|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament and Fasting Communion
|
ardmacha
Shipmate
# 16499
|
Posted
I heard that when the Roman catholic church changed its ancient rules on Fasting before Holy Communion, the C.B.S. asked Dr Trevor Jalland to come and try to explain it. the CBS had prayed and taught (as did most Anglo-Catholics) the importance of Fasting Communion and the dreadful "Evening Communions" found in some Evangelical churches. Suddenly with the flourish of a papal pen centuries of tradition was swept away.The CBS was in difficulty about how to keep following Rome (as many A.C.s did) and yet stick to the custom of the Fast. St Clement's Cambridge, for many years did not allow Holy Communion at the late Mass - did other churches do this ? I would be very interested to know how Anglo-catholics dealt with these changes, or was it a case of: The Pope Says and We do the same ? Thanks for any comments or information.
Posts: 56 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liturgylover
Shipmate
# 15711
|
Posted
I know from looking at old service records that evening Sung Eucharists on Saint Days - instead of early morning ones - in some Anglo-Catholic Churches began happening around 1965. Is this when the Roman Catholic fasting rules were lifted?
The demise of the non-communicating High Mass seems to have had a longer and more complex end. One parish near men, for example, stopped them in the late 1940s, whilst another continued until 1960s.
Posts: 452 | From: North London | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arch Anglo Catholic
Shipmate
# 15181
|
Posted
I'm a member of the CBS and have been for years. The third object of the CBS is still
"Careful preparation for and reception of Holy Communion, including the Eucharistic Fast"
The Eucharistic Fast rules are, as I understand it:
1.A person who is to receive the Most Holy Eucharist is to abstain for at least one hour before holy communion from any food and drink, except for only water and medicine.
2.A priest who celebrates the Most Holy Eucharist two or three times on the same day can take something before the second or third celebration even if there is less than one hour between them.
3.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.
I still follow the above!
Happy New Year!
Posts: 144 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
The effective ban on evening communions always seemed to me an example of small-t tradition having departed from the seed it was meant to be growing out of. The Last Supper was a supper!
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oblatus
Shipmate
# 6278
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
1.A person who is to receive the Most Holy Eucharist is to abstain for at least one hour before holy communion from any food and drink, except for only water and medicine.
It's always seemed to me that it would be easier to abstain for an hour before the starting time of a Mass at which one expects to receive Holy Communion. Easier than sorting out what time one is likely to receive. Not that I want to eat right up to the last possible moment before the fast, but sometimes...
Posts: 3823 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Quam Dilecta
Shipmate
# 12541
|
Posted
I believe that the abandonment of the overnight fast before communion, along with abstinence from meat on Fridays, has been costly to the Church. One may question how logical these practices were, but I am not aware of any newer observances which provide an equivalent sense of discipline in the lives of ordinary Christians.
--------------------
Blessd are they that dwell in thy house
Posts: 406 | From: Boston, Massachusetts, USA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Abstaining from from food for an hour, especially when one is still allowed to drink water, is no fast at all. But then it was one of the Pius' (X or XII, I can't remember, those archreformers) who already wiped away the tradition by reducing the fast to three hours.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oblatus
Shipmate
# 6278
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Abstaining from from food for an hour, especially when one is still allowed to drink water, is no fast at all. But then it was one of the Pius' (X or XII, I can't remember, those archreformers) who already wiped away the tradition by reducing the fast to three hours.
Likewise, when I opt to follow the current RC guidelines for fasting on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday (one full meal plus two smaller ones that don't add up to a second meal), it does seem like, to quote Saffy in Absolutely Fabulous, "an eating-a-lot sort of fast."
Posts: 3823 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
The reduction of the fast to three hours occurred in 1953, under Venerable Pius XII. This was done in conjunction with permission for evening Masses.
The further reduction to one hour occurred in 1966, under Paul VI. Like others here, I have never been able to fathom this one and agree that it has been costly to the Church.
