We were required to fast for three hours before Holy Communion. As I was a small child, I was exempt from the stricter Lenten fast. Fish on Fridays was always the norm, however. Vatican II and its misapplications began to be made manifest while I was twelve years old, so I was never obliged to engage in the strict Lenten fast.
That was also the time when there was much upheaval and "dumbing down". I won't rehearse them all, but suffice it to say that when I rediscovered Church patrimony, I was by far not alone in lamenting the de facto disappearance of ascetical discipline. That lamentation, however, came with its own spiritual perils. Quite a few traditionalists, in their zeal for restoring Church disciplines, seem to make it a point of pride - and I do mean "pride" in the harmful sense of the word - to pursue rigor and to chide others for not conforming to their particular standards. In other words, sometimes the pendulum swings too much in the opposite direction.
A year or two ago, a well-known podcaster, during Holy Week, announced that he was going on a "black fast" for Holy Saturday. That is, he would eat no solid food nor take liquid nourishment. Then he challenged his listeners to do the same, to "not be wimps". Hmmm... Isn't that interesting, in light of today's Gospel, where Jesus exhorted His followers to fast and not to make their fasting manifest? Since when did a fast become an occasion for swaggering bravado?
Today, Ann Barnhardt, whom I do hold in respect, published an unfortunate piece regarding fasting. It is actually factually inaccurate. She states that "fasting means to not eat any food whatsoever". That's not how the Church has defined it - and I'm talking about the Church's definition for the past several hundred years, not just since Vatican II.
I am now going to post links to other sites so that I don't have to "reinvent the wheel", as it were.
- https://voxluci.com/catholic-fasting-rules-then-vs-now/
- https://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2022/02/history-of-lenten-fasting-how-to.html
- https://fatima.org/news-views/pasting-part-7-fasting-in-the-1900s-pre-vatican-ii/
Only for a short while was Ash Wednesday taken to be a day of total fast. The typical fast day in Lent was a meal after Vespers was prayed, with two smaller snacks (not summing to the regular meal) were permitted. No warm-blooded meats were to be consumed. The fast was binding on adults between the ages of 21 to 59 years, while abstinence bound those from 14 on up.
One might have certain convictions about their need to observe a more rigorous fast. That's fine. However, we dare not imagine that our convictions are somehow binding upon other Catholics.
You are incorrect about fasting. At the time of Vatican II, fasting involved each no food after midnight until you have received communion. That was a real fast if you went to noon Mass, for example. That's why so many Catholics went out for donuts right after Mass unless they went directly home for lunch after Mass. I wish you would talk about the reality today. The Church did NOT get rid of the rule against meat on Fridays. It changed it to offer an "equivalent" act of sacrifice or charity instead of avoiding meat if they so desired. But you'll notice --as I have--that nobody in the clergy has pointed out that still-existing requirement in the last 60 years. Just like they don't talk about most Church teachings since the modernists started their new "religion."
ReplyDeleteActually I am correct. Pope Pius XII, in his 1953 Christos Dominus and his 1957 Sacram Communionem reduced the solid food and alcohol fast to 3 hours before and liquid fast to 1 hour before Communion. I made First Holy Communion in 1953, so those two decrees were the rule when I was being prepared for the Sacrament. Yes, the Friday abstinence was never completely abrogated. If meat was taken, another penance had to be assumed.
DeleteCorrection, my first Holy Communion was 1963, not 53.
Delete