ARTICLE III: ON THE HOUR OF THE MEAL

In our times, from universal custom, the meal is licitly taken almost about noon.¹

571. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Does the hour of the meal pertain to the essence of fasting, so that he sins gravely who notably, for example by an hour, anticipates it without grave cause?

Resp. The sentence which affirms is probable only according to St. Alphonsus.²

Quaer. 2° Is the fast broken if the little 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 even from this venial sin a reasonable cause, and the custom of the place or condition, excuses. Indeed in many places by present custom the little supper can be taken at the tenth hour in the morning, and the meal in the evening. The Response to question 1 among the Responses concerning fasting, p. L, agrees.

Quaer. 3° How long can dinner be prolonged?

Resp. Nothing absolutely can be determined concerning this; but it does not seem that without some fault it can be prolonged beyond two hours. - St. Alphonsus,³ Lacroix, Billuart, etc.

572. • Quaer. 4° Does he break the fast who interrupts the meal and, after an interval has elapsed, approaches it again?

Resp. 1° If the interruption is slight, for example of a sesquiquadrans, or even of half an hour, it lacks every fault, even if it is done without reason.⁴

2° If it is of one hour and without reason, the fast is judged morally interrupted.

3° If the interruption, even for one hour, is made from a just cause, for example for doing some business, it will be excused entirely from all fault.

But however great an interruption there may be for a just cause, there is no sin in returning to table when the preceding meal was not sufficient and the fast cannot be borne without grave inconvenience; because the Church never intends to obligate one to pass the day without sufficient refreshment.¹

Quaer. 5° Can he who has risen from table with the intention of eating no more sit again at the table?

Resp. In the affirmative, probably, if the fellow diners are still eating, or if a new dish is placed on the table which he did not know was to be placed, or if the interruption was slight. The reason is that it is still judged morally the same dinner.²

Quaer. 6° If someone in the morning, for the sake of a journey, has taken breakfast, is he bound to fast if afterward he does not set out?

Resp. In the affirmative, of itself. The reason is that, since the essence of the fast has not yet been destroyed, its obligation continues to urge. Yet make exception if, through that one eating, he cannot conveniently fast for the rest of the day.³