I went to the church nearest the Nameless Entity, in a blessed old urban parish run by the Dominicans. One of my Advent penances is to go to confession every week, and I thought I'd get started a week early.
This was the second time I had this particular Dominican. He is, I'm convinced, an entirely orthodox and kindly old man, with a genuine love for sinners and an evident joy for God's creation. However, both times he didn't ask me to make an act of contrition. The second time, I said one to myself as he gave me absolution.
I believe that this is a defect in the form of the confession itself, but the absolution is still valid. But what should I do when I have him next time? Charitably correct him? I'm uncomfortable with doing that — it doesn't seem very penitential. Maybe I should say, "Father, do you mind if I say my act of contrition?" I'm open to suggestions.
Bonus question: after I went to confession, I stayed for daily Mass, but I had finished eating lunch at around 11:45 and the Communion was at about 12:35 or 12:40. I abstained from the Eucharist because I had eaten less than an hour before, because I had not planned to attend Mass.
I think I did the correct thing, but is there any kind of exemption if you did not deliberately break the one-hour fast before receiving? I don't think there is, but I just thought I'd check to see if anyone knew.
Some priests, including quite sound ones, believe that the penitent should make the act of contrition before entering the confessional. I'm not sure if that is correct procedure, or perhaps was in the past.
I think that you made the right decision in NOT accepting the Eurcharist since it had not been an hour since you had finished eating.
Isn't the rule pretty clear about this?
The act of contrition does not have a specific form as can be determined by the fact there are so many different versions. An act of contrition must contain a desire to repent of one's sins and to make amends in light of sorrow for one's sinful actions.
It is possible that the priest takes your very presence and your confession itself as an act of contrition.
While you may feel you are just confessing sins, the priest may hear the sorrow and desire to make amends in your voice in a way that you do not recognize. In either way, the sacrament is valid (now if he forget the words of absolution that is another thing.) Say the Act of Contrition outside after your confession as part of your penance if you have not said it already. If however, you do want to say it before the words of absolution just begin saying it after you are given your penance. The priest will wait and then give you absolution.
As for communion, that is a discipline as opposed to a law. It should be followed as best as possible. In your case I would encourage you to receive communion. You certainly had the intention to follow the discipline. (You also followed it as best as possible under the circumstances.) However, to prevent yourself from receiving communion for the sake of five minutes actually is counter productive to the reason for the discipline.
The problem comes when you rationalize the discipline away. You need to keep the discipline as much as practically possible but not so much that you prevent yourself from receiving communion validly when that is so important for the nourishment of our souls. Your case is a perfect example of that.
As a side note, one of my complaints about the rule is that you cannot eat for an hour before communion but you can smoke yourself to death right up until you enter the Church.
May I ask what the rationale is behind the current 1-hour sold food fast before receiving Communion in the Latin Church? In theory, the point is to prepare oneself to receive, but as a practical matter, is an hour really a fast? Since there is perhaps a half-hour of Mass before Communion, does this one-hour fast really mean, "don't eat in the car on the way to church?"
Why not encourage a fast from midnight of the day, and leave it up to the individual as to whether or not he feels prepared to receive?
Fr Bob Carr, I understood that the ecclesiastical fast before Communion was a law, not a discipline (as are the fasting and abstinence disciplines of Lent, Fridays, etc.). If it is only a discipline, what does Can 919 actually _mean_ ?
Eric,
I have faced exactly those two situations in my year as a Catholic. In the case of reconciliation, I have taken to simply saying to the priest, "Should I make an act of contrition?" He says, "Go ahead." Everybody's happy.
In the case of the fast, I did what you did and abstained. I decided to treat it as an opportunity and ended up finding it to be spiritually rewarding. It's not that I'm normally oblivious to the great gift of the Eucharist, but abstaining highlighted the hunger for it and made me appreciate it all the more. I think I read somewhere about people doing that as a matter of practice, just occasionally fasting from the Eucharist. It also felt right as a sign of respect for the Sacrament.
(I say this not to lock swords with Father Carr, who is quite right that the Eucharist sustains our souls, and I believe in frequent reception. But it seems to me an occasional fast might enhance one's ability to "discern the Body.")
Eric,
When priests are in a hurry I have had them tell me to say my act of contrition before I began my penance. If I go to confession and the priest doesn't ask me to make an act of contrition, I do so when I get out of the box. Probably the most prudent thing to do in a situation like that.
Andrew, what is important here is that one should fast for one hour before receiving communion. It is not to be dismissed lightly. Yet, at the same time in the particular situation mentioned we were dealing with almost an hour but not quite. The discipline was fulfilled because the intention was met. The circumstances were more accidental than on purpose. Hence, Eric I believe had every right to receive communion because the Church prefers reception of communion in that case.
I hope this does not come out as a sarcastic remark for it is not meant to be one, but I use it in situations such as this. God is not a computer. That means that God is not exact in his time. If I intend to keep the fast and indeed round off my hour from only five minutes into my fast, who am I kidding. I am rationalizing my way out of the fast. However, if I round off the hour from fifty five minutes because of the circumstances beyond my immediate control then I am in the good graces of God.
Conversely if I eat at 4:45 and attend the 5:00 mass I really had no intention of keeping the one hour fast. However, if I eat at 4:45 with the intention of preparing myself for the 5:30 mass and then discover the 5:30 mass is really a 5:00 the intention was there, but through circumstances not within my immediate control I was left with a choice to receive communion or deny myself because of a miscalculation in time. I believe receiving communion would be appropriate as again the intention was there, the circumstances were beyond my immediately control.
Fr. Carr,
That may be your opinion, but I'm not really sure it can supercede canon law, which says:
"919.1 Whoever is to receive the blessed Eucharist is to abstain for at least one hour before holy communion from all food and drink, with the sole exception of water and medicine."
I've been in the same situation, and frankly, it's a better thing to stay for Mass and skip the Communion line, saying a prayer instead. It's not like you won't get another chance later......
+J.M.J+
>>>May I ask what the rationale is behind the current 1-hour sold food fast before receiving Communion in the Latin Church?...
Why not encourage a fast from midnight of the day,
I believe the fast from midnight was the rule at one time. In 1953 it was shortened to three hours, to encourage people to receive the Eucharist more often. Later it was shortened again to 1 hour, for the same reason.
In Jesu et Maria,
Michigan a response:
First you are correct, the question is are you also right. (Unfortunately, blogging does not allow someone to write words that come out as pastorally as one would want. So if they come out nasty in any way that is not my intention.)
The intention of the canon is to ensure a minimum standard of respect for the Eucharist for it is indeed the Body of Christ. So the canon makes it clear that one must fast for at least one hour prior to receiving the Eucharist. Yet, notice the hour is not as defined as it would be in more legal circumstances. "No less than 60 minutes."
Now if you choose not to receive the Eucharist for it has been 55 minutes and not a formal hour that is your choice. However, are you going to tell someone that they are fundamentally 300 seconds short of the time frame required for receiving the Eucharist if they, through circumstances beyond their control, found themselves in that situation.
Please also remember if the priest preached longer, if one five minute song was used. (Hail Mary Gentle Woman sung as written takes 4:30) then the point in the situation cited on the blog would have been moot.
So Michigan you are correct and I would not disagree with you. However, if one has fulfilled the intention and through no fault of his own found himself at a point of receiving the eucharist at almost 60 minutes which is basically an hour in more analog societies, then I do not feel it would be right for another to tell them they cannot receive the Eucharist.
Finally, the best route is for the person who chooses not to receive to talk to the priest after mass by then the hour has passed.