The law of fasting

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

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

2. 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.

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.

All Catholics who have come to the use of reason are as a general rule subject to the precept of abstinence as to other positive laws of the Church. However, inasmuch as positive laws do not bind when they could not be observed without relatively serious inconvenience, those who are sick, or are recovering from illness, or those who are in weak health and cannot take abstinence fare, are excused from observing this precept, and may eat meat on days of abstinence. Children, too, of negligent Catholic parents who do not observe the law, Catholic servants in bigoted Protestant families who cannot get such food as the Church allows on days of abstinence, and must fast unless they eat meat which is put before them, may lawfully do so. Dispensations also from the obligation of abstaining may for good reason be obtained from the Bishop or from the priest.

The superiors of Religious Orders have the same powers as Bishops with regard to their own religious subjects. Ordinarily these can only dispense in particular cases or families, but on account of some great concourse of people or of public health, Ordinaries can now dispense in the law both of fasting and abstinence (Can. 1245, sec. 2, 3).

According to Canon 1251: “‘ The law of fasting prescribes that only one full meal be taken in the day; but it does not forbid the taking of some food in the morning and in the evening, nevertheless the approved custom of the place must be kept with regard to the quantity and quality of food. Nor is it forbidden to mix flesh meat and fish in the same meal, nor to change the evening collation with dinner.”

The law of fasting, then, prescribes that only one full meal may be taken in the day, and that after twelve o’clock midday. Solid food, not drink, is limited by the law of fasting, but very nutritious liquids, such as milk, soup, thick chocolate, are classed as food. Custom sanctions the taking of about two ounces of dry bread with tea, coffee, or thin chocolate at breakfast, and about eight ounces of lighter sorts of food in the evening at collation. If it is preferred the collation may be taken after midday and the full meal in the evening.

According to Canon 1252: “ The law of abstinence alone is to be observed on every Friday.

The law of abstinence and fasting also is to be observed on Ash Wednesday, on the Fridays and Saturdays of Lent, and on the Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays of Ember Week, on the vigils of Whit Sunday, the Assumption, All Saints, and Christmas Day.

The law of fasting alone is to be observed on the other days of Lent. On Sundays or on feasts of obligation the law of abstinence, or of abstinence and fasting, or of fasting only, ceases, except on the feast during Lent, and the vigils are not anticipated; it also ceases on Holy Saturday after midday.”

The Holy See has dispensed English and Scotch Catholics from abstinence except during Lent, on the Saturdays of Ember Week, and on those vigils which immediately precede or follow Friday or another day of abstinence.

On June 12, 1923 the Holy See extended to England the regulations for fasting already granted to Australia. By this indult on fasting days those bound to fast are allowed one full meal at or after midday. In addition they are allowed two light meals, one of about eight ounces, at which butter, cheese, eggs or fish may be taken in small quantities; the other of two or three ounces, at which a little butter may be taken. No time is indicated for the two light meals, which may therefore presumably be taken at any time at the choice of the individual.

It is special to the law of fasting that it only binds the faithful after they have attained the age of twenty-one until they enter upon their sixtieth year. It binds under pain of grievous sin, which may be committed not only by taking more than one full meal in the day according to what has just been said, but also by taking food at frequent intervals in small quantities, for thus the total amount would be considerable. When one who is bound to fast has already taken two full meals, he has broken his fast, and the law no longer binds him. Whereas the law of abstinence is broken, and sin is committed, as often as the prohibited act is done.

Though all who have reached the age of twenty-one are per se bound to fast, yet as a matter of fact many are excused on the ground of impossibility, work of importance which cannot be omitted without serious inconvenience and which cannot be done if fasting is observed, and dispensation.

Not only hard bodily labour in the fields, mines, workshops, or mills, but severe mental work such as teaching, continual preaching, or hearing confessions, excuses from the precept of fasting. The sick, convalescents, health are also excused. and those in delicate Even though the difficulty of fasting and at the same time of doing one’s work is sometimes not sufficient of itself to excuse one from fasting, it will be sufficient for obtaining a dispensation, which may be given not only by the Pope, but by the Bishop, one’s religious superior, or by the parish priest.

I. Object of the law. The law of fasting prescribes that only one meal be taken during the day; but it does not forbid taking some food in the morning and evening, while preserving the approved custom of places concerning the quantity and quality of foods. Nor is it forbidden to mix meats and fish in the same meal; nor to exchange the evening refection with the dinner (can. 1251). Besides, drink is never prohibited, nor certain things which are not taken after the manner of nourishment. We shall explain the several points.

1. One refection, which is called dinner. Moreover:

a) The full refection, which originally could begin only at a later hour, can now by custom be begun about midday, and indeed, by the same custom broadly interpreting the midday hour, at the eleventh hour. In calculating the hour it is lawful to follow the common usage of the place; likewise the time of the place, whether local, true or mean, or legal, whether regional or some other extraordinary time (can. 33, § 1; n. 167).

Besides, the determination of the hour no longer pertains to the substance of the precept, so that even a notable anticipation is not prohibited under grave sin. This can be deduced both from the fact that the law makes no mention of the hour of the one meal, and from the fact that, considering changed customs, the law has already for a longer time been accepted by more recent authors in that sense. Yet the determination of the hour pertains to the integrity of the law, so that anticipation per se involves venial fault; for the law permits only taking some food in the morning and exchanging the small supper with the dinner (can. 1251, § 2). Hence per se it is illicit to take dinner in the morning; but it is lawful to take the small supper at the eleventh hour and dinner in the evening (can. cited); likewise, for a reasonable cause, to take the small supper in the morning, dinner at midday, and a little piece in the evening (St. Alphonsus, III, 1024).¹

b) The full refection can be prolonged for two hours (St. Alphonsus, III, 1020, question 5). Besides, St. Alphonsus neither approves nor reproves the custom, if it is in force somewhere, of placing on the table, notably beyond two hours - namely for another hour or two - only sweetmeats or lighter foods, provided the little evening refection is omitted (loc. cit.).

c) The full refection, by the very fact that only one is permitted, must at least be morally continued. Wherefore observe:

alpha) An interruption made for a reasonable cause does not prevent one from returning to dinner (St. Alphonsus, III, 1020, questions 3 and 4).

beta) An interruption of a quarter hour or even half an hour does not prevent returning to dinner, even if it was already regarded as finished (St. Alphonsus, III, 1020). After the full refection has been taken, to eat again after an hour is a grave sin. If the refection has not yet been completed, an interruption of two hours is required for grave fault.

d) One who, whether culpably or inculpably, has taken a double refection does not sin gravely by refreshing himself a third time or more often. The reason is that the substance of the precept consists in abstinence from a second refection; hence, once the second refection has been taken, the substance of the precept no longer subsists, and therefore it can no longer be violated (St. Alphonsus, III, 1030, questions 1 and 2). Yet according to St. Alphonsus and others he sins venially, "because to act contrary to the end of the law is a certain disorder which does not seem to be excused from all fault" (III, 1030, question 1). But one who, whether culpably or inculpably, has injured the law of fasting only in accidental things is per se bound to keep it according to its substance. Hence, for example, one who has breakfasted in the morning, if the breakfast is equivalent to the small supper, should take dinner in the customary way and a little piece in the evening, or arrange the matter in some other way so that the substance of the law is preserved. If the breakfast is equivalent to a full refection, afterwards he can take only the small supper and a little piece, unless, because of inconvenience, a full refection must again be conceded to him (St. Alphonsus, III, 1020, question 4). Others, however, think that one who from inadvertence, and therefore inculpably, has breakfasted can thereafter fast as others fast, and consequently take dinner and the small supper.

2. The little morning refection is permitted, while preserving approved custom concerning the quantity and quality of foods. Now, half an ounce of denarius weight, or 60 grams, is permitted, whether of bread or of a nourishing drink, such as chocolate, etc.; in some regions even stronger foods - not, however, meats² - are permitted.

It is also permitted that one, repeatedly during the day, take a little bit of food for this purpose, lest drink harm him; likewise that he take certain electuaries in a small quantity, not indeed after the manner of nourishment, but, for example, to preserve the voice, remove bad odor of the mouth, or assist digestion (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 147, a. 6, ad 3; St. Alphonsus, III, 1018, 1019; Homo Apostolicus, tract 12, n. 11).

3. The small supper, or evening refection, is likewise permitted, while again preserving approved custom concerning the quantity and quality of foods. With this considered, the following can be established:

a) With respect to quantity. About 2 1/2 ounces of denarius weight, or about 250 grams, of foods not very nourishing are permitted to all, even to those who are plainly refreshed by the quantity to be assigned; but 300 grams are permitted in northern regions, and if someone needed more abundant food (St. Alphonsus, III, 1025). If the food is very nourishing,³ only about 1 1/2 ounces of denarius weight, or 140-150 grams, can be taken. Besides, the assigned quantities can be increased a little if a just cause is added; indeed they can be increased as much as is necessary for duly carrying out the duties of one's state. Finally, if somewhere there exists a custom, on the Vigil of the Nativity or others, of doubling the quantity of the small supper, the "joyful fast," this can be observed, even if the chief reason, namely assistance at the nocturnal office, is not present (St. Alphonsus, III, 1025).

b) With respect to quality. Considering custom, in most regions nothing except meats is prohibited. Yet, as was said above, if the small supper consists of stronger foods - such as eggs, larger fish - only a smaller quantity is permitted (cf. St. Alphonsus, III, 1026-1028).

4. Drink always permitted is understood as that which per se and ordinarily is used to extinguish thirst, refresh nature, and foster digestion, such as wine, beer, water, or coffee mixed with a small quantity of sugar, and this even if they nourish to some degree. Milk, meat broth, chocolate, and similar things are excluded, since they have rather the character of food; this also holds of fruits, such as apples, melons, etc., even if only the juice is swallowed (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 147, a. 6, ad 2; St. Alphonsus, III, 1022, 1023).

¹ Cf. S. Poenit., 19 Jan. 1834.

² The President of the Pontifical Commission, to the doubt whether on days of fasting alone meats can be taken several times, responded on 29 Oct. 1919: Negative (A. A. S. 1919, p. 480).

³ From precisely the fact that food is cooked, for example into porridge, at least nowadays the quantity does not seem to be diminished. But in some dioceses cooked foods seem to be prohibited.

II. Subject of the law. All are bound by the law of fasting from the completed twenty-first year of age to the begun sixtieth year (can. 1254, § 2).

Corollary I. In view of the cited canon, the opinion once defended by some, which exempted women in their fiftieth year from fasting, can no longer be sustained.

Corollary II. One who completes the twenty-first year on a day of fasting seems not yet to be held to fasting on that day, but only from midnight; one who begins the sixtieth year of age on a day of fasting seems exempt from fasting on that day, so that the obligation of fasting ceases once the fifty-ninth year of age has passed (cf. can. 34, § 3, 3°).

Corollary III. It is commonly admitted that religious who have begun the sixtieth year are exempt even from the fasts to which they are bound by force of profession, because the rules of religious are judged to oblige after the manner of ecclesiastical laws. It is disputed, however, whether the same can be said of robust young religious who have not yet completed the twenty-first year. Most deny it, because young men are presumed to have bound themselves also for a younger age. To this it can be answered that young men have bound themselves according to the mind of the rule. Hence, if it is doubted whether the rule comprehends them, in practice they are excused from the regular fast.

III. Obligation of the law. On this point, first note proposition 23 condemned by Alexander VII: "One breaking the fast of the Church to which he is bound does not sin mortally unless he does it from contempt or disobedience, for example because he does not wish to subject himself to the precept."¹ Now the law of fasting obliges under grave sin insofar as it prohibits a second full refection. In addition, he sins gravely who, besides the full refection, whether in the small supper or otherwise, reaches grave prohibited matter. Moreover, according to St. Alphonsus, grave matter in violation of fasting is a quantity exceeding 30 grams of denarius weight (III, 1029). Hence he sins gravely who, for example, in the small supper adds to the permitted quantity a quantity greater than 30 grams. But if there is question of prohibited food, suppose meat, or eggs in a region where eggs are prohibited in the small supper, even a smaller quantity suffices. Besides, observe:

1. Small quantities coalesce, as is deduced from proposition 29 condemned by Alexander VIII: "On a day of fasting, one who more often eats a small amount of something, even if at the end he has eaten a notable quantity, does not break the fast"² (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

2. It is the same whether the permitted quantity is exceeded in the small supper or at another time.

¹ Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1123.

² Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1129.

IV. Causes excusing from the law are infirmity, bodily labor, and spiritual labor.

1. Infirmity excuses: 1° not only the sick, but also those recovering; 2° the weak, who cannot take sufficient food in one refection; 3° those who from fasting suffer dizziness or notable pain of the head or stomach, or cannot sleep through a great part of the night; 4° pregnant or nursing women, which Capellmann-Bergmann¹ extends also to the time of menstruation; 5° the poor, who lack a sufficient dinner (St. Alphonsus, III, 1033-1036).

2. Bodily labor excuses if it is both necessary or useful to oneself or others, and grave and prolonged through a great part of the day. It is said:

a) Labor whether necessary or useful to oneself or others. Concerning this, note that the Church does not require that, in order to observe the fast, one abstain from necessary or useful labor; and this holds even if there is question of the rich, because it is of interest to the common good that useful labors not be interrupted (St. Alphonsus, III, 1042). It is disputed, however, whether it is lawful for the sake of pleasure alone to assume labor which cannot morally be combined with fasting. Moreover, some think that this can be done once or twice. But I rather adhere to the opinion which teaches that pleasure alone, not even once or twice, is a reason why it is lawful to place an impediment to a grave law that must be observed.

b) Grave labor, and prolonged through a great part of the day; otherwise, for the most part, it is compatible with fasting. Moreover, grave labor is the labor: 1° of farmers; 2° of workmen and artisans, except those who perform quiet works, such as barbers, tailors, and painters; 3° of male servants and maids, whether in a private family or in an institute or monastery, unless they perform only light services. To these also are to be counted those who make a laborious journey, suppose a journey on foot of 4-5 leagues, although it can happen that even a journey made by horse or carriage must be called laborious (St. Alphonsus, III, 1041, 1047); likewise those who use a bicycle for a long time. For the rest, note proposition 30 condemned by Alexander VII: "All officials who labor bodily in the State are excused from the obligation of fasting";² likewise proposition 31 proscribed by the same Pontiff: "All those who travel by riding are absolutely excused from the precept of fasting, however they make the journey, even if the journey is not necessary, and even if they complete a journey of one day."³

3. Grave spiritual labor likewise excuses, provided the conditions required with respect to bodily labor are also present in the case, in other words, provided the labor is necessary or at least useful, and is prolonged through a great part of the day. For this reason the following are commonly excused: 1° preachers who preach five or six times a week; 2° teachers of the higher sciences, who are almost continually intent upon study; 3° teachers of a lower science or art, who teach daily for several hours and therefore are fatigued by study and speaking; 4° confessors who hear confessions through the greater part of the day; 5° scholastics continually occupied with study (cf. St. Alphonsus, III, 1049).

Corollary I. From what has been said it follows that grave labor, provided it is at least useful, can for the most part be undertaken, even if it is morally incompatible with fasting. Yet this should not be extended to all works, especially religious works and those useful only to the one acting. For many works of this sort are rather to be omitted or deferred than undertaken with injury to the fast, suppose - at least per se - a pilgrimage (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 147, a. 4, ad 3; St. Alphonsus, III, 1049).

Corollary II. Bodily labor, about which there has been discussion, is such that each person is presumed to be excused from fasting because of it; but if there is question of spiritual labor, it can more easily happen that someone is so robust that he is not excused because of it, but needs a dispensation (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

Corollary III. One who in Lent performs labor which excuses from fasting is not bound to fast on one or another day on which perhaps he is free from labor, unless it is manifest that this can be done without danger of grave inconvenience. For the most part he will be excused either for restoring or for preserving his strength.

4. Labor not so grave in itself will rather often excuse when some infirmity is added.

¹ Pastoral-Medizin, 10th ed., p. 245.

² Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1130.

³ Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1131.

