Communion Fast?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximilian75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Maximilian75

Guest
I reccieved the Eucharist this morning, and cut it pretty close in regards to the fast (ie finishing breakfast at around 7am and then reccieving communion at 8am). It may well just come down to the difference between the time on the kitchen clock when I finished my meal today (703) and the time on my wristwatch when I reccieved communion, making sure I was the last person to do so (758).
Thoughts, anyone? I will most likely bring this up at my next Confession, regardless of what is said here.
 
Maximilian75 said:
Thoughts, anyone?
Click to expand...
You are being scrupulous.

If in the future you think you will not fulfill the fast, just refrain from going to communion. It’s that easy. You can also make it a point to get up and eat earlier or eat after mass.
 
You are be fine. The Communion Fast isn’t Strickland enforced to the level of an atomic clock.

You easily followed the spirit of the law in this situation.

Confess it if you like, but I’m sure you’ll be giving Father something to scratch his head at. 😉

God Bless
 
You came to a forum to ask if you should confess that you may have broken the Communion fast by about 5 minutes.

If that is not scrupulous behavior, I don’t know what is.

God is not standing there with a stopwatch, just waiting for us to screw up!
 
The church institutes rules for good reason. I try to abide by those to the best of my abilities. As said above, I do not think I have exhibited scrupulous behavior in the past, and I do not think I was this morning. Thank you for your thoughts, though.
 
I don’t think it is scrupulous to worry about this. It is a rule and one not hard to abide by. In the past the communion fast was much longer. So there is no reason you can’t keep it.

In the future just don’t eat breakfast before Mass. That is what I do. That is what most people did for most of history.
 
Absolutely. The Mass was at my school, and I was unsure as to if I could fit in breakfast between Mass and the start of classes. In the future, I should just stick it out until lunch.
 
The question has been answered. I don’t think the question itself is scrupulous. Now if there’s a pattern to repeating the question and then it’s a question of six minutes, then seven, then three weeks in a row, and fretting every time, that might indicate scrupulosity.
 
Yes, that is an option.
And yes, there are rules for a reason.
But when you start obsessing about the “letter” of the law and not the “spirit” of the law, you indeed are getting into dangerous territory.

I will say it again, God does not play “gotcha games”- trust in His mercy, don’t dwell in fear of His wrath.
 
Last edited:
That could be hard being in school. And being younger that can be hard too. I know when I was young I had a voracious appetite. Actually, that didn’t change just my body’s need for food decreased. So eating earlier might be best if you can. Then again people really did fast longer in the past. They were tougher than us.
 
exnihilo said:
I don’t think it is scrupulous to worry about this
Click to expand...
I do think it’s scrupulous to worry that it comes down to whether your wristwatch is in sync with the cafeteria clock.

The school serves breakfast to students and then has mass with the students. It would seem the school would be allowing for the fast with the timing of breakfast and mass.

But if the OP is concerned, he need only refrain from communion. He can still eat breakfast.
 
Last edited:
1ke said:
I do think it’s scrupulous to worry that it comes down to whether your wristwatch is in sync with the cafeteria clock.
Click to expand...
Is that the concern here? I didn’t understand it to be the issue.
 
It really isint… I was trying to avoid breaking the fast, but I would have had the same concerns with or without a watch or clock present.
 
exnihilo said:
Is that the concern here? I didn’t understand it to be the issue.
Click to expand...
It sounded like it to me. The OP expressed that it “may come down to” the difference between the clocks and he was going to confess it. I think that’s being scrupulous, not in the clinical definition sense of the word, but I don’t think it’s something to confess. If the OP feels differently, he should certainly discuss with his pastor for guidance.

he asked what we think. I responded. I responded that I think that level of scrutiny of the clock is scrupulous and that in the future he can avoid the conflict by just not receiving if he’s unsure whether an hour has passed or not.
 
Maximilian75 said:
I reccieved the Eucharist this morning, and cut it pretty close in regards to the fast (ie finishing breakfast at around 7am and then reccieving communion at 8am). It may well just come down to the difference between the time on the kitchen clock when I finished my meal today (703) and the time on my wristwatch when I reccieved communion, making sure I was the last person to do so (758).

Thoughts, anyone? I will most likely bring this up at my next Confession, regardless of what is said here.
Click to expand...
If you think you have cut it fine then do not receive. While it is strongly recommended to regularly receive it is only mandatory once a year during the Easter season.
 
Maybe you don’t realize it- and even if you do some people reading this might not , but just because you are assisting at Mass doesn’t obligate you to receive Communion if you aren’t sure you should.
 
Maximilian75 said:
The church institutes rules for good reason. I try to abide by those to the best of my abilities. …
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly. The Church has rules for good reason.

Now, I’m certainly NOT going to tell you to ignore the Communion fast. By no means.

However, I do want to caution you against going too far in the other direction; where the law becomes a thing to be observed for its own sake, rather than the reason why the Church gave the law in the first place.

The purpose of the law is that we be “empty” before receiving the Eucharist. As you probably know, the Communion fast has been shortened over time. So the 1-hour fast is not the same as (perhaps) a medical fast where one might be told to “eat or drink nothing” for 8 or 12 hours. What I’m getting at here is the the emptiness is not complete, but more symbolic—we are hardly starving ourselves by abstaining from food for just one hour. Still, the purpose of the law is a symbolic emptiness. Keep that in mind.

So here’s my take on your situation:
It appears to me that you made the effort to observe the fast. You avoided food for one hour in order to prepare yourself to receive the Bread of Life. If that one hour happened to be a minute or two short of an exact 60 minute, that does not change the fact that you made an honest and good-faith effort to keep the fast. You obviously thought about it ahead of time (or else you would not know what time you finished eating). So you didn’t ignore the law. You did your best to keep the one hour time—in other words, you did not say “I know I have 50 minutes, and I’m going to intentionally keep a 50 minute fast instead of a 1 hour one.”

And please understand, this is not about saying “keep the spirit of the law, not the letter.” No, I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying that one should keep both. Just don’t interpret the letter of the law to be so strict that a mere minute or 2 in the understanding of “an hour” causes anxiety.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top