More on fasting… more

by SDG

in Uncategorized

SDG here (still not Jimmy) with a follow-up thought on fasting (one that could have gone at the end of my "Short Primer on Fasting," but I didn’t want it to get lost).

It is this: Current Church discipline calls for Latin Catholics to fast on exactly two days out of the year, Ash Wednesday and Good Friday — and even on those two days, we are allowed to eat three times a day: one meal and two servings of "some food." Which, really, is not all that much of a fast at all. Those two days are also, of course days of abstinence from meat, along with the Fridays in Lent.

Actually, the law of abstention on all the Fridays of the year still holds for Latin Catholics around the world — but not in the US, where any Friday penance is voluntary. Outside of Lent and Triduum, Latin Catholics are not called to fast, or even, so far as I can tell, particularly encouraged to do so, even on their own. Oh, wait, there’s also the one-hour fast before receiving communion.

It would be one thing if this program of fasting and abstinence were regarded as a bare minimum beyond which Catholics were strongly encouraged to go with voluntary fasting and other regular forms of penance. Unfortunately, such encouragement is sporadic at best if not nonexistent.

This strikes me as — how shall I say it? — lame. Take the rigor of the fasting we actually do: one meal a day, plus two smaller servings of some food, two days out of the year. And a measly hour before receiving communion — even at a fifty-minute Mass, with communion distributed around the 40-minute mark, it would almost be hard to break that fast without actually eating in church.

I don’t think it’s too much to say that for most healthy adults below, say, retirement age, the current law on fasting amounts to a very mild hardship, if that — I would say almost a token act of ascesis rather than any kind of real sacrifice.

This is not to deny that for many people health considerations would reasonably prevent them from attempting even this much self-denial. Those with such conditions should be (and are) excused from any mortification at all. Others whose occupation entails physically demanding labor could find it excessively burdensome to do without regular doses of calories around the clock. Other cases would include pregnant or nursing mothers, Type 1 diabetics and of course children.

Even so, for countless hosts of ordinary, healthy adults, there is no reason why many of us shouldn’t be at least encouraged or even expected to try, say, abstaining from all food on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday — and on other days as well. I don’t necessarily mind putting the bar low for the sake of those unable to try more, but those who can try more should be urged to do so. Concupiscence is real — and tenacious. Our ascesis must also be real, not just a token diminution of four meals a year.

I think it would be wholly salutary if US Catholics were strongly and frequently encouraged to embrace year-round Friday abstinence — if not true fasting — as a voluntary practice. If fasting every Friday is too rigorous, perhaps we might consider a first Friday fast.

For many, fasting can and should mean abstaining from all food and drink except water only, or possibly water and other liquids. A partial fast — eating breakfast but skipping lunch and dinner, or perhaps skipping breakfast and lunch but eating dinner — might be another approach. (Most of us won’t curl up and die if we don’t get our two snacks.) Skipping breakfast entirely on Sunday morning, like Catholics did a few decades ago, seems like a very worthwhile proposal.

There is also the extraordinary discipline of extended fasting, of doing without food for a number of days at a stretch, ideally drinking only water. This is obviously an extraordinary undertaking that it could not be programmatically prescribed to people at large and is not something that nearly anyone would want to do with any frequency — but it’s not out of the reach of many ordinary healthy adults to try it at some point in their lives, or perhaps even to make a regular part of their Lenten practice. (You would want to talk to your doctor before trying this, as well as a good priest or spiritual director.)

Don’t think you could do a total fast for a day, let alone regularly? Don’t think you could do without breakfast on Sunday morning? Give it a try. Risk a little sustained suffering. Think about how Jesus suffered for you. Find out something about yourself — perhaps how weak you are (and therefore how in need of training); perhaps how strong you are (and therefore capable of doing more than the minimum).

