Article Second. On the One Meal

682. On the meal itself. 1. On days of fasting only one full meal is permitted, to which now, from custom approved by the Church, there is licitly added a little supper or evening collation, and breakfast or morning morsel. For fasting as to the quality of foods, abstinence from flesh meats is also required of itself; therefore the foods which may be eaten on days of fasting are fasting foods, unless an indult or an excusing cause permits flesh meats. As regards quantity, however, ecclesiastical law prescribes nothing; the natural law of temperance must be observed. Hence it can happen that someone in that one meal violates the natural law of temperance, but does not injure the ecclesiastical precept of fasting.

If ever in another matter, certainly in this one custom has been very powerful in interpreting and mitigating an ecclesiastical precept. For in the first times of the Church the faithful observed almost a natural fast until sunset, and from the sixth century until the third hour after midday. Afterwards the evening collation began to be added to the one meal; as to its name it took its origin from monasteries: for on days of fasting, at the collationes or conferences which were customarily held in monasteries in the evening, something liquid was permitted to the monks, and "lest the drink do harm," also a morsel of bread or something from fruits. Seculars, observing the same custom of taking some food on ecclesiastical fast days, gradually added a greater quantity of foods, and the Church afterwards approved this custom. Then they began to take the meal at the ordinary hour of dinner, which was the twelfth hour; and finally in the morning they also took a little something for breakfast. The Church at length also approved this use.¹

2. The meal must be morally continuous: for if moral continuation were dissolved through interruption, it would not be one meal, but several. One meal remains both if only the space of an hour comes between one eating and the other, and if, even with a longer space intervening, someone withdraws from the table with the explicit or implicit intention of returning to the eating.

It is asked how great a space of time can licitly intervene between one eating and the other, or how great an interruption of dinner can licitly be made.

a. It is lawful to interrupt dinner lightly even without cause; an interruption is judged light which does not exceed half an hour. Hence if someone has already risen from table with the intention of not returning any more, he can eat again if within half an hour something is brought beyond expectation, because this morally belongs to the dinner.

b. It is lawful to interrupt dinner notably, that is, up to an hour, from a reasonable cause, provided the one interrupting had the intention of returning and was not refreshed fully before; if this is done without cause, it is a light sin. Therefore those who read at table, as is accustomed in religious communities, can licitly take some food before dinner: since this is done from a just cause and with the intention of dining afterwards, the taking is morally connected with dinner.

c. To interrupt dinner very notably (much beyond an hour) without just cause is grave sin, because eatings so interrupted are not united into one meal. But if someone not yet fully refreshed were forced to interrupt dinner, he could return to it even after two hours, because the Church does not require that one pass the day without sufficient refreshment.

¹ Cf. Noldin, Zur Erklarung des Fastengebotes (Zeitschrift f. Theol., 1903), p. 565 ff.

683. On the evening collation. 1. From the custom now received everywhere, in the evening collation, as regards the quantity of food, a fourth part of supper (dinner) or absolutely eight ounces (about 240 gr.) can licitly be taken even by those who would be fully refreshed by this quantity: for it is merely accidental that these foods satisfy someone. From a just cause even more can be taken, especially if the added quantity does not exceed light matter. But any cause by which someone needs more abundant food for suitably fulfilling his duties must be judged just, for example the complexion of the body, the kind of labors, the duration of the fast, the character of the region, lack of wine, etc.

a. The former determination of the licit quantity is relative: for since the quantity of dinner or a full meal necessary for sustenance in individual persons is very diverse according to the diverse quantity of foods, its fourth part is also diverse for different persons. But the latter determination is absolute and in general grants more than the former relative one.

b. There is a universal custom on the vigil of the Nativity of the Lord of taking a double quantity (the joyful fast).¹ In some places the same double quantity is also taken on other vigils of solemn feasts; where this custom is in force, it can licitly be observed.

c. Some say that into the aforesaid weight must be counted only that which has the character of solid food, but not what has the character of drink.² Others, however, rightly rejecting this opinion, establish that the weight of solid food must be diminished if the solid substance is cooked with water, wine, or another liquid by way of porridge or dumpling, so that it is lawful to take not eight but only five or six ounces of bread, flour, rice, etc., which are cooked.³

Note. The quantity of food which is licit in the evening on days of fasting can be determined from the instruction which some bishops propose to the faithful in the Lenten indult, so that it may be said that, besides the one meal, about half part of an ordinary supper can licitly be taken. Since by these words the quantity is determined which can licitly be taken besides the one meal, therefore at breakfast and collation, this rule does not differ much from that which was established above.

2. As to the quality of foods, in the collation only lighter foods that are not very nourishing are permitted, such as dumpling, bread, fruits, vegetables, legumes, sweets, etc.; but if stronger foods are taken, such as eggs, cheese, fish, etc., the quantity is to be diminished in due proportion. In this matter also one must stand by custom, which is one thing in warmer regions and another in colder regions. Therefore where custom permits nothing else, this prescription must be observed; but in our regions of Germany, from custom, no distinction of foods is made, so that all fasting foods are permitted indiscriminately in the quantity which I have mentioned.

¹ St. Alphonsus, n. 1025.

