Today I can publish the 10th Position Paper, on the Eucharistic Fast.
On this topic, and on the topic of Holy Days of Obligation, which we will be dealing with in the future, Catholics attending the Traditional Mass are governed by Canon Law, and the provisions of their local bishops, which have changed the legal structure the liturgy works within. The Canon legal situation in 1962 was that we were obliged to fast for three hours before receiving Communion (see Appendix B for the full details); a few years earlier, we had been obliged to fast from Midnight. The seriousness the midnight fast, and even the three hour fast, implied about the reception of Holy Communion, accorded with the seriousness implied by the ancient liturgy itself. These fasts were something which Catholics intending to receive Holy Communion had to think about; every now and then people would not receive Communion because it was not practical to observe the fast, that is, to give the Blessed Sacrament the honour which is its due. (Although, in fact, the exceptions to the three-hour fast after 1957 were extremely generous: see Appendix C.)
By contrast - and I think I can say this without offending anyone - the one-hour fast is not serious. The motivation for it is obvious enough, to make things easier for the Faithful, but it no longer tells us that the reception of Holy Communion is something to be prepared for with care, and undertaken with fear and trembling. It does not accord with the seriousness implied by the ancient Mass.
Since the decision has been taken by the Holy Father to treat the Traditional Latin Mass, from a legal point of view, as a 'form' of the same Rite as the Novus Ordo, rather than as a separate Rite, it does not make sense to argue for a different, binding discipline for the Eucharistic Fast for Catholics attending the TLM, than for Catholics attending the Novus Ordo. Within this context, we must argue for a revision of the discipline for all Catholics of the Latin Rite. And it seems to us that this is an opportune moment to do just that.
The paper suggests restoring the discipline of 1957. We acknowledge that is not the only solution, and that a discipline in force from 1957 (and partially anticipated in 1953) until 1964 can scarcely be called a long-standing tradition of the Church. We offer it because the 1957 discipline has actually been tried before: older readers may even remember it, the canon law and points of ambiguity have already been thrashed out, and it worked. We would welcome a return to the midnight fast, were this practically possible, but Rorate readers know well just how useful the permission for afternoon and eventing Masses have been for the Traditional movement over the decades. A revised version of the three-hour fast is advocated by the canonist Dr Edward Peters. We would welcome comments on this problem. (There is more commentary on the paper here.)
This paper is available as a pdf here; the full set can be dowloaded from here.
Comments can be sent to positio AT fiuv.org
The next paper, on the Extraordinary Form and Western Culture, will be published on 15th September.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIUV
Position Paper: The Eucharistic Fast
1 As well as issues pertaining specifically to
the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, in respects in which it differs from
the Ordinary Form, the topics of these papers include those which, at least in
principle, apply to the Ordinary Form (such as Liturgical Orientation,
or the Manner of Receiving Communion),
or which apply to the Ordinary Form to some degree (such as Silence,
or Gregorian Chant).
In this paper we address something which is connected with the special
character of the Extraordinary Form, but which applies to all Catholics of the
Latin Rite by virtue of Canon Law, namely the Eucharistic Fast.
A Historical Review of the Fast
2 Tertullian tells us that the Blessed Sacrament
is taken ‘before all other food’.
A fast from midnight is implicit in the practice of celebrating Mass before
dawn, which became established in the second century,
and this fast became widely established,
although in the Middle Ages much longer fasts were often enforced,
not only from food and water, but from marital relations.
The fast was not required of the infirm.
Although contrary to the example of the Last Supper,
feeding of the fasting Faithful is suggested by the strongly Eucharistic
typology of the Feeding of the Five Thousand.
3 The frequency of reception by the Faithful
seems to have declined drastically from the 4th Century, despite
periodic exhortations to the contrary.
A decisive change came with Pope St Pius X, under whom a decree of the Sacred
Congregation of the Council condemned lingering Jansenist errors on the subject
and clarified the conditions for fruitful reception.
Pope St Pius X also encouraged a much earlier time for First Communions, and
introduced more generous dispensations for certain difficult circumstances. Pope Pius XII introduced a fast of three
hours, which was not broken by ‘natural water’ (i.e. water without additives),
at first under various conditions in 1953, and then as a general discipline in
his Motu Proprio Sacram Communionem
(1957),
with generous provision for the ‘infirm’.
4 In 1964 Pope Paul VI reduced the fast to one
hour, to be calculated from the time of reception, for both priests and
faithful;
this rule was reiterated in the 1983 Code of Canon Law.
The Fast and Reverence for the Sacrament
5 Pope Paul VI’s Instruction on Holy Communion, Immensae caritatis (1973) emphasises the
‘supreme reverence due to so great a Sacrament’, and in a footnote to this
phrase gives a long quotation from the Council of Trent, insisting on the
necessity for sacramental confession before reception in case the recipient,
lay or clerical, should be conscious of mortal sin. The quotation begins:
It is unfitting to take part in any sacred function
without holiness. Assuredly, therefore, the more that Christians perceive the
sacredness and divinity of this heavenly sacrament, the more must they take
every care not to come to receive it without reverence and holiness, especially
since we have the frightening words of St. Paul: ‘For those who eat and drink
unworthily, eat and drink damnation to themselves, not discerning the Lord’s
body’ (1 Cor 11:29). Those wishing to receive communion must be reminded of St.