The Friday discipline still holds. Canon law says that all Fridays of the year except solemnities must be characterized by abstinence from meat, or if the bishops' conference approves an alternate act of penance, devotion or charity, that may be done in its place, outside of Lent. The U.S. bishops were among the first to avail themselves of this permission, which in practice, means that most Catholics do nothing outside of Lent, because their priests rarely remind them of the obligation to do something else in place of abstinence. Since the 1990s, the bishops' conference has several times recommended the traditional Friday abstinence, including last year, because of concerns regarding the Obama administration's treatment of religious bodies in the new health care program. I understand that the English bishops' conference has reinstated Friday abstinence as the norm there, but stopped short of binding Catholics under pain of sin.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ardmacha
Shipmate
# 16499
|
Posted
It was quite a revolutionary step to take, both for Anglo-catholics and Roman catholics as it was insisted on by both communions as being vitally important on a par (for Roman catholics) with Latin in the Liturgy and for both, the eastward Position. How did the Anglo-Cs explain it ? Sorry, we got that one wrong ? or did they just say: The Holy Father says so, so we must follow him ? but no real reason how something that was reckoned so important could be just blown away. I didn't know anything about any of the changes because the Anglo-catholic manuals and prayerbooks I found once in a second hand shop all dated from the first part of the 20th.centuray. The darling of Traditionalists, Pius XII changed it all by introducing Three Hour Fast (how can that be a fast ----- hence Break-fast) and then later on came the one hour rule. It wasn't very ecumenical as the orthodox still keep the Fast.
Posts: 56 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ardmacha:
The darling of Traditionalists, Pius XII changed it all by introducing Three Hour Fast (how can that be a fast ----- hence Break-fast) and then later on came the one hour rule.
One of the great ironies of the RC traditionalist movement. Include in that the Holy Week reforms and Pius X's reform of the Psalter and putting first communion before confirmation.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
We can't seem to do religion without making up rules to bind each other with, can we?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
We can't seem to do religion without making up rules to bind each other with, can we?
Without rules, how does one exercise the virtue of obedience, precisely?
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
We can't seem to do religion without making up rules to bind each other with, can we?
Without rules, how does one exercise the virtue of obedience, precisely?
Isn't being kind to people, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, comforting the grieving and so on enough to be going on with?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
We can't seem to do religion without making up rules to bind each other with, can we?
Without rules, how does one exercise the virtue of obedience, precisely?
Isn't being kind to people, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, comforting the grieving and so on enough to be going on with?
False dichotomy.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
You miss the point. It was suggested that we need these petty rules to have something to be obedient to. We don't; we've got things that actually matter and actually make a difference to people. By all means follow whatever rule you like, but this binding "All Catholics must: [insert arbitrary practice here]" is, IMHO, a load of bollocks.
[ 03. January 2014, 19:31: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ardmacha
Shipmate
# 16499
|
Posted
Ad Orientem: agreed.
It is strange that three Popes all called Pius made changes that are maybe only now - with a greater distance - being seen as revolutionary. Pius IX abolishing/truncating the ancient Blessing of the Water on the eve of Epiphany ( a ceremony of great length and splendour and very close to the ancient & eastern rites) Pius X changing the order of the rites of Christian initiation, hallowed by years of use and tradition and kept by and large both by Anglicans and Orthodox and his gutting of the ancient Roman Breviary in 1911. Pius XII changing the venerable Holy Week rites, the Fasting rules, and the psalter. There is a far greater difference between the pre-Pius XII Holy Week and his "restored" Holy Week than between the Pius XII Holy Week and that of Paul VI.
Posts: 56 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You miss the point. It was suggested that we need these petty rules to have something to be obedient to. We don't; we've got things that actually matter and actually make a difference to people. By all means follow whatever rule you like, but this binding "All Catholics must: [insert arbitrary practice here]" is, IMHO, a load of bollocks.
I wouldn't quite put in those terms either, BTW. But these aren't just rules. The Eucharistic fast, for instance, was seen as essential for preparation for holy communion, sanctified by almost two thousand years of use, al of a sudden abolished (abstaining from food for one, even three hours, is not a fast).
