Section — Konings, Theologia Moralis
S. Responses Concerning Fasting and Abstinence from Meats
1° To the question: Whether on days of fast the time of eating can be inverted, by taking the evening little refreshment between the tenth and eleventh morning hour, but by deferring dinner to the fourth or fifth evening hour?
The Sacred Penitentiary (on January 10, 1834) judged that it should be answered: If some reasonable cause for the aforesaid inversion exists, penitents who use this custom are not to be disturbed.
2° To the question: Whether fathers of families, when in the family there is someone dispensed from the law of abstinence from meats, can extend the dispensation indiscriminately to all persons of the family? (Latin version from the Italian exemplar.)
The Sacred Penitentiary judged that it should be answered: Infirmity and any other reasonable impediment whatsoever, by the counsel of both physicians, but not gluttony, avarice, or generally a saving of expenses, can exempt from the precept of abstinence on days of fasting.
3° To the question: Whether, when a father of a family dispensed from the law of abstinence from meats in the time of Lent cannot or does not wish foods of both kinds, namely fasting foods and meats, to be prepared, his children or household members can eat meats? (From the Italian exemplar.)
The Sacred Penitentiary (on January 16, 1834) judged that it should be answered: It can be permitted to persons who are in the power of the father of a family to whom a legitimate faculty of eating meats has been given, to use the foods indulged to the father of the family, with the condition added concerning not mixing licit and forbidden dishes, and concerning one eating in the day for those who are bound to fast. The reason of this permission, however, is not the Indult conceded to the father of the family, but the impotence in which the children of the family are placed of observing the precept. Thus declared the Sacred Penitentiary, May 27, 1863. - See the periodical Revue catholique de Louvain, July 1863. Likewise, Correspondance de Rome, October 17, 1863.
4° To the question: Whether the faithful exempt from the law of fasting on account of laborious arts, in the time of Lent, when the eating of meat and milk foods is permitted to all at one meal, can eat meats and milk foods several times in the day, not otherwise than on Sundays of the same Lent, on which the obligation of fasting does not press? (From the Italian exemplar.)
The Sacred Penitentiary (on January 16, 1834) answered: The faithful who by reason of age or labor are not bound to fast can licitly in Lent, when an Indult has been conceded, on all days comprehended in the Indult, eat meats or milk foods permitted through the same Indult, as often as they eat during the day. This, however, does not hold in a diocese whose Bishop by apostolic authority concedes to the faithful that on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday of the time of Lent they can once in the day eat meats and eggs; but permits those who by reason of age or labor are not bound to fast that they may use eggs more often in the day. Thus declared the Sacred Penitentiary, May 27, 1863. - See the periodical Revue catholique de Louvain, July 1863. Likewise, Correspondance de Rome, October 17, 1863.
5° To the question: Whether those who by reason of age or labor (on account of parity of reason I add: or of infirmity) are not bound to fast, are subject to the law concerning not mixing dishes of meat and fish when through an Indult meats are permitted.
The Sacred Penitentiary (on February 13, 1834) answered: Let each consult approved Authors. [This controversy is now ended through the affirmative Response of the Holy Office, June 23, 1875. (m) p. 471.]
Appendix annotation (η), to p. LI. A doubt was proposed by the Bishop of Bayonne, whether the obligation of not mixing fish with flesh-meat on days of Lent touches all who by force of an indult can eat meats, or only those who fast. On June 23, 1875, in the General Congregation of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition, held before the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lord Cardinals General Inquisitors, when the above-written Doubt had been proposed, and the vote of the Lord Consultors had been had beforehand, the same Most Eminent and Most Reverend Fathers ordered that reply be made: Affirmatively as to the first part, Negatively as to the second part; and let the Decree of March 24, 1841 be given, namely to the Doubt, Whether the law of not mixing permitted and forbidden foods also regards those who are not held to one meal, such as young persons before they have completed their twenty-first year, and others reasonably excused from the same on account of inability or labor; the Most Eminent Fathers decreed: It is not lawful. Notes to preceding text - printed sequence 1. 1 3. q. 68. art. 11, ad 3. | 2 Ib. | 3 L. VI. 106.
Notes to preceding text - note sequence 1.
1 P. I. n. 403. 2°. 4°. 9°. 10°.
Notes to preceding text - note sequence 2.
1 L. VI. 300 sub 4. Sab. | 2 Ib. | 3 Ib. sub 2.
Notes to preceding text - note sequence 3.
1 Ser. 4. col. 2280 sv. | 2 L. VI. 300 sub 1. | 3 Acta, T. I. p. 429. n. 17. | 4 L. IV. 738-740.
Notes to preceding text - note sequence 4.
2 T. II. n. 440. | 3 T. II. n. 440. | 4 Art. 1559-1569. | 5 Conc. Prov. S. Franc. I. n. XVI.
6° To the question: Whether the faithful dispensed from the law of abstinence on Fridays and Saturdays, during the year, when the obligation of fasting does not press, can eat fish together with meats? (From the Italian exemplar.)
The Sacred Penitentiary (on February 15, 1834), the proposed doubt having been diligently weighed, and a report having been made to the Most Holy Lord Gregory XVI, by command of His Holiness, answered: It is permitted.
7° To the question: Whether on days of fasting in the time of Advent, prescribed by Pius VI, yet with milk foods permitted, to him to whom the eating of meats is lawful on account of infirmity, the promiscuity of meat and fish is forbidden?
The Sacred Penitentiary (on January 8, 1834) answered: In the affirmative, namely that promiscuity of this kind is not lawful.
8° To the question: Whether, under the law of forbidden mixing with meats, there are comprehended little fish dried with salt, or anchovies (French anchois, Italian acciughe, alici, English anchovy, sardine), herrings (French harengs, Italian aringhe, English herring), and other things similar to these; or whether they can be mixed after the manner of a seasoning of another dish?
The Sacred Penitentiary (on January 10, 1834) answered: Fish dried with salt ... are forbidden to be mixed with meats, whenever the mixing of meat and fish is forbidden.
9° To the question: Whether in the time of fasting, to him to whom the eating of meats is lawful, it is lawful to mix sea shellfish, which are improperly called fruits of the sea, but commonly are judged fish, that is, oysters (French huitres, Italian ostriche, English oysters), crabs (French ecrevisses, Italian gambari, granchi, English crawfish)?
The Sacred Penitentiary (on January 16, 1834) answered: Sea shellfish, which are improperly called fruits of the sea, but commonly fish, are forbidden to be mixed with meats whenever the mixing of meat and fish is prohibited.
10° To the question: Whether those dispensed from the law of abstinence from meats can, on days on which the obligation of fasting presses, for reason of health, eat only broth seasoned with meats, and for the rest eat fasting foods (as others who can eat fish), in order to observe the law of abstinence insofar as can be done? (From the Italian exemplar.)
The Sacred Penitentiary (on February 8, 1828), the things set forth having been attentively considered, answered: In the affirmative.