V. Dispensation. The same persons who can dispense from the law of abstinence can dispense from the law of fasting (n. 1098). Those who can dispense should generally acquiesce readily to the one seeking dispensation, and should remember that even in doubt whether there is a sufficient cause for dispensing, they can dispense.

Note. Canon 1253 establishes: By these canons, that is, by the canons explained by us, nothing is changed concerning particular indults, concerning vows of any physical or moral person, or concerning the constitutions and rules of any approved religion or institute of men or women living in common even without vows.

Resolves: He sins who on a fast day undertakes labor, although honorable, in order to be excused from the fast; although he, after he is gravely wearied, even with that evil end, is no longer held to the fast. L. 1. 3. n. 1022. But he does not at all sin who on the day before a fast spends the day hunting, foreseeing that through weariness it will not be licit for him to fast. He sins who, without a just cause, on the same feast day or one or another hour before it, begins a journey, foreseeing that he will not be able to hear Mass. But he does not sin if he does this on the preceding day. Gur. Ball. 111; Del Vecchio 161. But St. Alphonsus does not admit this, l. 3, n. 301, denying "that someone can set out on Saturday to hunt in a distant wood, although on Sunday he cannot hear Mass there."

"An excommunicated or interdicted person does not sin by omitting Mass, and likewise an imprisoned person, even if they neglect absolution or liberty, because these persons are not obliged to remove remote impediments," or extrinsic ones. L. 1. 3. n. 825; l. 1, n. 152; l. 7, n. 161. "Otherwise, however, they speak with respect to annual Confession and Communion, since this is one of the divine precepts, with regard to which we are held to remove impediments." L. 161; l. 6, n. 299. Excommunication and interdict, with relation to Confession and Communion, are not extrinsic impediments, but intrinsic, and therefore care must be taken that they be removed. "Tamb. and Viva, however, think that those detained in prison are not held to seek liberty in order that they may communicate." L. 1. 6. n. 299; Ithur., Cas. 3, n. 7.

When, outside fast, does the precept of abstinence from flesh urge? This precept, besides the time of fast, urges 1. on Friday of any week in the whole Christian world, C. Explicari 3 de Observ. ieiunior., unless a special Indult is had; - 2. on Saturday, unless legitimate custom has prescribed otherwise somewhere, or something else has been established by the Holy See, or a privilege is had, C. Quia 31 de Consecrat. D. 5. Cf. Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 11, c. 5, n. 5. Hence the Holy Office declared on 10 Jan. 1855 that those traveling outside Belgium cannot eat flesh on Saturday in places in which the said Law is in force. But not only in Belgium, but also in the United States of America, in Italy, and in most other places, abstinence is no longer observed on Saturday. - 3. In Lent the precept of abstinence also urges on Sundays; again unless an Indult or another particular law is now had. From this law of abstinence the Nativity of the Lord is excepted by privilege of Honorius III for those who are bound neither by vow nor by regular observance, if it falls on the 6th weekday or on Saturday, C. Explicari 3 de Observ. ieiunior. In most dioceses of France, from particular custom, the obligation of abstinence is in force on the three Rogation days and on the vigil of St. Mark. Therefore attend to the special custom of places. Besides the time of fast. On days of fast, those also who are exempted or excused from fast are held to observing abstinence, as is clearly drawn from the Indults themselves, by which those even who are not held to fast are permitted to feed on flesh and milk foods, unless something else has been established by the Holy See for some place. Tamburini tr. 4 de Quarto Eccl. praec. c. 9.; La Croix l. 4, n. 1291.; l. 3, p. 2, n. 1660 seqq.; E. M. 1573 bis. In the Catechism of the Holy Father Pius X the second precept of the Church is expressed thus: "Not to eat flesh on Friday and on the other prohibited days, and to fast on the prescribed days." Indeed in very many places both the law of abstinence and of fast has been reformed at present. Italy: "1. In all and individual regions of Italy, with also the dioceses of Malta and Gozo comprehended, which are accustomed to use the dispositions laid down in this matter for Italy, fast, or the law of one meal per day, will have to be observed: During the whole time of Lent, Sundays only excepted; on Fridays and Saturdays of Advent; on Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays of the Four Times of the year; on the Vigils: of Pentecost, of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, of the B. V. M. assumed into heaven, of All Saints, and of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. But on the days on which fast is prescribed, the mixing of flesh and fish in the same eating is at the same time always and absolutely forbidden, not even Sundays in Lent excepted. 2. Besides fast in all regions of Italy, as above, the law of abstinence from flesh and from all those things which draw origin from flesh, namely milk, butter, cheese, eggs, and seasonings from the fat of any animal, must also be observed: on Friday of the Four Times in Lent; on Friday in Parasceve; on the Vigils of the Assumption of the B. V. M. and of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. 3. But on the first day of the Lenten fast; on Fridays and Saturdays of Lent; on Fridays and Saturdays of Advent; on Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays of the Four Times; on the Vigils: of St. Joseph, Spouse of the B. V. M.; of the Annunciation of the same B. V. M., where these feasts are recalled under precept, and, as regards the vigil of the Annunciation, provided it falls within Lent; of Pentecost; of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and of All Saints, abstinence from flesh only and from juice in any way expressed from flesh will have to be observed: so that it is licit at will in the principal meal to eat eggs and milk foods, and both in the same principal meal and in the little meal to use seasonings from any fat, butter, margarine, as they call it, and similar things. 4. This same abstinence from flesh only and from meat broth will likewise have to be observed on all and individual other Fridays through the year, yet without obligation of fast and, consequently, with no distinction of meals made as regards the free use of eggs, milk foods, and seasonings. 5. But as often as, on any of the above-mentioned days consecrated to fast or abstinence or to each, there falls either some feast from the more solemn ones in the Church, or the feast of the Titular or principal Patron of some place or diocese, or some extraordinary religious solemnity, such as centenaries, pious pilgrimages, and similar things, or public annual fairs which are celebrated with an unusual concourse of people, it is conceded to local Ordinaries, except in the time of Lent and Advent, that they can either anticipate both fast and abstinence, either for the whole diocese or, according to diverse cases, for certain determined places, to another free day pleasing to them, or even, yet from very grave causes, dispense concerning these. 6. This decree does not regard fasts and abstinences to be observed in some places from a particular vow. But as regards Regular Families of each sex, not bound by a special vow of abstinence or fast, it is decreed that they can use the same law as the simple faithful. 7. By the present decree whatever local indults, concessions, privileges, customs even immemorial, to the contrary, not even the Bull of the Crusade excepted, where and under whatever form it is now in force in Italy, are revoked, abrogated, and thoroughly abolished. But let the Ordinaries vehemently exhort the faithful subject to them that they strive to compensate the Apostolic indulgence by other good works.... Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius X deigned by His Supreme authority to approve and confirm all and individual these things, commanding those whom it concerns that the same, having been opportunely brought to the knowledge of the faithful, from the First Sunday of Advent of the current year 1906, be observed exactly and that they strive that they be observed by all. - Anything whatever to the contrary notwithstanding." S. O. Decr. Frequenter pluribus, 7 Sept. 1906. Therefore in their own force remain fasts and abstinences to be observed from the particular vow formerly made by some place. And therefore at Rome the vow of strict fast on the vigil of the feast of the Purification of the B. V. M. obliges; and in Sicily the vow of fast on the vigil of the feast of the Immaculate Conception, confirmed by Pius VII, C. Frequentes pluribus, 10 Apr. 1818.

After the Motu Proprio Supremi disciplinae, 2 July 1911, concerning suppressed feasts, the vigils of suppressed feasts hitherto observed from precept or from vow must still be observed. S. C. C. 18 Sept. 1911. But by this decision the Decree of the Holy Office Frequenter pluribus, 7 Sept. 1906, was not derogated. S. O. 25 Feb. 1912. "Whether by article 6 of the Decree of Wednesday, 7 September 1906, On reforming the law of fast and abstinence in Italy, anything was derogated from the fasts and abstinences prescribed for Religious Families of each sex by their own Rules and Constitutions? - Resp. Negatively; and therefore, as regards fasts and abstinences to be observed from the general precept of the Church, Religious Families of each sex, not bound by a particular vow of fast or abstinence, can use the same law as the simple faithful; but as regards fasts and abstinences proper to them, one must stand by the Rules and Constitutions of each of them." S. O. 24 Apr. 1907. The great concourse of peoples in the Decree of the Holy Office, as regards dispensation from abstinence and fast to be conceded or anticipation to be made by the Bishop, can be understood also of the concourse of a city or place, and not necessarily of extraneous peoples. S. O. 18 Mar. 1896. Dalmatia: It was established: "1. That fast be observed by strict abstinence from flesh and from all those things which draw origin from flesh, namely milk, butter, cheese, eggs, and seasonings from the fat of any animal, each year on these four days only: Friday of the Four Times in Lent; Friday in Parasceve; the vigil of the Assumption of the B. Virgin Mary; the vigil of the Nativity of the Lord. 2. That fast be observed by non-strict abstinence, that is, from flesh only and from broth in any way expressed from flesh, so that it is licit at will in the principal meal to eat eggs and milk foods, and both in the same principal meal and in the little meal to use seasoning from any fat, butter, margarine, and similar things, each year on these following days: Ash Wednesday; Fridays and Saturdays of Lent; Wednesdays and Fridays of Advent; Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays of the Four Times; the vigil of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul; the vigil of the Annunciation of the B. Virgin Mary, if it falls in Lent; finally the Vigil of All Saints. 3. But since for several citizens of Dalmatia, on account of weakness of stomach, the drinking of coffee in the morning breakfast without milk becomes very burdensome and troublesome, we indulge that on the days inscribed above under n. 2, with Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays of the Four Times always excluded, it is licit in the morning breakfast either to mix milk with coffee, or to use simple milk. 4. We further declare that abstinence of this kind from flesh only and from broth expressed from flesh is to be observed in all Dalmatia, also on all and individual other Fridays through the year, yet without the obligation of fast, and consequently with no distinction of meals made as regards the free use of eggs, milk foods, and seasonings. 5. Finally we command that in all the Dioceses of Dalmatia fast be observed during the whole time of Lent, besides the days already enumerated above, so that it is licit to eat flesh in the principal meal only, but in the little meal to employ seasoning of fat, butter, and similar things. But as regards the mixing of flesh and fish in the same eating, we altogether forbid it on the days on which fast is prescribed, and during Lent, even on Sundays; and therefore we will that all who are dispensed from abstinence from flesh cannot use such mixing during the whole time of Lent, on Wednesdays and Fridays of Advent, for in Austria in the Advent of the Lord on Wednesdays and Fridays and not Saturdays fast is prescribed; finally on the Four Times of the year and on the vigils mentioned above. 6. Moreover, complying with favorable will to the vows of the Bishops of Dalmatia, we concede to them the faculty that, except in the time of Advent and Lent, they can anticipate both fast and abstinence, either for the whole Diocese or, according to diverse cases, for determined places, to another free day; or even, with very grave causes nevertheless pressing, whether of solemnity or of concourse of people, they can altogether dispense the faithful similarly from the obligation both of fast and of abstinence.

7. Finally, assenting to the desires of the same Prelates, we grant that regular families of each sex existing in Dalmatia, which are not bound by a special vow of abstinence or fast, can and may licitly use and enjoy, from Apostolic benignity, the same dispensation as the simple faithful." Pius X, C. Romani Pontifices, 10 June 1911. Spain and Portugal use the Bull of the Crusade, to which various other Indults have been added, the Indult of flesh, the Indult of milk foods. Cf. E. M. ed. 4, p. 151 seqq. As regards Spain, the Bull which is called of the Crusade does not dispense for eating flesh on days of fast, even of Lent, unless necessity stands, from the counsel of both physicians; but it gives the faculty of eating eggs and milk foods at discretion. The law of fasting remains. Secular priests and regulars living outside cloisters cannot use this Indult unless one has reached the sixtieth year of age; but outside the Lenten time eggs and milk foods are permitted to them. In Spain there is besides another Indult which is called of flesh, for eating wholesome flesh in the time of Lent and on other vigil and abstinence days within the year, except Ash Wednesday, the Fridays of Lent, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday of greater week, and the whole greater week besides Palm Sunday for priests, whether secular or regular outside cloisters, the vigil of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of Pentecost, of the Assumption of the B. Virgin Mary, and of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul; and this for all. But that someone may be able to use this privilege he must besides have the Bull of the Holy Crusade; and priests, whether secular or regular outside cloisters, must have another Indult of milk foods, so that they can use that of flesh in the time of Lent, if they have not yet completed the sixtieth year. But regular priests within cloisters can, with the Bull of the Crusade alone, feed on eggs and milk foods, even in the time of Lent, greater week excepted. With the Bull of the Crusade and the Indult of flesh they can do the very same as secular priests having the Bull of the Crusade, the Indult of flesh, and the Indult of milk foods. Indult for sixty-year-old priests in Spain. "In Spain secular priests, sixty years old, by force of the Bull of the Crusade and the Indult for feeding on flesh, with abstraction made from their greater or lesser strength or infirmity, cannot use flesh on Monday and Tuesday of Greater Week, as the lay faithful. But Our Most Holy Lord deigned benignly to declare that sixty-year-old secular priests in Spain, by force of the Bull of the Crusade and the Indult for feeding on flesh, with abstraction made from their greater or lesser strength or infirmity, can use flesh on Monday and Tuesday of Greater Week, as the lay faithful." S. O. 31 Mar. 1906. Indult for the poor in Spain. "The poor in Spain, in order that they enjoy the Lenten Indult, are not held to give alms; but they are held if they wish to enjoy other privileges of the Bull of the Crusade." S. C. C. 23 Jan. 1910. "The poor in Spain, without the alms assigned for the Bull of the Crusade having been paid, can enjoy the Indult as regards eggs and milk foods which is contained in the mentioned Bull." S. C. C. 4 July 1910. "1. Whether the law of fast and abstinence on the day of the solemn Commemoration of St. Joseph, Spouse of the B. V. M., in Spain, where the feast has been restored, has been dispensed by force of the Motu Proprio Supremi disciplinae, or needs dispensation of the Ordinaries according to the tenor of the decree of S. C. C. 3 May 1912? - 2. Whether on days on which the law of fast and abstinence is dispensed, the prohibition also is removed of not mixing fish with flesh in the same meal? - Resp. To the 1st: Affirmatively to the first part, Negatively to the second. - To the 2nd: Negatively." S. C. C. 21 Nov. 1912. - Concerning this Response to the 2nd, observe: Through the Motu Proprio of the Supreme Pontiff, 2 July 1911, the precept of abstinence and fast is not simply removed, but dispensed, "we dispense," "we concede dispensation." Wherefore, if feast days preserved by the Motu Proprio fall on a day only of abstinence, the mixing of foods is not prohibited. But when they fall on a day of fast, the mixing of flesh and fish still remains prohibited. "Whether it is licit or not among Spaniards to season fasting foods, both in the meal and in the evening collation, with fat or bacon? Resp. Affirmatively, provided that by Apostolic Indult those seasonings are permitted on days of fast." S. C. C. 6 Aug. 1910. "Whether an Apostolic Indult for seasoning foods both in the meal and in the evening collation is had in Spain by force of the Bull of the Crusade, or at least by force of the Lenten Indult? - Resp. His Holiness benignly deigned to grant the favor, as regards all those not excepted in the Lenten Indult." S. C. C. 24 Jan. 1914.

Latin America and the Philippine Islands: With the Bull of the Crusade abrogated for all Latin America and the Philippine Islands, and likewise with Lenten Indults and Summaries abrogated, a new recent Indult for ten years, concerning abstinence and fast, has been conceded to all, without petition being necessary or any tax to be paid. And even Regulars can use this Indult, provided they are not bound by a special vow, and even as regards abstinences and fasts prescribed in their own Rules. By force of this Indult, Fast without abstinence is to be observed on Wednesdays of Advent and Lent. Fast with abstinence is to be observed on Ash Wednesday, Fridays of Lent, and Thursday of greater week. Eggs and milk foods are permitted in the evening collation; in the morning little meal, milk foods, eggs excluded. Abstinence from flesh without fast is to be observed on the four vigils of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Pentecost, Assumption of the B. V. M., and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul. Secret. Stat. 1 Jan. 1910. In the Episcopate of Ancy, Frejus, and Toulouse, and in the Archdiocese of Mechlin and the suffragan Episcopates, abstinence and fast on the vigil of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, whose feast has been transferred to the Sunday next following, have been abolished.