Afraid it might give you a headache? Take some ibuprofin or aspirin (the emptiness and boredom of doing without food is enough). Afraid it might make you grumpy? Ah, there’s your chance for spiritual battle. Wash your face and wear a smile when you fast, and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Give it a try. Do some penance — extra penance that your confessor didn’t give you and the Church doesn’t require of you. The soul you benefit may be your own — or it may even be someone else’s, to the greater glory of God and your greater heavenly reward.

If you liked this post, you should join Jimmy's Secret Information Club to get more great info!


What is the Secret Information Club?I value your email privacy

Comments have been disabled for this post.
Sort: Newest | Oldest

I just found this blog entry recently, I know it's been dormant for a while, but the material in it appears incorrect in terms of what Latin Catholics in the US are bound to.
I don't mean to stir a hornet's nest by disagreeing with Jimmy's opinion cited above, but Jimmy has no charism of infallibility. This is a canonical question.
Please see two of my blog entries: http://www.genoesezerbi.it/blog/blogs/index.php?title=friday_penance&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 and http://www.genoesezerbi.it/blog/blogs/index.php?title=post_comment_on_friday_penance&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 for a canonical discussion of this topic.

I see fasting primarily as a way for us to unite our sufferings with Christ. Secondarily, but still of great importance, fasting allows us to form a detachment from food, a good thing, as preparation for Heaven, a better thing. Thirdly, fasting allows us a chance to work on obedience to authority. (Obviously I speak with no authority in my ramblings above, but it makes a lot of sense to me, at any rate.)
If a person has mastered continence towards food and shows perpetual obedience to the church, then fasting need only represent the unity of suffering with Christ. If some other activity can fulfill that role better for a given person in the U.S., then through the wisdom of the our episcopal conferences, he/she can practice that instead while probably living through a healthier diet.
I'm torn on fasting. As a Christian, I know the end of the story on our battle vs. evil, and it makes me want to rejoice and celebrate. However, as part of the Church militant that needs to regiment itself for its daily spiritual warfare, fasting is a wonderful tool. It's curious how we are both a Lenten and an Easter people.
To the poster that commented about forgetting that a certain day happens to be Friday, I can totally relate. Our culture actually embraces Friday evenings as a great feast time (TGIF) without prejudice to the Church, and that for me is the first time I get to see my family all week (through Sunday evening), so of course I want to rejoice. The calendar has never played a huge part in my life growing up, so it's easy to forget when going through the cafeteria line that a given day is Friday at the moment. However, following the Church's daily prayer in the Divine Office has helped me a lot in that area over the past couple of years.
I recently started to look at the attachments in my life to see if I can work on fasting from them. I have a particular enjoyment of diet soda. So, I decided to fast from soda from this past August to the beginning of next Easter as a first take on fasting above the general traditions of the Church. Small enough, but this is my first baby step with regards to extra fasting. I still drink diet soda (and try to particularly enjoy this gift :)! ) on major feasts, Sundays (hehe, I include Saturday after Evening Prayer I), and a few other days of personal salvific importance. After a few weeks, while discussing it with my wife, we agreed that I could drink diet soda while doing intense spiritual reading as well to encourage me in that regard. It has been amazingly wonderful. I am more grateful of God's gifts, more aware of the calendar, less detached on earthly things like soda, more focused on Christ's suffering (offering up my bottles of plain old water :)), and as you might have guessed, I do more spiritual reading, hehe. I think I even remember something about us gaining merit by our properly dedicated fasting for the most struggling Christians which is really cool.
One caveat, as mentioned above, is that this should be overseen by a spiritual director, but I haven't really met anyone I trust yet - say some prayers, friends, that I will someday soon please. All I can say though is that general fasting has been an awesome experience for me the last two months. I am definitely looking at ways to experience this more fully in the near future. My pilgrimage on this earth isn't over yet - lots of imperfections to get rid of still.
In Christ and His abundant grace,
Ben

Unfortunately some people have forgotten that everyone is called to be a "Saint".
Many are called -- few are CHOSEN!

