VATICAN - Pope: the heart of Christians "is built on the rock" and not "plastered over" in a "cast" of discipline" [AN]

[FollowChrist34]

I hear 'ya, loud and clear!

I’m more than a little suspicious at the slant of this report because the Church has always said that discipline guides the faithful toward the perfection of the Gospel in their own lives. The spiritual masters have written that discipline helps keeps the heart turned toward God and heightens awareness of His action in our lives. Self-denial is particularly promoted as the channel to practice Christian virtue, which in turn, leads to holiness. The saints themselves have told us there is blessedness in affliction and we are not to seek the easier way. Fasting, prayer, mortification and other penances have always been the pathway to sanctity.

I just reread this. My take is that the Pope doesn’t have a problem with discipline which serves its purpose, i.e., strengthens the Christian in virtue; I think he is specifically taking issue here with the practice of discipline for its own sake, where it is not resulting in virtue and is in fact doing harm to the soul of the person. The Pharisee, not the hermit in the desert.

 

[Seraphim73]

Whether you like it or not, that was accurate.

The above is not.

Also, interjecting debates discussed in other threads is against forum rules.

So you can be as uncharitable as you like as long as in your opinion it’s accurate? I imagine Pope Francis feels he is being accurate too.

 

[MJJean]

“Pius XII freed us from the very heavy cross that was the Eucharistic fast”:

                                           I find that to be an absolutely shocking statement. Orthodox Christians seem to have no problems with fasts, and let's not even go into what Muslims have to do during Ramadan, but our fast from Midnight on was a very heavy cross.

Was the exception for medical reasons made before or after the big change? Because, frankly, I can’t see how a fast from midnight to 10:30 am Mass Eucharist could not be physically harmful for a lot of people. Dehydration, for one. Low blood sugar, two.

My husband becomes “hangry” if he goes more than 2-3 hours without eating. He’s not hypoglycemic,we’ve had him tested, but he becomes nauseous, dizzy, very edgy and very emotional tending toward anger without at least a small snack in that time.

Myself, I am on blood pressure meds that make me become dizzy and nauseous and even faint if I become dehydrated because that causes my blood pressure to drop too low. I have to take my meds in the morning and make sure to drink plenty of water or juice with the meds as well as before and after taking them.

On a side note, I see enough chaos in the parking lot and side streets after Mass. I’d hate to see how it’d look if people were “hangry”.

 

[Seamus_L]

I’m pretty sure there were exceptions for health reasons in the past.
I guess, it was decided that the fast from midnight on was too difficult, so it got shortened to 3 hours, until that was even considered to be too hard, and so it went to one hour, and yet still, I know of people who can't observe that. Quite frankly, when it comes to fasts, Orthodox Christians, and Muslims leave Catholics looking like weaklings.

 

[ProVobis]

Definitely an American thing, when I go to Polish mass less then half of the people take the Eucharist.

Same in the Spanish Masses.

 

[ProVobis]

Not an American thing, a Vatican thing.

From the CCC
1324 The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life.“the source and summit of the Christian life.”

1389 The Church obliges the faithful to take part in the Divine Liturgy on Sundays and feast days and, prepared by the sacrament of Reconciliation, to receive the Eucharist at least once a year, if possible during the Easter season. But the Church strongly encourages the faithful to receive the holy Eucharist on Sundays and feast days, or more often still, even daily.

 

[Elizium23]

Was the exception for medical reasons made before or after the big change? Because, frankly, I can’t see how a fast from midnight to 10:30 am Mass Eucharist could not be physically harmful for a lot of people. Dehydration, for one. Low blood sugar, two.

My husband becomes “hangry” if he goes more than 2-3 hours without eating. He’s not hypoglycemic,we’ve had him tested, but he becomes nauseous, dizzy, very edgy and very emotional tending toward anger without at least a small snack in that time.

Myself, I am on blood pressure meds that make me become dizzy and nauseous and even faint if I become dehydrated because that causes my blood pressure to drop too low. I have to take my meds in the morning and make sure to drink plenty of water or juice with the meds as well as before and after taking them.

On a side note, I see enough chaos in the parking lot and side streets after Mass. I’d hate to see how it’d look if people were “hangry”.

Two changes were made in short succession. First the midnight fast was abbreviated to a three-hour fast, and then the three-hour fast was abbreviated to one hour. I don’t know when water was first permitted.

Muslims fast from everything, including water, from sunup to sundown for the month of Ramadan, and they do this in arid climates.

The Byzantines fast from many things during different seasons of the year. The key to Byzantine fasting is that it is entered gradually, and there are many exceptions and different approaches. No “one-size-fits-all” or “lowest common denominator” in the Byzantine tradition.