Warsaw: In the Archdiocese of Warsaw, and in the whole ecclesiastical province, there is conceded 1. the use of milk foods on all days of strict fast through the year, except Friday in Parasceve; 2. swine fat, goose fat, etc., on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays of Lent, as seasoning of foods; 3. the use of flesh on all Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays of Lent, only at dinner, except Thursday of greater week; on Rogation days as often as they occur; on all Saturday days through the year, insofar as they do not coincide with a strict fast obliging from another source. Scotland: The law of abstinence for the faithful of the kingdom of Scotland has been relaxed, so that it is licit for individual faithful of that Region to eat flesh, Lent excluded, on Saturdays of the Four Times of the year, and on vigils which either immediately precede or follow Friday or another day of abstinence. Apost. Lett. Benigna Mater, 27 Jan. 1911. Ruthenians: Cf. number 1551 at the end.

What is ecclesiastical fast; when; whom does it oblige? Ecclesiastical fast is situated, properly and strictly speaking, in one meal per day; but when it is joined with abstinence, then it is situated in abstinence from foods and from a certain quality of foods, which is to be observed according to the form prescribed by the Church. - Ecclesiastical fast joined with abstinence consists as of three parts, namely 1. one eating during the 24 hours of the day, with an evening little meal added; 2. abstinence from flesh or even from milk foods, as will be declared below; 3. the time determined for taking the meal, also to be declared below. Yet note that the custom of places and times contributes very much to modifying the nature and obligation of fast. The time of fast, as in other similar obligations, is from midnight to midnight, and can be computed according to true, mean, central astronomical time.

Fast obliges especially in the time of Lent, Advent, the Four Times, and certain vigils. The principal ones are: of the Nativity of the Lord, Pentecost, Assumption, All Saints, and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul. There were many fasts in antiquity, also in the time of Advent, of Rogations, and on several other vigils; but all these in many places have become obsolete. The fasts of the vigils themselves have been reduced almost everywhere. Cf. 1573 bis. But when a vigil occurs on Sunday, fast must be kept on Saturday, C. Ex parte 1, C. Consilium 2 de Observatione ieiunior.; Urban VIII, Br. Cum evenire, 13 Oct. 1638. Cf. n. 1573 bis. All the faithful, from the twenty-first completed year of age, are held under grave obligation to observing fast on established days, unless they are legitimately excused or dispensed by superiors. It is a most ancient obligation, which is said to have been handed down by the Apostles themselves. From the twenty-first completed year, because the Church, a pious mother, does not wish to impose on children and adolescents a law surpassing their strength. This is clear from universal custom and from all Catechisms. L. 1004.; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, a. 3-5.; Benedict XIV, Notif. 11.; de Syn. l. 13, c. 4, n. 6, 7.; Tamburini tr. 4 de Quarto Eccl. praec. c. 9.; La Croix l. 3, p. 2, n. 1260 seqq., 1273.; Ferraris v. Ieiunium Append.; E. M.

Note: The vigils of feasts suppressed by the Motu Proprio Supremi disciplinae, 2 July 1911, are still to be observed. Cf. 1573 bis. On 23 Dec., when it falls on Saturday, fast and abstinence are to be observed. E. M. "Since the feast of the Annunciation of the B. M. V., occurring next year on Friday in Parasceve, is transferred also with cessation from work to Monday after Low Sunday as to its proper place, it is asked whether in the following year 1910 the law of abstinence from flesh is to be observed on the vigil of the Annunciation of the B. M. occurring on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord, or ought to be transferred?

Resp. Affirmatively to the first part, negatively to the second." S. C. Conc. 9 June 1909. "The fast on the vigil of the festivity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul is to be observed in France on the Saturday before the Sunday of the festivity of the said Apostles. But if the day of 29 June occurs on Saturday, the fast of the vigil in question is to be observed on the fourth day before the Kalends of July." S. O. 22 Nov. 1879. For the whole kingdom of Spain it was conceded that "as often as the feast of the Immaculate Conception happens to fall on Friday or Saturday, the fast of that day be transferred to the Thursday immediately preceding." S. O. 9 Nov. 1870. The fast on the vigil of St. John the Baptist, when it falls on the day of the solemnity of Corpus Christi, is to be anticipated on the preceding day, or Wednesday. Urban VIII, Br. Cum evenire, 15 Oct. 1638.

What is one meal? - One meal is the primary condition of fast: for its essence is principally situated in this, and when this is removed no one is ever said to fast, while on the contrary fast without abstinence from flesh and milk foods is conceived. But with one full meal or dinner in the morning, a little supper in the evening is permitted at present to all.

But small eatings which are made besides this will be venial sins taken separately, and when repeated more often on the same day can coalesce into grave matter, as is clear from proposition 29 condemned by Alexander VII. Fast is not broken by a draught of water, wine, and other drinks which of themselves are ordered and commonly employed for quenching thirst, although, according to the first discipline of the Church, Christians abstained entirely from wine and similar liquors. Hence the axiom: Liquid does not break fast. But by liquid is understood only that which, from common use, is taken in the manner of drink, not in the manner of food, as milk, etc. L. 1021, 1022.; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, a. 6.

Whether wine drunk for calming hunger breaks fast? - Resp. More probably negatively. The reason is that the law of fast commands only abstinence from food, but not from drink; and, according to St. Thomas, 4 dist. 15, q. 3, a. 4, c. 1, "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." L. 1022.; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, a. 6 ad 2.

Whether the drinking of coffee and tea breaks fast? Resp. More probably negatively, unless too great a quantity of sugar is mixed in; because these do not have the nature of food, but of drink or medicine. St. Liguori 1019 says: "indeed they are permitted altogether at will."

Whether the drinking of water mixed with sugar and juices of oranges or lemons breaks fast? Resp. Negatively, of itself, that is, unless you mix in a great quantity of their substance which is judged to have the nature of food. The reason is that all these from common estimation are held as drinks. Nor does it prevent this if they are served frozen; for freezing does not change the nature. L. 1022.

Resolutions: Therefore it would be otherwise concerning the taking of milk, broth, juice of melons, commonly melloni, and of other fruits, likewise of preserved grapes, or those then pressed by the teeth, although afterward they are spat out. For all these are judged to have the nature of food; and they are referred rather to nutrition than to a vehicle of food. Indeed as regards drinks mixed with milk there is an express prohibition of Clement XIII, Enc. Appetente sacro, 20 Dec. 1759. - Whey properly so called is held as a simple drink, or rather as medicine. Yet as regards tea and coffee to which milk is mixed, Billuart says, tr. de Temper. diss. 2, art. 5, par. V: "Tea and coffee... seem to me to have the nature of drink and not to dissolve the fast, unless perhaps much milk and sugar is mixed in, and they are taken in great quantity." Indeed in milk there is a great part of water, almost 85 parts in one hundred. - L. 1019, 1021, 1022.

Whether a drink of chocolate breaks fast? - Resp. Affirmatively, if it furnishes rich nutrition, as is the custom outside the time of fast. But negatively if a modest quantity of chocolate is taken, and it is done only once in the day, in the morning morsel. The reason is drawn from general custom. L. 1023. What quantity can be taken? The holy Doctor says that not less than an ounce and a half of chocolate is usually put into ordinary cups; for thus it is commonly done from the custom tolerated by the Church and observed by pious faithful. But not a few, with the aforesaid quantity of chocolate diminished, substitute bread pro rata. But truly the total quantity of that food ought not exceed the weight of two ounces, water prescinded. An ounce equals around 30 grams. Cf. 1593. - Benedict XIV, Notif. 15.; E. M.

Whether it is licit on a day of fast to taste some food before drink, lest the latter harm? - This indeed is not licit as often as one likes, as they say; for then the law of fast would be ridiculous. And so it can be permitted only once or again in the day; especially lest strength fail, if dinner, e.g., happens to be delayed much beyond the customary time, as happens to religious serving at table, readers, and servants. Indeed an obligation of taking something will urge, if this is necessary for observing the fast. - L. 1018, 1019.; E. M.

Whether electuaries break fast? Electuaries are said to be those things which are made from chosen things, e.g., from sugar and juniper, etc. But they are not judged illicit on days of fast, if they are taken in the manner of medicine and in modest quantity. But any reasonable cause suffices for excusing from all fault, e.g., for the digestion of foods, strengthening the stomach, removing bad odor of the mouth, preserving the voice, and similar things. St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, a. 6.

What quantity of food is judged grave matter if it is taken outside the meal and little supper? It is controverted. Matter which, added to the evening little supper, would make another meal is undoubtedly to be judged grave. But certainly a quantity of two ounces is to be held as light matter. Not a few judge the quantity equivalent to half a little supper, or four ounces, to be grave matter. Outside the meal; in the meal no quantity of foods is taxed; otherwise it is in the little supper. Cf. 1593. Outside the meal and little supper; therefore to these four ounces are to be computed those two ounces of the morning morsel, and therefore even outside that, the matter is grave beyond only two ounces. But, with the morning morsel now permitted from present custom, the illicit light and grave matter of two and four ounces seems now to be computed outside all permitted little meals. L. 1020, 1025.; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, a. 6.; 4 d. 15, a. 4, q. 3.

Whether he who culpably took two meals sins gravely if he adds a third? Resp. Negatively, at least more probably.

The reason is that the precept of fast urges in an indivisible mode during the day of precept; therefore he who once violated it does not sin again and again by eating. Therefore, once mortal sin has been committed through violation of fast, the whole law urging on such a day has been violated. Therefore. Yet he who breaks fast by eating forbidden flesh or milk foods several times sins as often as he eats. L. 1030.; H. A. 20.

Whether he who inculpably took two meals in a day, when the error has been detected or the excusing cause removed, is held under grave obligation to abstain from a third? Some affirm. The reason is that he injured fast only materially, not formally; wherefore as soon as he adverts to the law of fast, or sees the excusing cause cease, he is subject to the same law and is held to observe it as the rest; otherwise he would violate it formally. Thus probably Reuter de Leg. 176. Yet others more probably deny it, because since the essence of fast is situated in one eating, after two meals fast becomes impossible. L. 1030.; H. A. 20.

What if on a day of fast you inadvertently breakfasted? - If you have taken a little something, e.g., two, three, or almost four ounces of food, you ought indeed according to custom to fast, without leaving the meal and little supper at the customary hours; for the fast was not substantially injured. If you have taken a quantity equivalent to a little supper, you ought to transfer dinner to the evening time, or abstain from the little supper itself, or take a morsel in place of the little supper, unless this yields to you into grave inconvenience. But if a quantity of this kind were nearly equal either to a double little supper or to the customary meal, you ought, with dinner omitted, to take only the evening little supper, yet earlier if you cannot wait without grave difficulty. Moreover, you could increase this little supper according to the reason of necessity; or even take a morsel late, with the little supper anticipated at evening time. But there are not lacking those who think that one is no longer held to fast in this inverted order, not the usual order, since it is an extraordinary mode and as it were a privilege, which no one is held to use, and it is not without grave inconvenience. E. M.

Whether an evening collation is permitted? - Besides the customary meal, it is licit, from universal custom introduced for many centuries and tolerated by the Church, indeed tacitly also approved, to take toward evening a little meal from lighter foods. The evening little collation began in some way from monks, who in fasts introduced by their own rule, before or after sacred conversations, called collations or conferences, took some draughts of water, or of another drink, for refreshing strength. Afterward a morsel either of bread or of another food was added, lest the drink harm. But the faithful embraced this custom in the fasts of the Church; this custom came to this, that a small supper is had; that this custom is altogether legitimate at present is proved by custom received everywhere, and indeed indiscriminately as regards all, even if someone did not need it. Elbel 473.; L. 1024.

What quantity of food can be taken in the little supper? From present and common custom, at least speaking ordinarily, around eight ounces of food, or around 250 grams, can be taken. For a common ounce is equivalent to around 31 grams, and a Roman ounce around 29 grams. A pound of 16 ounces equals 500 grams. L. 1025. But others say that the fourth part of supper or dinner is to be permitted. But this doctrine is too vague or liable to scruples. - The quantity of eight ounces seems to be denied to no one, but a greater one is to be conceded to those for whom this would not suffice. Indeed no rule altogether fixed can be established, since attention also must be paid to constitution, duties to be performed, duration of fast, etc. It is licit in general to take as much as one judges necessary for avoiding an indisposition which impedes him from suitably performing his duties. Regard also must be had to one's own region, if somewhere a greater quantity of food is necessary. - L. 1024.

What excess is judged grave in the little supper? - All agree that an excess of two ounces is light matter. The stricter authors with Concina teach that an excess surpassing two ounces is grave; but others with Billuart hold that an excess is required which, taken separately, is equivalent to an entire little supper. Yet commonly the doctors require above the little supper an excess equivalent to another half little supper, or four ounces. In various places, from introduced custom, on the vigil of the Nativity, even on Saturday if the Nativity falls on Monday, likewise on the Supper of the Lord, it is licit to take a quantity twice as great; but this custom is not in force everywhere. - L. 1024, 1025.

What quality of foods can be employed in the little supper? - Lighter foods are permitted: bread, any fruits, also any vegetables, sweets of various kinds. But especially the custom of places is to be observed.

Several things are permitted in various dioceses or provinces which elsewhere are forbidden. L. 1024-1026.

Whether it is licit to eat eggs, cheese, butter in the evening little supper? - Resp. Negatively, generally; although a dispensation for milk foods is had, as is clear from the Decree of Benedict XIV and C. Appetente of Clement XIII, 20 Dec. 1759. Yet in certain places, from custom, it is licit to take some butter, or cheese, or milk; but eggs are by no means permitted, because they are of greatest substance, and therefore are rejected by custom, says St. Liguori 1027. Thus in Belgium milk and cheese are usually employed; in France and elsewhere generally it is licit from custom to feed on cheese. The privilege of cheese likewise in the diocese of Novara for the whole Vicariate of Intra was conceded by Innocent XII, through the organ of the Holy Office, 30 Jan. 1694. "Cheese or butter in the little supper is not conceded," says Kenrick tr. 4, c. 4, n. 46, "according to the general custom of the Church: but a contrary usage has obtained in these provinces. Milk also from a certain necessity is taken somewhere among us." They also assert that eggs are permitted from custom in Germany and in many regions of North America. In Latin America it is licit for all to use milk foods and also eggs. S. E. Neg. Extr. 6 July 1899. Cf. here n. 1573 bis.

Whether fish are permitted in the little supper? Resp. Affirmatively, if there is question of little fish, especially dried, and probably also of fresh and larger fish, with today's almost general practice considered. Yet St. Liguori thinks, 1208, that from these the weight of two or three ounces is not to be exceeded. In Spain, however, by force of custom, fish and little fish generally are not permitted. E. M.

Whether it is licit in the little supper to use broth from herbs cooked with water, vinegar, oil, or boiled wine? Resp. Affirmatively, probably, unless custom is certainly opposed: but then neither water nor wine is to be computed in the weight; but, according to Viva, that is to be computed which does not have the nature of drink, e.g., oil. L. 1209.

Whether it is licit in the little supper to take bread boiled with water and oil, or soupy bread? Resp. Affirmatively, from present custom, which even the timorous follow, and recent theologians commonly approve; yet with a quantity of solid food of bread less than eight ounces. Boiled: for it can be conceded that during the meal itself someone dip bread in water or wine, and thus also take eight ounces of bread moistened with wine: since here almost the same substance of bread remains: and the liquid, since it serves only as a vehicle, is not computed. L. 1029.