Fasting(and other spiritual exercises) is not about law is about LOVE. As much we love Christ as much we want to give to him. Christ died for us!! Unfortunately some people have forgotten that everyone is called to be a "Saint".

Dr. Eric,
For your information, the Catholic Church does not function like a spiritual court, as implied in your remarks; but as shepherd for its people and their spiritual well-being.

Addendum:
Do what your Spiritual Father (Mother) has prescribed for you.
Another topic, the Orthodox (and Eastern Catholic) Church is supposed to function more like a Spiritual Hospital and not like a Spiritual Court.

My apologies as well, that post was a bit snarky. I'm trying to break up fights between my 3 kids, ages 3-6.
I think the East has a better discipline as far as Fasting goes. There are no hard and fast rules. The East says, "this is what you're expected to do, but if you really can't do it, that's OK, do what you can."
OOOOOOOOOH!
Spongebob's on!

Dr. Eric,
Apologies for that, but it was the only version that was available to me at that moment.
You can only imagine the difficulties I encountered when I tried to read/complete his other dialogues -- especially for one such as I not formally trained in such things.

Addendum:
That should be Elizabethan English/Tudor English.
My mistake.

Esauwe,
Iyme sorrye, buth Myddle Englishe is too complycatede fore mine person to comprehende forsooth.

That seems to me to be the Spirit of Fasting and not the Law of Fasting.
Dr. Eric,
You seem to have completely disregarded my comments that reflected on St. Thomas More's point on this very matter.

Is it better to just eat what you are served, or to make a scene and embarrass your host?
"Behold you fast for debates and strife. and strike with the fist wickedly. Do not fast as you have done until this day, to make your cry to be heard on high. Is this such a fast as I have chosen: for a man to afflict his soul for a day? is this it, to wind his head about like a circle, and to spread sackcloth and ashes? wilt thou call this a fast, and a day acceptable to the Lord?
Is not this rather the fast that I have chosen? loose the bands of wickedness, undo the bundles that oppress, let them that are broken go free, and break asunder every burden. Deal thy bread to the hungry, and bring the needy and the harbourless into thy house: when thou shalt see one naked, cover him, and despise not thy own flesh. Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thy health shall speedily arise, and thy justice shall go before thy face, and the glory of the Lord shall gather thee up."
Isaiah 53:4-8
That seems to me to be the Spirit of Fasting and not the Law of Fasting.

Joe,
Read this bit which I posted some time ago:
... But, as St. Thomas More had put it so well within the context of the following story, in my reading of them, anyway; the very holy purpose of these Lenten practices have become lost on some and there are those who have come to treat such things in the most procedural and worldly manner (however, I must admit, the overall context of the story had well to do with the fact that it's better to have an overscrupulous conscience than to have none at all as in the case of the following character here):
[abrdiged extract]
"Forsooth, Father Reynard," quoth he, "I must needs tell you the truth--I come, you know, for that. I dared not come sooner for fear lest you would, for my gluttony, have given me in penance to fast some part of this Lent."
"Nay, nay," quoth Father Fox, "I am not so unreasonable, for I fast none of it myself. For I may say to thee, son, between us twain here in confession, it is no commandment of God, this fasting, but an invention of man.
The priests make folk fast, and then put them to trouble about the moonshine in the water, and do but make folk fools.
But they shall make me no such fool, I warrant thee, son, for I ate flesh all this Lent, myself.
Howbeit indeed, because I will not be occasion of slander, I ate it secretly in my chamber, out of sight of all such foolish brethren as for their weak scrupulous conscience would wax offended by it.
And so would I counsel you to do."
"Forsooth, Father Fox," quoth the wolf, "and so, thank God, I do, as near as I can. For when I go to my meal, I take no other company with me but such sure brethren as are of mine own nature, whose consciences are not weak, I warrant you, but their stomachs are as strong as mine."

