Article — Gury-Ballerini, Compendium of Moral Theology (8th ed., 1884)
Article III. On the Hour of the Meal
In these our times, from universal custom, the meal is lawfully taken almost at midday. - St. Lig., n. 1016. - Hom. apost., n. 9.
- Questions. - Q. 1. Whether the hour of the meal pertains to the essence of fasting, so that he sins gravely who notably anticipates it?
Resp. It is disputed. There is a twofold probable opinion. St. Lig., Hom. apost., n. 21, and many others affirm. But Laymann, Elbel, and not a few others deny. The practice consonant with the first opinion seems to be preferred, unless the legitimate custom of places permits otherwise 1.
1 You have in these words the opinion of the Author; which nevertheless takes away nothing from the probability of the second opinion, even as to practice.
Q. 2. Whether the fast is broken if the small supper is taken at midday, but the meal in the evening?
Resp. It is not broken essentially, and therefore if it is done without cause, it does not exceed venial sin. But a reasonable cause, and the custom of the place or of the condition, excuses even from this venial sin. Indeed in many places from present-day custom the small supper can be done at the tenth hour in the morning, and the meal in the evening.
Q. 3. How long can dinner be prolonged?
Resp. Nothing can be determined absolutely about this; but it does not seem that it can be prolonged beyond two hours without another fault 2. - St. Lig., n. 1020, Hom. apost., n. 10. - Lacroix. - Billuart, etc.
2 St. Alphonsus adds (lib. 3, n. 1020, q. V): "Indeed Elbel with Gobat concedes up to three or four hours, at least for Germany according to their custom; but Croix deservedly doubts whether this custom is approved, unless, as he says, after about two hours only sweets or lighter foods are set out...; and this I neither approve nor reprove."
- Q. 4. Whether he breaks the fast who interrupts the meal, and after an interval has elapsed approaches it again?
Resp. 1. If the interruption is light, for example of one quarter-hour, it lacks every fault, even if it is done without reason. - St. Lig., ibid.
- If the interruption is of nearly one hour without reason, it does not lack some light fault, as it seems.
- If the interruption is very notable, for example of two hours, it cannot be excused from grave sin, because it cannot be called one meal, unless a just cause excuses.
But if the interruption is had for a grave cause, it is no sin to return to the table, even with a notable delay interposed, when the present meal was not sufficient; because the Church never intended to oblige one to pass the day without a sufficient meal. - St. Lig., n. 1020.
Q. 5. Whether he who rose from the table with the intention of eating no more can again recline at table?
Resp. It is affirmed probably if the fellow-guests are still eating, or if a new dish is set on the table which he himself did not know was going to be set on. The reason is that it is still morally considered the same dinner. - St. Lig., n. 1020.
Q. 6. If someone in the morning, for the sake of a journey, took breakfast, whether he is bound to fast if afterward he does not set out?
Resp. It is affirmed per se. The reason is that since the essence of the fast has not yet been destroyed, its obligation continues to urge. Except, however, if by that one eating he cannot conveniently fast for the rest of the day. - St. Lig., ibid. - See Cases, on fasting and abstinence, from n. 458 to n. 467.