What quantity of boiled bread of this kind can be permitted, water prescinded? Theologians disagree. There are those who deny that it is licit absolutely to exceed eight ounces. But if an ounce of bread boiled in ten ounces of water with another ounce of oil were taken, what scruple would there be in permitting these twelve ounces? But others concede eight ounces of boiled bread, water prescinded. Yet on account of this boiling you have one food, which, although it does not constitute a greater quantity of nutritive substance, nevertheless from the greater volume generates greater satiety. Hence it seems that one cannot at least altogether prescind from the water. Therefore a middle opinion seems to be chosen, namely that five, or at least four, ounces of boiled bread can be permitted, with water and oil not computed. The same likewise will have to be said of other boiled preparations which likewise are usually placed in the little supper, e.g., from spelt, rice, legumes, etc. L. 1029.

What abstinence is prescribed in fast? - To all the faithful using reason, by the precept of the Church the use of flesh is now forbidden on many, but not all, days of fast. Hence by the law of fast a twofold precept is then imposed, namely of abstaining from several meals and of abstaining from flesh. On certain days eggs and milk foods also are prohibited under grave obligation, namely all those things which draw origin from flesh. - Moreover, although the use of eggs and milk foods could not be excused from grave sin of itself, according to the common opinion, nevertheless smallness of matter seems more easily to be admitted in these than in the use of flesh. But when by Indult it is licit to use bacon, fat, butter, margarine as seasonings, one can use them also in the little supper, although he fasts. Cf. 1572, 1572 bis.; L. 1005, 1006, 1007.; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, a. 3, 8.; Benedict XIV, Notif. 16.; E. M.

When must abstinence from milk foods be observed? - Resp. In Lenten time eggs and milk foods also were formerly prohibited under grave obligation, namely all those things which draw origin from flesh. But outside Lenten time this prohibition was not had. Yet somewhere, e.g., at Rome, a custom having the force of law prevailed, that even on certain other days, e.g., the Four Times, abstinence of this kind be observed. But at present one must stand by particular laws, privileges, indults. Cf. 1573 bis. In many places still, Bishops, by a faculty delegated by the Roman Pontiff, concede dispensation, even as regards flesh, for the principal part of Lent. - L. 1009.; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, a. 8 ad 3.; Struggl tr. 8, q. 2, n. 18.

Whether abstinence from eggs and milk foods also obliged on Sundays of Lent? - Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is that in Canon Law, C. Denique 6 d. 4, abstinence from milk foods is universally commanded on Lenten days. But it is certain that Sundays also are days of Lent. L. 1007.; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, a. 8.

Whether, when abstinence of stricter right is to be observed, it is licit in the meal to eat breads made with eggs? Resp. Negatively, unless eggs have been permitted; the reason is that their substance is not lost from the fact that it is mixed with flour. L. 1009.

Whether those dispensed for milk foods are by that very fact also judged dispensed for eggs? - Resp. Affirmatively, because these are equated by custom, unless a distinction is clearly expressed in the dispensation. Gury 504. Indeed, when on a day of simple abstinence, e.g., Friday, milk foods are permitted, eggs also are conceded. But those dispensed for flesh are judged also dispensed for eggs and milk foods; and those dispensed for eggs are judged dispensed for milk foods too; because to whom the greater is conceded, the lesser also is conceded. But to whom it is licit to eat milk foods, it is not therefore also licit to eat bacon and grease, because they participate in the substance of flesh and are judged as flesh. L. 1015. Cf. here 1573 bis.

Whether those dispensed for flesh are still held to fast? Resp. Affirmatively. This is proved from the prescription of Benedict XIV, B. In Suprema, 22 Aug. 1741, and more clearly B. Libentissime, 10 July 1745, Inst. 15, n. 20 seqq., de Syn. l. 7, c. 3, n. 1.; L. 1013, 1014, 1015. - Those dispensed; those who cannot abstain from flesh on account of grave inconvenience are more truly still held to one meal; although another thing seems to others. Benedict XIV, Not. 15, n. 19 seqq. But those who likewise on account of grave inconvenience cannot be nourished by one meal, are held to abstinence from flesh, which is the truer and certain opinion. Indeed this precept is divisible by reason of its matter, and the obligation can well remain for one part, the obligation ceasing for another, as is clear from particular laws for some places, and for others from the dispensation itself, which is usually given in Lent, and from the fact that those not yet having attained the twenty-first year of age, although they are not held to fast, are nevertheless held by the law of abstinence. Cf. n. 1573 bis, 1626.; Benedict XIV, cited Constitutions.; Collect. S. C. de P. F. n. 2057.; E. M.

Whether those dispensed for flesh can eat flesh and fish at the same time? - Those dispensed for flesh cannot on days of fast in the time of Lent and through the year, nor on Sundays of Lent, eat flesh and fish together, namely in the same eating. This is clear from three Constitutions of Benedict XIV: Non ambigimus, In Suprema, Libentissime. Those dispensed; for he who by reason of infirmity eats flesh, even several times, on a day of fast can eat both flesh and fish at the same time. S. Poenit. 9 Jan. 1899. For the forbidden mixing is a condition placed on those who eat flesh by force of an indult, although from a reasonable cause they are immune from the law of one eating. And these then can eat flesh as often as they eat, unless a restriction is placed in the indult, that those who also do not fast can eat flesh only once; this restriction is not added at Rome.

On days of fast; for on Fridays and Saturdays, he to whom it is licit to eat flesh from dispensation can eat fish at the same time. Days of fast; nevertheless the precept concerning not mixing each kind of food obliges also on Sundays of Lent. Flesh, not broth seasoned with flesh. Fish also comprehends marine shellfish, oysters, crabs, etc. Cf. here 1626.; L. 1013, 1014, 1015.; E. M. In Italy specifically, on the days on which fast is now prescribed, and also on Sundays of Lent, mixing is always and absolutely prohibited. The same prohibition is altogether had for Dalmatia. Cf. 1573 bis. An Indult has been conceded for Chile of mixing flesh and fish on those days on which dispensation from fast and abstinence had already been made. E. M.

Whether those dispensed for flesh can, without injury to the fast, eat flesh not wholesome, namely pork and similar things? "The doctors very commonly and indeed probably affirm; both because license for flesh generally imparted is not to be restricted to wholesome flesh alone, and because otherwise those dispensed would be subjected to many scruples, not rarely doubting which flesh harms or profits.... But, speaking in particular of pork, it does not seem that it can be called absolutely unwholesome." L. 1015. Those dispensed, namely individuals, not all universally; for then only wholesome flesh is permitted. Benedict XIV, C. Libentissime § 1. But this restriction, which previously was placed in the Indult at Rome, has now been omitted from the year 1897, as is to be seen in the Lenten Indult; and everywhere it has now become obsolete. E. M. 1626.

At what hour is the meal to be made? - In these our times, from universal custom, the meal is licitly taken almost at midday. L. 1016.; H. A. 9.; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, a. 7. "The one meal which is permitted on a day of fast was formerly taken after sunset in Lent, and at the ninth hour, or around three hours after noon, at the other times of the year; from the fourteenth century it has been taken around midday." Kenrick tr. 4, c. 4, n. 42.

Whether the hour of the meal pertains to the essence of fast, so that he sins gravely who notably anticipates it without just cause? The first probable opinion affirms. The reason is that just as the Church instituted fast, so also it instituted a certain time of eating for those fasting. Therefore he who notably anticipates dissolves the fast. The second opinion, also probable, denies it. The reason is that from present custom the hour no longer pertains to the substance of fast. Some say notable anticipation exists if the meal is anticipated by more than an hour; others if by only an hour. Anticipates; for someone would not sin by delaying, since he would more approach the ancient custom, which indeed conduces better to the end of fast. Without just cause; for as a just cause can excuse from the fast itself, so also it can excuse from the hour of the meal. "Moreover," says St. Alphonsus 1016, "it is licit to anticipate within an hour, even without cause." - L. H. A. tr. 12, n. 21.; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, a. 7. Cf. here 1611.

Whether fast is broken if the little supper is taken at midday, but the meal in the evening? It is not broken essentially, and therefore, if it is done without cause, it does not exceed venial sin. But even from this venial sin a reasonable cause excuses, and the custom of place or condition. Indeed in many places from present custom the little supper can be made at the tenth hour in the morning, and the meal in the evening. But with a reasonable cause standing, someone could also take the little supper in the morning, dinner at midday, and a morsel in the evening. L. 1020, 1024.; E. M.

How long can dinner be prolonged? Nothing can be determined absolutely concerning this; but it does not seem that it can be prolonged beyond two hours without some fault. L. 1020.; H. A. 10.

Whether he breaks fast who interrupts the meal and, after an interval has elapsed, approaches it again? - If the interruption is slight, e.g., of one quarter-hour, it lacks all fault, even if it is done without reason. L. ib. - If the interruption is of almost one hour without reason, it does not lack some fault, as it seems. If the interruption is very notable, e.g., of two hours, it cannot be excused from grave sin, because it cannot be called one meal, unless a just cause excuses. - But if the interruption is had from a grave cause, there is no sin in returning to the table, even with a notable delay interposed, when the preceding meal was not sufficient; because the Church never intended to oblige one to pass a day without sufficient meal. L. 1017, 1020.

Whether he who rose from the table with the intention of eating no more can sit down at the table again? Resp. Affirmatively, probably, if the guests are still eating, or if a new dish is placed on the table which he did not know was to be placed. The reason is that it is still judged morally the same dinner. By the same reason it is licit to take something before dinner for sustaining strength, e.g., for ministers and readers at table among religious; for there still remains morally one meal, and sufficient cause is present for acting thus. - L. 1020.

What are the causes which excuse from fast? Causes excusing from fast are usually reduced chiefly to three, namely: 1. to impossibility, whether physical or moral; 2. to piety or charity; 3. to dispensation, as was said concerning other precepts. As regards piety and charity, any work of piety and charity indeed excuses, provided nevertheless that it is better than fast and a grave cause is present; because what the law commands is regularly to be furnished. If the cause is doubtful, someone ought to use the counsel of both physicians, or of the Confessor alone, or of the physician alone, or of another prudent man, or even his own, if he can prudently judge the case. L. l. 3, n. 325.; n. 1031 seqq.; l. 4, n. 154.; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147, a. 4.

"Whether, where clocks are used, accommodated to mean time, one must stand by these, both for satisfying the burden of the divine office and for satisfying the natural fast; or whether one ought, or at least can, use true time? - Resp. That one can follow mean time, but is not bound." S. Poenit. 29 Nov. 1882.

When the Neapolitan Syndic had prescribed that all Neapolitan clocks, with some private ones excepted, in indicating noon should take their rule from Roman mean time, it happens that midnight differs from the true not only by reason of mean time, but also by reason of the different meridian of each city, so that the difference sometimes not slightly exceeds a quarter of an hour. Hence the Eminent Cardinal Archbishop asked the Sacred Penitentiary: "These things having been considered, can the faithful at Naples, in observing the natural fast and other obligations of the Church, follow the clocks indicating the hours according to Roman mean time, or rather ought they to follow those clocks which mark true Neapolitan time? - Resp. To the first part, in the affirmative; to the second, in the negative." S. Poenit. 18 June 1873.

"Whether it can be permitted... that in the morning, on days of fasting, coffee or chocolate be taken in a small quantity with a little morsel of bread? - Resp. Those who follow such a usage are not to be disquieted." S. Poenit. 21 Nov. 1843.

"Whether, when either through the Bull of the Crusade, or for another cause, an Indult is granted for the use of melted lard (commonly strutto) under the sole title of condiment, those who are bound to fasting can use that condiment also in the evening refection? - Resp. That those who are bound to fasting can lawfully use, also in the evening refection, the condiments permitted in the Indult; because those, by force of the Indult, take the place of oil; provided that in the Indult there is no restriction placed, that they can be employed in the one meal." S. Poenit. 16 Jan. 1834.

"Whether in a concession of condiments (commonly di grasso) there is understood to have been granted the use of condiment from the fat of any animal whatever? - The Sacred Penitentiary responded: That only swine condiment is to be used."

"Whether on Fridays and Saturdays, on which condiments commonly called di grasso are indulged, meat broth can be employed? - The Sacred Penitentiary responded: Under the terms condiment di grasso there is not comprehended broth of cooked meat."

"Can children under family authority eat meats at a forbidden time, the faculty of this kind being presupposed in the parents, or in one of them; and in the affirmative case, can the children eat meats without offense of conscience, when they are found in the circumstance of preparing two dinners? - Resp. In the negative, speaking speculatively; but practically the Confessor is bound to judge." S. Poenit. 20 April 1865.

"Whether by force of the response of the Sacred Penitentiary (16 Jan. 1834) conceived in these words: Persons who are in the power of a head of household, to whom a legitimate faculty of eating meats has been granted, are permitted to use foods indulged to the head of household, etc., when the head of household has been dispensed, the others of the same family also ought to be understood as dispensed? - Resp. The Sacred Penitentiary has never declared that dispensations granted to the head of a family extend to the whole family; but only gave directions for confessors in the practical act concerning those who are under power and must eat foods given by parents."

1. Whether the same response of the Sacred Penitentiary, 16 Jan. 1834, "has force everywhere on earth? 2. When in the same response it is said that it can be permitted, it is asked by whom this permission is to be given, and whether permission given by a simple confessor suffices? - Resp. As regards the first, in the affirmative. As regards the second, that permission made by a simple confessor suffices." S. Poenit. 27 May 1863.

"The faithful who, by reason of affected health, are exempted from the law of fasting or of the one meal, can lawfully on those days of Lent on which eating meats is permitted by Indult, eat meats as often as they eat during the day." S. Poenit. 16 March 1882. Cf. Acta S. Sedis Vol. 14, p. 568; Vol. 1, p. 427.

Seven doubts proposed to Benedict XIV and solved by him, Letter to the Archbishop of Compostela, 10 June 1745.

"1. Whether those things which in Our aforementioned Letters in the form of a Brief are prescribed concerning the one meal, and concerning foods not to be mixed, are forbidden under grave precept also? - Resp. That those granting the faculty of eating meats at a forbidden time are bound under grave obligation to give the same faculties in no other way than with these two conditions added, namely of one meal in a day and of foods not to be mixed. But those who use faculties of this kind are bound under grave obligation to fulfill those two conditions."

"2. Whether those to whom it has been granted to eat meats can, in the little evening refection, eat that quantity of meat which is permitted to those fasting? Resp. It is not lawful; but they need that food, and must use that portion, which men fasting with an upright and careful conscience use."

"3. Whether those who during the time of fasting are permitted to eat meats and must use one meal need to observe the hour prescribed for those fasting? - Resp. That it must be observed."

"4. What are the lawful foods, which it is forbidden to join with those interdicted? - Resp. That the lawful foods for those to whom it has been permitted to eat meats are the meats themselves; that the interdicted foods are fish, and therefore both cannot be used at the same time. Yet those to whom only the faculty of using eggs and milk foods is given are not prohibited from eating fish."

"5. Whether the precept concerning not mixing each kind of food also embraces the Sundays of Lent? - Resp. That it does embrace them."

"6. Whether this law also pertains to those who from the Bull of the Crusade can eat eggs and milk foods? Resp. That nothing has been established in Our aforesaid Apostolic Letters which regards the gracious Diploma of the Crusade. Therefore those who enjoy it should weigh its tenor strictly and considerately, and should conduct themselves according to its meaning. But let them beware lest by some empty excuse they judge themselves to be released from the laws prescribed there."

"7. Whether the two mentioned precepts urge outside Lent? Resp. That each precept urges outside Lent; namely, that of one meal with the remaining laws expressed in the second and third response to these petitions; and the other of not mixing lawful foods with interdicted ones, as has been defined in the fourth petition."

Other Declarations of the Holy Office and of the Sacred Penitentiary

"Whether the obligation of not mixing fish with meat on the days of Lent reaches all who, by force of an Indult, can eat meats, or only those who fast? - Resp. In the affirmative as regards the first part, in the negative as regards the second part; and let the Decree of 24 March 1841 be given, namely to the doubt: Whether the law concerning not mixing lawful and interdicted foods also regards those who are not bound to the one meal, such as young persons before they have completed the third seven-year period, and others reasonably excused from the same because of impotence or labor; the Most Eminent Fathers decreed: It is not lawful." S. I. C. 23 June 1875. Cf. Gury-Ballerini, Vol. 2, n. 1107.

