Question about the hour fast before receiving

[JimG]

It’s not that difficult. If I think I have broken the fast, I don’t receive. It’s not a big conundrum.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

Not that I’d follow it or recommend it, but you could try to make this a case of “acting in good faith.” Hopefully the priest would communicate to the congregation that for this one time the fasting requirement was shortened. But that’s my opinion only and personally I’d receive later.

 

[1ke]

In that case it isn’t on you but the priest.

No, it is still on you. You know what time you ate, you know what time it is now. If an hour has not passed, do not approach.

It’s tough deciding what the best course of action is.

Not at all. It is quite simple. Do not approach.

 

[z_0101]

Who knows, maybe the priest can even drag out the sermon a little to give all those grape-eaters out there a chance to get their one-hour fast in.

Perhaps the Gloria could go an extra verse, some versions seem to take a tad longer than others, and of course the agnus dei could have the first two verses repeated a dozen times.

sermon… that would be in a protestant church

((sorry, couldn’t resist… grew up in the Baptist churches…
and let me tell you… some ministers can talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and… ))

 

[frangiuliano115]

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.

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.

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

Please read 2 Corinthians 3:1-18 and then report back.

I do believe it’s comparing the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. There is more than one “Old Covenant” of course. I leave it up to you to figure out which one Paul is speaking of.

If you understand it, it’ll also help some posters here.

Thanks.

 

[frangiuliano115]

No, it is still on you. You know what time you ate, you know what time it is now. If an hour has not passed, do not approach.

Not at all. It is quite simple. Do not approach.

Did some math. It’s almost impossible for there not to be an hour before.

Wonder if this influenced the magesterium? The easiness of it, I mean.

Plus, do you know how long it takes to digest food?

Plus, what if there’s only FIVE MORE MINUTES TO GO AND THEN I COULD RECEIVE.?

See. We could get a bit carried away with this whole idea.

I’m wondering if this is what Jesus died for.

Fran

 

[Convert_in_99]

It’s kind of like this. If a engaged couple decides to have sex one hour before their wedding, it is a mortal sin. If they have sex one hour after their wedding, then it is morally justified and holy. An hour really can make all the difference. We must observe the hour fast if we wish to receive. Whether it’s a full meal or a tic tac, the fast is broken, It’s that simple.

 

[Neofight]

Did some math. It’s almost impossible for there not to be an hour before.

Wonder if this influenced the magesterium? The easiness of it, I mean.

Plus, do you know how long it takes to digest food?

Plus, what if there’s only FIVE MORE MINUTES TO GO AND THEN I COULD RECEIVE.?

See. We could get a bit carried away with this whole idea.

I’m wondering if this is what Jesus died for.

Fran

Excellent point. Herein lies the problem of legalism.

This thread is an example of just how some have made legalism more important than Christ, very much as the Pharisees obscured the basis of their faith (the Law of God) by heaping on hundreds of rules of their own, in the name of piety and reverence.

While the legalists can’t get over the hypothetical situation presented by the OP, the inadvertent of forgetful eating of a grape, only one of them mentions real Eucharistic abuses such as active homosexuals, remarried Catholics, those using artificial means of birth control, etc.

Strict legalism often obscures the forest with a bunch of trees.

 

[ProVobis]

Herein lies the problem of legalism.

Depends on how you look at it. It seems rules were a lot stricter with the three hour fast BEFORE some announced start time of the Mass. If Mass was at 10am, then you didn’t eat anything past 7am. Very simple. Now you have to make a guess as to when you actually have to start the fast. So they tried to make communion easier (and less “legal”) but did they accomplish that when people have to start looking at their watches or church clocks during Mass?

Did some math. It’s almost impossible for there not to be an hour before.

Wonder if this influenced the magesterium? The easiness of it, I mean.

Not easy if you have to spend most of the Mass wondering if you’ll be able to receive. If anything they should tie the fast to the start of the Mass, be it three hours or one hour or even a half hour.

