Article — Noldin, Summa of Moral Theology
Article First. On the Precept of Fasting Itself
679. Notions. Fasting is distinguished as threefold: natural, which consists in abstinence from absolutely all food and drink; ecclesiastical, which consists in abstinence from foods according to the form prescribed by the Church for the faithful; moral, which is abstinence from food and drink according to a form diverse from that which the Church prescribes, as if someone fasts on bread and water, or eats only roots and herbs, or takes food only every other day. Ecclesiastical fasting is called strict if abstinence from flesh meats, eggs, and milk foods is prescribed; and non-strict if abstinence from flesh meats alone is prescribed.
The end of ecclesiastical (and moral) fasting is chiefly threefold: to repress the concupiscences of the flesh, to render the elevation of the mind to divine things easier, and to make satisfaction for sins.1 Physiologists show that the ecclesiastical precept concerning abstinence and fasting does not harm health but rather benefits it.2
1 St. Thomas, II-II, q. 147, a. 1 and 3.
2 Cf. Moser, Das kirchliche Fasten- und Abstinenzgebot in gesundheitlicher Beleuchtung, Frankfurter zeitgem. Broschuren (Heft 6, 1907).
680. On the precept of fasting. 1. The precept of fasting, even as regards the solemn Lenten fast, is not of divine but of ecclesiastical law: for no trace of a divine law appears; moreover in the law of fasting, even the Lenten fast, there is such variety as to time and mode, etc., as cannot occur in divine law, since divine law must be observed by all in the same way and cannot be changed by custom.
It is certain that fasting, if it is considered in general, was introduced by the apostles, but it is equally certain that the Lenten fast does not descend from the apostles. It can be derived from Christ the Lord insofar as fasting, which originally was observed only for a few days before Easter, gradually was extended to forty days according to the example of the fast which he himself observed in the desert.1
The precept of fasting of itself is twofold: one refers to the quantity of foods, the other to their quality; the former permits one meal, the latter prescribes abstinence from flesh meats. Therefore he who violates fasting as to both precepts commits two sins.
The precept of fasting is from its kind grave, because there is question of a grave matter, namely one which notably conduces to the spiritual good of the faithful. This is also established from the declaration of the Church;2 yet it admits smallness of matter.
Authors disagree in assigning the quantity of food which constitutes grave matter. It seems it must be said that a quantity which exceeds four ounces (120 gr.) constitutes grave matter. It does not matter whether this quantity is taken together in one eating or divided into several times through the day, because small eatings taken through the day coalesce and together constitute grave matter, which is held from proposition 29 condemned by Alexander VII.3 Therefore grave sin against fasting is committed not only by him who dissolves the essence of fasting by a second meal, but also by him who violates fasting in grave matter, that is, who adds a grave quantity of four ounces, either at breakfast or at the evening collation or otherwise in the course of the day, to the quantity of food which on days of fasting can licitly be taken at breakfast and the evening collation.
- Fasting from the common law and apart from dispensation is to be observed on the days of Lent (except Sundays), on Ember days, and on certain vigils (5).
The vigils on which one must fast are the vigils of Pentecost, of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, of All Saints, and of the Nativity of the Lord. In antiquity fasting was prescribed on almost all vigils; but after some feasts (as of the apostles) were later abrogated, the fast of the preceding vigil was also abrogated. In place of the fast of these vigils was substituted the fast of Wednesday and Friday of Advent.
- The precept of fasting as to one meal does not oblige the faithful before the twenty-first year of age has been completed. Because before this age a man ordinarily needs more abundant food, the Church did not wish to oblige adolescents with so great an inconvenience; and because the Church looks to things as they commonly happen, those who before this age already possess perfectly developed strength are not bound to fast.
1 Cf. Linsenmayr, Entwicklung der kirchlichen Fastendisziplin bis zum Konzil von Nizaa (Munich: Stahl, 1877); Funk, Die Entwicklung des Osterfastens (Theol. Quartalschrift of Tubingen, 1893), p. 170 ff.
2 He who breaks the fast of the Church does not sin mortally unless he does this from contempt or disobedience. Proposition 23 condemned by Alexander VII.
3 On a fast day, he who several times eats some little thing, even if in the end he has eaten a notable quantity, does not break the fast. Proposition 29 condemned by Alexander VII.
681. Essence of fasting. 1. The essence of fasting consists in only one daily meal. Therefore he who, whether advertently or inadvertently, has already essentially injured the fast by a second meal, is no longer bound to fast on that day: for once the essence of fasting has been injured, the precept of fasting can no longer be observed.
a. It does not matter whether someone again fully refreshes himself in one eating or by eating several times through the day, because the individual eatings coalesce. Therefore he who, besides one full meal, takes so much food through the day that the whole together makes another full meal, dissolves the essence of fasting.
b. Therefore to the question whether he sins mortally several times who takes several meals, it must be answered that he sins gravely only once, because fasting, insofar as it consists in one meal, can be broken only once, just as the natural fast or a vow of not drinking wine on this day can be violated only once: for according to the mind of theologians fasting was instituted by the Church in such a way that a second meal dissolves the essence of fasting; and once the essence is broken, fasting can neither be observed nor broken any further.
c. From these things is deduced what he must do who on a fast day, from forgetfulness, took an entire breakfast. Namely, if he refreshed himself fully at breakfast, he must abstain from a second meal; and if he did not refresh himself fully, he must abstain from the evening collation. For after breakfast has been taken, the precept can still be observed and must be observed, and only grave inconvenience excuses from its observance.
- Abstinence from flesh meats does not belong to the essence of fasting, from which it follows that fasting can be separated from abstinence, that is, that fasting as to essence can be observed even if abstinence is not observed.
For a long time it was disputed among theologians whether abstinence from flesh meats was required for the essence of fasting, so that, when abstinence was removed, the essence and therefore also the precept of fasting ceased. Those who thought that abstinence from flesh meats belonged to the essence of fasting therefore also granted several meals to those dispensed concerning flesh meats. Benedict XIV finally removed the controversy; by the constitution Non ambigimus (May 30, 1741), he established that those dispensed concerning the eating of flesh meats on days of fasting are held to one meal.