![o{]:¬)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
An argument for lengthening Communion fast to 3 hours again
Over at In the Light of the Law, canonist Edward Peters has a proposal.
Be sure to go over there and spike his stats.
Here is his piece, with my emphases.
Proposal: Extend the Communion fast
I have just published a short article proposing that the Communion fast (1983 CIC 919) be calculated from the start of Mass (instead of from the reception of Communion) and that the fast be extended to three hours (instead of the current one hour). See Edward Peters, "The Communion Fast: a Reconsideration", Antiphon 11 (2007) 234-244. Briefly, my reasons are:
1. A one hour "fast" is physically insufficient to bring the human body into a fasting state, meaning that the spiritual benefits long associated with corporal preparation for Communion are lost. [We are both body and soul, according to our human nature. To be properly disposed to receive Holy Communion requires a spiritual preparation but also a physical preparation. That is one reason, not the only, why we fast before Communion. Remember that the physical dimension is very important. We are not merely ghosts in a meat machine. Think about the importance of the physical manner of reception of Holy Communion: standing does something different to us than kneeling.]
2. Making reception of Communion relevant to calculating the fast leads to distracting cogitations about the liturgy itself (e.g., worrying about whether the length of the homily or sung responses or angling to the end of the Communion line might allow one to complete the fast in time).
3. Calculating the fast from reception of Communion reinforces the assumption of many that "going to Communion" is the only important thing about Mass (rather than helping them see, e.g., the Sunday obligation as a liturgical one fundamentally oriented to worship [Rather than merely getting your obligation ticket validated.]).
4. A fast oriented only to reception of Communion diminishes the faithful’s appreciation for the Liturgy of the Word as an encounter with Christ worthy of preparation in its own right (see Mk VI: 34-42 on Jesus’ example of teaching hungry people before He fed them). [Related to the previous point.]
5. The brevity of the current fast means that Catholics with guilty or doubtful consciences have no discrete way to refrain from going up to Communion without attracting attention, resulting in pressure on them to approach the Eucharist under conditions that risk profanation. [I think this is one of the most damaging things that resulted from shortening the Communion fast. I have written on this many times and am very glad Peters has too! Well done. There is too much psychological pressure on people at Mass to get up and go forward. Row by row Communion does this too, I think.]
6. Imposing as a requirement of law what is scarcely impossible to avoid doing anyway (how many people really eat and drink on their way to Mass?) makes legal norms seem like empty exercises, in turn fostering a diminished respect for the role of law in ecclesiastical society. [Hmmm.. subtle, but good.]
My article outlines these problems in light of the history of the Communion fast and demonstrates, I think, that reforming the Communion fast as proposed above would resolve each of these issues quickly and completely.
We’ll see who might agree. [I do.]
PS: If you don’t already know the Society for Catholic Liturgy, publisher of Antiphon, check it out today!
Remember, the present law is one hour before the reception of Holy Communion. That is the law. You can fast longer if you wish.
However, Peters has a longer view here. He is considering big picture issue, such as
What do we think Mass is?
What do we think the Church’s law is for?
What do we receive at Mass?
I think these questions, and therefore the proposal, is also bound up with Pope Benedict’s efforts to revitalize our Catholic identity in the modern world, ruled by secular relativism.
If we don’t know who we are, we have nothing to say to or give to the world.
Our Catholic identity was once shaped by many traditions, often codifed in law. We not only knew more about ourselves as Catholics through these things, but non-Catholics recognized us as well out there in the world.
For example, meat-less Fridays: everyone knew this about Catholics. Women and girls wearing veils, even on the way to Church. Fasting. I am sure you could come up with other things.
I think we have lost too much.
Good proposal.
I know I’m probably setting myself up to be shot down in flames by posting the first comment, but here it goes. I’m not sure about an actual change in legislaion, but certainly emphasising that the 1 hour is a MINIMUM would be a start.
Assuming that in a Sunday/Saturday evening Mass, Communion is received after 40 – 45 minutes…in many cases you have to be virtually stuffing your face with food as you walk out of the front door of your house in order to break the fast. Having said that, there may be a lot of people who are clock-watching, as Father points out, which means that the emphasis is placed unduly upon the 60 minutes – “I’ll join the back of the queue so that when it’s my turn, the 60 minutes will just be up”
I’m actually an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion in my parish, as such I can’t help but notice the behaviours of a lot of people before, during and after the act of receiving the Sacrament. The behaviours of a lot of people are perhaps not as reverent as they could be. Perhaps what is really needed is a gradual re-stressing of the points made by Father – what is the Mass about, Who are we receiving in the Sacrament, etc., perhaps a gradual increase in reverence in general along with a reconsideration of fasting times.
Comment by Mark S. — 26 June 2008 @ 9:17 amI agree with Mark S.
