Doubt VI: On the hour of the meal on a fast day

OMITTING the outdated usages concerning the hour of the meal on fast days, the time is now set at midday, not before, except for a special cause, as Lessius notes from cap. solent , et Gloss. ibidem de consecr. dub. 7. lib. 4. cap. 2. dub. 2. Bellarm. lib. 1. de bonis operibus , in partie. cap. 2. Tannerus disp. 3. quaest. 3. dub. 5. num. 96.

THERE is, however, a question: whether anticipating the hour of the meal without necessity, by the mere will of eating, is mortal sin.

THE FIRST opinion is that anticipating it, even notably, is only venial. So Gabriel in 4. dist. 16. quaest. 3. art. 3. dub. 1. Angel. verb. Ieiunium , quaest. 2. after Monocent. Ioan. Andr. Archid. Ostiensem. So also Tannerus num. 46. Lessius n. 13. Molfesius tom. 1. tract. 10. cap. 5. Tolerus lib. 6. cap. 2. Villalob. tom. 1. tract. 23. diffic. 9. Fillincius tom. 2. tract. 27. part. 2. cap. 4. n. 70. Bonacina de legibus , disp. ult. quaest. 1. puncto 4. Fernand. exam. part. 2. cap 8. §. 3. Palatius in sum. Caiet. verb. ieiunium , Richardus in 4. dist. 15. art. 3. quaest 8. Diana part. 1. tract. 9. de Ieiun. resol. 27. citing others, and Bassaeus num. 16.

THE SECOND opinion is that it is mortal sin. So Fagundez praecep. 4. lib. 1. cap. 13. Reginaldus tom. 1. lib. 4. cap. 15. num. 191. Azor part. 1. lib 7. cap. 11. quaestio 4. Caietanus 2. 2. cap. 147. art. 7. Nauar. man. cap. 21. num. 27. Paludanus in 4. dist. 15. quaest. 4. art. 4. Couar. lib. 4. variar. cap. 20. Syluester verb. ieiunium , Homob. de exam. Ecclesiae , part. 1. tract. 6. cap. 10. quaest. 90. Ledesma tom. 2. tract. 17. dub. 4. Ioan. de la Cruz part. 1. praecep. 4. art. 4. dub. 8. Diana does not refuse it. This, on account of the authority of the Doctors, is highly probable, Bassaeus says.

THE OPINION of St. Bonaventure is given in speculo animae , cap. 3. in these words: Si tempore ieiunii , quod est in praecepto , cum hora comedendi secundum iura , et consuetudinem assignetur post meridiem , qui horam notabiliter anticipat sine causa , sola comedendi libidine , fraudem facit , nec tale ieiunium reputatur , ut si quis forte hora tertia comederet , et sic se impleret , quod tota illa die non esuriret. Qui autem fraudem facit legi , peccat in legem : Unde Chalcedonense Concilium ait : Nullatenus iudicandi sunt ieiunare , qui ante comedunt , quam vespertinum celebretur officium , quod tempore quadragesimali dicitur. But otherwise after None.

From which we have that he holds the second opinion, if the fraud is grave; and he does not posit the anticipation as notable, according to the second opinion, from which Molfesius posits one hour, Azor a quarter, Fillincius above half an hour, Fagundez half an hour; Diana says that religious, who have the privilege of anticipating one hour, can also anticipate half an hour without sin.

HE POSITS, therefore, that anticipating Vespers, which are said before midday, by at least half an hour, according to the Council of Chalcedon, and much more to gorge oneself in the morning, is a fraud of the fast.

THE ASSERTION is now evident from the Council of Chalcedon. It is proven by the reasoning of St. Bonaventure: for the law of the fast intends the mortification of the flesh, and to fill oneself in this way is against the form and end of the fast; whence the argument of the first opinion falls, that this is an accidental difference: Many Doctors, in Bassaeus num. 16. concede that one may dine one hour before midday.