agree with you on that. I asked once about whether chewing gum to freshen the breath breaks the fast and I was told nicely next time gargle with minty mouthwash. So excuse my attempts at humor here.

 

[guanophore]

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?

When you post questions like this, it comes across as though you don’t understand the difference between doctrines and disciplines.

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.

Of course the law must be written in our hearts! But it seems like either/or reasoning to say “in our heart, not in a rule book”. Instead, Catholicism is both/and. They are written in our hearts, and they are also in a book (or several). Rules are necessary for good social order. If not, the Apostles would not have given rules to the mixed communities in the first century. They are not opposed to each other!

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

It seems that will be difficult for you to communicate, given your apparent disdain for such disciplines.

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?

A better question might be, can you really claim to love and obey the Lord, if you refuse to love and obey those He has placed over you?

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.

It is disconcerting to see a catechist promoting the idea that the faithful should disregard the disciplines of the Church.

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.

Yes, they are, Fran. A person knows, when communion is offered, if they have eaten within the last hour.

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

Yes. You do seem to be quick with those.

 

[JimG]

The OP posed a hypothetical question, not a personal one, so none of the responses (including this one) are directed at individual persons. It seems to me that the one hour fast is already pretty minimal. We started with a fast from midnight; then we went to 3 hours, then to one hour. Pretty easy.

Someone forgets, and eats a grape within the hour. Some say that breaking the fast because of a mistake is no big deal. But if it’s a matter of forgetting, not intentional breaking of the fast, then what if one forgets and has a full breakfast before Mass? Why be legalistic if it was just a mistake? If the requirement for any kind of a fast is seen as legalistic, then why not just eliminate it entirely? Bring your own snacks to have during the Liturgy of the Word. No legalism needed.

Fast from midnight. Fast for 3 hours. Fast for one hour! How much more lenient can we get? Quite a bit, I suppose.

I was reading this article about the requirements for receiving the Eucharist. It doesn’t mention the fast, because it is more concerned with spiritual preparation. But on reflection, maybe it applies here too.

The Worthy Reception of the Eucharist Neglected at the Synod, by Fr. Regis Scanlon, O.F.M. CAP

One quote from the article: “Why quarrel over permitting a few divorced and civilly remarried couples from receiving communion in certain situations, and at the same time ignore the countless numbers of people who are offending Our Lord through sacrilegious communions?”

Indeed, one might add, and why worry about the Eucharistic fast, since everyone receives and no one is denied?

 

[AFerri48]

The OP posed a hypothetical question, not a personal one, so none of the responses (including this one) are directed at individual persons. It seems to me that the one hour fast is already pretty minimal. We started with a fast from midnight; then we went to 3 hours, then to one hour. Pretty easy.

Someone forgets, and eats a grape within the hour. Some say that breaking the fast because of a mistake is no big deal. But if it’s a matter of forgetting, not intentional breaking of the fast, then what if one forgets and has a full breakfast before Mass? Why be legalistic if it was just a mistake? If the requirement for any kind of a fast is seen as legalistic, then why not just eliminate it entirely? Bring your own snacks to have during the Liturgy of the Word. No legalism needed.

Fast from midnight. Fast for 3 hours. Fast for one hour! How much more lenient can we get? Quite a bit, I suppose.

I was reading this article about the requirements for receiving the Eucharist. It doesn’t mention the fast, because it is more concerned with spiritual preparation. But on reflection, maybe it applies here too.

The Worthy Reception of the Eucharist Neglected at the Synod, by Fr. Regis Scanlon, O.F.M. CAP

What if someone was to stop eating before the hour mark, but for whatever reason the priest had to cut Mass a bit short and gave out communion early? In that case it isn’t on you but the priest.

These are all circumstantial situations, and we could probably come up with a bunch more. It’s tough deciding what the best course of action is.

 

[frangiuliano115]

That’s for a judge to decide, not you or I.

Would you consider Paul, who wrote about a third of the New Testament a good judge?

Please read:

2 Corinthians 3:1-18

especially verses 5 and 6.

“Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God.
Who also made us adequage as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the spirit; for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.”

These are not my opinions here but I understand that it’s a difficult concept to get across although I can’t quite understand why. Maybe it sounds like a license to sin?

it’s really late here.

 

[JimG]

What if someone was to stop eating before the hour mark, but for whatever reason the priest had to cut Mass a bit short and gave out communion early? In that case it isn’t on you but the priest.

These are all circumstantial situations, and we could probably come up with a bunch more. It’s tough deciding what the best course of action is.

With a one hour fast which is taken up mostly by the Mass itself, it’s difficult to determine just when the fast begins. Which is why I prefer to fast for one hour before Mass begins, at least that is more definite. But in the end, we are not counting minutes. A priest once told me that we are not speaking so much of a physical hour as a “moral hour.” I hate to even mention that because it does lead people to think that it’s pretty much okay to take the fast as a personal decision. Fasting from midnight was even more definite.

But now it seems, the fast is the least of our worries. Does anyone at all refrain from the Eucharist either because of spiritual or fast reasons? That was the point of Fr. Scanlon’s article.

 

[guanophore]

Would you consider Paul, who wrote about a third of the New Testament a good judge?

Please read:

2 Corinthians 3:1-18

especially verses 5 and 6.

“Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God.
Who also made us adequage as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the spirit; for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.”

Paul was talking about God being the judge of his work as a minister. He is in fact saying what you are contradicting, that God is the judge, not himself.

These are not my opinions here but…

You are promoting the idea that each individual should exercise their own conscience in judgment, and trust in the mercy of God. Paul is saying that we are not adequate for that task.

I understand that it’s a difficult concept to get across although I can’t quite understand why. Maybe it sounds like a license to sin?

it’s really late here.

Actually it comes across more as a license to disobey the authority that God has placed over the Church.