 

[guanophore]

Did some math. It’s almost impossible for there not to be an hour before.

Wonder if this influenced the magesterium? The easiness of it, I mean.

Plus, do you know how long it takes to digest food?

Plus, what if there’s only FIVE MORE MINUTES TO GO AND THEN I COULD RECEIVE.?

See. We could get a bit carried away with this whole idea.

I’m wondering if this is what Jesus died for.

Fran

You seem to have missed the whole point of participating in a collective fast to prepare for the celebration of the Eucharist.

Excellent point. Herein lies the problem of legalism.

Strict legalism often obscures the forest with a bunch of trees.

Yes. I think focusing on all these hypothetical issues related to compliance is a good example of legalism. It completely obscures the spiritual purpose of the discipline.

Thank you for your thoughts. With all Christian charity your suggestion that some have made legalism more important than Christ is a bit insulting to the spiritual lives and hearts of others.

The Pharisees were rebuked, yes! However that is because they cared more about the rules and had no love. This is the opposite here, I believe that there is much love!.

It is out of extreme love and respect for Jesus Christ in the Eucharist that many people would not even think of receiving him unworthily. I love Jesus so much, He died for me I would not even consider profaning the Holy Eucharist with food in my stomach, that is my understanding. It is not a countdown of minutes in order to follow a rule simply for the rule, it is following the guidelines of our Holy Mother church and being obedient even when we might not want to. People can disagree about the rules and often will, but saying that people care more about the rules than Jesus just isn’t very kind just my opinion. Many may disagree on methods but as good Christians we shouldn’t openly question each others love, just my two cents.

Thank you Monicad. Although I disagree that the discipline has anything to do with how fast food is digested (the ancient church really did not have scientific evidence about this) it is a matter of presenting ourselves in a worthy manner. When we come to Eucharist, we come as a community, and the fast joins us to that community as we strive to set aside our fleshly desires to give the Lord priority.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Depends on how you look at it. It seems rules were a lot stricter with the three hour fast BEFORE some announced start time of the Mass. If Mass was at 10am, then you didn’t eat anything past 7am. Very simple. Now you have to make a guess as to when you actually have to start the fast. So they tried to make communion easier (and less “legal”) but did they accomplish that when people have to start looking at their watches or church clocks during Mass?

Not easy if you have to spend most of the Mass wondering if you’ll be able to receive. If anything they should tie the fast to the start of the Mass, be it three hours or one hour or even a half hour.

You just don’t get the point.

Read your post above.

All worries about the time, when Mass starts, when to guess, when to be sure of the time, how to fiigure it out, looking at your watch, checking the church clock, spending half the Mass wondering if you’ll be able to receive.

!!!

It takes 4 hours for food to leave the stomach. So what’s the difference if I don’t eat anything for an hour before??

Instead of worrying about your first pp above, wouldn’t it be better to be joyful of going to Mass, looking forward to the Homily, seeing people you know, receiving the body and blood of Jesus Christ without having to do math?

Perfect example of legalism vs spirituality.

And, I still don’t understand how this could be a mortal sin. Do you realize that some on these threads have everybody going to hell in a handbasket? They make being christian more difficult than God does! In fact, He doesn’t make it difficult at all since He gave us the solution for our sins - and it isn’t by doing math every Sunday and/or afternoon before Mass.

Fran
Why does this concept trouble you so? Just because you think I’m disobeying the church or is it something more?

 

[JimG]

So what is the solution that is recommended here? Does everyone recommend that the Church eliminate the Eucharistic fast entirely, in the interest of avoiding ‘legalism?’

