Article II. On the Law of Fasting

I say 1st. § 1. The law of fasting prescribes that only one meal be taken per day; but it does not forbid taking some food morning and evening, while nevertheless the approved custom of places concerning the quantity and quality of foods is observed.

§ 2. Nor is it forbidden to mix meat and fish in the same refection, nor to exchange the evening refection with dinner (Can. 1251).¹

From these things, therefore, it is clear: 1st. that the law of fasting consists primarily and essentially in one full refection;

2nd. that to take something morning and evening is not forbidden;

3rd. but that how much and what kind is taken depends upon approved custom;

4th. that the law concerning not mixing foods has been abolished;

5th. that it is also licit to exchange the little supper with dinner;

6th. that fasting, as such, does not import abstinence; that the latter and the former are entirely distinct; and that one can consist without the other;

7th. that it is also licit on a day of fasting alone to eat meat.

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1093, n. 26.

Question 1. What can be taken in the morning among us, with the fast intact?

Response. A little piece of bread can be taken with a draught of coffee or tea, provided nevertheless that the quantity of food does not much exceed about two ounces, and that it is bread which is taken. This custom is in force among us. The law says: "it does not forbid taking something morning and evening." Something is indeterminate, to be determined by approved custom. The end of the law at this point seems to be to concede something lest the law itself be rendered too difficult to observe. Certainly so great a variety of peoples cannot be ruled by one rule. How much is permitted here or there, provided that only one full refection is employed, custom indicates and weighs. Again, among us the quality of food is determined, that it be bread, and the quantity, that it be only more or less two ounces.

Question 2. Is it licit several times per day to take a very little piece of bread or of another food besides the morning little piece?

Response. Negatively, because it is not permitted by custom, except, as theologians have it, once or twice before drinking, lest the drink harm. Wherefore small eatings are not only venial sins taken separately, but also a grave sin if, repeated rather often on the same day, they coalesce into grave matter. For prop. 29 was condemned by Alexander VII, which reads thus: "On a fast day, he who rather often eats some little thing, even if in the end he has eaten a notable quantity, does not break the fast." - Notice besides that those small eatings repeated through the whole day are illicit not only if they are taken besides the little piece, but even if they are taken in place of it; and the reason is that it is certainly licit to take the little piece, but only at that time, quantity, and quality which are permitted by custom. - Cf. St. Thomas, 2-2, q. 147, art. 6. - St. Alphonsus, nn. 1018 and following.

Question 3. Is it licit, fasting being uninjured, to drink several times per day?

Response. Affirmatively, if it concerns those liquids which of themselves are ordered and commonly employed for quenching thirst, according to the axiom of theologians: Liquid does not break the fast. Indeed it is also licit to take one of these liquids, e.g., wine, with the express intention of allaying hunger. The reason is that the law of fasting commands only abstinence from food, but not from drink; and according to St. Thomas, "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." - But what is said here of wine is to be applied, for our customs, to beer, coffee, and tea, because these do not have the nature of food but of drink. The same seems to have to be said even if a little sugar and some drops of milk are mixed with coffee or tea, because then also they retain the nature of drink. - Cf. St. Thomas, 4, dist. 15, q. 3, art. 4, q. 1. - St. Alphonsus, n. 1022. - Kenrick, tract. 4, part. 2, n. 45.

Question 4. Does a drink of water mixed with sugar and juices of orange or citron fruits break the fast?

Response. Negatively, unless you mix so great an amount of their substance into the water that that drink is judged to have the nature of food. The reason is that from common estimation, he who would take such a mixture (lemonade) would not be said to eat but to drink. Indeed St. Alphonsus concedes that it can be taken even if it is congealed by ice (ices, etc.). - The same, as is clear, is not to be said if it concerned milk congealed by ice (ice cream), because milk, especially if it is thick, has the nature not of drink but of food. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 1022.

Question 5. What must be said concerning a drink of chocolate?