"That meats can be mixed with any species whatever of vegetables is beyond doubt." S. Poenit. 8 Feb. 1828.

489. • I. All the faithful, from the completion of the twenty-first year of age, are bound under grave sin to observe the fast on the stated days, unless they are legitimately excused or are dispensed by Superiors. It is a most ancient obligation, which is said to have been handed down by the Apostles themselves. Moreover, concerning this obligation it is established from various Constitutions of the Supreme Pontiffs, and from all the Catechisms of the ecclesiastical Provinces.

I said, 1. under grave sin, because the law regards grave matter, since indeed it very much conduces to the salvation of souls. It is established besides from Proposition 23 condemned by Alexander VII, which lies thus: "One breaking the fast of the Church to which he is bound does not sin mortally, unless he does it from contempt or disobedience, for example, because he does not wish to subject himself to the precept."

I said, 2. from the completion of the twenty-first year; because the Church, as a pious mother, does not wish to impose on boys and adolescents a law surpassing their strength. It is established from universal custom, and from all Catechisms.

II. Ecclesiastical fasting consists of three things as of parts, namely: 1. one meal through the 24 hours of the day, with a little evening refection added; - 2. abstinence from flesh meats and milk products ¹; - 3. a determined time for taking the refection. - Notice, however, that the custom of places and times contributes especially to determining, or modifying, or restricting the nature and obligation of fasting.

¹ This must be restricted according to the things which are to be said below, n. 503.

490. Principles. - I. One meal is the primary condition of fasting: for in this chiefly its essence is situated; once this indeed is taken away, no one is ever said to fast, while, on the contrary, fasting is conceived without abstinence from flesh meats and milk products.

II. But small eatings which are done besides will be venial sins, taken separately, and if repeated rather often on the same day they can coalesce into grave matter, as is clear from Proposition 29 condemned by Alexander VII, which lies thus: "On a fast day he who rather often eats a little something, even if at the end he will have eaten a notable quantity, does not break the fast"; but this Proposition was deservedly condemned. Otherwise fasting would have been done away with.

III. The fast is not broken by a draught of water, wine, and other drinks which of themselves are ordered and commonly used for quenching thirst, although according to the first discipline of the Church Christians abstained completely from wine and similar liquids. Hence the axiom: Liquid does not break the fast. - Thus St. Lig., n. 1022. But by liquid is understood only that which by common use is taken in the manner of drink, not indeed in the manner of food, as milk, etc. - St. Lig., n. 1021.

491. Questions. - Q. 1. Whether wine drunk for quieting hunger breaks the fast?

Resp. It is denied, more probably. The reason is that the law of fasting commands only abstinence from food, not however from drink; and according to St. Thomas, 4, dist. 15, q. 3, a. 4, q. 1, "The statute of a positive law does not attend to the intention of the observer, but to the act itself, because the mode of virtue does not fall under precept, but is the end of the precept." - St. Lig., n. 1022, and others commonly.

Q. 2. Whether the drinking of coffee and tea breaks the fast?

Resp. It is denied, more probably, unless too great a quantity of sugar is mixed in; because these do not have the nature of food, but of drink or medicine. - Thus more commonly. - St. Lig., n. 1022, speaking only of tea, says that, with the restriction just brought forward being posited, it more probably has the character of drink. It seems the same must be held concerning coffee.

492. • Q. 3. Whether the drinking of water mixed with sugar, or made from the juices of oranges or lemons, breaks the fast?

Resp. It is denied per se, that is, unless you mix in a great quantity of their substance which is considered to have the character of food. - Thus commonly with St. Lig., ibid. - The reason is that all these things, according to common estimation, are held as drinks ¹.

¹ St. Alphonsus (n. 1022, q. II) concedes that this same thing is lawful, even if these things are congealed by frost.

Q. 4. Whether a drink of chocolate breaks the fast?

Resp. It is affirmed, if, as is the custom outside the time of fasting, it provides you rich nourishment. - But it is denied if a moderate quantity of chocolate is taken and this is done only once in the day. The reason is drawn from general custom. - Thus St. Lig., n. 1023. - What quantity can be taken? The Holy Author says that not less than an ounce and a half of chocolate is usually put into ordinary cups; for thus, from the usage tolerated by the Church and kept by pious faithful, it is commonly accustomed to be done. But not a few, when the aforesaid quantity of chocolate has been lessened, substitute bread proportionally. But truly the total quantity of that food ought not to exceed the weight of two ounces, the water not being counted.

493. • Q. 5. Whether it is lawful on a fast day to taste some food before drink, lest the latter harm?

Resp. That certainly is not lawful "as often as," as they say, although Diana, Leander, and others concede this also; for then the law of fasting would be laughable. Therefore it can be permitted only once or twice in the day. - St. Lig., n. 1018.

Q. 6. Whether electuaries break the fast?

Resp. Electuaries are called those things which are made from selected things, for example from sugar and juniper, etc. But they are not considered illicit on fast days if they are taken in the manner of medicine and in moderate quantity. But any reasonable cause suffices for excusing from every fault, for example, for the digestion of foods, strengthening the stomach, taking away bad odor of the mouth, preserving the voice, and similar things. - St. Thom., 2. 2, qu. 147, art. 6. - Sporer. - Elbel. - St. Lig., n. 1010, adds that probably those also are excused who take something lest their strength fail, when they must defer dinner beyond the common hour. Indeed, there will be an obligation of taking something if this is necessary for keeping the fast ².

² Namely, if by using this aid you can bear the fast which otherwise you would not bear, the obligation of fasting itself requires from you that you use that aid. See Croix, lib. 3, part II, n. 1324. From this it is clear that certain persons act altogether badly toward fasting, while, either under the pretext of a custom which has not yet prevailed in their own province, they forbid the faithful to take anything in the morning, or they restrict this very thing to a mere little drink, biscuits being forbidden. For thus they accomplish only this one thing: that many who otherwise would bear the yoke of fasting cast it off altogether.

494. • Q. 7. What quantity of food is considered grave matter if it is taken outside the meal and the small supper?

Resp. It is disputed. Without doubt that matter must be considered grave which, added to the evening small supper, would make another meal. But certainly the quantity of two ounces is to be held as light matter ³. Not a few think the quantity equivalent to half of the small supper, or four ounces, to be grave matter.

³ Thus St. Alphonsus (lib. 3, n. 1025): "Since the Salmanticenses with Sanchez, etc., consider that two ounces in the little refection are not reputed a grave excess," etc.

Q. 8. Whether he who culpably took a double meal sins gravely if he adds a third?

Resp. It is denied, at least more probably. The reason is that the precept of fasting urges in an indivisible way during the day of the precept; therefore he who has once violated it does not sin again and again by eating. Therefore, once mortal sin has been perpetrated by violation of the fast, the whole law urging on such a day has been violated. Therefore, etc. - St. Lig., n. 1030 ⁴. - Mazzotta, Ronc., and others commonly.

⁴ ** Thus St. Alphonsus (l. c.): "The second common and more probable opinion denies"; and the Holy Doctor deservedly says this against Croix (lib. 3, p. 2, n. 1265, whom Ferraris afterwards copied, v. Ieiunium, art. 1, n. 37), who says more rigorously that mortal sin is committed very probably. Yet from Croix the Holy Doctor took what Ferraris also had taken (l. c.), that it is the most common opinion that at least venial sin is committed. Thus he himself (l. c.): "Lessius, Filliuccius, and Croix with the most common opinion say that this is venial." But scarcely could anyone divine whence and on what foundation Croix came forth into that absolute assertion: "It must be held," he says, "with the most common opinion, that at least venial sin is committed." For Filliuccius (tr. 27, c. 2, n. 24), as Sporer also reports (append. to the 3rd Precept, sect. 1, n. 18), merely says: "it is probable that at least venial sin is committed." And Lessius (lib. 4, c. 2, n. 17): "It is credible that in a third and fourth eating there is some sin, at least venial." But does this equipment furnish a foundation for that absolute opinion, so that, moreover, it may be called most common? Indeed Reiffenstuel (tr. 10, dist. 1, q. 2, n. 20) says that the opposite is the more common, although he concedes that someone can sin against temperance by several eatings, which does not pertain to the matter. Thus also Mazzotta (tr. 2, disp. 1, q. 4, § 2): "Doctors commonly affirm that if after a double eating someone eats a third time, he does not further sin against the law of one eating." You may see the same also in Laymann (lib. 4, tr. 8, c. 1, n. 13). Otherwise, could Croix have suspected that the Doctors are to be thought to have admitted venial sin for this reason, because against certain few they set down the thesis that mortal sin is not committed? But the reasoning of the adverse thesis demanded this antithesis. It was all the less necessary for them to raise a question about at least some light fault, because the arguments brought forward by them excluded every fault. Palaus well concludes (tom. 7, tr. 1, disp. 3, p. 2, § 2, n. 8): "If the law forbids other eatings, there will be just as many grave sins; if it does not forbid them, there is no sin." Therefore sin can be committed against temperance, which does not bear on the matter, but not against fasting.

Yet he who breaks the fast by eating forbidden flesh meats or milk products many times sins as often as he eats. - St. Lig., Hom. apost., n. 20.

495. • Q. 9. Whether he who inculpably took a double meal in the day, when the error has been detected, or the excusing cause removed, is bound under grave sin to abstain from a third?

Resp. Certain authors affirm. The reason is that he has injured the fast only materially, not formally: wherefore as soon as he attends to the law of fasting, or sees that the excusing cause ceases, he is subjected to the same law and is bound, as the others, to keep it; otherwise he would violate it formally. - Thus probably Reuter, de Leg., n. 176. - St. Lig., Hom. apost., n. 20. Yet others more probably deny, because since the essence of fasting is situated in one meal, after a double meal the fast becomes impossible. - Recall the things said concerning Laws, n. 95.

496. • Q. 10. What if on a fast day you have inadvertently taken breakfast?

Resp. 1. If you have taken a little something, for example two, three, or four ounces of food, you ought indeed to fast according to custom, without abandoning the meal and the small supper at the accustomed hours; for the fast was not substantially injured ⁵.

⁵ Since the Author (above, q. 7) admits that, according to the opinion of many, which otherwise seems altogether to be held, the quantity of four ounces constitutes grave matter, it scarcely appears, indeed, how the fast is substantially kept by him who has taken four ounces of food; since these two things, namely to sin gravely against the law of fasting and to keep the fast as to substance, seem to cohere little. Perhaps someone would better say that the small supper is also not denied to you by reason of a certain necessity, and not as though these things per se injure the substance of the fast not at all.

2. If you have taken a quantity equivalent to the small supper, you must transfer dinner to the evening time, or abstain from the small supper itself, unless this gives you grave inconvenience.

3. Yet if a quantity of this sort was equal either to nearly a double small supper or to the accustomed meal, you ought, omitting dinner, to take only the evening small supper, yet taking it earlier if you cannot wait without grave difficulty. Besides, you could increase this small supper according to the measure of necessity.

Besides the accustomed meal it is lawful, from universal custom introduced for many centuries and tolerated by the Church, indeed also tacitly approved, to take toward evening a little refection from lighter foods. - Thus all.

497. Questions. - Q. 1. What quantity of food can be taken in the small supper?

Resp. From present-day and common custom, about eight ounces of food can be taken, at least speaking ordinarily. - Thus St. Lig., n. 1025. - But others say that a fourth part of the supper must be permitted ¹. But this doctrine 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. - St. Lig., ibid. - Elbel, Lacroix. Certainly a completely fixed rule cannot be established, since regard must also be had to constitution, duties to be performed, the duration of the fast, etc. In general it is lawful to take as much as one judges necessary for avoiding indisposition which would impede him from performing his duties fittingly. - Scav., Gousset. Regard must also be had to one's own region, if in some place a greater quantity of food is necessary.

¹ ** It must be carefully noted here that under the name supper among Authors, where they treat of fasting, there comes dinner, or that one eating which is kept by those fasting. Hence Azor (lib. 7, c. 8, q. 3): "The Church wills that we dine at a certain time and not before, or rather that we sup." And (chap. 21, q. 5): "The fast day consists of a supper, not a dinner." And Struggl (tr., q. 2, art. 2, n. 25) for this reason calls that refection the midday supper; because evidently (ibid., n. 27) formerly the hour of refection in Lent was in the evening; likewise Holzmann (part 3, tr. 1, n. 23) calls it the midday supper. See also Lessius (lib. 4, chap. 2, n. 11), Reiffenstuel (tr. 10, dist. 1, q. 2, n. 27), Ferraris (v. Ieiunium, art. 1, n. 46), Sporer (app. to the 3rd Precept, sect. 1, n. 20), Giribaldi (tr. 8, chap. 3, n. 58), Sanchez (consil., lib. 5, c. 1, dub. 25, n. 2), Valentia (tom. 3, disp. 9, q. 2, p. 3), Tamburini (lib. 4, c. 5, § 3, n. 1), Croix (lib. 3, p. 2, n. 1277), etc., etc. From this, what by the Author is called the fourth part of supper is also customarily called the fourth part of dinner, or of eating, or of refection. Thus, for example, Pichler (lib. 3, tit. 46, n. 6): "Very many permit the fourth part of a just dinner or complete and full supper." Thus also Reuter (part 2, tr. 3, q. 3, n. 174): "That it is lawful for anyone to take a fourth or fifth part of dinner, or of a just refection." And Gobat (Quin., tr. 3, chap. 28, n. 208): "Custom permits, at least in Germany, that the doctrine of Filliuccius, Reginaldus, and Laymann be practiced, who hand down that for the evening little refection as much can freely be eaten from permitted things as equals the fourth part of a just dinner."

Moreover, if you listen to Reginaldus (lib. 4, n. 185), the supper or dinner whose fourth part is conceded is understood as the supper or dinner of one fasting. Thus he says: "Let him beware excess, which I would say ordinarily happens when that which is taken is notably greater than a fourth part of those things which would suffice for one fasting for his ordinary supper." Concerning this matter they add generally that account must be taken of regions. For, says Reginaldus (l. c.), some regions are hotter or colder than others; where, adds Wagemann (part 2, tr. 2, chap. 4, n. 51), "from the severity of the air there is a greater appetite for food, and men are more laborious, and there is not so much strength of food and drink." Concerning this also the Salmanticenses (tr. 23, chap. 2, n. 71): "Others concede more to those inhabiting cold provinces than to those dwelling in temperate regions."

But from this, this rule seemed exposed to relaxations to the Salmanticenses themselves (ibid.), and after them also to St. Alphonsus (lib. 3, n. 1025). And in fact, as Tamburini notes (l. c.), from this rule it follows that if you are accustomed to take twenty ounces at supper, you can take five; if forty, ten. But because, he adds, the supper of men is commonly scarcely accustomed to ascend to thirty-two ounces, therefore those who concede eight ounces do not seem to recede far from this rule. Yet Diana also, after he said of this opinion (tom. 4, tr. 6, res. 116, n. 3): "I consider the fifth opinion too lax," renders the reason (ibid., res. 119, n. 1), saying: "Nor is it safe in practice, because by eating it understands the midday supper; and whatever it understands, it is most false, because in these eatings men commonly take so great a quantity that the fourth part is a notable quantity: I call the Spaniards, the Gauls, the Flemings, the Germans as witnesses." Otherwise Diana conceded eight ounces. But indeed Holzmann will reply (l. c.): "I ascend into the opinion of Laymann, Filliuccius, Reginaldus, Sporer, and very many others, who judge that a fourth part of the ordinary supper... is rightly established as a moderate quantity, this being judged not mathematically but morally... for such also it was held by the common consent of theologians in a certain celebrated Academy consulted about the matter, as Filliuccius testifies." And since Gobat at the same time testifies, as we have seen above here, that this is the custom of Germany, Holzmann concludes (l. c.) that the custom which introduced the evening little refection introduced, besides the quantity, also the quality of food lawfully to be taken in it; and therefore those obliged to fast can, and respectively must, accommodate themselves to it. Concerning this matter St. Alphonsus also says (l. c.): "But here before all things it must be noticed that especially in these things the custom of places must be attended to, as Cajetan and others everywhere well notice: for it is certain that where there is question of custom, both concerning fasting and concerning all other laws of the Church, which no one denies can be derogated by custom, the authority of more recent Doctors, although fewer, who alone can testify concerning a later modern custom, must be made more of, and without doubt be preferred to the authority, even though more common, of ancient authors, who could know nothing concerning a custom to be introduced afterward. But when authors testify concerning some custom, one must believe that they did not assert this rashly and without sufficient foundation." But to Diana, Sporer (app. to the 3rd Precept of the Decalogue, sect. 2, n. 26) thus responds: "This is the received opinion of Doctors in Germany: although the Authors cited by Diana, Turrianus and others, proclaim it too lax, improbable, and less safe in practice. Let them send to Germans during the time of fasting their warm sky, rich food and wines, fruits and conserves, etc., and we will fast with them."

