Article VI. On the Hour of Refection

Although originally on fast days the single refection was not taken except toward sunset, nevertheless in our times it can licitly be taken nearly at midday, as is clear from universal custom and the consent of theologians. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 1016; and Hom. Ap., n. 9.

Question 1. Does the hour of refection pertain to the essence of fasting, so that he sins gravely who notably anticipates it?

Response. It is controverted; yet certainly it is licit to exchange the evening collation with dinner.

Question 2. How long can dinner be prolonged?

Response. Nothing can be absolutely determined concerning this; but it does not seem that it can be prolonged beyond two hours without some fault. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 1020; and Hom. Ap., n. 10.

Question 3. Does he break the fast who interrupts the refection and, after some interval has elapsed, returns to it again?

Response. If the interruption is slight, e.g., of one quarter of an hour, it is free from every fault, even if it is done without reason. But if the interruption is very notable, e.g., of two hours, and prolonged without reason, it cannot be excused from grave sin, because it cannot be called one refection. But if the interruption is had for a grave cause, there is no sin in returning to the table, even with a notable interval interposed, when the preceding refection was not sufficient; because the Church never intends to oblige one to pass the day without sufficient refection. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 1020.

Question 4. Can he who has risen from the table with the intention of eating no more sit down at the table again?

Response. Affirmatively, probably, if the fellow-diners are still eating, or if a new dish is placed on the table which he did not know was to be placed there. The reason is that it is still morally considered the same dinner. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 1020.

Question 5. If someone in the morning, because of a journey, has taken breakfast, is he held to fast if afterward he does not set out?

Response. Affirmatively, if the breakfast is equivalent to the collation, because then, an inversion having been made, the fast is still substantially possible. But otherwise the response must be made, on account of the opposite reason, if the breakfast is equivalent to the ordinary refection.