Just some questions for this. From what I understand, before vatican 2 it was 3 hours by Pope Pius 12th, before that it was from midnight.

Paul 6th changed it to 1 hour. Assuming v2 and v2 'popes' have no authority, would it be sacrilege (venial or mortal/grave?) to do the 1 hour fast instead of the 3 hour fast? Asking because someone I know keeps failing to do a full 3 hour fast, please pray for them.

Anthony, You may presume that Vatican 2 popes have no authority, but you cannot hold anyone to your assumptions. It cannot be regarded as a sacrilege to fast for one hour.
You, yourself, are free to fast from midnight, or for 3 hours, but you may not expect it from another.

If Paul 6th had authority wouldn't that mean the Church has detected since he also taught heresy?

If a pope changes the rules on fasting before Holy Communion, there is no question of the Church defecting. You asked about the changes to the rules of fasting and I answered your question. It would not be sacrilege (venial or mortal) to do the 1 hour fast. As I said, anyone is free to make a longer fast, and most posters here would do so. But you or I cannot judge it to be sacriligeous to fast one hour.

The issue of Paul vi’s heresy is a different issue altogether which I am not prepared to comment on in this thread.

If a pope changes the rules on fasting before Holy Communion, there is no question of the Church defecting. You asked about the changes to the rules of fasting and I answered your question. It would not be sacrilege (venial or mortal) to do the 1 hour fast. As I said, anyone is free to make a longer fast, and most posters here would do so. But you or I cannot judge it to be sacriligeous to fast one hour.

The issue of Paul vi’s heresy is a different issue altogether which I am not prepared to comment on in this thread.

What I am trying to say is this. If Paul 6 has no authority, would it be a sin to follow his fasting rules?

I am not sure on if he has authority to do some things but not others.

Anyway thanks for your answers.

How someone is unable to go three hours without food is beyond me.

Probably the only scenario would in the case of someone who might be diabetic or otherewise hypoglycemic ... and having some blood sugar episode.  In that type of situation, the fast could be dispensed, as in other situations, such as danger of death.  So it's certainly not a divine law.

I think the one-hour fast is a joke.  You could still be burping up Big Mac special sauce while approaching Holy Communion.

But I think the question is whether Anthony Padua can impose this on the consciences of others who for whatever reason have not come to the SV conclusion.  Of course, the answer is no, that we can't bind the consciences of others.  Whether those consciences are confused vs. properly formed is a different matter, and the best one can do is attempt to persuade them.

But I think the question is whether Anthony Padua can impose this on the consciences of others who for whatever reason have not come to the SV conclusion.  Of course, the answer is no, that we can't bind the consciences of others.  Whether those consciences are confused vs. properly formed is a different matter, and the best one can do is attempt to persuade them.

This is an incredibly common strawman. We're not binding anyone, we're pointing out what the Church has bound everyone to. Are you "binding consciences" when you tell adulterers or non-Catholics not to receive Holy Communion? No? Well, the Vatican II sect teaches both of those are OK, so they're free to disagree, right? Wrong!

Whether or not the Novus Ordite is sinning in some particular instance of following Novus Ordo teaching is irrelevant - while they submit to the antipopes they are lead to sin. It must be stressed that what they're doing is objectively wrong and they should be convinced to follow Catholic discipline and teaching.

If someone is following the 1 hour fast that stems from their fundamental acceptance of the Vatican II religion. The issue should be dealt with at the root, not at the surface level of why it's better to fast longer.

It's pointless to try to convince someone to fast three hours instead of one if they're running headlong into Hell under the guidance of Bergoglio.

Also, ignorance is not always an excuse: The Errors of Peter Abelard, Condemned by Innocent II, July 16, 1140, #10: “That they have not sinned who being ignorant have crucified Christ, and that whatever is done through ignorance must not be considered sin.” ‐ Condemned

While we can't impute sin to someone who approaches Holy Communion on one hour of fasting, I think that it can safely be judged as objectively sacrilegious.  After an hour, the food is still digesting in your stomach, and the Holy Communion will end up mingled in with a partially-digested Big Mac ... or whatever else it is you may have eaten.  To me that's objectively irreverent and sacrilegious.

Scientific tests indicate that it normally takes about 1.5 - 2 hours for the stomach to empty after a meal ... give or take depending on the size of the meal, so the 3 hours appears to be a good limit.

St. Paul -- or, rather, the Holy Spirit through St. Paul -- condemned the intermingling of normal eating with receiving Holy Communion.

I am not a sedevacantist, though I can't say I don't have my doubts.  For medical reasons, I am often unable to go three waking hours without some kind of nourishment.  I keep as long a fast as I can, but never under one hour.  

To be fair, though, would not one run the risk of sacrilege by eating (or even smoking) at least the 15-30 minutes when the Sacred Species can still be assumed to be intact in the body?  Sometimes I can still taste or sense the accidents of flavor of the Host in my throat a half hour or more after receiving.

While we can't impute sin to someone who approaches Holy Communion on one hour of fasting, I think that it can safely be judged as objectively sacrilegious.  After an hour, the food is still digesting in your stomach, and the Holy Communion will end up mingled in with a partially-digested Big Mac ... or whatever else it is you may have eaten.  To me that's objectively irreverent and sacrilegious.

Scientific tests indicate that it normally takes about 1.5 - 2 hours for the stomach to empty after a meal ... give or take depending on the size of the meal, so the 3 hours appears to be a good limit.

St. Paul -- or, rather, the Holy Spirit through St. Paul -- condemned the intermingling of normal eating with receiving Holy Communion.

Didn’t the pius xii fast rules allow liquid one hour before, so why wouldn’t that be sacrilege for the same reason?  Also what about eating right after mass while presumably the Eucharist is still in your stomach?