498. • Q. 2. What excess is considered grave in the small supper?

Resp. All agree that an excess of two ounces is light matter. - St. Lig., ibid. - The more severe with Concina teach that an excess surpassing two ounces is grave. Not a few require an excess above the small supper equivalent to another half-small-supper; others hold with Billuart that there is required an excess which, taken separately, would wholly equal the small supper ².

² Perhaps you would say that this opinion is not altogether undeservedly somewhat laxer.

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

Q. 3. What quality of foods can be used in the small supper?

Resp. Bread, any fruits, also any vegetables, and sweet foods of various kinds. But above all the custom of places must be kept. For more things are permitted in various dioceses or provinces which are forbidden elsewhere: thus, for example, in France and elsewhere generally it is lawful to eat cheese.

499. • Q. 4. Whether it is lawful to eat eggs and butter in the evening small supper?

Resp. It is denied generally, although a dispensation for milk products is had, as is clear from the Decree of Bened. XIV and Clem. XIII. Nevertheless in certain places, as we have said, from present-day custom it is lawful to take some butter or cheese; but eggs are by no means permitted, because they are of the greatest substance, and therefore are rejected by custom, says St. Lig., ibid. ³. - See the things to be said n. 504. - St. Lig., n. 1027.

³ ** But that even this depends on custom according to the diversity of places is clear from the things which Sporer has with regard to Germany (append. to the 3rd Precept of the Decalogue, sect. 2, n. 32): "Considering," he says, "modern custom, especially in our Germany already long tolerated and plainly prevailing, I think... that the opinion is altogether probable and safe... that in the evening collation of fasting, the quality of foods must not be attended to, but only quantity: so that from all foods which can lawfully be taken at dinner on a fast day, even fish, legumes, cakes, eggs, milk products, etc., it is also lawful to take them at supper. Cajetan, Bonacina, and our Peter Marchant expressly teach this, and he expressly says: I answer that in the evening little collation there is not to be dispute about the quality of food, but only about the quantity. Nor otherwise Holzmann (part 3, n. 23): In colder regions, especially of our Germany, the present-day custom obtains that attention is not given to the quality of fasting foods, but only to quantity, so that we lawfully take in the evening collation any foods whatever which we lawfully take in the midday supper, provided the due discretion of quantity is kept. Hence little broths cooked from wine or beer, bread, herbs, fruits, etc., seasoned with oil or butter, are lawfully set out and eaten; likewise fish, legumes, eggs, cakes, etc., whether they are cold or hot."

And to this indeed pertains the fact that Sporer (l. c.) complains amicably of Laymann, because he departed from the rule customary among Germans. "I marvel," he says, "that Father Paul Laymann, otherwise so good a German, in this matter alone was so austere to his countrymen."

1106. Fasting is threefold: (a) natural, which consists in complete abstinence from food and drink: such is the Eucharistic fast, which is required from the midnight preceding Communion; (b) ecclesiastical, which consists in abstinence from food, not total, but according to limits predefined by the Church; (c) moral, which is moderation in taking food and drink, and, by extension, in other pleasures either of the soul or of the body.

² St. Thomas, II-II, q. 147; Billuart, De Jejunio; St. Alphonsus, l. III, n. 1005 sq.; Ball. P., n. 1103-1153; Marc, n. 1218-1243; Lehmkuhl, n. 1210-1222; Noldin, n. 662-680.

Here ecclesiastical fasting is treated; we shall explain: 1. its origin and utility; 2. the manner of observing the law of fasting; 3. the causes which excuse from it.

1107. 1. Historical evolution of the law of fasting.³ (A) Under the Old Law, fasting is commended many times, and sometimes also prescribed.

³ Thomassin hands down fully and learnedly the brief history which we outline, Traite des Jeunes de l'Eglise, Paris, 1680.

(a) Thus it is presented as conferring greater force on prayer: "Prayer is good with fasting";⁴ hence David fasted that he might obtain from the Lord the health of his child;⁵ Judith is praised because she fasted all the days of her life, except the sabbaths and new moons and the feasts of the house of Israel;⁶ Esther fled to the Lord in prayer and fasting;⁷ Judas Machabeus, with his companions, prepared himself for battle by prayer and fasting.⁸ - Fasting, moreover, is preached as a means of doing penance and obtaining mercy from God: "Be converted to Me with all your heart, in fasting and in weeping";⁹ and so the Ninivites obtained their conversion and salvation by prayer, lamentation, and fasting.¹⁰

⁴ Tob. 12:8.

⁵ 2 Kings 12:16.

⁶ Judith 8:6.

⁷ Esth. 14:2.

⁸ 2 Mach. 13:12; cf. 1 Esdr. 8:23.

⁹ Joel 2:12.

¹⁰ Jonah 3:5, 10.

(b) Moreover the Jews had been commanded to fast on the tenth day of the seventh month;¹¹ and in the time of captivity the fasts of the fourth, fifth, and tenth month had been instituted.¹² - The Pharisees fasted more frequently.¹³ - But God was not placated by external fasting unless they at the same time cultivated true penance, justice, and charity.¹⁴

¹¹ Exod. 16:29.

¹² Zach. 8:19.

¹³ Luke 18:12.

¹⁴ Isa. 58:3-7.

1108. (B) Under the New Law, (a) Christ commended fasting by His own example, fasting forty days and nights before He preached the Gospel.¹⁵ He did not impose a law of fasting on His disciples, but at the same time announced that they would afterward be occupied with fasting;¹⁶ and He commands those who fast to avoid hypocrisy and ostentation, lest they be seen by men as fasting, but by the Father who sees in secret.¹⁷ - Nowhere, however, is it read that Christ Himself established certain fasts.

¹⁵ Matt. 4:2.

¹⁶ Matt. 9:14-15.

¹⁷ Matt. 6:16-18.

(b) The Apostles and first disciples are said to have fasted sometimes, especially when there was question of the election and consecration of ministers of God.¹⁸ Paul relates that he and other ministers of Christ often fasted.¹⁹ Yet it is not read in the sacred Scriptures that they established the law of fasting; but some Fathers say that the Lenten fast is observed in the Church according to the tradition of the Apostles; nevertheless Augustine confesses that it was not defined by Christ and the Apostles on which days one ought to fast.²⁰

¹⁸ Acts 13:2-3; 14:22.

¹⁹ 2 Cor. 6:5; 11:27.

²⁰ St. Augustine, Epist. 36, c. 14, P. L., XXXIII, 151.

1109. (c) Whatever the case, in the Church the custom soon prevailed of fasting in the time of Lent, for imitating Christ and doing penance before paschal Communion. Thus St. Jerome wrote to Marcella:²¹ "We, according to the tradition of the Apostles, with the whole world agreeing with us, fast one Lent; they (the Montanists) make three Lents in a year, as if three Saviors had suffered." - In truth, already in the fourth century, the Lenten fast was observed in both Churches, with this difference, however, that in the Eastern Church the fast lasted through seven weeks, because it was interrupted on every sabbath and Sunday, while in the Western Church it lasted only six weeks, because it was interrupted only on Sunday.²² - A few days were added to this fast by private persons, for the sake of devotion, namely the days of the weeks of Sexagesima and Quinquagesima; and, from the ninth century, the obligatory custom of fasting on the four days preceding Lent was introduced, so that, Sundays being deducted, the fast of forty days might be completed.²³ - But the devotion of the faithful did not stop here: certain persons began to fast outside Lent on two or three days each week, though this was not commanded by law. But gradually the custom prevailed, around the fifth century, of fasting for a few days at the four seasons of the year, to imitate the practice of the Jews and to dedicate the whole year to God; afterward the ordinations of priests and deacons could be celebrated only on these days.²⁴ - Later, in the sixth century, in certain churches there was instituted a fast of three days in each week of Advent.²⁵ At almost the same time, it was established that fasting be done during the triduum of the Rogations, first in particular Churches, soon in the universal Church. - Finally, from the sixth century, the custom also began of fasting on the vigils of the principal feasts, for example, of the Nativity of the Lord, Epiphany, Assumption, and the feasts of the Apostles.²⁶

²¹ St. Jerome, Epist. 41, P. L., XXII, 475.

²² See the authorities in Thomassin, op. cit., I, ch. 7, p. 33-44.

²³ Thomassin, op. cit., II, ch. 1, p. 224 sq.

²⁴ Thomassin, op. cit., I, ch. 21.

²⁵ Thomassin, I, ch. 23.

²⁶ Thomassin, II, ch. 14.

1110. (d) But the manner of fasting was much stricter in the first times than in ours: namely, one meal was taken in the Latin Church after Vespers, that is, toward the end of the day; in the Greek Church a meal was taken more often, but a very small one.²⁷ In those times, the faithful abstained not only from food, but also from wine, and they took only a little water at certain hours to extinguish thirst.²⁸ - But gradually and imperceptibly, from the tenth century, the custom prevailed of taking the meal at the ninth hour (that is, three o'clock after midday), and, a little later, at the noon hour.²⁹ In the thirteenth century, only one eating was permitted, as St. Thomas witnesses.³⁰ But a little later the use prevailed, borrowed from monks, of taking a small collation in the evening hour.³¹ - Finally, in the nineteenth century, the custom began of taking a small quantity of coffee in the morning with a little piece of bread.

²⁷ Thomassin, op. cit., II, ch. 9.

²⁸ Thomassin, II, ch. 7.

²⁹ Thomassin, II, ch. 12.

³⁰ St. Thomas, II-II, q. 147, a. 6.

³¹ Thomassin, II, ch. 11.

From this it is clear that the law of fasting is ecclesiastical, introduced by custom, and is to be understood and applied by the custom of various places.

1111. 2. Utility of fasting. The Church, in the Lenten Preface, thus describes the spiritual utility of fasting: "O God, who by bodily fasting dost restrain vices, elevate the mind, bestow virtue and rewards." - In truth fasting, moderately and wisely employed: (a) restrains vices, insofar as it moderates the concupiscence of the flesh; for experience has found that concupiscence is inflamed not a little, not only by sumptuous meals, but by any excess in food and drink, while lust is cooled by abstinence. Now men are prone, on account of the pleasure annexed to food, to indulge in some excesses; but by fasting established at fixed times, they learn moderation, and repair excesses, if any have been committed.

(b) It elevates the mind; for just as man, by taking food immoderately, becomes animal, unfit for intellectual operations, and prone to earthly things; so, on the other hand, he who at fixed times moderately deprives himself of food and drink becomes spiritual, thinks more frequently of spiritual things, and tends more easily to heavenly things.

(c) It bestows virtue, first of all sobriety and temperance: for he who sometimes abstains from lawful things, by that very fact moderates intemperance more easily; and also penance, because fasting, from what was said above, contributes to true amendment of heart: for since we are allured to sin by pursuing pleasure, we are turned away from sin by mortification.

(d) It bestows rewards, namely the eternal crown of glory: for he who, on account of God, abstains from many things will receive a hundredfold in the other life. Wherefore the Apostle said:³² "And every one that striveth for the mastery refraineth himself from all things; and they indeed that they may receive a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible one."

³² 1 Cor. 9:25. Cf. St. Basil, homilies 1 and 2 on fasting.

1112. 1. Extension of the law. The law of ecclesiastical fasting obliges all baptized persons having the use of reason, from the completed twenty-first year of age to the begun sixtieth year (Code, c. 1254). - That this obligation is grave is established from the condemnation of this proposition 23 by Alexander VII, September 24, 1665: "He who breaks the fast of the Church, to which he is bound, does not sin mortally, unless he does this from contempt or disobedience, for example, because he does not wish to subject himself to the precept."¹

¹ In Denzinger, n. 994; cf. Viva on this proposition.

The days on which, from common law, fasting is prescribed are: (a) the Lenten season, from Ash Wednesday² up to Holy Saturday inclusive, except Sundays and feasts of precept, where these are observed, except, however, during Lent; the fast ceases on Holy Saturday after midday (Code, c. 1252).

² In the Milanese church the use is retained of beginning the fast from the first Sunday of Lent, as formerly was commonly done.

(b) The Wednesday and Friday and also the Saturday of the Ember Days; this is done so that at each season of the year the faithful may expiate their sins, obtain new graces, and obtain good ministers from God (for then sacred orders are conferred).

(c) The vigils of certain feasts, namely of the Nativity of the Lord, Pentecost, Assumption, and All Saints: namely for this end, that these feasts may be celebrated devoutly. - But previgils, with respect to fasting and abstinence, are not anticipated. Thus if the feast of the Nativity of the Lord occurs on Monday, the fast and abstinence which are impeded on Sunday are not now to be observed on the preceding Saturday.

1113. 2. Concerning lawful meals. On days of fasting, according to today's discipline, one full meal is permitted, to which can be added a moderate collation and a morning morsel.

(A) Concerning the one meal. From midnight to midnight, only one full meal is permitted, the quantity of which, moreover, has not been determined. Therefore he satisfies the precept who dines more sumptuously so that he may bear the burden of the fast more easily. If he indulges in some excess, he sins indeed against temperance, but not against the law of fasting.

1114. (a) The time at which, from almost universal custom, this meal must be taken is around noon. It is lawful, however, notably to anticipate it when a just cause is present, for example, the necessity of beginning a journey, transacting business, or weakness of constitution. Indeed a notable anticipation (for example, of one hour), even without cause, is not a mortal sin, because it does not remove the substance of the fast, which consists in one full eating.

It is likewise lawful to invert the time of dinner and collation, for a reasonable cause, for example, to take the collation around the eleventh morning hour, and dinner around the sixth evening hour:³ this is very practical today in cities, where people are accustomed to dine in the evening. Indeed, according to some,⁴ when a just cause is present, it is lawful to take the collation in the morning, dinner at midday, and the morsel in the evening, because in this way the substance of the fast is preserved.

³ To the question: "Whether on days of fasting the time of eating can be inverted, by taking the little evening refreshment between the tenth and eleventh morning hour, but deferring dinner to the fourth or fifth evening hour," the Sacred Penitentiary, January 19, 1834, answered: "If there is some cause for the aforesaid inversion, penitents who use this custom are not to be disturbed." (Acta S. Sedis, I, p. 424).

⁴ D'Annibale, III, n. 134; Noldin, n. 674.

(b) Dinner must be morally continuous and not immoderately prolonged. For if it is notably interrupted, it is no longer one meal, but several. What interruption is notable must be judged from the estimation of prudent persons, with attention especially to two things, the intention of the one fasting and the length of the interruption. Generally an interruption is considered slight which does not exceed half an hour; but if someone has begun to dine, and afterward has been legitimately interrupted for an hour, he can complete the dinner, because he had the intention of returning. Moreover, if the interruption is had for a grave cause, for example, for administering the sacraments or helping those dangerously sick, even after two hours it is lawful to return to the dinner; for the Church does not require that someone be forced to pass the day without sufficient refreshment when some duty to be fulfilled presses.