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
And yet the sky hasn't fallen. Meanwhile the fast was in place whilst fasting inquisitors, good Catholics, were torturing and sending people to their deaths. Didn't exactly bring them close to God, did it?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And yet the sky hasn't fallen. Meanwhile the fast was in place whilst fasting inquisitors, good Catholics, were torturing and sending people to their deaths. Didn't exactly bring them close to God, did it?
Irrelevant. One could also point to the multitude of saints, martyrs etc who observed the fast. The fast is itself medicine, preparing us for The Medicine given us by our Divine Physician, Christ.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Who instituted it at a feast and didn't mention fasting inconnection with it.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
I not sure I understand the last part of that question. As for who instituted the fast, of course I would say the Apostles.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
For which claim you of course have evidence.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
For which claim you of course have evidence.
Yes, that the fast was always practiced from the beginning.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Presumably folks are still welcome to fast overnight before Communion if they wish to, though. So don't these complains basically boil down to you being upset that people are no longer commanded to follow this particular practice? Anyone who still wants to follow it is perfectly free to do so; so what's the problem?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Presumably folks are still welcome to fast overnight before Communion if they wish to, though. So don't these complains basically boil down to you being upset that people are no longer commanded to follow this particular practice? Anyone who still wants to follow it is perfectly free to do so; so what's the problem?
The problem is that it leads to laziness. "I don't need to fast so I won't", but anyone who thinks that fasting isn't an essential part of the Christian life really has no idea of the Christian life. Rather it should be, "everyone does that which they are able to" which means that the Church also provides for those who cannot fast, such as the infirm and sick.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Okay, so individual priests, churches and other groups within the RCC should encourage their people to do the overnight fast, explaining and demonstrating the benefits. I don't really see the problem; it's as if you think people are only allowed to do that which is commanded by the hierarchy, without any scope for personal spiritual disciplines and habits...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Most Catholics and Anglicans (even MOTR Anglicans) fast in some way for Lent - fasting of a kind is viewed as important, to varying degrees. As someone who can't fast for medical reasons (I am on twice-daily medication which must be taken with food) I can't really comment on any personal spiritual benefit to fasting but it is a well-established practice of the church and could probably stand to increase - but it should be encouraged, not commanded.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Of course, the opposite would be like Sydney Anglican archdiocese, which actively discourages even Lenten fasting. Fasting should ultimately be according to the individual's own conscience and needs.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clotilde
Shipmate
# 17600
|
Posted
I see the fasting 'rule' as a guideline - a good suggestion, which I try to keep. I don't see it as a sin to confess if I don't follow the guidance on some occasion.
One hour before the act of communion seems rather easy to me! Some celebrations ahve been going for an hour before the act of communion!
Whatever, the 'rules' in Anglicanism are of only certain groups within the denomination aren't they? I don't believe its officially specified by, say. the Church of England.
--------------------
A witness of female resistance
Posts: 159 | From: A man's world | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ardmacha
Shipmate
# 16499
|
Posted
I think - but I cannot check - that the 1928 Prayer Book praised the Fast before Holy Communion as an ancient and laudable practice. The fact that the 8 a.m. celebration was almost a norm within Anglican worship, Low, Middle and High surely points to it being considered an important and traditional aspect of sacramental life. Even in the early days of Parish Communion many places had a parish breakfast afterwards.
Posts: 56 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
I believe that the abandonment of the overnight fast before communion, along with abstinence from meat on Fridays, has been costly to the Church. ...
In what sense? Have hordes of people left it because they are no longer required to fast as much? If so, where did they go? To link this to another post, is there some large communion of stricter ex-Catholics somewhere secretly having long Blessing of the Waters ceremonies, and using the pre-1911 Breviary - everything in Latin of course? And am I entitled to say to my confessor, 'I wouldn't have committed adultery but I realised it didn't matter so much now I only have to fast for an hour'.
There's been implied criticism of Pope Francis on another thread because he has accused traditionalist nit-pickers of Pelagianism. I think he might have a point.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
In what sense? Have hordes of people left it because they are no longer required to fast as much? If so, where did they go? To link this to another post, is there some large communion of stricter ex-Catholics somewhere secretly having long Blessing of the Waters ceremonies, and using the pre-1911 Breviary - everything in Latin of course?