First, we need to make sure the faithful know that there is, indeed, still a fast. It is troubling to discover that so many Catholics are not aware of it. Many think Vatican II did away with the fast.
Then we can move on and discuss extending the fast.
Comment by Will — 26 June 2008 @ 9:27 amFunny you post this today, as I had to skip my usual a.m. coffee before morning mass.
Point 5 definitely has some merit, it seems to me. As to the witness angle, I’m reminded of the stories of the Catholics in the Gulag in the 30’s and 40’s, who would forgo any food throughout the day of back breaking manual labor to be able to recieve at a clandestine evening mass. What a small price compared to that! You’ve given something important to ponder here, I think Fr Z.
Comment by johnny — 26 June 2008 @ 9:30 amNot being Catholic, I don’t get #5—is the idea that a person could not go to communion, and others could assume that he or she had eaten and not kept the fast?
Comment by Irenaeus — 26 June 2008 @ 9:43 amMost Catholics I know are totally unaware of even a 1 hour fast.
Is it so absurd to suggest there are deep connections between no fasting, no veils, girls wearing swimsuits with shorts/t-shirt over them, guys wearing shorts and muscle shirts, gum chewing, talking (before, during, after), text messaging during mass, bad music (focused on US! I am God! I sing God’s words! Just like Adam & Eve, I get to make decisions on moral truth!), bad preaching, liturgical abuses, reception on the tongue, EMHC treating the Eucharist poorly, and morality outside of mass?
A point that has occupied much of my thought recently: are such things a direct consequence of the NO, or simply the result of abuses of the NO? I’ve only rarely seen the NO conducted well, so I don’t have the experience to decide.
Save the Liturgy, Save the World. And bring back the mandatory fast.
Comment by LCB — 26 June 2008 @ 9:44 amThe one hour fast serves its purpose if you said it is one hour from the scheduled start Mass but when you say it’s from the time of reception the whole rule/law becomes silly.
The only time the fast even affects me is at daily Mass. I too have to skip the morning coffee in order to receive. Imagine that, the Body & Blood of Christ ranks higher than morning coffee. I’m such a witness to the faith… tongue firmly in cheek.
Comment by John6:54 — 26 June 2008 @ 9:45 amI don’t understand #5. How would a longer fast make it easier for me to refrain from Communion?
It would give me an easier excuse? “Yeah, I was going to receive the Lord, but I had a donut.” That doesn’t seem to help the situation.
Could somebody help me here?
That said, I welcome this proposal.
Comment by Christopher Milton — 26 June 2008 @ 9:47 amInteresting to hear that the law is 1 hour before Communion. I’ve often thought it was 1 hour before Mass.
But my question is this: What exceptions are there? The reason this is on my mind is that my wife is pregnant, which I would suspect lessons the requirement in her personal case, but I’m not sure of the details. Particularly if the fast is extended to 3 hours, she and other ladies could have significant issues if they need to eat every 2 hours while pregnant (which is fairly common).
Comment by Jason — 26 June 2008 @ 9:51 am—Jason
Irenaeus,
When the fast was still 3 hours (and priests still bothered to hear confessions), it was not a major deal if a person didn’t receive Communion. Others would just presume the person hadn’t gone to weekly Confession, or had not kept the fast, or had some other good reason.
It was understood that receiving Communion was not the main point of “showing up”, but rather participating in the sacrificial worship (notice the focus on God vs. a focus on our own activity). Today if a known Catholic doesn’t receive Communion, it is not uncommon for others to directly question them, “Is something wrong? You didn’t receive Communion? What’s going on?”
I’ve had this happen to me on occasions where I had already attended mass that day, and had not received permission to receive Communion again, by numerous individuals. Once, when I went up for a blessing (seeking to prevent such gossip) one of the EMHC even told many others, “LCB received a blessing instead of Communion.”
Comment by LCB — 26 June 2008 @ 9:52 amNot being Catholic, I don’t get #5—is the idea that a person could not go to communion, and others could assume that he or she had eaten and not kept the fast?
Yes, exactly.
Comment by dcs — 26 June 2008 @ 9:54 am“I’ve had this happen to me on occasions where I had already attended mass that day, and had not received permission to receive Communion again, by numerous individuals.”
Might be better read, “I’ve had this happen to me on occasions where I had already attended mass that day and had not received permission to receive Communion again. Numerous individuals questioned me on the matter.”
Comment by LCB — 26 June 2008 @ 9:57 amI have the same question as Jason. I am insulin resistant and becuase of my medicine sometimes I need to eat close to Mass time in order not to get sick (like eating a piece of fruit…nothing big just enough so that my blood sugar remains high enough to function) A three hour fast would mean that pretty much I couldnt receive at all.