If you do not, then don't you see how absurd it is to make fasting on Friday gravely obligatory in ordinary circumstances?
Joe:
You keep making it sound like the Church is a draconian institution and that people go straight to Hell if they do not observed such things to the letter.
However, you neglect the fact that the Church does acknowledge extenuating circumstances and, therefore, such things are forgiveable.
I cannot change your prejudice against the Roman Catholic Church.
That is your problem, not mine.
The only thing I can do from my end is elaborate on your misinformation.
Also, it would do you some good to read on some of St. Thomas More's works that address such matters.
Perhaps then you'll come to know exactly the Church's teachings in that regard and some of the extenuating circumstances that I speak here.

And for the record, I am not suggesting that it is not a sin to completely blow off the public fasts of the Church. I think it certainly is a sin if one refuses to fast and it can be a sin (perhaps) if one breaks the fast out of weakness. But, to call it mortal sin which, by implication, threatens people with hell fire is absurd.

The spiritual Father helps you apply what the Church says according to your particular state.
In the Latin Rite Church, it is the same in that we have Spiritual Directors who guide us according to our particular state also.

But the Church is the people and the spiritual Fathers are the elders in the Church who represent and have the authority of the Church. So, with us it is no different. The Church says, "fast, this is the tradition, do what you can." The spiritual Father helps you apply what the Church says according to your particular state.

...the ultimate judgment concerning how to fast is given to the person under the guidance of his spiritual Father.
That is the same for us -- whereas in our case, it is under the guidance of our spiritual Mother, the Church, the Spouse of Christ.

Joe,
Then may I ask where you got that definition? Which councils, which canons?
You said the website I quoted was not an official position of Orthodoxy, and it seems as though you are saying no official position exists. But you are giving me the closest thing to an official position based on your opinion?
If I contacted the website and asked them if that was an official position of Orthodoxy and they said yes, who would I then believe?
I ask in all sincerity and appreciate you taking the time to respond.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Inocenio,
If you are looking for a "magisterial" document that utters official decrees, then I will have to disappoint you. We do not have a single office that issues decrees for the whole of Orthodoxy. One can look at the canons of the Ecumenical Councils and see what they have to say and one can look at what is commonly practiced and accepted at the parish level.

Joe,
"The official position, or the closest thing that could call official, is that one should keep the fast as he is able and should do so under the direction of his spiritual father who can guide the Christian and bind as well as dispense."

May I ask where I could read this?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Inonencio,
No, that is not an official statement of the Orthodox Church. I tried to identify who that site belonged to, but since it seems to be a "Traditional Orthodox Mission" it might be one of the more severe jurisdictions. The official position, or the closest thing that could call official, is that one should keep the fast as he is able and should do so under the direction of his spiritual father who can guide the Christian and bind as well as dispense.
Fasting is indeed essential for the Christian life. One who complete despised the Church's fasts out of haughtiness would be showing that he is quite impure of heart and perhaps walking down the road to perdition. Or it could just show that he is immature is needs more instruction and guidance. Someone who breaks the fast out of weakness may not be sinning at all. In any case, no Orthodox would say that if you break the fast or don't observe it strictly, you are going to hell. And being denied communion does not mean that one is in a state of mortal sin. It just means that the Church wants you to be prepared when you receive. I can have marital relations with my wife Saturday evening and not sin in the least, but I should abstain from receiving communion.
By the way, Orthodox confessions can (and sometimes do) assign abstention from communion as a penance. Some spiritual Fathers require that a person who has committed a grave sin abstain from receiving communion for months. This is in accordance with the ancient canons of the Church.

Re: fasting before Mass
I was raised to fast at least an hour before Mass, and I have no intellectual problem with fasting all night until Mass, as I've done it often enough.
However, I have learned the hard way that if I walk more than a half-hour to Mass, I really need to eat _something_ before I start. Also, if you are singing in two Masses in a row, I really ought to have a bite -- especially if I intend to walk home again afterward.
I assume that this is also a problem for many priests who have to say more than one Mass on a Sunday.
So the "hour before Communion" rule is probably intended to have mercy on those of us who aren't just climbing in the car, zipping off to Mass, and then zipping off to a restaurant afterwards. :) People hate it when folks faint in church.

