It has been asserted that as early as Soter of Rome and Tertullian in the late second century, Christians kept some form of fast before receiving the Eucharist.(1) This paper explores the origins and the rationale for this fast specifically as it appears in the practice of the Church in Roman North Africa. There appear to be two simultaneously developing and converging trajectories promoting a fast before the reception of Eucharist. The first is change in the time of day the Eucharist is celebrated. The second is the intensification of fasting as a remedy for personal sin. These converge in the late fourth century. The convergance is facilitated, as we shall see, by the end of persecution and the pre-eminent status of Christianity in the period after Julian the Apostate. In the intersection of the three factors, one finds the roots of the pre-communion fast.
A closer examination of the texts often cited in favor of an early origin of the communion fast exposes unreliable witnesses. The first comes from Rome during the episcopate Soter (167-175). There seems to have been some evidence a prohibition of fasting before Eucharist. This prohibition was not a general one. It applied only to the celebrant of the Eucharist who was forbidden to eat or drink unless he was finishing the ceremony of a priest taken ill during the celebration. The penalty was excommunication.(2) This is a curious piece of legislation. First, this sounds like the preoccupation of a later time; and, second, the manuscript evidence for this is not well attested.(3) To say the least it appears suspicious.
A more secure text comes from Tertullian, a generation later. He asked a Christian woman: "Will your husband not know what it is which you secretly taste before (taking) any food?"(4) but even this does not attest a 'communion fast' associated with the celebration of the Eucharist. It is not even a testimony to the a 'communion fast' before the reception of Eucharist in the home from the reserved species.This text does not offer grounds for adducing any fast specifically related to communion at all. It merely indicates that the woman received the Eucharist early in the day, i.e., before the normal hour for prandium, the meal that broke the fast begun the night before. This is a 'fast' observed by all who did not eat during their hours of sleep, nothing more. It leads us to the posssibility that in this instance there was no communion fast per se but a custom of receiving at home before other activities.
But let us leave aside incidents of reception in the home, at an hour one could determine for oneself, and move to communal celebrations which might be more fertile ground for exploring some sort of institutionally-decreed fast before communion, with or without an attached rationale.
Lest we fall prey to the same faulty logic which claimed the Tertullian text as a witness to communion fasting, we should first determine the hour of the day at which food was normally taken for the first time and the hour at which Eucharist was customarily celebrated in antiquity.
At least up to Augustine's time, the first meal of the day, the 'break-fast', was called prandium, no matter at what hour it was taken. The normal time appears to have been near mid-day, about 11:00 a.m.. On a 'fast' day from Tertullian to Augustine, prandium was taken about at mid-afternoon, approximately 3:00 p.m.(5) If the Eucharist were always celebrated in the morning, we have no evidence of a real 'communion-fast'.
If the Eucharist were celebrated in the evening, perhaps in imitation of the Lord's Supper, we might find more of space for the mention and rationalization of the communion fast until later in the day. But the evidence for evening Eucharist past the end of the first century is not strong. Even by the beginning of the second century in the letter of Pliny to Trajan, we see at least some Chrsitian gatherings early in the day.(6) More specifically Tertullian writes of Eucharist before daybreak.(7) In addition, he also records the quandry of those who fear that that reception of the Eucharist may break the stational fast which lasts until mid-afternoon.(8) But this is a personal decision and not one of general custom.(9) This would seem to indicate at the very least that the Eucharist is customarily sometime before three p.m. at the very latest.
When we reach Cyprian's episcopate, specifically during the Decian persecution,
there seems to have been some controversy about the hour of Eucharist.
The lingering fragrance of the wine used in the morning celebration
may have exposed some to suspicion of being Christian. A switch from the
morning to the evening hours, at least in some areas, may have taken place.
However, once the persecution had passed, Cyprian condemned those who still
used only water or, preferring an evening sacrifice, absented themselves
from the morning assembly.(10)
If the normal time for the celebration of the Eucharist were early morning, i.e., before prandium, what we may have at Sunday eucharists is not any 'fasting' at all, but simply the fact that Eucharist is celebrated before the hour at which one normally breaks the fast begun by all--Christian or not--the night before. This seems to have been the fact even as late as Augustine. There is another alternative to be considered. Might the communion fast be a prolongation of the stational fasts of Wednesday, Friday and Saturday which may have moved into North Africa from Rome in the late second or early third century? There are problems with the idea of such a neat translation. The use of the term statio, the Latin term for the fasts, seems to have been associated in North Africa with the compulsory fasts of the Montanists or those who appreciated the spirituality of the Montanists.(11) Fasting on Sundays was a mark of deviance within North African Christianity. Even in De corona, arguably from a period when Tertullian was in sympathy with Montanist ideals, he condemned fasting on Sundays.(12) Augustine associates it with Simon Magus and the Manichees(13) The prohibition of fasting on Sunday and the association of Sunday fasts with the Manichees would seem to indicate that the origins of the communion fast are not to be sought in customs surrounding Sunday Eucharist at all.
If we have no real communion fast early in African hsitory, by the 390s something must have changed. While Augustine knows that the communion fast is not a domincal custom and that customs vary from place to place, he considers it a "universal" custom.(14) His testimonies to this change, supplemented by conciliar legislation, revolve around two sets of circumstances: eucharists in the evening on Holy Thursday and at funerals. Both of these situations arise in and only in a society in which Christians are free to choose an evening hour for Eucharist and are free to bury their dead openly, unlike the situation of Carthage in Cyprian's time. But then such was the time of the episcopate of Augustine when Christianity's status was preeminent. But let us consider the two sets of circumstances in more detail.
On Holy Thursday, in commemoration of the Lord's Supper, the eucharistic assembly was scheduled for the evening. In 400 Augustine wrote concerning fasting and the hour of the celebration of Eucharist. He recognized that there were people fasting on that day. Their fasting was not a pre-communion fast per se but the fast of those persons who were sympathetically fasting with catechumens during the week before a Holy Saturday baptism.(15) During that week, catechumens and those participating in their fast broke their fast daily, about three o'clock in the afternoon. On every other day of that week, the breaking of the (non-eucharistic) fast occured after Eucharist (if it were celebrated on that day) because the eucharistic celebrations ordinarily occured early in the moring, a time coincidentally and not purposefully before the mid-afternoon meal. Therefore, we should not understand the testimony of Augustine, in this case, to indicate a pre-communion fast so much as a Eucharist after the meal by people who are fasting for non-eucharistic reasons. But the evidence of the letter indicates that that by 400, the incidental custom of breaking the fast after Eucharist was becoming, in the minds of some at least, a custom of keeping a fast before receiving Eucharist as Augustine in the same letter attests: "From this time [the day of the Last Supper] it has pleased the Holy Spirit that, in honor of so great a Sacrament, no other food should enter into a Christian before the Lord's Body."(16) But a final comment indicates that it was only beginning to becoming a custom, at least on Holy Thursday. Augustine did mention that while one might fast until the evening Eucharist, no one could be forced to eat before the Eucharist of the day simply because Jesus and his disciples had eaten before the first Eucharist.(17) Thus we see a custom coming to be, not one thoroughly established.
It should be noted that this letter was addressed to a bishop for his own use and does not necessarily indicate the custom among clergy or laity generally. The legislation of the third council of Carthage in 393 adds some evidence to the suspicion that fasting was enjoined on bishops and not the entire assembly. It attests to the custom of the bishop fasting with those who are fasting on Holy Thursday. It says: The bishops ought to celebrate the divine mysteries, not after they have eaten, but fasting with the people who are fasting.(18) "[T]he people who are fasting" are not the whole of the Christian assembly, but only a portion. But that it was the bishop alone for whom the legislation was written is effaced over the years. In the Brevarium Hipponense, edited about 401 and again in the seventh century,(19) and in the records of the Council of Carthage of 525, the records make no differentiation between bishops, those fasting with the catechumens or anyone else, but the fathers of the council simply cite the earlier council, omitting the note that the instructions were addressed specifically to the bishop.(20)
In addition to the situation on Holy Thursday, we can see also the evolution of the non-communion fast into the communion fast in the circumstances which surround Christian burial in the time of Augustine. As J. Patout Burns has pointed out in "Death and Burial in Christian Africa: The Literary Evidence," legislation from Augustine's time prohibited the celebration of the Eucharist unless those attending were fasting.(21) The Brevarium of Hippo legislated that if one were to celebrate a Eucharist as part of a funeral, it ought to be done at sunrise so that those attending would be fasting. This leisurely celebration of the funeral liturgy the next day or even several days later, like the possibility of an unhindered celebratory evening Eucharist, gives testimony to a church secure in its position, not under threat of exposure and persecution.
These late fourth-century witnesses testify to a pastoral practice and legislation concerning Eucharistic fast, but they do not answer any questions about the rationale(s) for fasting. Augustine's phrase "to honor the sacrament," does not tell us much about why an empty stomach would have been appropriate for the reception of the bread of heaven.(22) The metaphoric reception of eucharist as satisfying those who were hungry for the Word of God would not be satisfying either.(23) Augustine himself disliked founding doctrine on any but the literal sense of Scripture.
What is it about fasting in general which might commend it as a pre-communion activity? Christians inherited fasting from the Jewish tradition. In this source and in the North African trandition it was considered a way of intensifiying prayer and of averting perils, especially those of divine wrath.(24) Accomplishing these ends would not have been alien to Christians. In the North African tradition, fasting also promoted dreams and visions, an excellent avenue to knowledge of God. This idea was founded on the precedent of figures from Jewish scriptures like Moses, Elijah, and Daniel(25) but developed unique Christian elements in the eschatological milieu of third-century North Africa.(26)
Of the inheirted traditions, which one or ones did North African Christians
associate with the fasting before Eucharist? In Augustine's time, the strongest
tradition seems to be one of the worthiness or unworthiness of the communicant.
Althought the prayer of the centurion of Matthew 8.8, Domine, non sum
dignus, was not found in liturgical books until the eleventh century,(27)
Augustine used the text to justify the actions of those who refrained from
communion.(28) Concern for abstaining from
the Eucharist to do penance for sin was evident.(29)
Obviously those who were engaged in canonical penance would not be receiving
the Eucharist. But also among non-communicants would be those who had neither
confessed nor repented of their sins. Augustine warned them not to approach
communion.(30) In addition, there were
members of the church who out of feelings of unworthiness due to daily
sins did not receive the Eucharist. Augustine produced no firm rule on
whether they should communicate or not, but left the decision to the person's
conscience.(31) Finally, one can see in
Augustine a reflection of the idea that one had to be better than average
on the day that one received communion. He said:
Some one may say, "The Eucharist ought not to be taken every day." You ask, "On what grounds?" He answers, "Because, in order that a man may approach worthily to so great a sacrament, he ought to choose those days on which he lives in a more special purity and self-restraint . . ."(32)
This purity and self-restraint would not have been a concern only of the individual communicant. Given the North African concern for sin as contagion, the purification of one person cound not but help sanctify the entire community. The pre-occupation with purity and restraint, again, speaks of a time when people could be joining the Church without the strong commitment which earlier generations would have made in the face of persecution.
Burns asserts in his paper on the eucharistic presence that "the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist did not play a significant role in the African understanding of the redemptive role of Christ,"(33) and that as early as Cyprian's time "the eucharist [was] a means of adherence to the unity of the church, through which they might be saved by divine power." Given North African preoccupation with the boundaries of the Church, especially during the Donatist period, it might be well to consider how all three sacraments, Baptism, Penance, and Eucharist, functioned as limina for the community and in their capacities as limina evoked a similar response of fasting.
It is well known that catechumens fasted and that those who underwent canonical penance also fasted. By Augustine's time already baptized members of the community fasted and prayed along with catechumens during the final stages of their spiritual journey. We have seen above that bishops were to fast throughout Holy Thursday, keeping a sympathetic fast with baptized Christians who themselves were keeping vigils with the catechumens. Given the concentration of North Africans on the Church as a corporate body and the contagion of sin, it is no wonder that people fast not only with catechumens but with those who are undergoing canonical penance both of which fasts happen to reach its culmination at the same time, on Holy Thursday.
Might it not be coincidental that the communion fast, founded on a sense of the unworthinesss of the recipient, surfaces when there was more opportunity for recipients to be judged less than worthy? Augustine indicated many times that church attendance peaks at Holy Week and Christmas time. In the late fourth century, communions were becoming more common at Easter than other times. The freedom to participate as Easter- and Christmas-Christians occured only when persecution was long past.
At the same time elsewhere in Christianity, there are debates over the timing of the Eucharist and evidence of at least an individual sense of unworthiness.(34) Simultaneous preachers claim the universal custom of the communion fast. I would suggest that this is more than coincidence.
1. See the claims reviewed in Thomas Francis Anglin, The Eucharistic Fast: An Historical Synopsis and Commentary, diss. Catholic University of America, The Catholic University of America Canon Law series 124 (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of American, 1941).
3. See the discussion in Anglin, p.16.
4. Ad ux. 2.5; translation from ANF 4.46-47.
5. Tertullian, De orat. 14, and Augustine, Epp. 54 and 65; see the translator's note on Ep. 54 in Saint Augustine: Letters, trans. by Wilifred Parsons, Fathers of the Church 12 (New York: Fathers of the Church, 1951), p. 258, n. 18.
6. Pliny, Ep. 10.96 seems to attest to routine gatherings early in the day It is not entirely clear whether these are Eucharistic, but it is more clear that they are pre-prandium..
9. On the personal character of the stational fast, at least at Rome, see Veronika E.Grimm From Feasting to Fasting, The Evolution of a Sin: Attitude to food in late antiquity (London and New York: Routledge, 1996), pp. 246-247, n. 89.
10. Cyprian, Ep. 63.1-2, denying the biblical authority of hsi opponents for an evening sacrifice only or one with water only.. Cf. Frochisse for a denial fo thsi as evidence of eucharistic fasting, p. 604-605. Graeme Clark takes the letter as indicating the possibility tht the evenign sacrifice preferred by Cyprian might not have been uniform in North Africa even after the persecution: "The evening Agape may have vestigially continued in Carthage: at the end of the Ad Donatum, Cyprian refers to their forthcoming sober repast. . . . But he leaves us in no doubt that the major eucharistic ceremony was celebrated in the morning (in sacrificiis matutinis, ep. 63.15.1) . . . . However, in ep. 63.16.2 he has to argue for the appropriateness of the morning hour (the hour of resurrection) as opposed to the evening hour (of the Last Supper) for his daily celebration--implying that elsewhere the custom of Cyprian may not yet have prevailed." See Graeme Clarke, "Ritual Meals in Cyprian" at <http://ascc.artsci.wustl.edu/~chroma/euch:clarke.html>. If this is true, I would suggest that it remained a practice based on the possibility of a return of persecution, which did indeed happen, and in no way militates against the normativity of morning Eucharist at mid-third century.
11. See Tertullian, De ieiunio 8 and 10; cf. Grimm, p. 132.
13. Augustine, Epp. 36 and 236.2.
16. Ep. 54.8, translation from FC 12.258.
18. Concilium Hipponense A. 393 §4, in Concilia Africae A. 345 - A. 525, ed. by c. Munier. Corpus Christianourm Series Latina 149 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1974), p. 21.
19. On the editing of the records, see C. Munier "Prooemium" in CCSL 149.vii-viii.
20. Brevarium Hipponense 28: Ut sacramenta altaris nonnisi a ieiunis hominibus celebrentur, excepto uno die aniversario quo Cena Domini celebratur (CCSL 149.41); and Councilium Carthaginense A. 525: Temporibus sancti Aurelii [Augustine] concilio tertio: Ut sacramenta excepta quinta feria pascha nisi <a> ieiunis non celebrentur (CCSL 149.265).
21. J Patout Burns, "Death and Burial in Christian North Africa: The Literary Evidence," at <http://ascc.artsci.wustl.edu/~chroma/Burns.burial.html>. The relevant legislation is Brevarium Hipponense 28 (CCSL 149.41).
23. Augustine, Sermo 128 (PL 38.716)
24. Tertullian, Ad Scap. 4; Augustine, Ep. 111.
26. On dreams and revelations in North Africa, see Maureen A. Tilley, "The Passion of Perpetua and Felicity," iin Searching the Scriptures, vol. 2:A Feminist Commentary, ed. by Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (New York: Crossroad, 1994), especially, pp. 834-835.
27. Joseph A. Jungmann, The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development (Missarum Sollemnia), trans. by Francis A. Brunner, 2 vols. (New York: Benzinger, 1955), 2.368.
29. Grimm, p. 130 and 193, with citations.
30. See the discussion in J. Patout Burns, "The ritual of the eucharist," n. 45, citing Sermo 51.1.
33. "The Eucharistic presence," paragraph 1.
34. Anglin and J.-M. Frochisse, "À propos des origines du jeûne ecclesiastique," Revue d'histoire ecclesiastique 28 (1932), pp. 594-609, offer a wealth of evidence.