When I linked to Fr. Scanlon’s article on the worthy reception of the Eucharist, it wasn’t to point out that worries about the Eucharistic fast are so much less important than worries about those receiving while in a state of sin. It is to show that both kinds of laxity spring from a common source. Sure, the Church has its rules, but they don’t apply to me, in this case, because Jesus is merciful and he doesn’t want to bind me to the rules. So I am exempt, for whatever reason. I’m divorced and remarried through no fault of my own. I’m a legislator who supports abortion. I’m in a sexual cohabiting relationship—but we love each other! I ate a donut just before Mass—but I forgot! It’s all mercy, so no rules apply! Let’s just get rid of them all! Is that the idea?

 

[dans0622]

Purpose for fasting before receiving Holy Communion:

Abstinence from food and drink is in accord with that supreme reverence we owe to the supreme majesty of Jesus Christ when we are going to receive Him hidden under the veils of the Eucharist. And moreover, when we receive His precious Body and Blood before we take any food, we show clearly that this is the first and loftiest nourishment by which our soul is fed and its holiness increased. Hence the same St. Augustine gives this warning: “It has pleased the Holy Ghost that, to honor so great a Sacrament, the Lord’s Body should enter the mouth of the Christian before other food.”

Not only does the Eucharistic fast pay due honor to our Divine Redeemer, it fosters piety also; and hence it can help to increase in us those most salutary fruits of holiness which Christ, the Source and Author of all good, wishes us who are enriched by His Grace to bring forth.

Moreover, everyone with experience will recognize that, by the very laws of human nature, when the body is not weighted down by food the mind more easily is lifted up and is by a more ardent virtue moved to meditate upon that hidden and transcendent Mystery that works in the soul, as in a temple, to the increase of divine charity. (Pius XII, Christus Dominus)

Current law regarding this fast:

Whoever is to receive the blessed Eucharist is to abstain for at least one hour before holy Communion from all food and drink with the exception of water and medicine. (Canon 919.1)

Other exceptions to this law exist but don’t pertain to the question at hand.

As far as the typical parish priest dispensing from this requirement–unless he has been granted the ability (by the law itself or by his Bishop) to dispense from this law, he can’t (c. 89).

Dan

 

[ProVobis]

It takes 4 hours for food to leave the stomach. So what’s the difference if I don’t eat anything for an hour before??

That was probably the reason for the 3-hr fast BEFORE Mass started. And without realizing it you just made a case for not eating anything for a while AFTER communion. By the way that was 15 minutes, before they dropped that “silly” rule.

Instead of worrying about your first pp above, wouldn’t it be better to be joyful of going to Mass, …seeing people you know, …

Please don’t get me started on my neighbors. Please stick to the topic.

For the record, I receive about as often as I go to confession, which is something that’s been carried over from my childhood. So I don’t concern myself with the fast too often either.

As far as the typical parish priest dispensing from this requirement–unless he has been granted the ability (by the law itself or by his Bishop) to dispense from this law, he can’t (c. 89).
Dan

Then I stand corrected.

I better leave this thread before I give any more bad advice.

 

[guanophore]

You just don't get the point.

Read your post above.

All worries about the time, when Mass starts, when to guess, when to be sure of the time, how to fiigure it out, looking at your watch, checking the church clock, spending half the Mass wondering if you’ll be able to receive.

!!!

I have to agree that this kind of pre-occupation does not seem to improve one’s encounter with Christ.

It takes 4 hours for food to leave the stomach. So what’s the difference if I don’t eat anything for an hour before??

Because the fast has nothing to do with how fast food leaves your stomach. It is a spiritual discipline to help the faithful be properly disposed for the Eucharist.

Instead of worrying about your first pp above, wouldn’t it be better to be joyful of going to Mass, looking forward to the Homily, seeing people you know, receiving the body and blood of Jesus Christ without having to do math?

Absolutely!

Perfect example of legalism vs spirituality.

And, I still don’t understand how this could be a mortal sin. Do you realize that some on these threads have everybody going to hell in a handbasket? They make being christian more difficult than God does!