Sorry I did not close the link

SDG,
If you are interested read Fr. John Hardon's article on the subject. The article says that the question has been answered by the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship.
Excerpt:
Friday penance, therefore, is not a matter of mere counsel, but of actual precept. In plain language, a Catholic commits sin if he or she allows a Friday to pass without an act of penance. In Pope Paul’s Constitution on the subject entitled Poenitemini (which is the imperative of the verb “Repent”), after the Holy Father enumerates the days of penance, he states, “The substantial observance of these days binds gravely.” It may be recalled that there were some questions among commentators after the constitution was issued as to how this phrase should be interpreted. Did it refer to the days taken singly, so that on each Friday there was a grave obligation to penance with due allowance for slightness of matter, or did substantial observance mean that the days were to be taken collectively and only then was the obligation binding under mortal sin? The question has been authentically answered by the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, that it does not necessarily refer to each day, but that a person would sin seriously who omitted a part of the Friday penitential observance prescribed as a whole, if the part omitted were notable with regard to either quantity or quality and there was no excusing cause.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Liam,
I apologize that I am not intellgent enough to see all the brilliant points you made. I also understand that you are way to smart to answer my simple questions.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Inocencio & Esau
You entirely miss my point again and again. I am talking about going beyond mere requirements - you insist on sticking with the requirements. Go ahead. It's just an impoverished conversation. And my personal practices are irrelevant to it (ad hominem fallacy - which is falacious both ways - that is, if I am super-virtuous or not) - that's quite the red herring to throw out there.

Liam,
What do you think would happen if the Church were to say that it's NOT a sin to miss Mass on Sundays?
1. Do you actually think folks would think more highly of Mass?
You don't actually believe that such folks would, on the contrary, look down further on the importance of Mass even more as a result of this?
Just how less significant would the Mass become to the laity if all of a sudden the Church were to say that missing Mass on Sundays was not a sin?
2. Would more people attend it since it has become a voluntary option that's been regarded not a sin to miss?
The fact of the matter is that there is to be such standards, such canon, in order to ensure the integrity of the Church and her Teachings!
After all, if it were not so for such Tradition, we wouldn't have had the Bible to begin with!
Everything would be a matter of a subjective nature -- all up to the whims of the individual.
This is the very point St. Paul makes in his epistle.

Liam,
I seek to learn and live my faith, as the Church teaches, to the best of my ability regardless of what others do or say. I carefully present the documentation when commenting on any subject. If my understanding is incorrect, I want to be corrected.
You seemed to imply that the Church needs to move on from requiring fasting, I disagree with your opinion.
Now may I ask if and when you fast? If you do why or if you don't why not?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Inocencio
Your implied appeal to authority is logically tangential at best.
The more apt question appears to be: What authority counts for you in order to condescend to be attentive to the opinion offered? Who's got it and who doesn't? That way, those who don't have it will understand they are not writing to you.
Esau
The issue is *how* the Church requires it. You assume that requiring necessarily equals legislation. That's simply not so. There is abundant evidence of how something can be required but not reduced to a legislated grave obligation. In fact, the problem is that reductionism commonly found among canonically inclined Catholics. Though any lawyer worth his or her salt will advise that, if you're trying to dispose of an issue by appealing first to law, you're usually missing something important.

The juridical/canonical/preceptual approach to fasting is, frankly, a failure at this point.
Yes, Liam -- just as education itself is a failure at this point as well.
We shouldn't make education such a mandatory standard.
It should only be voluntary since making it mandatory only defeats the entire purpose of learning.
Who's to say that if we make it voluntary, children will not want to go to school?
Just like fasting, who's to say that if we don't make it such a standard, folks won't actually fast on their own and not think, "Well, the Church doesn't require it, it probably means that fasting is not that important."