Paul’s command: ‘Let a man examine himself’ (1 Cor 11:28).
6 That irreverence for the Blessed Sacrament has
arisen among the Faithful was noted with deep concern by Blessed Pope John Paul
II in Dominicae Cenae (1980),
where he described two contrasting phenomena. First, while the scrupulosity
which discouraged frequent Communion in former times has largely disappeared,
members of the Faithful neglecting opportunities to receive Holy Communion are
still to be found, due to
a lack of Eucharistic ‘hunger’ and ‘thirst’,
which is also a sign of lack of adequate sensitivity towards the great
sacrament of love and a lack of understanding of its nature.
7 Secondly,
Sometimes, indeed quite frequently, everybody
participating in the eucharistic assembly goes to Communion; and on some such
occasions, as experienced pastors confirm, there has not been due care to
approach the sacrament of Penance so as to purify one’s conscience.
This is the result of a lack of ‘the good
quality of sensitiveness of Christian conscience’.
Pope Benedict XVI has also lamented the second attitude.
8 Both Bl. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, in
the passages just noted, go on to discuss the reception of Communion in the
Hand, which they link to the problem of a lack of reverence towards the Blessed
Sacrament. This issue is discussed in another paper.
Our concern here is with the possibility of addressing the problem they
identify by another means: by reconsidering the discipline of the Eucharistic
Fast.
Restoring the discipline of Pope Pius XII
9 Requiring an extended period of fasting before
the reception of Holy Communion is a natural and traditional way to underline
the great significance of the Blessed Sacrament, just as Pope Benedict XVI
talks of marking it with ‘an exclamation point’ by his own practice of giving
it only on the tongue, to kneeling communicants.
It would oblige all the Faithful to think more seriously about receiving,
requiring forethought, and on occasion some limited, but symbolically
expressive, sacrifice. Furthermore, while it will on occasion require some
practical adjustments (to the timing of services or meals, for example), it
does not present the same psychological problem at the moment of reception as
would withdrawal of permission for Communion in the Hand.
1 A fast from midnight is the practice most
hallowed by centuries of observance, but its reimposition today would clearly
create practical difficulties. These would particularly affect those attached
to the Extraordinary Form, which is frequently offered at less than ideal
times, when priests or churches happen to be free. Instead, we would like to suggest
the restoration of the discipline established by Pope Pius XII, of a three hour
fast.
1 The decline in the frequency of reception of Holy
Communion noted in §3 resulted from a deeper appreciation of the supernatural
reality of the Blessed Sacrament, coupled with the development of penitential
discipline. The Eucharistic Fast was also more emphasised, but these fasts were
frequently required before attendance at Mass, at least on Sundays and Feasts, even
if Holy Communion was not received,
so they posed no additional obstacle to reception. More frequent Confession
offered a solution to concerns about the worthiness of communicants, but this required
a degree of infrastructure and catechesis which took time to establish.
1 Pope St Pius X saw the greatest obstacle to
frequent Communion, in the early 20th Century, not as the midnight fast, but in
confusion about the spiritual conditions needed for a worthy reception. Pope
Pius XII’s purpose in changing the rules was not so much to make the fast
easier, but to make Mass at different times of day possible, facilitating its
incorporation into a working or a school day.
1 While the demandingness of Pope Pius XII’s
discipline should not be exaggerated, it would mean that, from time to time,
for practical reasons reception would be difficult or impossible for some
people. This would itself be useful in counteracting the tendency, noted by
both Bl. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI as noted in paragraph 7 above,
of members of the Faithful approaching Holy Communion just because everyone
else is doing so; indeed, to fail to go forward to receive Holy Communion risks
drawing attention to oneself, or even of giving scandal.
Those unable to receive would instead make a ‘Spiritual Communion’, a practice
encouraged by Bl. Pope John Paul II, who quoted St Teresa’s praise of it,
and again by Pope Benedict XVI,
who asked the participants at the Papal Mass at World Youth Day Madrid to make
a Spiritual Communion when general distribution was impossible.
This practice fosters the ‘hunger and thirst’ for the Eucharist Bl. Pope John
Paul II so desired.
Conclusion
1 Although it might seem a radical proposal, the
restoration of the former discipline would be a relatively simple means of
underlining the value of the Blessed Sacrament, and the importance of
preparation for it. The current problem of casual attitudes towards Holy
Communion demands comprehensive catechesis, and the three-hour fast would itself
be a form of catechesis, something which emphasised the supernatural reality of
the Blessed Sacrament, perhaps more forcefully than a merely verbal
exhortation.
1 It should not be assumed that increasing the
onerousness of the discipline of the Church will lead to a rejection of that
discipline, or even lapsation. A serious form of discipline indicates the
seriousness of the subject of the discipline, and more demanding religions have
frequently attracted more adherents than laxer ones.
A voluntary adoption by members of the Faithful of a more rigorous fast would
not have this catechetical power; nor would it gain merit as an exercise of
obedience. A public campaign to encourage such a voluntary practice might even
invite accusations of Phariseeism.
1 It must be said finally that the current
discipline, of a fast of one hour before reception, scarcely impinges on the
Faithful; as
such it is less likely to be remembered or taken seriously, and insisting upon
a trivial obligation seems less than reasonable.
To restore a proper respect for the Eucharist, an obligation to fast which
demands respect is surely necessary.
----------------------------------------------------------------