Comment by Jackie — 26 June 2008 @ 10:02 amIs a three hour fast really that difficult? It seems to be fairly minimal. I am going to a noon mass today, had breakfast at 8:30am, will eat lunch after mass. If I go to daily mass in the morning I will grab a coffee and bagel after mass. I don’t see what causes some so much grief. And there has always been exceptions for the infirm/pregnant/nursing/etc.
Comment by Arieh — 26 June 2008 @ 10:05 amI had already attended mass that day, and had not received permission to receive Communion again, by numerous individuals.
For the record, it’s now perfectly ok (whether or not it should be) to receive Holy Communion twice in the same day. However, I sometimes don’t receive communion at the second Mass I attend in a day, so—not having the fasting issue for cover—am likewise open to assumption of mortal sin if anyone bothers to notice or care.
Comment by Henry Edwards — 26 June 2008 @ 10:05 amI would hope that any priest saying, or layman hearing, the traditional Latin Mass using the 1962 missal would abide by the 1962 discipline: a midnight fast, or at least three hours if the Mass is later in the day.
Yes, it’s not the law anymore, but neither is receiving communion kneeling on the tongue from a cleric.
Comment by Ken — 26 June 2008 @ 10:09 amWell, Fr. Z., you know Orthodox fast from midnight the night before liturgy, and that on Wednesdays and Fridays we fast from meat, poultry, dairy, eggs, fish, wine and oil, during a more lenient fast we are allowed wine and oil and on feast days during a fast we are allowed fish. Also, whenever I complained about some one going to communion who I thought should not be, I was always told it was none of my business who went to communion, that I am not supposed to look and see who is going. It is inspiring to see liturgical renewal taking place in the RC church.
Comment by Atlanta — 26 June 2008 @ 10:12 amI think the three hour Eucharistic fast is appropriate for anyone between the ages of 18 – 59 (just like we have for the law on Lenten fasting) and keep the one hour Eucharistic fast for the children and elderly. This would keep continuity. I would also recommend the timing of the fast start with the beginning of Mass rather than at Communion time. As a priest, I see many in Church at Sunday Mass, weddings and funerals chewing gum. Many are oblivious to the fact that this is irreverent, crass and violates the fast. So, I inevitably must make an announcement before weddings and funerals to dispose of all gum, candy and any food or beverage while inside the House of God. Sadly, too often Catholics are the culprits.
Comment by Father John Trigilio — 26 June 2008 @ 10:13 amI know many will object to this (though not as many on this site) but I think restoring the post-Midnight fast should be the goal. That venerable and continuous tradition has a lot to say for it. Of course, the question of regular vigil Masses and Masses after noon in general would follow. And that would annoy even more people.
Comment by David Deavel — 26 June 2008 @ 10:16 amFr. Z. said: “There is too much psychological pressure on people at Mass to get up and go forward. Row by row Communion does this too, I think.”
At the very least I wish churches wouldn’t have an usher that goes up the aisle marking when each row can go. It really draws attention to who is going and who isn’t and adds to the mentality that everyone should go.
Ending row by row communion might also make it easier for people who prefer to go to the priest for communion rather than an EMHC. The way it is now in most churches, you’re pretty much locked into a communion line.
But if the rows didn’t file out one by one, how would that work at packed Sunday Masses? I’ve never been to a church where it wasn’t done this way.
Also is there any solution to people climbing over you to get go to communion? I feel that newer churches have longer pews whereas old ones tended to require more pillars for support which meant that the pews would be shorter and often have a divider in the middle – all of which which I think made it easier for someone staying in the pew.
Anyway, I think Dr. Peters’ proposal is great. I have no idea how long it takes to change a rule like this, but as others have mentioned a good start would be emphasizing that the law is the minimum and teaching people about the importance of fasting. I personally don’t mind the very easy requirements for communion fast, fast days during lent, Friday penance, etc. – the problem is people aren’t taught that that’s just the bare minimum and that they should be doing more if they want to grow in holiness. I personally always try to fast all morning before Mass (or atleast 3 hours if its a later Mass), but if for some reason that doesn’t happen I don’t hold it against myself.
I think that in a perfect world the best solution would be to keep the rule at one hour (although making it from the start of mass would be a good change) but convince everyone to choose to do more than that on their own. That way they wouldn’t be penalized if the events of the day just didn’t work out. But understanding that many (most?) people won’t do more than the minimum of what’s required, I think the 3-hour rule is probably the best solution for the “real world.”
Comment by Brian Walden — 26 June 2008 @ 10:23 amJackie’s comment interests me.
Comment by Peter H Wright — 26 June 2008 @ 10:25 amI hope I do not seem to be going down a rabbit hole with this, but many years ago, we were taught that something taken for medical reasons did not break the eucharistic fast. I took this to refer to genuine medication. A diabetic who needs to sustain blood sugar levels sounds to me like a case of genuine medical need.
But what of people whose medication is to be taken only with food ? Does the food break the fast ?
Jackie, if the three hour fast were rei