I believe a midnight fast would be impractical, given the conciliar reforms allowing Mass to be any hour of the day, rather than only in the morning time. I believe a three-hour fast would be practical, achievable by almost everyone, and most of all, spiritually beneficial to everyone. I also believe that a return in the United States to meat abstinence on all Fridays of the year would likewise be practical, achievable, and spiritually beneficial.

I believe that these two disciplines are important components of hard Catholic identity. They are a visible way to proclaim the Gospel to the world, by saying we live in the world, but are not of the world.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I hear 'ya, loud and clear!

I’m more than a little suspicious at the slant of this report because the Church has always said that discipline guides the faithful toward the perfection of the Gospel in their own lives. The spiritual masters have written that discipline helps keeps the heart turned toward God and heightens awareness of His action in our lives. Self-denial is particularly promoted as the channel to practice Christian virtue, which in turn, leads to holiness. The saints themselves have told us there is blessedness in affliction and we are not to seek the easier way. Fasting, prayer, mortification and other penances have always been the pathway to sanctity.

But note that these practices, many of which we have from the monastic tradition, are voluntary. Failing to keep the Eucharistic fast, in contrast, involves serious sin.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m pretty sure there were exceptions for health reasons in the past.

                                    I guess, it was decided that the fast from midnight on was too difficult, so it got shortened to 3 hours, until that was even  considered to be too hard, and so it went to one hour, and yet still, I know of people who can't observe that. Quite frankly, when it comes to fasts, Orthodox Christians, and Muslims leave Catholics looking like weaklings.

Yes, and the 3 hours was before the start of the Mass not before the actual reception. Even if they changed it to 1 hour before Mass starts it would be a little more meaningful. The way it is now, if the Mass is an hour long, there is virtually no fast at all.

 

[Elizium23]

Yes, and the 3 hours was before the start of the Mass not before the actual reception. Even if they changed it to 1 hour before Mass starts it would be a little more meaningful. The way it is now, if the Mass is an hour long, there is virtually no fast at all.

As it stands, it’s pretty much a prohibition on adults eating during Mass. Of course, my parish’s maintenance staff regularly vacuums Goldfish Crackers out of pews because parents. And don’t say the pastor should say something. We put out big signs in the courtyard, and the song sheets have a prominent notice attached.

 

[Tigg]

But note that these practices, many of which we have from the monastic tradition, are voluntary. Failing to keep the Eucharistic fast, in contrast, involves serious sin.

I don’t imagine that too many are voluntarily motivated to practice discipline, in fact by nature, we tend toward indulgence. And that’s where the Church steps in - to direct us toward the benefit of sacrifice, such as the Eucharistic fast. We are, in essence, “forced” to do that which is of spiritual benefit to us. We have lost so many of the disciplines - really, I don’t quite understand the message of this article because the purpose of discipline is to give us the firm heart of which the pope speaks, no?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I’m pretty sure there were exceptions for health reasons in the past.

                                    I guess, it was decided that the fast from midnight on was too difficult, so it got shortened to 3 hours, until that was even  considered to be too hard, and so it went to one hour, and yet still, I know of people who can't observe that. Quite frankly, when it comes to fasts, Orthodox Christians, and Muslims leave Catholics looking like weaklings.

When fasting becomes a contest with comparison to others it fails in its purpose. What exactly is the purpose of the fast? Is it not to make one mindful of our emptiness without Christ?

 

[Sirach2]

And how does one gain that pure, simple, firm heart? Most would rightfully say it is through reception of the Eucharist, through which Jesus promised we would have “life!”.

When I grew up in the age of fasting from midnight, my dad took me to the 11:30 a.m. mass. If more than ten received communion, that was a lot. The entire church sat in their pews during communion due to the rigorous fasting discipline. What a blessing Pope Pius XII bestowed upon the faithful!.
“Christians should have a strong heart, a firm heart, a heart built on the rock, that is Christ " and not “plastered over” in a “cast” of discipline” they are “lovable, forgiving, understanding of others” **and not hypocritical and attentive only to the “façade”. **

**“But the simple people,” the Pope said, “do not err,” despite the words of these doctors of the law, "because the people know, they have a certain ‘flair’ for the faith."
Luke 18:11-12, "**The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: 'God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. ‘I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’

Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess to them, I never knew you: depart from me, …

 

[LongingSoul]

“It is a demand, the Pope explained, that dem oonstrates the “hypocritical heart” of those people - people who were not interested in the truth, who sought only their own interests, and went where the wind blew: you should go this way, you should go that way…” They were weathervanes, all of them! All of them! Without consistency. A heart without consistency. And so they negotiated everything: they negotiated interior freedom, they negotiated the faith, they negotiated their county, everything except appearances." To such people, getting the best out of every situation was the important thing. They were opportunists: “They profited from the situations.”"

When the Pope speaks I often get an image of ‘jungle law’ as the antithesis of Christian law. I see those animals prowling around a carcass preventing lesser animals from feasting because they aren’t high enough on the food chain. Doesn’t matter that every higher animal has feasted and are bloated… they guard the law of the jungle and keep their inferiors at bay while a perfectly good carcass rots in waste.

Thank you God for the gift of Pope Francis. A living Saint!

 

[Transformer]

Altering fasting rules is one thing. Telling Catholics who have committed gravely sinful acts, and have not repented with firm purpose of amendment, that they are free to receive the Eucharist is another. They are disanalogous.

One is a simple change of discipline. The other is a change in what the Church has considered for 2000 years to be a straightforward application of the divine law.

One does not endanger souls. The other will inevitably encourage some Catholics in a state of mortal sin to receive Communion, thus eating and drinking a judgment upon themselves.

One is self-evidently in the Church’s power to change as she sees fit. The other is seemingly irreconcilable with the Church’s constant Tradition, and its defenders have yet to offer a remotely convincing explanation of how the two can be reconciled.

One de-emphasizes an important practice (fasting), but its effects are fairly limited. The other is fundamentally contrary to an essential point of Sacramental theology, and will inevitably be taken as such everywhere in the world.

They are disanalogous.

 

[LongingSoul]

Altering fasting rules is one thing. Telling Catholics who have committed gravely sinful acts, and have not repented with firm purpose of amendment, that they are free to receive the Eucharist is another. They are disanalogous.

The current synod examination of divorced/remarried situations is being considered within the orthodox theological framework of Catholic Tradition. There is no question of a general rule change, only a possible response to a weeping wound calling to be addressed. This is not a matter of a human power struggle. This is a response to a calling that we trust the Holy Spirit will shed new light on for the sake of faith and the faithful. To be so certain of your conclusions is bizarre. Chill. Wait for the Magisterium before your delirium.

 

[SWolf]

I don’t imagine that too many are voluntarily motivated to practice discipline, in fact by nature, we tend toward indulgence. And that’s where the Church steps in - to direct us toward the benefit of sacrifice, such as the Eucharistic fast. We are, in essence, “forced” to do that which is of spiritual benefit to us. We have lost so many of the disciplines - really, I don’t quite understand the message of this article because the purpose of discipline is to give us the firm heart of which the pope speaks, no?

Exactly. The Church is supposed to be a loving but stern parent. It also gives external solidarity with other Catholics of the world, showing we’re all in this together.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The current synod examination of divorced/remarried situations is being considered within the orthodox theological framework of Catholic Tradition. There is no question of a general rule change, only a possible response to a weeping wound calling to be addressed. This is not a matter of a human power struggle. This is a response to a calling that we trust the Holy Spirit will shed new light on for the sake of faith and the faithful. To be so certain of your conclusions is bizarre. Chill. Wait for the Magisterium before your delirium.

Yes.

Right now, the Church says the following person is committing adultery: a woman who (a) gets a civil marriage at age 17, (b) gets divorced at age 18 because of domestic abuse, (c) gets a Protestant remarriage at age 50, and (d) converts to Catholicism.

To call that adultery is CERTAINLY not what Jesus meant by His teaching. The Church doesn’t have to change doctrine to allow such a person receive communion. The Church just needs to recognize authentic doctrine, and apply it to modern situations.

 

[agnes_therese]

My take is that the Pope doesn’t have a problem with discipline which serves its purpose, i.e., strengthens the Christian in virtue; I think he is specifically taking issue here with the practice of discipline for its own sake, where it is not resulting in virtue and is in fact doing harm to the soul of the person. The Pharisee, not the hermit in the desert.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I don’t imagine that too many are voluntarily motivated to practice discipline, in fact by nature, we tend toward indulgence.

But we should be teaching in our churches that the only way to be transformed by the Holy Spirit is to voluntarily practice discipline. Jesus said, “Follow me”; he didn’t say “Follow these rules.” Of course, I don’t think rules are unimportant, but they can’t be central. When we rely on rules, they push us back into indulgence, actually, because we get really good at doing everything “our way” with the sole exception that we follow the letter of the law.

And that’s where the Church steps in - to direct us toward the benefit of sacrifice, such as the Eucharistic fast. We are, in essence, “forced” to do that which is of spiritual benefit to us. We have lost so many of the disciplines - really, I don’t quite understand the message of this article because the purpose of discipline is to give us the firm heart of which the pope speaks, no?

I think that Pope Francis, long ago, was a tremendously earnest young boy who sought God in following the commandments. He was forced to do that which was of benefit to him. This obedience did shape him in certain good ways, but he also found that there was something missing. I recall Jesus saying to the rich young man, “One thing you lack. Give away all you have, and follow me.”

I guess I would say that the firm heart is a heart that knows the Shepherd. How much better it is to cling to the shepherd, rather than to wander to the edges of the sheepfold – but studiously obey its bounds – and look longingly into the wilderness!