Liam,
The juridical/canonical/preceptual approach to fasting is, frankly, a failure at this point.
May I ask what authority you give your opinion?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Joe,
Is this an Orthodox view of fasting or not?
What an amazing and un-Christian relationship so many people now have to these fasts. The fasts are violated by people without a qualm of conscience, as if the matter was about some nonsense which had no significance. The Church, on the other hand, takes a very serious view of the matter, and excludes from Holy Communion those who refuse to keep the fasts without cause. Indeed, St. Seraphim of Sarov very pointedly said, "One who does not observe the fasts is not a Christian, no matter what he considers or calls himself... and you should not pay attention to him, no matter what he says."

If not, could you direct me to an authoritative source?
It seems to me that violating the fast and being excluded from Holy Communion shows the same obligation and consequence as the Latin Rite canon law makes clear.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

The juridical/canonical/preceptual approach to fasting is, frankly, a failure at this point. It's time to move beyond it. I think the Church has largely conceded the practical substance of the first point - but, by virtue of centuries of catechizing fasting/abstinence primarily in preceptual rather than medicinal terms, has yet to find its sea legs with the second point (moving forward, that is). Frankly, the more I read in this thread about the minutiae of what obliges and how in preceptual terms nowadays, the less clear it becomes. It's not merely not helpful, it's quite negative.

Joe,
If you're saying that we should make everything voluntary since having such things as to the level of precepts and canon is only defeating its purpose; then, to start, let's do away (for example) with education itself.
After all, people should want to learn.
Forcing children to learn only defeats the entire purpose of education to begin with where you have them going to the extent of cheating and what have you, without paying any actual attention to the significance of learning.
Yet, the fact of the matter is that just as children require such standards, such things as these in order to discipline them, so do we as Christians!
In fact, the analogy I have here makes all the more sense when you consider Saint Paul's words:
Eph 4:14:
14 That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive. (DRV)
For without the discipline of the Church, we would, indeed, be like such children.

"no one has even thought about doing penance so lets stop the non sense "
So now you know what I'm thinking too.
Your categorizing everyone together try a less black and white approach if you want to be respected.

And just for the record, I'm not trying to bash the Catholic Church (Latin rite). I am just giving my opinion (for what it's worth) on how to approach the subject with the faithful. I could say the same thing about Holy Days of Obligation. If you make the high feast days Holy Days of Obligation, then they become precepts to put a list that Joe Layman can check off as having done his duty. But, if you simply elevate the high feast days and invite people to come out of love for God, then you appeal to people's faith.
Joe

To me, this is precisely the weakness of the Latin Church's approach. Why turn everything into law? Charity is the law of the Christian life and we live by the Spirit. We create Church precepts and then define some of them as mortal sins and unbreakable? Isn't this doing what the pharisees did? "you lay burdens on their shoulders and do not lift them," (paraphrase).
Joe,
You missed the section where I posted an excerpt from Thomas More.
See here:
Thomas More on Church Practice of Fasting

I would add #28 to the list of paragraphs we should read from On Penance and Abstinence
28. In summary, let it not be said that by this action, implementing
the spirit of renewal coming out of the Council, we have abolished
Friday, repudiated the holy traditions of our fathers, or diminished
the insistence of the Church on the fact of sin and the need for
penance. Rather, let it be proved by the spirit in which we enter
upon prayer and penance, not excluding fast and abstinence freely
chosen, that these present decisions and recommendations of this
conference of bishops will herald a new birth of loving faith and
more profound penitential conversion, by both of which we
become one with Christ, mature sons of God, and servants of
God's people.
(emphasis added)
When read with canon 1249 & 1250 above it seems clear to my untrained in canon law mind that a penance is obligatory on Fridays in general.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Joe,
Even the Eastern Churches have a code of canon law which recognizes we are bound by christian obligations.
Canon 15
1. The Christian faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound by Christian obedience to follow what the pastors of the Church, as representatives of Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or determine as leaders of the Church.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

And while all of the canonists debate these little technicalties, real fasting is practically non-existent in Roman rite Churches. isn't this missing the forest for the trees?

