§ II. On the Evening Collation

Besides the accustomed meal it is lawful, from universal custom introduced for many centuries and tolerated by the Church, indeed also tacitly approved, to take toward evening a little refection from lighter foods. - Thus all.

497. Questions. - Q. 1. What quantity of food can be taken in the small supper?

Resp. From present-day and common custom, about eight ounces of food can be taken, at least speaking ordinarily. - Thus St. Lig., n. 1025. - But others say that a fourth part of the supper must be permitted ¹. But this doctrine is too vague or liable to scruples. - The quantity of eight ounces seems to be denied to no one, but a greater quantity is to be conceded to those for whom this would not suffice. - St. Lig., ibid. - Elbel, Lacroix. Certainly a completely fixed rule cannot be established, since regard must also be had to constitution, duties to be performed, the duration of the fast, etc. In general it is lawful to take as much as one judges necessary for avoiding indisposition which would impede him from performing his duties fittingly. - Scav., Gousset. Regard must also be had to one's own region, if in some place a greater quantity of food is necessary.

¹ ** It must be carefully noted here that under the name supper among Authors, where they treat of fasting, there comes dinner, or that one eating which is kept by those fasting. Hence Azor (lib. 7, c. 8, q. 3): "The Church wills that we dine at a certain time and not before, or rather that we sup." And (chap. 21, q. 5): "The fast day consists of a supper, not a dinner." And Struggl (tr., q. 2, art. 2, n. 25) for this reason calls that refection the midday supper; because evidently (ibid., n. 27) formerly the hour of refection in Lent was in the evening; likewise Holzmann (part 3, tr. 1, n. 23) calls it the midday supper. See also Lessius (lib. 4, chap. 2, n. 11), Reiffenstuel (tr. 10, dist. 1, q. 2, n. 27), Ferraris (v. Ieiunium, art. 1, n. 46), Sporer (app. to the 3rd Precept, sect. 1, n. 20), Giribaldi (tr. 8, chap. 3, n. 58), Sanchez (consil., lib. 5, c. 1, dub. 25, n. 2), Valentia (tom. 3, disp. 9, q. 2, p. 3), Tamburini (lib. 4, c. 5, § 3, n. 1), Croix (lib. 3, p. 2, n. 1277), etc., etc. From this, what by the Author is called the fourth part of supper is also customarily called the fourth part of dinner, or of eating, or of refection. Thus, for example, Pichler (lib. 3, tit. 46, n. 6): "Very many permit the fourth part of a just dinner or complete and full supper." Thus also Reuter (part 2, tr. 3, q. 3, n. 174): "That it is lawful for anyone to take a fourth or fifth part of dinner, or of a just refection." And Gobat (Quin., tr. 3, chap. 28, n. 208): "Custom permits, at least in Germany, that the doctrine of Filliuccius, Reginaldus, and Laymann be practiced, who hand down that for the evening little refection as much can freely be eaten from permitted things as equals the fourth part of a just dinner."

Moreover, if you listen to Reginaldus (lib. 4, n. 185), the supper or dinner whose fourth part is conceded is understood as the supper or dinner of one fasting. Thus he says: "Let him beware excess, which I would say ordinarily happens when that which is taken is notably greater than a fourth part of those things which would suffice for one fasting for his ordinary supper." Concerning this matter they add generally that account must be taken of regions. For, says Reginaldus (l. c.), some regions are hotter or colder than others; where, adds Wagemann (part 2, tr. 2, chap. 4, n. 51), "from the severity of the air there is a greater appetite for food, and men are more laborious, and there is not so much strength of food and drink." Concerning this also the Salmanticenses (tr. 23, chap. 2, n. 71): "Others concede more to those inhabiting cold provinces than to those dwelling in temperate regions."

But from this, this rule seemed exposed to relaxations to the Salmanticenses themselves (ibid.), and after them also to St. Alphonsus (lib. 3, n. 1025). And in fact, as Tamburini notes (l. c.), from this rule it follows that if you are accustomed to take twenty ounces at supper, you can take five; if forty, ten. But because, he adds, the supper of men is commonly scarcely accustomed to ascend to thirty-two ounces, therefore those who concede eight ounces do not seem to recede far from this rule. Yet Diana also, after he said of this opinion (tom. 4, tr. 6, res. 116, n. 3): "I consider the fifth opinion too lax," renders the reason (ibid., res. 119, n. 1), saying: "Nor is it safe in practice, because by eating it understands the midday supper; and whatever it understands, it is most false, because in these eatings men commonly take so great a quantity that the fourth part is a notable quantity: I call the Spaniards, the Gauls, the Flemings, the Germans as witnesses." Otherwise Diana conceded eight ounces. But indeed Holzmann will reply (l. c.): "I ascend into the opinion of Laymann, Filliuccius, Reginaldus, Sporer, and very many others, who judge that a fourth part of the ordinary supper... is rightly established as a moderate quantity, this being judged not mathematically but morally... for such also it was held by the common consent of theologians in a certain celebrated Academy consulted about the matter, as Filliuccius testifies." And since Gobat at the same time testifies, as we have seen above here, that this is the custom of Germany, Holzmann concludes (l. c.) that the custom which introduced the evening little refection introduced, besides the quantity, also the quality of food lawfully to be taken in it; and therefore those obliged to fast can, and respectively must, accommodate themselves to it. Concerning this matter St. Alphonsus also says (l. c.): "But here before all things it must be noticed that especially in these things the custom of places must be attended to, as Cajetan and others everywhere well notice: for it is certain that where there is question of custom, both concerning fasting and concerning all other laws of the Church, which no one denies can be derogated by custom, the authority of more recent Doctors, although fewer, who alone can testify concerning a later modern custom, must be made more of, and without doubt be preferred to the authority, even though more common, of ancient authors, who could know nothing concerning a custom to be introduced afterward. But when authors testify concerning some custom, one must believe that they did not assert this rashly and without sufficient foundation." But to Diana, Sporer (app. to the 3rd Precept of the Decalogue, sect. 2, n. 26) thus responds: "This is the received opinion of Doctors in Germany: although the Authors cited by Diana, Turrianus and others, proclaim it too lax, improbable, and less safe in practice. Let them send to Germans during the time of fasting their warm sky, rich food and wines, fruits and conserves, etc., and we will fast with them."

498. • Q. 2. What excess is considered grave in the small supper?

Resp. All agree that an excess of two ounces is light matter. - St. Lig., ibid. - The more severe with Concina teach that an excess surpassing two ounces is grave. Not a few require an excess above the small supper equivalent to another half-small-supper; others hold with Billuart that there is required an excess which, taken separately, would wholly equal the small supper ².

² Perhaps you would say that this opinion is not altogether undeservedly somewhat laxer.

In various places, from introduced custom, on the vigil of the Nativity, or on the supper of the Lord, it is lawful to take a quantity twice as great; but this custom is not in force everywhere.

Q. 3. What quality of foods can be used in the small supper?

Resp. Bread, any fruits, also any vegetables, and sweet foods of various kinds. But above all the custom of places must be kept. For more things are permitted in various dioceses or provinces which are forbidden elsewhere: thus, for example, in France and elsewhere generally it is lawful to eat cheese.

499. • Q. 4. Whether it is lawful to eat eggs and butter in the evening small supper?

Resp. It is denied generally, although a dispensation for milk products is had, as is clear from the Decree of Bened. XIV and Clem. XIII. Nevertheless in certain places, as we have said, from present-day custom it is lawful to take some butter or cheese; but eggs are by no means permitted, because they are of the greatest substance, and therefore are rejected by custom, says St. Lig., ibid. ³. - See the things to be said n. 504. - St. Lig., n. 1027.

³ ** But that even this depends on custom according to the diversity of places is clear from the things which Sporer has with regard to Germany (append. to the 3rd Precept of the Decalogue, sect. 2, n. 32): "Considering," he says, "modern custom, especially in our Germany already long tolerated and plainly prevailing, I think... that the opinion is altogether probable and safe... that in the evening collation of fasting, the quality of foods must not be attended to, but only quantity: so that from all foods which can lawfully be taken at dinner on a fast day, even fish, legumes, cakes, eggs, milk products, etc., it is also lawful to take them at supper. Cajetan, Bonacina, and our Peter Marchant expressly teach this, and he expressly says: I answer that in the evening little collation there is not to be dispute about the quality of food, but only about the quantity. Nor otherwise Holzmann (part 3, n. 23): In colder regions, especially of our Germany, the present-day custom obtains that attention is not given to the quality of fasting foods, but only to quantity, so that we lawfully take in the evening collation any foods whatever which we lawfully take in the midday supper, provided the due discretion of quantity is kept. Hence little broths cooked from wine or beer, bread, herbs, fruits, etc., seasoned with oil or butter, are lawfully set out and eaten; likewise fish, legumes, eggs, cakes, etc., whether they are cold or hot."

And to this indeed pertains the fact that Sporer (l. c.) complains amicably of Laymann, because he departed from the rule customary among Germans. "I marvel," he says, "that Father Paul Laymann, otherwise so good a German, in this matter alone was so austere to his countrymen."

Q. 5. Whether fish are permitted in the small supper?

Resp. It is affirmed if there is question of small fish, especially dried, and probably also of larger fish; yet St. Lig., n. 1208, thinks that a weight of two or three ounces from these should not be exceeded. - St. Lig., n. 1208.

500. • Q. 6. Whether it is lawful in the small supper to use a little broth from herbs cooked with water, vinegar, oil, or boiled wine?

Resp. It is affirmed probably, unless custom is certainly opposed ⁴: then neither water nor wine are to be counted in the weight; but that which does not have the character of drink must be counted according to Viva, for example, oil. - St. Lig., n. 1209, and others.

⁴ It scarcely appears in reality why one must be doubtful about these; and since a very small part of oil is added, Viva's observation and others of that sort seem lighter than that either a theologian should seriously linger over them, or a Confessor should inquire scrupulously, all the more because minute investigations of this kind smell rather of the Jewish spirit than of the spirit of the Church.

Q. 7. Whether it is lawful to take in the small supper bread cooked with water and oil, or brothy bread (in French: potage)?

Resp. It is affirmed, from present-day custom, which even the timorous follow, and which more recent theologians commonly approve. - Nevertheless, according to St. Lig., n. 1209, it is not lawful to take eight ounces of bread cooked with water, with this water not counted. The reason is that bread through cooking and fermentation with water acquires another nature, so that from these something one is made, and it becomes one greater substance.

But it can be conceded, says St. Liguori, that during the meal itself someone dips bread in water or wine, and thus also takes eight ounces of bread soaked in wine; since here no fermentation intervenes, and the liquid, since it serves only as a vehicle, is not counted.

501. • Q. 8. What quantity of bread cooked in this way can be permitted, with the water not counted?

Resp. Theologians disagree; for some, more severely, deny that it is lawful to exceed eight ounces. More severely, I say; for if one ounce of bread cooked in ten ounces of water with another ounce of oil were lawful, what scruple would there be in permitting these twelve ounces? But others, laxer, concede eight ounces of cooked bread, with the water not counted. But by reason of cooking and fermentation of this sort, you have something one of food, which certainly nourishes more than bread alone; therefore one cannot at least wholly abstract from the water. We choose the middle opinion, namely that five or at least four ounces of cooked bread can be permitted, with neither water nor oil counted. - Thus probably. - Salmant., c. 2, n. 77. But St. Lig., n. 1029, says that he does not disapprove this opinion. The same likewise must be said of other cooked things which are likewise usually set out in the small supper, for example, from spelt, rice, etc.