On the Sixth Precept of the Church

"Whether, where clocks are used, accommodated to mean time, one must stand by these, both for satisfying the burden of the divine office and for satisfying the natural fast; or whether one ought, or at least can, use true time? - Resp. That one can follow mean time, but is not bound." S. Poenit. 29 Nov. 1882.

When the Neapolitan Syndic had prescribed that all Neapolitan clocks, with some private ones excepted, in indicating noon should take their rule from Roman mean time, it happens that midnight differs from the true not only by reason of mean time, but also by reason of the different meridian of each city, so that the difference sometimes not slightly exceeds a quarter of an hour. Hence the Eminent Cardinal Archbishop asked the Sacred Penitentiary: "These things having been considered, can the faithful at Naples, in observing the natural fast and other obligations of the Church, follow the clocks indicating the hours according to Roman mean time, or rather ought they to follow those clocks which mark true Neapolitan time? - Resp. To the first part, in the affirmative; to the second, in the negative." S. Poenit. 18 June 1873.

"Whether it can be permitted... that in the morning, on days of fasting, coffee or chocolate be taken in a small quantity with a little morsel of bread? - Resp. Those who follow such a usage are not to be disquieted." S. Poenit. 21 Nov. 1843.

"Whether, when either through the Bull of the Crusade, or for another cause, an Indult is granted for the use of melted lard (commonly strutto) under the sole title of condiment, those who are bound to fasting can use that condiment also in the evening refection? - Resp. That those who are bound to fasting can lawfully use, also in the evening refection, the condiments permitted in the Indult; because those, by force of the Indult, take the place of oil; provided that in the Indult there is no restriction placed, that they can be employed in the one meal." S. Poenit. 16 Jan. 1834.

"Whether in a concession of condiments (commonly di grasso) there is understood to have been granted the use of condiment from the fat of any animal whatever? - The Sacred Penitentiary responded: That only swine condiment is to be used."

"Whether on Fridays and Saturdays, on which condiments commonly called di grasso are indulged, meat broth can be employed? - The Sacred Penitentiary responded: Under the terms condiment di grasso there is not comprehended broth of cooked meat."

"Can children under family authority eat meats at a forbidden time, the faculty of this kind being presupposed in the parents, or in one of them; and in the affirmative case, can the children eat meats without offense of conscience, when they are found in the circumstance of preparing two dinners? - Resp. In the negative, speaking speculatively; but practically the Confessor is bound to judge." S. Poenit. 20 April 1865.

"Whether by force of the response of the Sacred Penitentiary (16 Jan. 1834) conceived in these words: Persons who are in the power of a head of household, to whom a legitimate faculty of eating meats has been granted, are permitted to use foods indulged to the head of household, etc., when the head of household has been dispensed, the others of the same family also ought to be understood as dispensed? - Resp. The Sacred Penitentiary has never declared that dispensations granted to the head of a family extend to the whole family; but only gave directions for confessors in the practical act concerning those who are under power and must eat foods given by parents."

1. Whether the same response of the Sacred Penitentiary, 16 Jan. 1834, "has force everywhere on earth? 2. When in the same response it is said that it can be permitted, it is asked by whom this permission is to be given, and whether permission given by a simple confessor suffices? - Resp. As regards the first, in the affirmative. As regards the second, that permission made by a simple confessor suffices." S. Poenit. 27 May 1863.

"The faithful who, by reason of affected health, are exempted from the law of fasting or of the one meal, can lawfully on those days of Lent on which eating meats is permitted by Indult, eat meats as often as they eat during the day." S. Poenit. 16 March 1882. Cf. Acta S. Sedis Vol. 14, p. 568; Vol. 1, p. 427.

Seven doubts proposed to Benedict XIV and solved by him, Letter to the Archbishop of Compostela, 10 June 1745.

"1. Whether those things which in Our aforementioned Letters in the form of a Brief are prescribed concerning the one meal, and concerning foods not to be mixed, are forbidden under grave precept also? - Resp. That those granting the faculty of eating meats at a forbidden time are bound under grave obligation to give the same faculties in no other way than with these two conditions added, namely of one meal in a day and of foods not to be mixed. But those who use faculties of this kind are bound under grave obligation to fulfill those two conditions."

"2. Whether those to whom it has been granted to eat meats can, in the little evening refection, eat that quantity of meat which is permitted to those fasting? Resp. It is not lawful; but they need that food, and must use that portion, which men fasting with an upright and careful conscience use."

"3. Whether those who during the time of fasting are permitted to eat meats and must use one meal need to observe the hour prescribed for those fasting? - Resp. That it must be observed."

"4. What are the lawful foods, which it is forbidden to join with those interdicted? - Resp. That the lawful foods for those to whom it has been permitted to eat meats are the meats themselves; that the interdicted foods are fish, and therefore both cannot be used at the same time. Yet those to whom only the faculty of using eggs and milk foods is given are not prohibited from eating fish."

"5. Whether the precept concerning not mixing each kind of food also embraces the Sundays of Lent? - Resp. That it does embrace them."

"6. Whether this law also pertains to those who from the Bull of the Crusade can eat eggs and milk foods? Resp. That nothing has been established in Our aforesaid Apostolic Letters which regards the gracious Diploma of the Crusade. Therefore those who enjoy it should weigh its tenor strictly and considerately, and should conduct themselves according to its meaning. But let them beware lest by some empty excuse they judge themselves to be released from the laws prescribed there."

"7. Whether the two mentioned precepts urge outside Lent? Resp. That each precept urges outside Lent; namely, that of one meal with the remaining laws expressed in the second and third response to these petitions; and the other of not mixing lawful foods with interdicted ones, as has been defined in the fourth petition."

Other Declarations of the Holy Office and of the Sacred Penitentiary

"Whether the obligation of not mixing fish with meat on the days of Lent reaches all who, by force of an Indult, can eat meats, or only those who fast? - Resp. In the affirmative as regards the first part, in the negative as regards the second part; and let the Decree of 24 March 1841 be given, namely to the doubt: Whether the law concerning not mixing lawful and interdicted foods also regards those who are not bound to the one meal, such as young persons before they have completed the third seven-year period, and others reasonably excused from the same because of impotence or labor; the Most Eminent Fathers decreed: It is not lawful." S. I. C. 23 June 1875. Cf. Gury-Ballerini, Vol. 2, n. 1107.

"That meats can be mixed with any species whatever of vegetables is beyond doubt." S. Poenit. 8 Feb. 1828.