No, Fran. People do suffer from scrupulosity, and there are some that are pre-occupied with legalism. No one here “has everybody going to hell in a handbasket”. No one here is in a position of authority over any other members, and everyone is here to participate in discussions. No one here has the power to “make being a Christian more difficult than God does” for anyone but themselves.

In fact, He doesn’t make it difficult at all since He gave us the solution for our sins - and it isn’t by doing math every Sunday and/or afternoon before Mass.

Fran
Why does this concept trouble you so? Just because you think I’m disobeying the church or is it something more?

The mortal sin is one of disobedience. Yes, if you disregard the discipline it is disobedienced to the Church.

The something more is that you are a catechist, so this attitude is disconcerting. I think it would be very difficult to teach catechumens the value of such spiritual disciplines when you believe they are “silly” and “crazy”.

 

[stinkcat_14]

An interesting part of canon law is that the elderly and their caretakers can be exempted from the fast. Does anyone know how this plays out in practice? For example, if I work in a nursing home, can I go to Mass right after breakfast and still receive communion?

The elderly, the infirm, and those who care for them can receive the Most Holy Eucharist even if they have eaten something within the preceding hour.

 

[utah_rose]

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.

I’m a born and raised Catholic who attended Catholic schools. I remember fasting after midnight and also people getting sick from this, especially if you were attending a late morning Sunday Mass or the noon Mass! I respect the Church’s laws but can’t for the life of me think if you accidentally ate one grape, not a meal, would prevent you from receiving the Eucharist unless you intentionally did this! At most it would be a venial sin. I bet that a lot of people have accidentally done this. And by the way, did anyone realize chewing gum would also break the fast? It would be interesting if a priest on this forum could answer this.

 

[JimG]

I’m a born and raised Catholic who attended Catholic schools. I remember fasting after midnight and also people getting sick from this, especially if you were attending a late morning Sunday Mass or the noon Mass! I respect the Church’s laws but can’t for the life of me think if you accidentally ate one grape, not a meal, would prevent you from receiving the Eucharist unless you intentionally did this! At most it would be a venial sin. I bet that a lot of people have accidentally done this. And by the way, did anyone realize chewing gum would also break the fast? It would be interesting if a priest on this forum could answer this.

For myself, I don’t remember anyone getting sick from observing the fast from midnight. But Sunday Masses were generally held early, and people had breakfast afterwards. At that time no parish I know of had a noon Mass. And of course, no one was forced to fast. You could certainly eat whenever you wanted; just don’t receive communion if the fast has been broken. Breaking the fast and not receiving communion was never a sin!

 

[guanophore]

I’m a born and raised Catholic who attended Catholic schools. I remember fasting after midnight and also people getting sick from this, especially if you were attending a late morning Sunday Mass or the noon Mass! I respect the Church’s laws but can’t for the life of me think if you accidentally ate one grape, not a meal, would prevent you from receiving the Eucharist unless you intentionally did this! At most it would be a venial sin. I bet that a lot of people have accidentally done this. And by the way, did anyone realize chewing gum would also break the fast? It would be interesting if a priest on this forum could answer this.

Yes chewing gum breaks the fast.

Those who are sick or will get sick are excempted from the fast, or can observe a modified fast.

It has nothing to do with “accidently eating”. It has to do with presenting oneself for Eucharist in an unprepared state. The sin lies in disobedience to the Church. The Bishops have the authority to bind the faithful to an observance. Refusal to participate is a refusal of the authority appointed by Christ.

 

[guanophore]

For myself, I don’t remember anyone getting sick from observing the fast from midnight. But Sunday Masses were generally held early, and people had breakfast afterwards. At that time no parish I know of had a noon Mass. And of course, no one was forced to fast. You could certainly eat whenever you wanted; just don’t receive communion if the fast has been broken. Breaking the fast and not receiving communion was never a sin!

Most people in my family have low blood sugar, and have been known to pass out when not eating.:bigyikes: