Article — Koch–Preuss
Article 2: In What Fasting and Abstinence Consists
- The law of fasting (ieiunium plenum) involves three points.
a) With regard to quantity, it permits but one full meal a day (unica per diem comestio).1
1 C. I. C., can. 1251, § 1.
The taking of but one full meal a day constitutes the essence of the strict fast. Were one to take several meals a day he could not be said to be fasting.
However, the law of fasting does not forbid the taking of some food in the morning and again in the evening, provided approved local custom be observed with regard to the quantity and quality of the food taken.2 Legitimate custom permits a collation (collatio vespertina) in the evening and a light breakfast (frustulum matutinum, ientaculum) in the morning. The noon and evening meals, i. e., the prandium and the collatio, may be reversed ad libitum.3
2 C. I. C., can. 1251, § 1.
3 C. I. C., can. 1251, § 2.
The fast is not broken by liquids which, per se, serve to satisfy thirst rather than hunger; but to consume excessive quantities of liquids, or to drink with a view to circumvent the law (in fraudem legis) would be sinful and contrary to the mind of the Church.4
4 J. B. Gury, Compendium Theol. Mor., Vol. I, n. 507: “The fast is not broken by a drink of water, wine, and other beverages which of themselves are ordered and commonly employed to quench thirst, although according to the first discipline of the Church Christians abstained altogether from wine and similar liquors. Hence the axiom: Liquid does not break the fast. By liquid, however, is understood only that which according to common usage is taken after the manner of drink, not after the manner of food, as milk,” etc.—Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 147, art. 6, ad 2: “That [fast of the Church] is broken only by those things which the Church intends to forbid in instituting the fast. But the Church does not intend to forbid the taking of drink, which is taken more for the alteration of the body and the digestion of foods consumed than for nutrition, although it nourishes in some way; and therefore those fasting are permitted to drink several times. But if someone uses drink immoderately, he can sin and lose the merit of his fast, just as if he consumes food immoderately in one meal.”—IDEM, ibid., ad 3: “Electuaries, even if they sometimes nourish, are nevertheless not principally taken for nourishment but for the digestion of foods. Hence they do not break the fast, just as neither does the taking of other medicines, unless perhaps someone fraudulently takes electuaries in a large quantity after the manner of food.”—IDEM, Comment. in Sent., IV, dist. 15, qu. 3, ad 4, dub. 1, n. 17.
The moralists are not agreed as to what constitutes a collation. Some permit the fourth part of an ordinary meal, whereas others allow but three or four ounces of food. St. Alphonsus5 permits from eight to ten ounces (an ounce being equal to thirty grains). To us it seems that no definite and universal rule can be set up in a matter of this kind, where so much depends on climate, temperament, physical constitution, and other factors, which vary in different persons and regions.6 Some men ordinarily eat two and three times as much as others and naturally find it more difficult to keep the fast. St. Thomas says: “The quantity of food can- not be the same for all men because of the difference of bodily constitution, on account of which one needs more food than another.”7
5 Theol. Mor., l. III, n. 1025 (ed. Gaudé, II, 405).
6 Cfr. A. Koch, “Zur kasuistischen Behandlung des Fastengebotes” in the Theologische Quartalschrift, Tübingen 1904, pp. 60 sqq.
7 Loc. cit.
The duration of the time for which fasting is prescribed must also be taken into consideration, and consequently a larger collation is permitted in Lent than on Vigils or Ember days.
As regards the amount of food permitted for the collation, those who are obliged to fast may eat as much as they deem necessary to enable them to fulfil their obligations, with due regard to bodily infirmity, exhaustion, and the nature of their work. No doubt, other things being equal, a priest who ministers to the spiritual needs of a large congregation may, even without a dispensation, take more food than one who works but little.8 To fasting, too, may be applied the words of St. Paul: “Who also hath made us fit ministers of the New Testament, not in the letter, but in the spirit. For the letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth.”9 In this sense a recent author justly observes: “As regards fasting we must be guided not only by the letter, but also by the spirit of the law, and beware against scrupulously weighing the amount of food permitted as well as against adopting the superficial view of those who put all the emphasis on the spirit and neglect the letter. The law should be observed both in letter and in spirit. As the letter killeth without the spirit, so the spirit departeth where obedience is not practiced.”10
8 Cfr. Th. M. J. Gousset and J. N. P. Oischinger, Moraltheologie, Vol. I, Schaffhausen 1851, pp. 126 sq.
10 J. Schmid, Lehrbuch der kath. Moraltheologie, 2nd ed., Ratisbon 1872, p. 362.
The interpretation and application of the law of fasting must be based upon the teaching of the Didaché: “Concerning food, bear what thou canst,”11 which, according to the common interpretation, means that every Christian should practice abstinence according to his ability and the circumstances under which he lives.12
11 Doctr. XII Apost., VI, 3 (Funk, Patr. Apost., Vol. I, 2nd ed., p. 16; Lake, The Apost. Fathers, I, 319).
12 K. Böckenhoff, Das apostolische Speisegesetz, pp. 22 sq.
It would be a useful undertaking, says Bishop Linsenmann, to determine the duration of the principal meal, the measure of the collation permitted, and the limits of the parvitas materiae; but it is impossible because the conditions of living and nutrition differ so greatly from house to house and from country to country. It would be too materialistic to gauge the value of different foods solely by the percentage of nourishment they contain. Eating is not merely the taking in of food, and fasting means something more than to endure hunger.13
13 Linsenmann, Lehrb. der Moraltheologie, pp. 384 sq.
To prevent misunderstanding, however, it is well to add that the speculations of casuists to determine the exact quantity of food permitted to those who are obliged to fast, if intended to serve not as a legal norm, but as a guide to the correct interpretation of the law, are unobjectionable, nay, may prove decidedly useful.14
14 A. Koch in the Theol. Quartalschrift, Tübingen 1904, pp. 60 sqq.
b) In regard to the quality of food, the law prescribes abstinence from flesh meat. Formerly the Church was much more exacting. The law of abstinence originally seems to have comprised all food-stuffs ministering to the maintenance of vigor. The so-called Apostolic Constitutions and the Didaché limit the Lenten diet to bread, salt, vegetables, and water. In course of time the pristine severity was relaxed. From the fifteenth century on, general indults were more frequently granted, and in the second half of the nineteenth century they were extended to almost every country.15 The New Code abolishes the so-called maigre strict by defining that “the law of abstinence forbids the eating of flesh meat and meat juice, but not of eggs, nor of milk products (lacticinia) and whatever condiments, even those made from the fat of animals.”16 This is a noteworthy departure from the ancient discipline, for many are the texts to show that the prohibition of flesh meat and of meat juice, blood, and grease always went hand in hand. On this point, too, as on others, the pia mater Ecclesia saw fit to introduce mitigations into her discipline at a comparatively early date. “For many centuries,” says Villien, “flesh meat and its by-products, juice, lard, and grease, have been differently treated. Many are the minute discussions of theologians on this matter; the most divergent opinions appealed to custom, until at last the Church restored peace and calm of conscience by many gracious indults.” Canon 1250 completes the development.”17
15 Villien, History of the Commandments of the Church, pp. 309 sq.
16 C. I. C., can. 1250.
17 Villien, op. cit., p. 304.
As for milk and eggs, they were excluded from the cibi quadragesimales until the ninth century, when a very sensible relaxation was made. A council of Angers (1365) tolerated the use of milk and butter in regions where fish and oil could not be easily obtained. While the great bulk of Christians still continued more or less faithfully to observe the prescribed abstinence from eggs and milk, at least in Lent, means were found to obtain legitimate dispensation for many. When, towards the end of the nineteenth century, the respective indults were extended almost throughout the Church, exemption was made in the case of butter and milk, not only for the principal meal, but also for the collation.
In regard to the quantity and quality of the food allowed for the collation, even under the New Code, local custom is decisive.18 The ancient prohibition of flesh meat and fish at the same meal (in eadem refectione) no longer exists.19
18 C. I. C., can. 1253, § 1.
19 C. I. C., can. 1251, § 2.—A marked distinction was made as early as the fifth century, in point of view of abstinence, between the flesh of fish and that of other animals. The reason for this difference was found in the mystical order. “The use of flesh and wine,” says St. Isidore of Seville, “was granted to man only after the deluge, and Jesus Christ said by the mouth of His Apostle: ‘It is good not to eat flesh and not to drink wine,’ and to be satisfied with vegetables.” But “since our Lord Himself used fish after His resurrection, we can eat of it, for neither the Saviour nor the Apostles have subsequently forbidden it.” (De Eccles. Officiis, l. I, c. XIV; Migne, P. L., LXXXIII, 777). On the strength of this reasoning the use of fish on fast-days and during Lent was formally permitted. The only point in doubt for some time was whether fish could be eaten at the collation. Would not this food give to the collation the character of a true meal? Under the influence of this consideration the first moralists who permitted the use of fish for the collation allowed only small fish, because their delicate flesh was considered as less nourishing. However, the distinction was too fine not to succumb to practice. To-day most moralists admit that the flesh of large fish taken in small quantities at the collation is no more opposed to the observance of fasting than the same quantity of small-sized fish. (Villien, History of the Commandments of the Church, pp. 311 sq.).
The distinction made between different foods from the point of view of fasting and abstinence, is based on the assumption that the forbidden foods contain more nourishment than the others and consequently heat the blood and incite the sensual inclinations more strongly than the so-called Lenten foods. This consideration also explains why the laws of the Church attribute greater importance to the act of abstention itself (continentia) than to the kinds of food upon which it is exercised (abstinentia) and why liquid beverages, as such, are not forbidden.20 Modern physiologists agree with their brethren of a bygone age that liquids, particularly spirituous liquors, contain but little nutriment, and therefore cannot be regarded as a substitute for solid food, except in a secondary sense, namely in so far as they aid in the assimilation of the coarser Lenten foods and render the pangs of hunger less acute. Consequently, the mild practice of the Church in regard to beverages does not run counter to the spirit of the law, provided, of course, that liquors are not used to excess, either absolutely or relatively, because they incite to sensuality.
20 “Liquidum non frangit ieiunium.”
The Council of Baltimore and many diocesan regula- tions counsel abstention from spirituous liquors where observance of the fast is impossible.
Besides liquid beverages (liquida) properly so called (water, wine, beer), there are the semiliquida, such as tea, coffee, chocolate, and what Italians call sorbetti, i. e., lemonade, fruit ices, etc. Most authors regard the latter as permissible because they are taken for their refreshing rather than for their nourishing qualities. The case is different with the fruits themselves, which are generally regarded as food.
The distinction between warm-blooded and coldblooded animals offers some difficulty. Fish, oysters, turtles, crabs, are not forbidden, and in some countries other animals which have some connection with water, are allowed.21
21 Sabetti-Barrett, Compendium Theol. Mor., p. 318.
In determining the quantity of food which constitutes materia gravis, moralists vary. Noldin estimates it at more than four ounces (120 grains), regardless of whether this quantity is consumed at one sitting or at different times in the course of a day, because several light lunches taken during the day coalesce into a full meal and thus constitute materia gravis, as is evident from proposition number 29 condemned by Alexander VII. According to this view, therefore, a sin is committed not only by taking more than one meal, but likewise by taking more than four ounces of food, either at breakfast, or at the evening collation, or at any other time of the day out- side the principal meal.22
22 Noldin, Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, p. 698.
What about the practice of taking a bite of solid food with a drink in order to prevent possible harmful effects (“ne noceat potus”)? Diana, Leander, and other authors regard this practice as permissible, but Ferreres observes that it cannot be allowed unreservedly because frequent snatches of food (toties quoties) would render the law of fasting nugatory and an object of mockery. But it is permissible to take a bite once or twice a day.23
23 Ferreres, Comp. Theol. Mor., Vol. I, p. 395; cfr. St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., n. 1018.
c) The unica comestio, i. e., the full meal allowed once every twenty-four hours on days of fasting and abstinence, is commonly taken after twelve o’clock. Though it should not be eaten until about noon24 no definite hour is prescribed. The collation is usually taken in the evening, but for any good reason may be taken in the morning and the ientaculum postponed till evening.25 The chief point to be kept in mind is that fasting essentially consists in taking but one full meal a day.
24 “Circa meridiem.”
25 C. I. C., can. 1251, § 2.
The mitigation of the ancient law in favor of a collation resulted from the increase of agricultural and industrial workers among the faithful. The full meal, which was originally taken at sundown, was now frequently served at noon, and this made it necessary to permit a light luncheon in the evening.
The custom of consuming a little dry bread with tea, coffee, or chocolate in the morning (ientaculum) and the occasional eating of a small quantity of food with liquid beverages, was long frowned upon by the ecclesiastical authorities, and they finally permitted it only out of consideration for those whom a weak constitution or poor health did not permit to fast rigorously. Now it has become a privilege granted to all.
- The law of abstinence (abstinentia sine ieiunio) forbids the use of flesh meat and meat juice on all Fridays of the year, except when Friday coincides with a holyday of obligation.26
26 V. supra, Art. 1, no. 2.
Flesh and wine were considered impure by the Gnostics and Manichaeans. Against these heretics the Church maintained that, in the words of our Divine Saviour, “not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man, but what cometh out of the mouth,”29 and, in the words of St. Paul, “every creature of God is good, and nothing [is] to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving.”30 She vigorously combatted the false asceticism of the above-mentioned sects, which was based on the belief that flesh meat and wine are bad in themselves because they are produced by a Bad Principle. That the laws of abstinence were not the result of superstition or error is plain from the fact that they originated with the Apostles, who, at the Council of Jerusalem, commanded the faithful to abstain from “things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled.”31
29 Matt. XV, 11; cfr. Mark VII, 15.
30 1 Tim. IV, 4.
31 Acts XV, 28 sq.
The saying of our Lord, “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man,” etc., has often been adduced as an argument against the ecclesiastical law of abstinence. This is a mistake. It is not the eating of forbidden food, as such, that is sinful, but the spirit of disobedience or gluttony or impenitence that inspires the act. “I do not fear the uncleanness of the food,” says St. Augustine, “but the unclean cupidity.”
Another Scriptural passage that is sometimes alleged against the law of abstinence is 1 Cor. X, 25–28, to wit: “Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, eat; asking no question for conscience’s sake. The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof. If any of them that believe not invite you, and you be willing to go; eat of anything that is set before you, asking no question for conscience’s sake. But if any man say: This has been sacrificed to idols, do not eat of it for his sake that told it, and for conscience’s sake.” The passage is somewhat obscure, but its meaning seems to be that the eating of meat that was offered as a sacrifice to idols is not sinful per se, because it does not necessarily entail a participation in heathen worship. Where such participation is involved, however, and scandal is given to others, it is forbidden to eat the meat.32
32 Cfr. J. McRory, The Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians, Dublin 1915, pp. 150 sqq.