§ 3. On the Hour of the Meal

1231. In antiquity the hour of the meal was in the evening, after sunset (at least in Lent). Then in the lapse of time it was anticipated to the hour of None, and finally from the fourteenth century to the hour of Sext, namely to midday (H. Ap., XII, 21; cf. St. Thom., 2. 2, q. 147, a. 7).

Questions. QUAER. 1. Whether notably anticipating the HOUR OF THE MEAL is a grave sin?

Resp. Authors are not lacking who hold the negative opinion probable; but to St. Alphonsus only the affirmative opinion seems to be held, and this is proved both from Canon Law (Can. Solent, 50. D. 1, de Consecr.), where those anticipating "are by no means to be believed to fast"; and from St. Thomas (4. D. 15, q. 3, a. 4, ad 3), who says: "He who too notably anticipates dissolves the fast"; and from reason, since delay of the meal pertains much to mortification of the body, which the Church intends. It is confirmed by a Response of Benedict XIV (Brief Si Fraternitas, Enc. Libentissime): We declare that the prescribed hour is to be observed by those fasting (n. 8, ad 4). Cf. ed. G., II, p. 395. Therefore from this opinion, he who notably, that is, by one whole hour, anticipates the meal without cause violates the law of fast and sins mortally. Yet a light cause excuses a brief anticipation, a grave cause a notable anticipation.

Note. Recent Authors commonly teach that sin is not committed if the hour of the meal is notably anticipated. Nevertheless, as Aertnys rightly notes (l. IV, n. 11), until it is proved that today's custom has derogated from the ancient grave precept and ancient custom, those without doubt prevail. St. Alphonsus states the same (III, 1016).

QUAER. 2. Whether the fast is dissolved if the LITTLE SUPPER is taken toward midday, but the MEAL in the evening?

Resp. It is not dissolved as regards essence; and therefore, from a just cause, for example by reason of weakness, affairs, studies, hunting, or even custom, it is licit to order the time of eating in this way (III, 1024).

Indeed, to the question: "Whether, on days of fast, the time of eating can be inverted, by taking the evening little refreshment within the tenth and eleventh morning hour, but deferring the meal to the fourth or fifth evening hour," S. Poenit., on 19 January 1834, judged that it must be responded: "If some reasonable cause of the aforesaid inversion exists, penitents who use this custom are not to be disturbed." Cf. Gaude, II, p. 415.

QUAER. 3. Whether it is licit to invert the order of meals so that in the morning collation is taken, at midday the meal, in the evening the little refreshment?

Resp. Of itself, negatively; because thus in some way the law of fast would be eluded; yet the fault is not grave. Whence from a reasonable cause dispensation can easily be had. Cf. Lehmkuhl, I, 1468; Ami du Cl., 1909, p. 944.