§ I. On the one meal

556. Principles. - I. The one meal is the primary condition of fasting; for in this especially is situated its essence, and when this is removed, no one is ever said to fast, while on the contrary a fast is conceived without abstinence from flesh-meat and milk-products.

II. But small eatings which are done besides are venial sins when taken separately; but, if repeated more often on the same day, they can coalesce into grave matter, as is clear from Proposition 29 condemned by Alexander VII, p. XIV, and because otherwise fasting would be done away with.

III. The fast is not broken by a draught of water, wine, and other drinks which of themselves are ordered, and are commonly used, to quenching 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.¹ But by liquid is understood everything which, from the common estimation of the faithful, is held as drink, even if perhaps, as beer, it nourishes.²

557. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Does wine drunk for allaying hunger break the fast?

Resp. In the negative, more probably. The reason is that the law of fasting prescribes only abstinence from food, but not from drink, and according to St. Thomas³ "the statute of positive law does not attend to the intention of the one observing, but to the act itself, because the mode of virtue does not fall under precept, but is the end of the precept." - St. Alphonsus.⁴

Quaer. 2° Does a draught of coffee and tea break the fast?

Resp. In the negative, unless an excessive quantity of sugar is mixed in; because these do not have the nature of food, but of drink or medicine. - So the common sentence. - Moreover from custom it is permitted that in the morning with coffee or tea a little crust of bread (of two ounces) be taken. On this matter see the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary for Canada (z), p. 470.

558. • Quaer. 3° Does a draught of water mixed with sugar, or made from the juices of oranges or lemons, break the fast?

Resp. In the negative of itself, that is, unless you mix in a great quantity of their substance, which is judged to have the character of food. - So commonly. - The reason is that all these things from the common estimation are regarded as drinks. Moreover St. Alphonsus² grants that this very thing is licit even if these have been congealed by ice.

Quaer. 4° Does a drink of chocolate break the fast?

Resp. In the affirmative, if, rich as is the custom outside the time of fasting, it supplies nourishment to you. - But in the negative, if a moderate quantity of chocolate is taken, as is accustomed among us,¹ and is done only once in the day. The reason is drawn from general custom.² - What quantity can be taken? The holy Author says that not less than an ounce and a half of chocolate is accustomed to be put into ordinary cups; for thus, by a practice tolerated by the Church and observed commonly by pious faithful, it is accustomed to be done.

Quaer. 5° Is it licit to mix coffee and tea with milk?

Resp., as to the question concerning chocolate; for the same reason is valid here, yet preserving in Lent the law of abstinence from milk-products, unless derogation has been made from it by custom or dispensation has been granted in it.

559. • Quaer. 6° Is it licit on a day of fasting to taste some food, for example an ounce before drink, lest this do harm?

Resp. This certainly is not licit as often as one pleases, although Diana, Leander, and others also grant it; for then the law of fasting would be ridiculous. Therefore it can be permitted only once or twice in the day.³

Quaer. 7° Do electuaries break the fast?

Resp. Electuaries are those things which are made from selected things, for example from sugar and juniper, etc. But they are not judged illicit on fast-days if they are taken in the manner of medicine and in moderate quantity. Any reasonable cause suffices for excusing from all fault, for example for the digestion of foods, strengthening the stomach, tolerating the foul smell of the mouth, conserving the voice, and similar things. - St. Thomas,¹ Sporer, Elbel. - St. Alphonsus² adds that probably those also are excused who take something lest their strength fail, when they must delay dinner beyond the common hour. - Indeed the obligation of taking something will urge, if this is necessary for observing the fast. Namely, if by using this help you can bear a fast which otherwise you would not bear, the obligation itself of fasting requires of you that you use that help. See Croix.³ From this it is clear that certain men deserve entirely badly of fasting when, either under 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 small drink, with a little crust forbidden. For thus they effect this one thing: that many who otherwise would bear the yoke of fasting entirely cast it off.

560. • Quaer. 8° What quantity of food is judged slight matter, if it is taken outside the meal and the little supper?

Resp. A quantity of two ounces. So St. Alphonsus.⁴

Quaer. 9° Does he who culpably has taken a double meal sin gravely if he adds a third?

Resp. In the negative, at least more probably. The reason is that the precept of fasting urges in an indivisible way during the day of precept; hence he who has once violated it does not sin again and again by eating. Therefore, once mortal sin has been committed by violation of the fast, the whole law urging on that day has been violated. Therefore, etc. - St. Alphonsus,⁵ Mazzotta, Roncaglia, and others commonly.

Yet he who breaks the fast by eating forbidden flesh-meat or milk-products several times sins as often as he eats.⁶

561. • Quaer. 10° Is he who inculpably has taken a double meal in the day, once the error has been detected, bound under grave sin to abstain from a third?

Resp. In the affirmative, more probably. The reason is: because he harmed the fast only materially, not formally; wherefore, as soon as he adverts to the law of fasting, he is bound to observe it, as the rest do; otherwise he would violate it formally. So St. Alphonsus in the Homo Apostolicus,¹ who, on account of the observation alleged in the Vindiciae Alphonsianae,² p. LXXXVIII. 2., seems here to be preferred to the Larger Work,³ where the denying sentence is also called probable. Add that the holy Doctor in the work Conf. diretto per le conf. della gente di camp.⁴ reports only the affirmative sentence, while in the work Istr. e pratica pei confess. he only adds that he does not reprobate the denying sentence. Cf. p. LXXXIX. 4.

562. • Quaer. 11° What if on a fast-day you have taken breakfast inadvertently?

Resp. 1° If you have taken only a little, for example two ounces of food, you indeed ought from custom to fast, without leaving the meal and the little supper at the customary hours; for the fast was not substantially harmed.

2° If you have taken a quantity equivalent to the little supper, you must transfer dinner to the evening time, or abstain from the little supper itself, unless this falls to you into grave inconvenience.

3° Yet if a quantity of this kind was equal either to almost a double little supper or to the accustomed meal, you ought, having omitted dinner, to take only the evening little supper, yet take it earlier if you cannot wait without grave difficulty. Moreover you could increase this little supper according to the measure of necessity.