§ 2. On One Meal

1226. PRINCIPLES. I. "By the moderation of the Church it has been established that those fasting eat once in the day." Thus St. Thomas (2. 2, q. 147, a. 6). In this, as we noted above, consists the essence of fast.

Hence: 1. He who SEVERAL TIMES eats some little thing outside the meal sins mortally when he has come to a notable quantity. It is established from proposition 29 condemned by Alexander VII: "On a day of fast, he who several times eats some little thing, even if at the end he has eaten a notable quantity, does not break the fast."

But it is permitted to take a little food, for example an ounce, for driving away weakness, as is commonly taught. Some permit this as often as one must drink, lest the drink harm; but this, as others rightly say, scarcely can be permitted once and again in the day (H. Ap., XII, 11).

2. He who without cause INTERRUPTS the meal for a notable time, for example for an hour, no longer preserves the form of fast.

Nevertheless: a) With cause, it is licit to interrupt the meal for an hour; indeed, some concede up to two hours: but this is licit by right and deservedly, says Holzmann, only when someone has not been refreshed by sufficient food, and cannot tolerate the fast without grave inconvenience: then he can resume the meal, because the Church never intended to oblige someone to pass the day without sufficient refreshment. b) Without cause, and although someone had finished the meal, he can eat again if the table-companions continue to dine, or if other dishes which were not expected are brought to the table; because the same meal is still morally judged to endure. Indeed it is generally conceded that another food can be taken after one and a half quarters of an hour (III, 1020; H. Ap., XII, 10).

3. He who PROTRACTS the meal immoderately likewise offends the law of fast.

Probably, however, it is licit to protract it up to two hours; others, with Elbel, admit up to three or four hours, at least for Germans, with attention to

their custom, which St. Alphonsus neither approves nor disapproves (III, 1020, q. 5). But he adds with Cuniliati: "To protract the meal to several hours, if it is not done in fraud of fast, is not mortal" (Istruz., XII, 10, fin.).

1227. II. The law of fast permits several times taking those things which have the nature of true drink or medicine. The axiom is known: "Liquid does not break the fast." It is said: several times, that is, indeterminately, both outside the meal and the double little refreshment; nor do those things which are taken coalesce. But by liquid is understood only that which, from common sense, is taken by the mode of drink only, for quenching thirst or by the mode of medicine; but not that which is taken by the mode of food, for quenching hunger and nourishing the body, as milk, juice of fruits, broth, etc. (III, 1021).

Hence: 1. Wine is not prohibited; although the faithful, in the first times of the Church, abstained from it. If it nourishes someone, this is per accidens and therefore it does not break the fast, although it is drunk for quenching hunger; for intention does not change the nature of the act, nor does it fall under the precept (H. Ap., XII, 13). Wine to which soluble principles of meat would be mixed is without doubt permitted, since it is a true medicine.

2. Beer is not prohibited, nor drink of coffee or tea, or even water mixed with sugar, or made from the juices of oranges or lemons; unless too much milk, sugar, etc., is mixed in; because, with the restriction posited, these and similar things do not have the nature of food, but of drink or medicine. Nor does it matter if they have been frozen: for freezing does not change the nature of the thing (ib., 14).

3. Whey is not prohibited; for it is held as drink or medicine (Muller, Theol. mor., II, § 165, 7).

4. Electuaries or confections made from choice things (for example from sugar and juniper) are not prohibited if they are taken in moderate quantity on account of a reasonable cause, for example for helping digestion, for preserving the voice, for taking away odor of the mouth, and other things of this kind. Thus commonly with St. Thomas (2. 2, q. 147, a. 6, ad 3). See St. Alph., III, 1019; 1. El. qq. ref., n. 42.

5. Whether the drinking of chocolate is prohibited is more disputed. St. Alphonsus indeed denies that chocolate can be regarded as drink, because it truly nourishes; but nevertheless he permits drinking it, by reason of custom, once in the day, and in moderate quantity, if namely one ounce and a half (44 gr.) of chocolate with water is placed in ordinary cups.⁰¹ But milk cannot be mixed in, unless this is conceded through dispensation concerning milk-foods: in which case account of it must be had in the weight of the food.

It must be observed: a) If someone uses drink immoderately, he sins against the end of the precept, and easily loses the merit of the fast, as St. Thomas warns (2. 2, q. 147, a. 6, ad 2). b) If someone can, by applying the aid of a drink of coffee, chocolate, etc., tolerate a fast which he otherwise would not tolerate, he is held, by the law itself of fast, to apply that aid, even if such a custom has not yet prevailed in his province (Croix, III, P. 2, n. 1325).

