www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West A couple of questions from the Funeral Mass

Bless, Father Elias,

Well, I wouldn't know who those Greek Catholics would be!

Alex

Fasting definitely has its place in the spiritual life and I believe the current minimal approach to it should be abandoned in favor of a more traditional approach. Nevertheless, how fasting has been observed in the history of the Church has varied considerably.

For example, the note in the Orthodox Study Bible for 1 Corinthians 11:33,34 (page 394) observes:

"The Agape meal, connected to the Eucharist, was conducted with the same dignity as the Eucharist. While the Corinthian church ate before communion, and present-day Orthodox Christians fast, the spirit of their eating was the same as our fasting: preparation."

And the point about fasting rules is what, exactly? That because the infant Corinthian church did not fast according to the relative maturity of the ancient Orthodox faith that somehow it is permissible to have widely varying and rather divergent approaches? I think that's comparing apples and oranges. The Corinthians also did not have icons, censers, byzantine vestments and horologions.

I have no idea what the ancient Roman Catholic practice of fasting for the eucharist was, but I suspect is was much less minimalistic than one hour before you receive.

And if this is true, then the practice of keeping a rather complete fast before receiving the eucharist seems rather universal, or at least it was.

Priest Thomas

Okay, could we just please clarify what exactly the dispute here is? Those who are criticizing the laxity of fasting in the Roman Catholic Church (by which I assume you mean the Latin Rite ) - are you criticizing the official Church's fasting requirements?

Or are you criticizing the (undeniable) fact that far too many Catholics do not obey those requirements? Because it would seem to me that those are two completely separate issues.

Well, I am glad that you find the requirements compatible, but I think there were good reasons why Pius XII originally relaxed the fast requirements.

One very good reason was that he was trying to encourage children to receive the Eucharist at a younger age (this is the Western Church we're talking about here, remember! ) and felt that easing the fasting requirements would make that process easier for them. We should look at the context of WHY these changes were made before getting too critical of them.

I'm not criticizing certain Catholics (or Orthodox) for not obeying the requirements, but, yes, the laxity of the fasting regulations. I think I did say Roman Catholic - so that would be the Latin rite, yes? Unless we want to tick off the Eastern Catholics and call them Roman!

I also did a bit of research and the regulations seem to be (correct me if I'm wrong) one hour no food or drink (except water?) before receiving, which again, seems to me to be virtually no fast at all (unless you bring food with you to Mass). Please correct me if I am wrong.

Priest Thomas

I another place, I asked why the Latin Church relaxed the ancient fasting discipline for the mysteries, and what exactly was the reasoning, I would like to understand it.

I thank you very much for the answer! If I understand you right, you suggest that it makes it easier for children to receive at a younger age?

Aside from the fact that Orthodox children receive at a very young age (as infants), I'm not sure I follow the reasoning? How does it make it easier for children?

That's a tough one to swallow (pun intended). If indeed it was to encourage younger children to take communion, couldn't we have just dispensed with the fasting rules for young children, as is commonly done in the Orthodox Church?

Of course, as a discipline, as another writer put, all of this is changable. It just seems to me that this is one of those instances where this change was a bit too radical. I understand that it doesn't stop anyone from fasting as much as they want (I often hear that as a defense of these fasting rules - which of course, is no defense at all) but if the rules are an ascetic discipline, what message does it send to the faithful?

In the fasting discipline, common sense should prevail. In the case of the Orthodox discipline, the rules are meant for those who are able to keep them. This means, young children, the ill and infirm, women who are pregnant or nursing, etc., are not to keep these rules, but instead should do what they are able, sometimes nothing at all. It doesn't make sense to change the rules for everyone because young children can't or shouldn't keep them.

Priest Thomas

And also, just as a question, I may be under the wrong impression, but I thought Eastern Catholics were under the same eucharistic (one hour) fast, as far as the regulations are concerned? Could someone please clarify that.

Priest Thomas

Father Thomas, bless!

I did say I was in favor of a more traditional approach to fasting. My point was that fasting (and censers, vestments, etc.) is not on the same level as the Commandments to love God and neighbor. Perhaps I'm a bit sensitive to the issue as I have a good friend who became so observant on fasting he became critical of others who were not and ended up leaving the Church for awhile.

While I am in favor of a more traditional approach I do respect the decisions of legitimate authority on fasting precepts. Such are just as valid as the practice of the first-century Corinthians.

Dear Brad,

In Greece the flags were flown at half mast for the Pope!

HOW cool is that!

In Christ,
Alice

Dear Father Thomas,

I always try to appreciate the rules and disciplines of both East and West and try to understand them objectively, however....

I will have to agree with you that a one hour fast for Holy Communion is just a little too extreme...(though on the other hand, I also feel that our seven-eight hours is sometimes extreme too). Fortunately, for us who are Orthodox, under the guidance and blessing of a confessor/spiritual father, (as you ofcourse know, because you ARE one *wink*), there is economia/dispensation for those who cannot meet this requirement.

I wonder if the one hour fast for the Roman Catholic church came about because of the many Masses offered throughout the day. As communing at every Mass has been encouraged and seems to be the norm, I suppose the idea is that if the only Mass you can attend is after a meal, then you should still attend it and receive Holy Communion. (this is purely my theory, and I have not read it anywhere, therefore, I stand to be corrected by my Latin brethren! )

I still think that two to three hours would be better, and that such period of time could also be easily worked into attendance at a convenient Mass.

Just my opinion, because I know how full I can sometimes feel one hour after eating a normal sized meal.

In Christ,
Alice

I'm sorry if this sounds abrupt and rude, but frankly, some of the comments in this thread are really starting to bug me.

I'm sure no one is intentionally trying to say that the Eastern Church is better/smarter/holier than the Western Church in the area of fasting, but it certainly is the impression I'm walking home with tonight.

Maybe we could put a moratorium on criticizing each other's churches, at least till the new Pope is elected??

As Father Thomas mentioned about the Orthodox Church, those who are ill or infirm are not bound to the rule of fasting in the Roman Catholic Church either. The one hour Eucharistic fast is supposed to be mandatory for all, adults and children, except for the ill and infirm. It is required of children because they are older when they first receive Communion.

The rules of fasting were not abandoned by the Latin Church, but by the people. The current mandatory fasts are the allowed minimum for all fasting, be it Eucharistic, Lenten, etc. The rules of fast and abstinence,(eg.,no meat on Friday's, all year long), are supposed to be encouraged but are no longer mandatory obligations. Needless to say, most people elect to take the easiest route, and the practice of observing a stricter rule is neglected and/or not stressed or taught by those who are in positions to encourage it,(clergy,catechists,bishops,....).

More important than the fasts though is the spiritual disposition of those receiving the Eucharist.

Bill

Dear Theist Gal,

I didn't take any of the above comments as derogatory or rude, simply concern for the proper attitude the Eucharist deserves.

Bill