² Genicot I, n. 437; Berardi, Praxis confessariorum, 3rd ed., II, n. 1474.

³ St. Alphonsus, n. 1029; Lehmkuhl I, n. 1211.

684. On breakfast. 1. From universal custom it is lawful in the morning to take breakfast (coffee, chocolate, tea with a morsel of bread), but only in a small quantity, namely one which as to nutritive food does not exceed two ounces or about 60 gr.

2. From the declaration of the Sacred Penitentiary it is established that breakfast of this kind can be taken everywhere, even where the custom of breakfasting has not yet prevailed, and by all, even by those who could fast without breakfast.¹

¹ "Whether it can be permitted that in the morning on days of fasting coffee or chocolate be taken in a small quantity with a morsel of bread, as is done in the Canadian region." The Sacred Penitentiary replied Nov. 21, 1843, that those who follow such a use are not to be disturbed.

685. On the time of the meal. 1. From universal custom the time of the one meal is around midday; where, however, there is a custom of dining at the eleventh hour before midday, it is not necessary that on days of fasting one depart from this hour.

a. For breakfast and for the evening collation neither law nor custom prescribes a determined time; hence generally the former can be taken in the morning, the latter in the evening.

b. The time of the meal is determined insofar as the meal, from ancient custom, must have the character not of dinner but of supper. Therefore in antiquity the time of the meal was the evening time or the third hour after midday; from which it follows that to defer the meal to a later time is always lawful, but to anticipate it without cause is not lawful.

2. To anticipate the time of the meal even notably is not grave sin, because the circumstance of time is accidental with respect to fasting: for if only one meal is taken, the end intended by the precept is not frustrated as to substance. Anticipation is judged notable which exceeds an hour. Therefore to anticipate the meal within an hour even without a special cause is lawful, but beyond an hour only from a just cause.

a. St. Alphonsus indeed at first had proposed this opinion as the more common and more probable;¹ but afterwards he did not even hold it probable, and declared that the affirmative opinion, according to which notable anticipation would be grave sin, must altogether be held.² But the reason adduced, on which the denying opinion rests, is certainly probable.³

b. A just and reasonable cause of notably anticipating dinner would be, for example, a journey to be begun, urgent business to be dispatched, weakness of constitution, the custom of dining at such an hour, etc.

3. It is lawful to invert the time of dinner and the little supper, so that the collation is taken around the tenth or eleventh hour in the morning and the meal in the evening around the fourth or fifth hour, "if there exists some reasonable cause of the aforesaid inversion."⁴ In this case, however, before bed it is not lawful to take anything further except those things which do not break the fast. From a reasonable cause it is also lawful to take the collation in the morning, dinner at midday, and the morsel in the evening.⁵

4. Certainly it is not lawful to prolong the time of the meal immoderately without violating the precept of fasting; but it can be prolonged to two hours without any fault, and if a special cause were present, even beyond this time.

5. Alphonsus (n. 1020 at the end) has these words: "Elbel with Gobat grants up to three or four hours, at least for Germans according to their custom; but Croix rightly doubts whether this custom is approved, unless, as he says, after about two hours only desserts or lighter foods are placed, especially if afterwards the little evening meal is omitted. And this I neither approve nor reprove."

¹ Cf. l. 3, n. 1016.

² Cf. the second list of reformed questions, n. 13.

³ Ballerini-Palmieri II, n. 1118, who in this matter followed several ancient authors, as Laymann, Lessius, Sporer, Holzmann, Elbel, etc.

⁴ Sacred Penitentiary, Jan. 10, 1834.

⁵ D'Annibale III, n. 134.

686. What it is lawful to take outside the full meal (with collation and breakfast) without breaking the fast. That which has the character of food is prohibited on days of fasting; but that which has the character of drink can licitly be taken on days of fasting; hence the axiom has prevailed: liquid (that is, drink) does not break the fast. That has the character of food which principally serves nutrition, whether it is solid or liquid; that has the character of drink which, from common use, is taken to drive away thirst or as a vehicle of food to aid digestion.

a. Not only water has the character of drink, but also wine, beer, various liquids such as lemonade, sugared water, coffee, tea with a small quantity of sugar mixed in, although accidentally these also nourish, as beer does. But broth, oil, honey, sugar, chocolate, and of itself milk, do not have the character of drink, although these are liquid and are taken by drinking. It must be noted, however, that in some regions (of Tyrol), from use and custom, milk (cleansed of cream) is taken to drive away thirst, as elsewhere wine or coffee; there therefore milk of this kind without doubt belongs to the liquids which do not break the fast.

b. Apples, pears, grapes, and fruits of this kind rather have the character of food; and therefore they are not permitted, unless perhaps they are taken in a small quantity to extinguish thirst: for we say that these are eaten, not drunk. St. Alphonsus permits lozenges (Pastillen) and frozen liquor, but both only in a small quantity.

c. Outside the hour of the meal and collation, to take liquid (wine, beer, etc.) and, lest the drink do harm, a morsel of bread, of itself does not break the fast, because the bread is taken by way of medicine. But certainly it is not lawful to take bread as often as one likes to drink, but at most once or twice in a day; and especially this can be permitted to those who otherwise could not bear the fast, especially if the dinner happens to be deferred for a long time.