1228. III. It is licit to take, on days of fast, in the morning a little refreshment, and, toward evening, a little supper. The first is established from the Response of S. Poenit., 21 Nov. 1843, and from almost universal use. The second was similarly introduced by custom. "There is no doubt for anyone," says St. Alphonsus (H. Ap., XII, 16), "that in antiquity fast was observed more rigorously; but, according to modern discipline, the little evening refreshment is admitted by all."

In these matters attention must be given to what custom permits, both concerning the quantity and concerning the quality of foods.

Further: 1. Concerning the QUANTITY conceded in the little refreshment, use teaches that only two ounces are licit. As regards the little supper, "the opinion commonly accepted today permits indiscriminately to all (even to those who need little food)... the quantity of eight ounces (233 gr.); and something else (namely two other ounces, which is small matter) to him who would have need of greater nourishment.

On the vigil of the Nativity of the Lord, a little collation twice as great, namely of 16 ounces, is commonly admitted, by reason of the solemnity" (III, 1025; H. Ap., XII, 16). Yet see the things to be said at once n. 1229.

2. Concerning the QUALITY of foods, again both custom and dispensation must be considered: for those things which are permitted in some regions, these same things are forbidden in others.

Generally in the little refreshment only milk, coffee, tea, chocolate, and bread are conceded (Ami du Cl., 1912, p. 464). For the little supper, only lighter foods with bread are permitted, for example fruits, vegetables, small fishes, or even two or three ounces of a larger fish (III, 1028). Eggs and milk-foods are not permitted, unless somewhere a custom has force, for example of taking some cheese or butter, or unless an express dispensation has been given. But neither to those dispensed for meats, but not from fast, is another food permitted in the little collation, except that which is permitted to those not dispensed. See n. 1242, Rule 4.

1229. Let it be noted: a) From chemical analysis it is established that milk in a thousand parts contains almost 130 grams of elements which nourish. Yet from this it does not follow that, in the little supper, for example, it is licit if someone drinks two liters of milk, under the pretext that only 260 grams of principles which truly nourish are taken. Attention must also be given to the satiating force of the food. Thus therefore Authors permit for the supper 500-700 gr. of milk, if this alone is drunk. But for breakfast it certainly would not be licit to take 1/2 liter of milk (Ami du Cl., 1911, p. 252).

b) Eight ounces of bread cooked in water with oil may not licitly be taken in the little supper. The reason is not that through cooking a diverse substance arises, but because all these things satiate more. Thus custom interprets the law. Some indeed contradict, leaning on the general principle that for foods which contain much watery humor, the assigned quantity can be increased. Cf. Berardi, l. c., n. 23; Antonelli, II, 878. This principle indeed is not to be rejected absolutely, and can be applied for some foods; yet in our case, attention must primarily be given to custom. Cf. Lehmkuhl, I, 1462.

1230. Questions. QUAER. 1. How many sins does one commit who breaks fast through meals CULPABLY repeated?

Resp. 1. If he breaks the fast through eating non-esurial foods, as often as he eats, so often he sins, and therefore the number of acts must be declared in confession: because the precept of abstinence is negative, which obliges always and for always, as the Doctors say (III, 1029, 3).

Yet the sin would be venial if, once in the day, a small quantity were eaten (cf. n. 1225, q. 2).

2. If he breaks the fast by eating esurial foods several times in the forbidden quantity, from the common and more probable opinion, he commits only one grave sin against the precept of the Church; and the stronger reason is that the essence of fast consists in one eating: wherefore, the essence of fast having been destroyed through the second meal, the precept ceases in the third or fourth meal.

But they most commonly say that in these last meals venial sin is committed, because they are against the end of the law, which is mortification of the flesh; and indeed more probably, because to go against the end of the law is a certain inordination, which does not seem excused from every fault (III, 1030, Question 1).

QUAER. 2. Whether he who INCULPABLY refreshed himself twice in the day is held to abstain from a third meal?

Resp. It is controverted. Yet the affirmative opinion pleases the Holy Doctor more (H. Ap., XII, 20; Conf. dir., XII, 6; cf. note of Gaude, II, p. 415). The reason which he brings forward is the following: He who materially violated the fast by refreshing himself twice is held to abstain from a third meal, lest he seem to approve the material violation of fast. Yet this reason does not settle the controversy.

QUAER. 3. What ought he to do who on a day of fast inadvertently breakfasted in the morning in the accustomed way?

Resp. 1. If the breakfast was moderate, not morally exceeding the quantity of a little refreshment, he is held to observe the fast, as also others.

2. If the quantity of the breakfast is equated with the little supper, he is held (short of grave inconvenience) either to remit the meal to evening, or rather to take a lesser quantity of food in the evening. The reason is that the substance of fast can still be preserved, although attention can no longer be given to something accidental.

3. If finally the quantity must be almost assimilated to a meal, in the best way in which it can be done, the other prescriptions of fast should be observed. Yet the little supper can be more abundant, indeed it could be anticipated. Cf. St. Alph., III, 1030.