Section — Gury-Ballerini, Compendium of Moral Theology (8th ed., 1884)
§ I. On the One Meal
- Principles. - I. One meal is the primary condition of fasting: for in this chiefly its essence is situated; once this indeed is taken away, no one is ever said to fast, while, on the contrary, fasting is conceived without abstinence from flesh meats and milk products.
II. But small eatings which are done besides will be venial sins, taken separately, and if repeated rather often on the same day they can coalesce into grave matter, as is clear from Proposition 29 condemned by Alexander VII, which lies thus: "On a fast day he who rather often eats a little something, even if at the end he will have eaten a notable quantity, does not break the fast"; but this Proposition was deservedly condemned. Otherwise fasting would have been done away with.
III. The fast is not broken by a draught of water, wine, and other drinks which of themselves are ordered and commonly used for quenching thirst, although according to the first discipline of the Church Christians abstained completely from wine and similar liquids. Hence the axiom: Liquid does not break the fast. - Thus St. Lig., n. 1022. But by liquid is understood only that which by common use is taken in the manner of drink, not indeed in the manner of food, as milk, etc. - St. Lig., n. 1021.
- Questions. - Q. 1. Whether wine drunk for quieting hunger breaks the fast?
Resp. It is denied, more probably. The reason is that the law of fasting commands only abstinence from food, not however from drink; and according to St. Thomas, 4, dist. 15, q. 3, a. 4, q. 1, "The statute of a positive law does not attend to the intention of the observer, but to the act itself, because the mode of virtue does not fall under precept, but is the end of the precept." - St. Lig., n. 1022, and others commonly.
Q. 2. Whether the drinking of coffee and tea breaks the fast?
Resp. It is denied, more probably, unless too great a quantity of sugar is mixed in; because these do not have the nature of food, but of drink or medicine. - Thus more commonly. - St. Lig., n. 1022, speaking only of tea, says that, with the restriction just brought forward being posited, it more probably has the character of drink. It seems the same must be held concerning coffee.
- Q. 3. Whether the drinking of water mixed with sugar, or made from the juices of oranges or lemons, breaks the fast?
Resp. It is denied per se, that is, unless you mix in a great quantity of their substance which is considered to have the character of food. - Thus commonly with St. Lig., ibid. - The reason is that all these things, according to common estimation, are held as drinks 1.
1 St. Alphonsus (n. 1022, q. II) concedes that this same thing is lawful, even if these things are congealed by frost.
Q. 4. Whether a drink of chocolate breaks the fast?
Resp. It is affirmed, if, as is the custom outside the time of fasting, it provides you rich nourishment. - But it is denied if a moderate quantity of chocolate is taken and this is done only once in the day. The reason is drawn from general custom. - Thus St. Lig., n. 1023. - What quantity can be taken? The Holy Author says that not less than an ounce and a half of chocolate is usually put into ordinary cups; for thus, from the usage tolerated by the Church and kept by pious faithful, it is commonly accustomed to be done. But not a few, when the aforesaid quantity of chocolate has been lessened, substitute bread proportionally. But truly the total quantity of that food ought not to exceed the weight of two ounces, the water not being counted.
- Q. 5. Whether it is lawful on a fast day to taste some food before drink, lest the latter harm?
Resp. That certainly is not lawful "as often as," as they say, although Diana, Leander, and others concede this also; for then the law of fasting would be laughable. Therefore it can be permitted only once or twice in the day. - St. Lig., n. 1018.
Q. 6. Whether electuaries break the fast?
Resp. Electuaries are called those things which are made from selected things, for example from sugar and juniper, etc. But they are not considered illicit on fast days if they are taken in the manner of medicine and in moderate quantity. But any reasonable cause suffices for excusing from every fault, for example, for the digestion of foods, strengthening the stomach, taking away bad odor of the mouth, preserving the voice, and similar things. - St. Thom., 2. 2, qu. 147, art. 6. - Sporer. - Elbel. - St. Lig., n. 1010, adds that probably those also are excused who take something lest their strength fail, when they must defer dinner beyond the common hour. Indeed, there will be an obligation of taking something if this is necessary for keeping the fast 2.
2 Namely, if by using this aid you can bear the fast which otherwise you would not bear, the obligation of fasting itself requires from you that you use that aid. See Croix, lib. 3, part II, n. 1324. From this it is clear that certain persons act altogether badly toward fasting, while, either under the pretext of a custom which has not yet prevailed in their own province, they forbid the faithful to take anything in the morning, or they restrict this very thing to a mere little drink, biscuits being forbidden. For thus they accomplish only this one thing: that many who otherwise would bear the yoke of fasting cast it off altogether.
- Q. 7. What quantity of food is considered grave matter if it is taken outside the meal and the small supper?
Resp. It is disputed. Without doubt that matter must be considered grave which, added to the evening small supper, would make another meal. But certainly the quantity of two ounces is to be held as light matter 3. Not a few think the quantity equivalent to half of the small supper, or four ounces, to be grave matter.
3 Thus St. Alphonsus (lib. 3, n. 1025): "Since the Salmanticenses with Sanchez, etc., consider that two ounces in the little refection are not reputed a grave excess," etc.
Q. 8. Whether he who culpably took a double meal sins gravely if he adds a third?
Resp. It is denied, at least more probably. The reason is that the precept of fasting urges in an indivisible way during the day of the precept; therefore he who has once violated it does not sin again and again by eating. Therefore, once mortal sin has been perpetrated by violation of the fast, the whole law urging on such a day has been violated. Therefore, etc. - St. Lig., n. 1030 4. - Mazzotta, Ronc., and others commonly.
4 ** Thus St. Alphonsus (l. c.): "The second common and more probable opinion denies"; and the Holy Doctor deservedly says this against Croix (lib. 3, p. 2, n. 1265, whom Ferraris afterwards copied, v. Ieiunium, art. 1, n. 37), who says more rigorously that mortal sin is committed very probably. Yet from Croix the Holy Doctor took what Ferraris also had taken (l. c.), that it is the most common opinion that at least venial sin is committed. Thus he himself (l. c.): "Lessius, Filliuccius, and Croix with the most common opinion say that this is venial." But scarcely could anyone divine whence and on what foundation Croix came forth into that absolute assertion: "It must be held," he says, "with the most common opinion, that at least venial sin is committed." For Filliuccius (tr. 27, c. 2, n. 24), as Sporer also reports (append. to the 3rd Precept, sect. 1, n. 18), merely says: "it is probable that at least venial sin is committed." And Lessius (lib. 4, c. 2, n. 17): "It is credible that in a third and fourth eating there is some sin, at least venial." But does this equipment furnish a foundation for that absolute opinion, so that, moreover, it may be called most common? Indeed Reiffenstuel (tr. 10, dist. 1, q. 2, n. 20) says that the opposite is the more common, although he concedes that someone can sin against temperance by several eatings, which does not pertain to the matter. Thus also Mazzotta (tr. 2, disp. 1, q. 4, § 2): "Doctors commonly affirm that if after a double eating someone eats a third time, he does not further sin against the law of one eating." You may see the same also in Laymann (lib. 4, tr. 8, c. 1, n. 13). Otherwise, could Croix have suspected that the Doctors are to be thought to have admitted venial sin for this reason, because against certain few they set down the thesis that mortal sin is not committed? But the reasoning of the adverse thesis demanded this antithesis. It was all the less necessary for them to raise a question about at least some light fault, because the arguments brought forward by them excluded every fault. Palaus well concludes (tom. 7, tr. 1, disp. 3, p. 2, § 2, n. 8): "If the law forbids other eatings, there will be just as many grave sins; if it does not forbid them, there is no sin." Therefore sin can be committed against temperance, which does not bear on the matter, but not against fasting.
Yet he who breaks the fast by eating forbidden flesh meats or milk products many times sins as often as he eats. - St. Lig., Hom. apost., n. 20.
- Q. 9. Whether he who inculpably took a double meal in the day, when the error has been detected, or the excusing cause removed, is bound under grave sin to abstain from a third?
Resp. Certain authors affirm. The reason is that he has injured the fast only materially, not formally: wherefore as soon as he attends to the law of fasting, or sees that the excusing cause ceases, he is subjected to the same law and is bound, as the others, to keep it; otherwise he would violate it formally. - Thus probably Reuter, de Leg., n. 176. - St. Lig., Hom. apost., n. 20. Yet others more probably deny, because since the essence of fasting is situated in one meal, after a double meal the fast becomes impossible. - Recall the things said concerning Laws, n. 95.
- Q. 10. What if on a fast day you have inadvertently taken breakfast?
Resp. 1. If you have taken a little something, for example two, three, or four ounces of food, you ought indeed to fast according to custom, without abandoning the meal and the small supper at the accustomed hours; for the fast was not substantially injured 5.
5 Since the Author (above, q. 7) admits that, according to the opinion of many, which otherwise seems altogether to be held, the quantity of four ounces constitutes grave matter, it scarcely appears, indeed, how the fast is substantially kept by him who has taken four ounces of food; since these two things, namely to sin gravely against the law of fasting and to keep the fast as to substance, seem to cohere little. Perhaps someone would better say that the small supper is also not denied to you by reason of a certain necessity, and not as though these things per se injure the substance of the fast not at all.
- If you have taken a quantity equivalent to the small supper, you must transfer dinner to the evening time, or abstain from the small supper itself, unless this gives you grave inconvenience.
- Yet if a quantity of this sort was equal either to nearly a double small supper or to the accustomed meal, you ought, omitting dinner, to take only the evening small supper, yet taking it earlier if you cannot wait without grave difficulty. Besides, you could increase this small supper according to the measure of necessity.