Communion Fast observance

[Andreas_Hofer]

I can see that I didn’t have a way to support the alleged mitigated fast for busy Catholics, but apart from that, my point is actually a minimal one, consistent with Church practice: namely, that the one-hour fast is appropriately set, to encourage more frequent Communion.

…yet…

I appreciate your point that preparing for the Sacraments is basic to receiving them. Nonetheless, to hold the one-hour fast in disdain is disrespectful to the many Catholics who would not be reasonably able to receive Communion during the week if it were longer.

…and…

Those who want to find fault seize upon it as ‘an example of the sort of thing they mean’. But, it turns out that the Church has a reason for the one-hour fast. And upon inspection it turns out that many people would in fact be prevented from receiving Communion were the fast longer.

The main disagreement is not over whether the one-hour fast is “wimpy” just because it is less than the previous fast. Do I happen to think it’s wimpy? Sure, if you want to push me, since it amounts little more than common decency (you wouldn’t eat during a different formal social event, and the one-hour fast, at least on Sundays, is basically only refraining from eating during Mass), but I fully believe mitigations in discipline can be done reasonably and necessarily, so I don’t find it wimpy just because it’s not as rigorous as before. When taking a drink of water in the evening after a hard day of farm labor was a mitigation of the Lenten fast, I think discipine was just a little too hard for the average Andreas.

Instead of hinging on this, the argument on this thread really centers on the bolded portions of the last two quotes above, namely the assertion that anything more than a one-hour fast would unreasonably prevent people from receiving communion. People can argue all day about whether it is prudent to require a longer fast, so I don’t think I would have engaged this long in a debate over just that. What I and I think some other posters will keep insisting upon, though, is that there is no basis for claiming a longer fast is unreasonable; longer fasts fully conform with our received wisdom about the good life in general, and I would even contend that most all of those to whom daily communion is an integral part of their life(style) would adapt fairly readily to a slightly more rigorous discipline.

PS:

Incidentally, the eucharistic fast once precluded water as well. So, how traditional do you want to be?

Just that traditional - glance back to the beginning of the thread and you’ll find that’s what I strive for.