I'm afraid my answer to this question is "Yes." Inocencio is correct to defend the Church's right and duty to regulate the normative discipline of the faithful, but (encouraged by Ed's comments above) I would venture to opine that the current implementation of the law does not seem helpful on this point. And the whole point of my post above is that we could use a healthy dose of encouragement to set the bar well above what is required anyway.

Joe,
"Did Christ come to set up a new law?"
He came to establish His Church with His authority to bind and loose. When we hear those He sent we hear Him (Luke 10:16).
Most people who have commented in this thread are of the Latin Rite and have said they, like myself and my family, practice fasting.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

This comment:
"I appreciate that sentiment, but that's almost like saying that one should participate in a pre-feast pagan ritual when visiting the home of a pagan friend for dinner since it would violate the Commandment of Charity if you do not take part in it."
To me, this is precisely the weakness of the Latin Church's approach. Why turn everything into law? Charity is the law of the Christian life and we live by the Spirit. We create Church precepts and then define some of them as mortal sins and unbreakable? Isn't this doing what the pharisees did? "you lay burdens on their shoulders and do not lift them," (paraphrase).
Rather, the Gospel and fasting should be preached, the Tradition should be stated, and reasonable rules enforced (if you don't fast, don't commune). But why make these precepts so absolute so that violating a precept of the Church (that is, in itself, non-moral) becomes a mortal sin just as committing a real moral sin?
Did Christ come to set up a new law? We have died to the law and we live in the Spirit and we are guided by the mind of Christ, not by precepts.
And while all of the canonists debate these little technicalties, real fasting is practically non-existent in Roman rite Churches. isn't this missing the forest for the trees?

SDG:
Actually, I do, but on weekday Masses, I only do the 1 hour because it's later in the day.
I make the comment on kids only because kids have the amazing ability to live up to or down to your own expectations for them.

francis03:
The document, "On Penance and Abstinence", released by US Bishops in 1966 is very clear. It is also just a few pages. I'll try to link to it. Please read it, particularly #22 and #25, and let me know what you think. Also note they were speaking of removing the requirement for "abstinence" rather than the requirement for "penance".
"This said, we emphasize that our people are henceforth free from the obligation traditionally binding under pain of sin in what pertains to Friday abstinence, except as noted above for Lent."
You can google "On Penance and Abstinence"+1966 or paste what follows into your browser.
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:Ews0dvFBS3MJ:www.usccb.org/lent/2007/Penance_and_Abstinence.pdf+%22on+penance+and+abstinence%22%2B1966&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&ie=UTF-8

SDG,
Thanks for the response. I look forward to thoughts later.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Inocencio: No. Much too busy today.

SDG,
Have you had a chance to listen to the March 23, 2007 Ask a Canon Lawyer show?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

For what it's worth, I never try to estimate when exactly communion will be, I take the whole Mass as a communion feast and start the fast 1 hour before the beginning of Mass.
Great attitude, studdunker!
I know some folks who think in the following manner:
"Well, if I eat this now, I'll be okay since Communion would probably be served 30 +/- 5 minutes once Mass starts since the Intro takes so-and-so long and the priest's homily is so-and-so long; therefore, I'll be okay by the time Communion arrives since it'll be exactly an hour then!"

For what it's worth, I never try to estimate when exactly communion will be, I take the whole Mass as a communion feast and start the fast 1 hour before the beginning of Mass. I have eight children 14 and under and when they start to receive communion they fast for 1 hour before the start of Mass. Its never been a problem for them either.

And good for you for going beyond the requirement of the law. I'm just observing that what the law prescribes is rather pathetic.
P.S. If it's "never been a problem" for you, perhaps you might want to consider upping the ante to fasting from midnight, at least for yourself. :-)

Previous post:

Next post: