Doubt IV: From what things one must abstain in the fast of the Church

FIRST, essential is abstinence from flesh meats, as far as Lent is concerned cap. Statuimus, dist. 4. Quoad caetera ieiunia, cap. de esu carn. de consec. dist. 3, and the Council of Gerona c. 3, and the perpetual tradition of the Church. So D. Bonaventure above, cir., and D. Thomas q. 147 art. 8.

Yet snails, tortoises, and fishes are granted, and animals that approach these more than they do land animals and birds, as Balaeus notes, verbo Ieiun. 1 num. 3, Bonacina disp. ultim. quaest. 1 puncto 2, Pasqualigo de ieiun. decif. 67.

In Lent eggs also are forbidden, because they are seminal. Denique, dist. 4, which is from D. Gregory the Great to Augustine in England, where he does not establish a new precept, but declares the old one. Therefore some speak badly who say it is forbidden by custom alone.

Likewise dairy foods are forbidden in Lent, unless a received custom otherwise admit, as the common doctors teach with D. Thomas quaest. 147 art. 8 ad 3. But use is duly introduced where there is a scarcity of oil. It is enough, however, if the custom endure for some years, in the judgment of upright men, as Tannerus says disput. 3 quaest. 3 dub. 5, warning that the same is to be observed in the other circumstances of fasting, setting forth the common sense from D. Augustine epist. 86 et 119, with D. Bonaventure in speculo animae, cap. 3.

In some places abounding in oil, dairy foods are forbidden even outside Lent, where the just customs are to be observed, as the Holy Doctor said with D. Jerome.

But where they are granted, lard or fat drippings is not admitted; for these approach flesh, whatever Diana may say part. 1 tract 9 resol. 21; Pasqualigo decif. 74. Indeed, rightly: to whom flesh is granted, these things also are granted, and eggs, etc. But one dispensed in Lent as to eggs remains bound by the fast; for these stand together with fasting, as Pius V declares in the Bulla Cruciatae. So Sylvester ad loc. cit., D. Thomas art. 4, Sanchez lib. 4 cap. 11 num. 49, Llamas 3 part. method. cap. 5 §. 26, Balaeus V. Ieiun. 1 num. 4.

SECOND, the one fasting must abstain from several refections, so that within the space of the natural day he be refreshed heavily but once. All agree with D. Bonaventure above and D. Thomas art. 6, apud Valentiam loco cit, and Balaeum num. 8.

It is so, however, that if outside that meal you drink broth or milk, you break the fast, but not if wine, as the common doctors teach with D. Thomas art. 6, D. Bonaventure in confess. cap. 2 particula 7, apud Valentiam and Balaeum.

They add, against D. Thomas 4 dist. 15 quaest. 3 art. 4 quaest. 1, Sylvius 1 2 quaest. 147 art. 6, that even if wine be drunk, so that hunger be driven off, it breaks the fast: Vega tract. 2 cap. 14 casu 2, Homob. de exam. part. 2 tract. 8 cap. 7 quaestio 20, Fillincinus cap. 2 tract. 27 part. 2 quaest. 10, Molfesius tom. 1 tract. 10 cap. 3 num. 25, Fagundez tract. 4 lib. 1 cap. 3, Diana p. p. tract. 9 resol. 23, Lezana V. Ieiun, Balaeus there num. 8. Yet the contrary is probable; and indeed even D. Bonaventure loco cit reprehends these potations.

Nor does a drink before the meal violate the fast. So commonly the teachers (TT). See Villalobos tom. 1 tract. 23 diff. 8, Homob. loco cit.

One may also, lest wine harm him, take some tiny thing, say 6 almonds, provided it not be done often in fraud; or something of a medicinal antidote may be taken. So Tannerus num. 90, Diana p. p. tract. 9 resol. 24, with others.

You will ask: Whether you sin as often as you eat much.

Diana answers resol. 53: sin is committed only in a second notable eating, by which the fast is broken. So also Villalobos tom. 1 tract. 23 diff. 6, Sanchius select. dist. 14 num. 42, Tannetus disp. 3 quaest. 3 dub. 5 num 95, bringing forward many against others who say one sins as many times. See also Bassaeum num. 10. If, however, you eat flesh meats, you will sin as many times, for these are forbidden without exception; but the precept or vow of fasting forbids only the breaking, which is done in the first eating. See those cited.

You will ask what smallness of matter excuses from breaking.

Diana part. 5 tract. 5 resol. 11, with Turrianus part. 5 cap. 256 dub. 27 and others, judge that two ounces are small matter.

This they grant also in the eating of flesh: Sanchez lib. 2 cap. 8 num. 17, Tannerus disp. 3 quaest. 3 num. 95, Bonacina disp. ult. de praecep. Eccles. quaest. 1 punct. 2, Diana part. 1 tract. 9 resol. 45 et part. 5 tract. 5 resol. 32, who says it is such as cooks taste. Pasqualigo, however, decis. 41, says it is that which does not suffice for nourishing.

It is DOUBTED: Whether one who interrupts his meal on account of business may return without breaking the fast.

Fagundez answers lib. 1 cap. 14 in 4 praecep. Eccles, Fernandez part. 2 cap. 8 §. 3, Toletus lib. 6 cap. 2, Bassaeus num. 15, Portel. V. Ieiun, and others apud these, that it is licit, provided he has departed with the mind of continuing, and this is true even if a notable delay intervene; which Portel. marks as half an hour, but Sanchius disp. 52 even two hours; better Reginaldus tract. 1 lib. 4 cap. 14 num. 177, Azor p. p. lib. 7 c. 11 quaestio 1, Diana resol. 32, who commit it to the judgment of a good man.

But if he depart with the mind of not returning, and a grave delay intervene: Diana, with others, asserts it is licit to return by changing the intention; others say it is licit if the delay be small, say a quarter or half an hour. See Portellum, Fernandez, Sanchium above, Bassaeum num. 15.

Although in the fast there is given only one notable refection, yet a collation is permitted even for nourishment, as the common doctors teach apud Bassaeum num. 9, Lublinum part. 2 sum. v. Ieiunium. Of this something must be said in the following doubts.

The Doctors heap up many questions concerning the occasion given to others of violating the fast. I shall indicate them in a few words.

Some say that he who is not bound by the fast may invite to supper a friend whom he knows to be accustomed to violate the fast. So Diana p. t. tr. 9 Resol. 58.

But this is to invite to sin, as Fagundez warns praecept. 4 lib. 1 cap. 10, Sylvius 2 2 q. 147 art. 5 quaestio unic, and others with Bassaeo num. 12.

Others say one may from courtesy invite a friend who will justly sup. See Pasqualigum decis. 573; for thus one is invited if it is licit, and to what is licit.

These courtesies seem to me pernicious; for to these is given the occasion of ruin.

HENCE innkeepers in the places of Catholics impiously give flesh to a guest bound [to fast], and are to be punished by law.

Likewise these men cannot set out flesh in places of heretics, if they can do otherwise without grave loss.

Nor is it licit for an innkeeper to set out a supper for guests by which they break the fast, if he can refuse it without great inconvenience.

But if they demand it in contempt of the precept, it is never licit. See Pasq. decis. 368, Bassaeum num. 13.

But in doubt whether the guest is bound, the innkeeper can provide for this, who is in possession of ministering, as Bassaeus says, who deservedly urges the innkeeper rather to ask the guest most politely whether he wishes to eat flesh?