Sure, in the Anglican churches, of course! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ardmacha
Shipmate
# 16499
|
Posted
There are Catholics who do bless water, and who use the pre-1911 breviary. I wouldn't for a minute think that they believed themselves better, superior or holier than anyone else (a kind of Pelaginaism), but just that they wanted to do what their ancestors in the faith did, in the same way and in a sense if it was good enough for them it's good enough for us. Are we now wiser,better, holier,cleverer than pre-1911/pre-Vatican II catholics ?
Are the seminaries overflowing, the churches overflowing, are the Orders all overflowing with excited new non-Pelagian catholics all excited at not having to fast before Holy Communion or during Lent.
Are they really packing in now that public worship has been updated ?
Posts: 56 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
I believe that the abandonment of the overnight fast before communion, along with abstinence from meat on Fridays, has been costly to the Church. ...
In what sense? Have hordes of people left it because they are no longer required to fast as much? If so, where did they go? To link this to another post, is there some large communion of stricter ex-Catholics somewhere secretly having long Blessing of the Waters ceremonies, and using the pre-1911 Breviary - everything in Latin of course? And am I entitled to say to my confessor, 'I wouldn't have committed adultery but I realised it didn't matter so much now I only have to fast for an hour'.
There's been implied criticism of Pope Francis on another thread because he has accused traditionalist nit-pickers of Pelagianism. I think he might have a point.
I find this post to the a rant, somewhat insulting to the sentiments of several posters here, and a non sequitur, because no one said any of these things. They are simply absurd exaggerations intended to make a point, but no one suggested them. It seems that that mere presence of people who prefer the traditional fast upsets you. It is not at all edifying to read.
I believe the point that several posters here, myself included, were trying to make was that human nature, being what it is, tends to gravitate toward the nurturing of the flesh, and certainly not its mortification. We do know that Our Lord Himself not only fasted, but encouraged us to practice it, as well. It is true that He did not designate specific dates, times and methods in which to do so, but He did leave the Church authority to do so. From very early times (whether the apostles themselves or shortly thereafter is not really important), Christians were encouraged to do so, and very quickly the Church saw the Eucharist as the Bread of Heaven, Food of the Angels, Bread of Life as the appropriate first Food of the day. She thus exhorted the Faithful to make this the normal practice. As canon and other law began to take definite shape, this practice was included as a mandate for all who are physically able, because it was understood to be a bare minimum. And this was true during centuries where the work needed to provide and prepare food was often true labor. But the ancients also know that without such practices, people would become lazy and less focused on the importance of the Eucharist, the same way that the lack of prayer leaves one distracted by worldly concerns.
Fast forward to the middle 20th century. With permission given for evening Masses, the fast was reduced to three hours, and water no longer broke the fast. This was intended to accommodate those who would receive communion, but not until later in the day. This to me seemed a concession to the needs of people and times. But the reduction to one hour only a dozen or so years later seemed to communicate to Roman Catholics that the reception of communion was not as important as it was previously viewed to be. The preparation for receiving the Most Holy seemed to be reduced to a bare minimum, and thus Its reception became a more casual event.
We say this because we have viewed the last several decades. Combined with communion in the hand, and standing in assembly line queues, the act of receiving the Eucharist, and the preparation associated with it, has become an everyday event. People complain about the smallest requirements (ditto Friday abstinence) because they live in an age of drive-up windows and vending machines, where the consumeristic culture has conditioned us to sate any and all apetites, especially carnal ones. We modern Westerners hate abstinence and fasting, silence, lack of distractions, and anything else that temporarily removes us from secular affairs and comforts, and forces us to contemplate the transcendant presence of the Almighty. The latter was exactly what fasting norms were intended to get us to do. We look around and find it difficult to believe that the genuine spiritual welfare of Catholics has been improved by these developments. On the contrary, it seems to have taken us further away from what all the saints through the centuries, including the twentieth, seemed to have practiced and preached.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