It is not lawful to prolong dinner immoderately, for example, beyond two hours, unless a special cause is present, for example, the custom of prolonging dinner when friends are invited, as happens in certain regions.

1115. (B) Concerning the collation, or little supper. Besides dinner, a collation is permitted, which is commonly taken in the evening; here one must attend to what is lawful to take by custom as to the quantity and quality of foods.

(a) As to the quantity of food, about a fourth part of a full dinner can be taken; and, according to St. Alphonsus (n. 1025), eight ounces (about 240 gr.) can be permitted to all indiscriminately, even if they would be fully refreshed by this quantity. - Besides, attention must be paid to the constitution, duties, and functions of each one, the duration of the fast, etc.; thus in colder regions more is customarily conceded than in warmer ones, more to one laboring through the whole day than to one spending time in leisure, more to one weak and voracious than to one robust and lacking hunger. The general principle is that whatever is necessary can be taken so that one may be able fittingly to obey his duties.

By universal custom it is lawful on the vigil of the Nativity of the Lord to take a quantity twice as great.

(b) As to the quality of foods, the custom of each region is to be followed, since the collation was introduced by custom. In certain regions, fish, eggs, milk products, butter, and cheese are not permitted, but only cakes, bread, fruits, vegetables, and legumes. In others, either by custom or by indult, eggs and milk products are permitted, little fish, or even two or three ounces of larger fish. Hence, in practice, the mandates which Bishops promulgate concerning this matter at the beginning of Lent must be diligently read.

1116. (c) Concerning the morning morsel, or breakfast. From the Code, c. 1251, it is lawful in the morning to take something of food, that is, a small quantity of coffee, chocolate, tea, or something of this kind, with a little piece of bread;⁵ the quantity of nutritive food generally ought not to exceed two ounces (about 60 gr.), unless more is required on account of constitution or duties to be fulfilled.

⁵ Thus from the declaration of the Sacred Penitentiary, November 21, 1843. The doubt being proposed: "Whether it can be permitted that in the morning on days of fasting a small quantity of coffee or chocolate be taken with a morsel of bread, as is done in the Canadian region"; it was answered that "those who follow such a use are not to be disturbed."

1117. 3. Concerning those things which can be taken outside these meals. According to today's discipline, outside the aforesaid meals, it is lawful to take something by way of drink or medicine, according to the saying: liquid does not break the fast. By way of drink, it is lawful to drink water, even sugared water, wine, beer, and various liquors, even if in some way they nourish; by way of medicine, coffee, tea, very diluted chocolate, electuaries (in a small quantity) which are made from sugar, juniper, lemon, etc., can be taken, if they are taken for digesting food, preserving the voice, removing stench of the mouth, etc.; indeed, a very small piece of bread before drink, lest the drink harm, provided this is not done frequently, but once or twice in the day. - But what properly has the character of food cannot be taken, for example, broth, honey, milk,⁶ sugar, oil.

⁶ In certain regions purified milk is lawfully taken as a drink.

The quantity of food which is required for grave sin cannot be determined mathematically; it is rather commonly admitted that grave matter is what exceeds four ounces (120 gr.), whether it be taken at one time or in parts through the day. For small eatings taken on the same day coalesce and can constitute grave matter, from proposition 29 condemned by Alexander VII:⁷ "On a day of fasting, he who more often eats some small thing, even if at the end he has eaten a notable quantity, does not break the fast."

⁷ Denzinger, n. 1000; cf. Viva on this proposition.

1118. 4. Concerning abstinence to be observed on days of fasting. (A) From the Code, c. 1252, "the law of abstinence and fasting is to be observed on Ash Wednesday, the Fridays and Saturdays of Lent, and the Ember Days," and the four previgils mentioned above (1112). By the name of flesh understand not only flesh properly so called, but also all parts of animals, such as blood, marrow of bones, brain, fat, lard, and broth expressed from flesh. By no means, however, are fish prohibited. But what is flesh and fish in the ecclesiastical sense must be determined not from the theories of natural philosophers, but from common estimation and the custom of places; for this distinction was especially introduced by custom.

Ancient authors generally held as prohibited the flesh of animals "resting on the earth and breathing,"⁸ and as lawful the flesh of aquatic animals, which live and breathe in water, or at least are nourished by fish. Today, however, with attention to custom, by the name of fish are understood not only fish properly so called, but also: crustaceans, such as crabs, crayfish, sea-urchins (crabes, ecrevisses, homards, langoustes, oursins de mer); mollusks, such as shells, oysters, snails (coquillages, huitres, limacons); reptiles and amphibians, as frogs, turtles (grenouilles, tortues). But the flesh of mammals and birds is prohibited, with a few exceptions from custom; thus otters, beavers or castors, seals (loutres, castors, phoques) are permitted, and in certain regions ducks of a certain species (canards sauvages).⁹

⁸ St. Thomas, II-II, q. 147, a. 8.

⁹ According to some (Noldin, n. 664), the same is to be said of coots, because their use was conceded to the Minims; but, since this was conceded as a grace, it cannot be inferred from this that it is lawful for all without indult; in truth this faculty was denied to the Carthusians.

1119. (B) In the time of Lent, formerly even on Sundays, besides flesh, eggs and milk products were prohibited by common law, that is, milk and all those things which are made from milk, such as butter, cheese, etc.; but, from can. 1250, the law of abstinence "forbids eating flesh and broth from flesh, but not eggs, milk products, and any condiments even from the fat of animals."

1120. (C) As to gravity of matter, authors do not agree; nevertheless most concede that, as to flesh, matter which exceeds two ounces (60 gr.) is grave. But a greater quantity is required if there is question of a condiment which comes from flesh, or of eggs and milk products.

Since the law of abstinence today differs from the law of fasting, he who knowingly violates both, without reason, commits a double sin in itself. Indeed, according to the common opinion, one sins against abstinence as many times as flesh is eaten by morally distinct acts. Otherwise one must speak of the law of fasting, which can be violated only once in a day. - In practice, however, attention must be paid to the psychological dispositions of violators of the law: often they apprehend all these things only confusedly, by way of one thing, and commit only one sin.

1121. 5. Concerning the forbidden mixing of flesh and fish. By a law handed down by Benedict XIV,¹⁰ one who by force of dispensation had received license to eat flesh could not, on days of fasting, eat flesh and fish together in the same meal. This prohibition has been abrogated by the Code, can. 1251: "It is not forbidden to mix flesh and fish in the same meal."

¹⁰ Benedict XIV, Const. Non ambigimus, May 31, 1741; In suprema, August 22, 1741; Libentissime, June 10, 1745. You will find these prescriptions fully explained in Ami du Clerge, t. XXII, 1900, p. 104-108.

1. The days of fasting and abstinence (ieiunium cum abstinentia, ieiunium plenum) are:

a) ASH WEDNESDAY AND THE FRIDAYS AND SATURDAYS OF LENT.—This is a modification of the former law, which made all the days of Lent, from Ash Wednesday to Easter, with the exception of Sundays, days of fasting and abstinence.¹

¹ F. X. Funk in Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen, Vol. I, pp. 241 sqq.; Kellner, Heortology, pp. 88 sqq.; Villien, History of the Commandments of the Church, pp. 254 sqq.

The early Christians seem to have fasted on all Wednesdays and Fridays throughout the year.

This pious custom is mentioned in the Didaché², in the Shepherd of Hermas³, and in the writings of Tertullian.⁴ That fasting should form an essential feature of the commemoration of the Passion was indicated in Christ’s words: “Can the children of the bridegroom mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? The days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast.”⁵ The days when the Divine Bridegroom was taken away were held from the first to be those in which Jesus lay in the grave,—Good Friday and Holy Saturday. These days were nearly everywhere kept as obligatory fast-days of the strictest kind.⁶ About the middle of the third century in many places men fasted the entire Holy Week on water, bread, and salt, while on the last two days they ate nothing whatever. Soon the fast came to be extended over several weeks. In the fourth century the forty days’ fast is a well-established institution. The fifth canon of the first Nicene Council mentions Lent as a common observance, though the Festal Letters of St. Athanasius bear witness that it was not yet kept everywhere. The fare on fast-days consisted of water and broth made with flour, fruit, oil, and bread. The Lenten fast must have commenced on the Monday after Sexagesima.⁷ St. Leo the Great in his sermons explains the object and significance of the Lenten fast. He says Lent was appointed in order to prepare the souls of the faithful for a fruitful commemoration of the mystery of Easter. It was to be a time for purification and sanctification,—a time, first of all, for doing penance for past sins and breaking off sinful habits; a time also for the exercise of all virtues, especially almsgiving, and reconciliation. Fasting was to form only a part, though the most essential part, of this penitential preparation, and Leo declares it to be incumbent upon all, not only the clergy, but the laity as well. He regarded the forty days fast before Easter as an Apostolic institution.⁸ The term became fixed, no doubt for the reason that Jesus had fasted forty days in the desert.⁹

² Doctr. XII Apost., c. 8.

³ Past. Herm., Simil. V, c. 1.

⁴ De Ieiunio, c. 1, 10, 14.

⁵ Matt. IX, 15.

⁶ Tertullian, op. cit., II, 13, 14.

⁷ Villien, op. cit., pp. 261 sqq.

⁸ St. Leo, Serm., XLVII (al. XLVI), c. 1; Serm., XLIV (al. XLIII), c. 1 (Migne, P. L., LIV, 294, 285, 287).—Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 147, art. 8, ad 3.

⁹ Kellner, Heortology, pp. 88 sqq., 94 sq.

Originally, it seems, the forty days’ fast (quadragesima) was taken to mean the days before Easter as a whole, Sundays excluded. This gave for a period of six weeks only thirty-six fast-days, and, where Saturday was not kept, only thirty. To rectify this mistake, the number of actual fast-days was increased to forty, with the result that, in the West, the beginning of Lent (caput ieiunii) was put back four days. In the East, where only five days in each week were fast-days, it had to be put back still further. There Lent began eight weeks before Easter, and since the Saturdays (Holy Saturday excepted) were not fast-days, extended actually over forty-one days instead of forty. Abstinence from flesh meat began on the Monday after the eighth Sunday before Easter, corresponding to the Latin dominica sexagesima, which is called “the Sunday of Abstinence from Flesh Meat.” From the following Sunday, called “the Sunday for Eating Cheese,” milk products (lacticinia) were forbidden.¹⁰

¹⁰ Kellner, Heortology, pp. 95 sq.

b) The Ember Days are days of sacred fasts (angariae), dedicated to the Lord every three months, and corresponding to the four seasons of the year, from whence they derive their Latin name, Quattuor Tempora. The Ember tides are peculiar to the Western Church. In Rome they were observed from the earliest times, so that Leo the Great was inclined to regard them as of Apostolic origin. He connects them with the four seasons of the year¹¹ and says that during these days we should give due honor and praise to God for the gifts He bestows on us to support our bodily life, abstain from luxuries, and be generous to the poor. The Ember tides in general, especially that of December, St. Leo connects directly with agriculture and the harvest,¹² and the earliest liturgies contain prayers for a good crop.¹³ Dr. Kellner thinks that these indi- cations give us the clue to the origin of the Ember fasts, and says they were most likely heathen practices, which were taken over by the Church and given a Christian form and character.¹⁴

¹¹ Serm., XIX (al. XVIII), c. 2: “The [fasts] have been distributed through the circuit of the whole year so that the law of abstinence might be assigned to all seasons.”

¹² Serm., XVI, c. 2: “And when the gathering of all the fruits has been completed,” etc.

¹³ Morin quotes passages from the Leonine and Gelasian sacramentaries; see Migne, P. L., LV, 153 sqq.

¹⁴ Heortology, p. 184.

Pope Gelasius commanded that ordinations of priests and deacons should be held on all Ember tides and in the middle of Lent, whereas in St. Leo’s time ordinations took place at Easter only.

In the earliest service books, the Ember fasts were called, respectively, ieiunium primi, quarti, septimi et decimi mensis, and fell in March, June, September, and December. It does not appear that the original object of the Ember days was to petition God to raise up worthy priests in His Church, for this purpose is not mentioned until after the popes had appointed the Ember days as fixed times for ordinations.¹⁵

¹⁵ Ibid., p. 186.

For a long time it remained uncertain in which week of the months in question the Ember days should be observed. At Rome they were kept in the first week of the month.¹⁶ Elsewhere the practice differed, until Gregory VII¹⁷ put an end to all doubts and variations by establishing the present usage, which is as follows: Ember Days are the Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday after the third Sunday of Advent (ieiunium hiemale); the Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday after the first Sunday of Lent (ieiunium vernum), the Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday after Pentecost (ieiunium aestivum); the Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday after the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, which falls on the third Sunday in September (ieiunium autumnale). This arrangement may be remembered by means of the following verses:

¹⁶ Ibid., p. 189.

¹⁷ Micrologus, c. 24; cfr. Villien, History of the Commandments of the Church, pp. 234 sqq.

After Lucy, Ashes, after the Holy Spirit and the Cross,
the following Wednesday gives the four seasons.

c) THE VIGIL FASTS are those kept on the days preceding Pentecost, the Assumption of the B. V. Mary, All Saints, and Christmas.¹⁸

¹⁸ C. I. C., can. 1252, § 2.

A vigil originally was the watch vigiliae which used to be kept on the nights before important feasts. The practice of spending such nights in public prayer is at least as old as Christianity itself. Vigils are mentioned by Tertullian,¹⁹ and the Apostolic Constitutions²⁰ tell of one maintained till “cock-crow” on Holy Saturday. St. Jerome²¹ defends the custom against Vigilantius, admitting, however, that the watches were sometimes accompanied by gross immoralities. It was probably these and other abuses which led to the discontinuance of the practice.

¹⁹ Ad Uxorem, II, 5.

²⁰ Const. Apost., V, 10.

²¹ Epist., CIX; Adv. Vigilant., n. 9.

The obligation of fasting on the vigils did not begin till later. Villien says it would be difficult to give the precise date of its origin.²² Perhaps the linking of the fast with the vigil is an extension of the ancient fast by which the faithful prepared themselves for the celebration of Easter. Both the discipline of the watch and the motive of the fast are indicated in a synodal decree of Auxerre, adopted in the last third of the sixth century. The principal object of the vigil, says this decree, is prayer in preparation for the approaching feast; the fast is its necessary accompaniment, so to speak. The fast is observed because the watch is kept in church and to enable the faithful to communicate at Mass.²³

²² History of the Commandments of the Church, p. 236.

²³ Op. cit., p. 241.

For quite a while the tendency was to increase the number of vigils on which fasting was obligatory. Besides the vigils of Easter, Christmas, Pentecost, and the Assumption, there were those for most of the feasts of the Apostles.²⁴ To them custom or episcopal constitutions in course of time added other diocesan or provincial vigils. It is likely that the feast of the patron saint was everywhere preceded by a vigil. To the feasts of the Apostles were ultimately added those of St. Lawrence, and St. John the Baptist, and, in the Frankish countries, that of St. Martin of Tours.

²⁴ Op. cit., p. 247.

Of late the tendency has been rather to diminish the vigils. In the United States only four were observed (before Christmas, Pentecost, the Assumption, and All Saints), the same that have now been made universal by the New Code.²⁵

²⁵ C. I. C., can. 1252, § 2.

2. The law of abstinence from flesh meat (abstinentia, ieiunium semiplenum) obliges on all Fridays of the year except when Christmas or some other holyday of obligation falls on that day.²⁶

²⁶ C. I. C., can. 1252, § 3.

Formerly Wednesday and Friday were widely observed as days of fasting and abstinence in commemoration of the death and burial of Christ. Regino of Prim inserted into his canonical collection a text of Rufinus, which says that the fasts of Wednesday and Friday must not be dispensed with except in case of grave necessity,—Wednesday, because it is the day on which Judas decided to betray our Lord; Friday, because on that day Christ was crucified.²⁷

²⁷ De Eccl. Disc., Append. I, c. XVII; Villien, op. cit., p. 283.