Response. The solution depends on the quantity of chocolate which is mixed with the water. Those who have one ounce and a half put into ordinary cups, or, with such quantity diminished, substitute bread in proportion, and use such an aid once in the day, certainly are not to be disturbed. But if someone should wish to use this drink several times per day, it is necessary that a much smaller quantity of chocolate be employed. "In the way," says Kenrick, "in which it is prepared among us, it plainly has the nature of drink and can be taken after the manner of tea or coffee." - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 1023. - Kenrick, loc. cit., n. 45.

Question 6. Is one who inculpably took a double refection in the day, when the error has been detected or the excusing cause removed, held under grave matter to abstain from a third?

Response. Negatively, probably, and the reason is that since the essence of fasting is situated in one eating, after a twofold refection fasting has been made impossible. But a fortiori he who has culpably already taken two can add a third refection, because here he has already violated the precept not only materially but also formally. But it must be said otherwise in each case if it concerned not the quantity but the quality of foods, because this is a divisible precept. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 1030; and Hom. Ap., n. 20. - Baller., note (a), p. 456.

Question 7. What if on a day of fasting you have inadvertently breakfasted?

Response. If you have taken a little something, e.g., one or another ounce of food, you ought to fast according to custom, yet without abandoning the refection and collation at the accustomed hours; for the fast was not substantially injured. But if you have taken a quantity equivalent to an entire collation, you ought to transfer dinner to the evening time; or if you do not wish or cannot act thus, once dinner has been taken at the accustomed hour, you ought so to diminish the evening collation that you reduce it to the little piece of bread with a draught of coffee or tea which is usually taken in the morning by those fasting. - If finally the quantity which you took was equal to the accustomed refection, then probably you are held to nothing. The reason is that from those things to be said below, the hour of refection so pertains to the essence of fasting that it cannot be anticipated much, and accordingly, breakfast having been taken, which is equivalent to a refection, toward the eighth or ninth hour, the substance of the fast probably has been made impossible.

Question 8. What quantity of food can be taken in the little refection or collation?

Response. According to St. Alphonsus and many other theologians, who rest upon common custom, about eight ounces of food, at least ordinarily speaking, can be taken. Others recur to another rule and permit a fourth part of supper, namely of the principal refection which each person usually takes on fast days. This last rule is too vague or liable to scruples. The quantity of eight ounces seems to be denied to no one, but a greater quantity is to be conceded to those for whom this would not suffice for restoring strength and would be with grave inconvenience. Certainly an altogether fixed rule cannot be established, since attention ought also to be paid to constitution, duties to be performed, the duration of the fast, etc. In general it is licit to take as much as one judges necessary for avoiding an indisposition which would impede him from suitably performing his duties. Account must also be had of one's own region, if in some place a greater quantity of food is necessary. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 1024. - Baller., note (b), p. 457.

In various places, from introduced custom, on the vigil of the Nativity or on the Lord's Supper it is licit to take a quantity twice as great, but this custom is not in force everywhere.

Question 9. What quality of foods can be employed in the collation?

Response. That quality of foods can be observed which approved custom permits, as canon 1251 suggests. Thus among us fish, eggs, dairy foods, cheese, legumes, fruits, vegetables, bread, etc.

Question 10. Is it licit in the collation to take porridge, or bread cooked with water and some other food conceded by custom?

Response. Affirmatively, but then it is not licit to use eight ounces of bread, the liquid not counted, but only four or five. The reason is that bread through cooking and fermentation with water acquires another nature, so that from these there is made something one, and it becomes one larger substance. The same likewise must be said of other cooked foods (mush) which are usually made from spelt or rice. - But it can be conceded, says St. Alphonsus, that during the refection itself someone dip bread in water or wine, and thus also take eight ounces of bread moistened with wine; since no fermentation intervenes here, and the liquid, since it serves only as a vehicle, is not counted. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 1029. - Salmant., cap. 2, n. 77.

Question 11. Do electuaries break the fast?

Response. Negatively, if they are taken by way of medicine and in small quantity; e.g., for the digestion of foods, for strengthening the stomach.

Question 12. What quantity of food is judged grave matter if it is taken outside the morning little piece, refection, and collation?

Response. It is controverted. Matter which, added to the evening collation, would make another refection must without doubt be judged grave. But certainly the quantity of two ounces is to be held as light matter. Not a few judge the quantity equivalent to half of the collation, or four ounces, to be grave matter.