Later the practice declined. Fagnani, following the teaching of Innocent IV, affirms that, according to the common opinion, the Friday fast is merely of counsel, not of precept, like abstinence from flesh meat on Wednesday.²⁸

²⁸ In c. “Consilium,” n. 23; Villien, op. cit., p. 276.

The discipline of the Saturday abstinence outside of Lent, which survived in some countries until the promulgation of the New Code, began in the West at a comparatively late date.²⁹ The Code marks its end.

²⁹ Villien, op. cit., p. 287.

Abstinence from flesh meat on Friday is obligatory upon all Catholics who are not excused by sickness, by the nature of their work, or by a dispensation, as granted, e. g., in the “Bula de Cruzada.”³⁰

³⁰ For an account of the privileges of the Bulla Cruciata see Ferreres, Compend. Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 771 sqq. and the same author’s book, La Nueva Bula de Cruzada Española y sus Extraordinarios Privilegios, 3rd ed., Madrid 1915.

READINGS.—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 147, art. 5 sqq.—St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., l. III, n. 1004 sqq. (ed. Gaudé, II, 384 sqq.).—A. Linsenmayer, Entwicklung der Kirchl. Fastendisziplin, Munich 1877.—F. X. Funk, “Die Entwicklung des Osterfastens” in Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen, Vol. I, pp. 241 sqq.—V. Ermoni, Le Carême, 2nd ed., Paris 1907.—K. A. H. Kellner, Heortology, London 1908, pp. 88 sqq.—G. Berthelet, Traité Historique et Moral de l’Abstinence, Rouen 1731.

650. Notions. The word fasting is taken: 1. for total abstinence from every food and drink, or from everything which is transmitted into the stomach by way of food. I say: by way of food; whence such a fast is not broken if by chance something enters the stomach by way of saliva, for example, if someone swallows some blood proceeding from the teeth or nose, or if by chance a fly enters the mouth and stomach, etc. It is then called a natural fast, or even the fast of one who is fasting. Such a fast from midnight is required for the reception of the Eucharist, unless a special permission is present, concerning which there is treatment in the tract on the Eucharist. 2. It is taken for abstinence from food and drink according to the common rules of temperance, in order to its proper end, which is a good disposition of body and mind for performing their functions perfectly. This fast is called a moral or philosophical fast, and it is sometimes employed by men without any respect to religion, solely on account of some honorable good. 3. It is taken for abstinence from food and drink in a determined degree, and indeed a greater one than moral abstinence requires. Such a fast is customarily determined by either a general or a particular positive ecclesiastical law, and it is employed on days of fasting determined for the whole Catholic Church, or also at other times for certain religious orders. This fast is called ecclesiastical or arbitrary. 4. Finally, fasting is taken in a metaphorical sense for abstinence from vices and sins.¹¹⁹⁷ These things having been explained, the following propositions are to be noted:

1. A natural fast is not of itself an act of virtue, since it consists in mere negation; nevertheless, it becomes meritorious if it is undertaken on account of an honorable motive.¹¹⁹⁸

2. A moral fast is an act of the natural or acquired virtue of abstinence. For the virtue of abstinence moderates the pleasures of food and drink according to right reason. But a moral fast is nothing other than abstinence from foods made according to right reason.

3. An ecclesiastical fast is a good act elicited by the virtue of abstinence, and moreover it is a good act which is commanded by diverse other virtues, for example, by religion, by penance, etc. For in an ecclesiastical fast there is reasonable abstinence from foods, which indeed is commanded by diverse virtues insofar as it is undertaken on account of diverse good ends.

¹¹⁹⁷ "Is not this rather the fast that I have chosen? Loose the bands of wickedness ..." (Isa. 58:6). Cf. S. theol. 2, 2, q. 147, a. 2 ad 1.

¹¹⁹⁸ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 146, a. 2.

651. Excellence of fasting. Fasting performed in a right manner and according to right reason is commended by so many examples and admonitions in Sacred Scripture and by the holy Fathers that it is astonishing how several persons, especially Protestants, have dared to disparage so efficacious an exercise of Christian virtue. Christ Himself sanctified fasting by His example, observing it for forty days, and foretold that the disciples would fast. The Apostles and the first Christians fasted.¹¹⁹⁹ Whence St. Paul admonishes: "Let us exhibit ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, ... in fastings, in chastity,"¹²⁰⁰ and already in the Old Testament fasting had been prescribed: "Be converted to me with all your heart, in fasting, and in weeping, and in mourning."¹²⁰¹ The holy Fathers wrote entire books in praise of fasting; for example, St. Augustine commended the Lenten fast in seven sermons.¹²⁰² St. Jerome wrote a little book against Jovinian, who disparaged fasting.¹²⁰³ Since these things are so, the Catholic Church can deservedly prescribe fasting at certain times, and indeed under grave sin.

Concerning the excellence of fasting St. Thomas writes:¹²⁰⁴ "Fasting is undertaken principally for three things. First, for repressing the desires of the flesh; whence the Apostle says: 'in fasting and chastity,' because through fasts chastity is preserved. For, as Jerome says: 'Without Ceres and Bacchus, Venus grows cold'; that is, through abstinence from food and drink lust grows tepid. Secondly, it is undertaken so that the mind may be raised more freely to contemplate sublime things; whence it is said that Daniel, after a fast of three weeks, received a revelation from God. Thirdly, for making satisfaction for sins; whence it is said: 'Be converted to me with all your heart, in fasting, and in weeping, and in mourning.' And this is what Augustine says in a certain sermon concerning prayer and fasting: 'Fasting purifies the soul, raises the mind, subjects one's own flesh to the spirit, makes the heart contrite and humbled, disperses the clouds of concupiscence, extinguishes the ardors of lust, and kindles the light of chastity.'"

¹¹⁹⁹ Cf. Acts 13:3; 14:22.

¹²⁰⁰ 2 Cor. 6:4.

¹²⁰¹ Joel 2:12.

¹²⁰² Migne, Patr. lat. 38, 1039ff.

¹²⁰³ Ib. 23, 312.

¹²⁰⁴ Cf. S. theol., l.c., a. 1.

652. Scholion. On the development of the ecclesiastical law of fasting. Before we treat in particular of the extent of this precept and of excusing causes, it is useful to note with Cajetan:¹²⁰⁵ "Since the whole matter of ecclesiastical fasting is almost solely of positive law, custom and dispensation over the passage of time can change the discipline of fasting greatly. Hence it has come about that what formerly was law is no longer of the necessity of law, and what formerly was forbidden is afterward lawful." But St. Alphonsus¹²⁰⁶ skillfully observes: "The authority of more recent doctors, although fewer, who alone can testify concerning later modern custom, must be esteemed more and without doubt preferred to the authority, even though more common, of older authors, who could know nothing of the custom to be introduced afterward."¹²⁰⁷

For confessional practice it cannot be sufficiently noted that in the matter of fasting the customs of places and the diverse circumstances of times have very great force. Hence almost everything must be taken from the so-called episcopal mandates which are customarily published at the beginning of each Lent in individual dioceses. Certain moralist authors do not attend sufficiently to the fact that in our times the same determinations concerning the law of ecclesiastical fasting can no longer be given which theologians of great name gave in the Middle Ages. Thus, for example, until the twelfth century only one meal, and that taken after sunset, was in use during the time of the Lenten fast; but in the thirteenth century, while St. Thomas was living, this one meal was taken at the third hour of the afternoon; in the fourteenth century, however, the same meal was taken about noon, a custom which is still in use, at least in most regions. In the eighteenth century St. Alphonsus taught with many other authors that the inversion or anticipation of the time of the one meal was gravely unlawful; today several theologians rightly teach¹²⁰⁸ that the one meal can be taken at any hour of the day for a reasonable cause. This opinion today is morally certain, since the Code of Canon Law, canon 1251, § 2, simply establishes: it is not forbidden to interchange the evening meal with dinner. Omitting, therefore, those things which were prescribed concerning fasting in ancient times, and likewise omitting those precepts which are observed by particular law in certain regions or institutes, only the presently prevailing discipline of ecclesiastical fasting is explained.

¹²⁰⁵ Comm. in 2, 2, q. 147, a. 7.

¹²⁰⁶ Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 1025.

¹²⁰⁷ Concerning the historical development of the law of fasting, see: Thomassin, Traité des jeûnes de l'Église, Paris 1680; Funk, Kirchengesch. Abhandl. I, 247-250. Leo XIII and Pius X enacted special laws concerning fasting for Latin America by the Constitution Trans Oceanum of April 18, 1897, and January 10, 1910. For Italy Pius X greatly tempered the law of fasting and abstinence by a Decree of September 5, 1907, and likewise for Dalmatia and other places. For Spain and Portugal Benedict XV greatly mitigated the rigor of fasting on December 31, 1914, and August 12, 1915 (Act. Ap. Sed. VII, 554ff.). Likewise, ample indults were granted for Switzerland.

¹²⁰⁸ Cf. Lehmkuhl, Moraltheol. I, n. 1468; Tanquerey, Synopsis Theol. mor. II, n. 1114; Noldin, De praeceptis n. 674.

653. Principle. The essence of ecclesiastical fasting consists in one complete meal.¹²⁰⁹

The older authors quite commonly placed the essence of fasting in three things, namely, in one meal, in a determined hour for that meal, and in abstinence from certain foods, namely, from meat, eggs, and milk products.¹²¹⁰ Certainly, even in our times these three things pertain to the perfection of fasting, so that it is not altogether perfect unless these three are observed, but they by no means pertain to its very essence. The reason is that the essence of ecclesiastical fasting can still be present even if the second or third condition is lacking. Hence, for example, the essence of ecclesiastical fasting is still present although meat is eaten at dinner and eggs or milk products at the evening meal. But if anyone has taken two complete meals in one day, the essence of ecclesiastical fasting has been destroyed. There is indeed no authentic declaration of the Church determining that the essence of ecclesiastical fasting is situated in one complete meal; but since the Church permits the faithful to eat milk products and the hour of the complete meal to be changed, and since, on the other hand, the Church cannot be accused as though she had permitted the essence of ecclesiastical fasting to be changed in the course of time, it follows that the essence of fasting consists solely in one complete meal, just as it was always prescribed from the beginning of the Church. St. Thomas already intimates the same thing not obscurely when he writes:¹²¹¹ "Fasting is instituted by the Church for restraining concupiscence, yet in such a way that nature is preserved. For this, however, one eating seems sufficient, through which man can satisfy nature and yet detract something from concupiscence by diminishing the number of eatings. And therefore it was established by the moderation of the Church that those fasting should eat once in the day." From this excellent principle, that ecclesiastical fasting ought so to restrain concupiscence that nature is preserved, it follows that the Church can reasonably permit a milder practice on account of changed circumstances, and especially on account of the increased weakness of the human race and enervating labors, without the essence of fasting nevertheless being injured or its end perishing. Hence, in our times the Church permits that there be taken: 1. dinner; 2. an evening collation; 3. a morning morsel.

Concerning these three eatings, the following things are to be noted in relation to the quantity and quality of food and the hour of eating.

¹²⁰⁹ Cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 1251.

¹²¹⁰ Cf. Billuart, De ieiunio a. 3.

¹²¹¹ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 147, a. 6.

654. 1. On dinner on fast days.

a) The hour of dinner, according to modern discipline, is left to the free disposition of the one fasting, as was already said above. Hence dinner can be taken at the fifth or sixth hour in the afternoon, as is customary in America and other regions. Dinner can also be taken at the eleventh hour in the morning if there is a reasonable cause.¹²¹²

b) Dinner must be morally continuous and not immoderately prolonged. For if dinner is notably interrupted, it is no longer one meal, but there are two meals. What interruption is notable, however, depends upon the estimation of a prudent man and upon the reason for which the interruption occurs. In general, however, an interruption of one half-hour is considered slight. Hence he who, dinner now being finished, eats again within half an hour (even meat, if the eating of meat is permitted) has still made one eating. But as regards the prolongation of dinner, authors after St. Alphonsus¹²¹³ commonly permit a space of two hours. From this, however, it cannot be inferred that someone may lawfully eat again after an hour and a half if he previously dined for the space of one half-hour. For there would be a notable interruption.

c) The quantity of food at dinner is not determined by ecclesiastical law, so that one can eat unto satiety. If, however, someone eats too much at dinner on fast days, he injures the virtue of temperance, although he does not violate the precept of ecclesiastical fasting.

d) The quality of food was indeed determined in ancient times, but today, on fast days which are not at the same time days of abstinence, any foods whatsoever are permitted by ecclesiastical law; indeed, it is not even forbidden to mix meat and fish in the same meal.¹²¹⁴

Whenever meat is permitted on fast days, those who by reason of labor, age, or infirmity are unable to fast may lawfully eat meat several times during the day. The Sacred Penitentiary expressly decreed this.¹²¹⁵ A bishop can, however, decree for his diocese that even those who are dispensed from fasting are not to eat meat except once in the day. Apart from an express decree of this kind, however, the general rule holds: on days of fasting alone, all those who are not bound to fast can eat meat several times.

¹²¹² Code of Canon Law, canon 1251, § 2. Cf. Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor. I, n. 1468, and Noldin, De praeceptis n. 685.

¹²¹³ Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 1020.

¹²¹⁴ Code of Canon Law, canon 1251, § 2.

¹²¹⁵ Sacred Penitentiary, May 27, 1863, and March 16, 1883.

655. 2. On the evening collation on fast days.

a) The hour of this collation is free, since it is evident from what was said above that it can be taken at the eleventh hour in the morning and can freely be interchanged with dinner.

b) The quantity of food permitted at the collation is assigned differently by different authors. Some permit a fifth part, others a fourth part, of a complete meal. Better, or at least simpler and easier, is the opinion of St. Alphonsus, which modern authors most commonly follow. These are the words of St. Alphonsus:¹²¹⁶ "It is better to follow the opinion of others commonly received today, as Castropalaus, Roncaglia, the Salmanticenses, Viva, Bonacina, Holzmann, Tamburinus, Elbel, Diana, Sporer, Milante, Croix, Mazotta, etc., testify, which indiscriminately permits to all (even to those who need little food, as they also commonly say) the quantity of eight ounces, and something else, namely, two other ounces, which is slight matter, to him who would need greater nourishment." Eight ounces are equivalent to 240-250 grams, or half a pound. The same theologians add that even he who would be satiated by this quantity of food can nevertheless eat such a quantity with a safe conscience, because this would be a sign that he has a weak stomach and consequently is not bound to so strict a fast.

¹²¹⁶ Homo apost. tr. 12, n. 16.

656. Lehmkuhl teaches:¹²¹⁷ "But when porridge is cooked from foods mixed with water, oil, etc., there is scarcely anyone who would concede that, apart from the liquid, eight ounces of solid food may be taken. And indeed attention ought to be given not only to the nutritive power of foods, but also to the satiety which is actually induced.... Therefore, it is rightly permitted that no more of a porridge of this sort be taken than what is cooked from four or five ounces of flour, beans, dry bread, rice, etc., without counting that small condiment of oil and vinegar." This opinion, which is also held by several other authors, ought not to be urged too much in practice. Certainly, if a notable quantity of oil, milk, or another nutritive liquid is employed in cooking foods of this sort, it would then not be lawful to take a further eight ounces of solid food; but if only water, wine, or another non-nutritive liquid is employed, or only a moderate quantity of some nutritive liquid, no reason appears why something should then be subtracted from the quantity of solid food. For a law seems sufficiently arbitrary which would permit someone, for example, to take eight ounces of bread and then drink half a liter of wine, but which would forbid under mortal sin that someone dip or cook the same quantity of bread in even a smaller quantity of wine. Nor do the reasons brought forward by those authors seem valid. For the concept of fasting according to common judgment by no means demands such a limitation. On the contrary, it would seem sufficiently curious to simple persons if eight ounces of bread and half a liter of wine were permitted, provided they were taken separately at the collation, while, on the contrary, they would be gravely forbidden when taken together. Nor is the reason valid that a man would have a greater sensation of satiety from porridge of this kind; for nowhere has the Church prohibited the sensation of satiety. Experience, moreover, establishes that the sensation of satiety is very deceptive and is sometimes had even after a small amount of food has been taken. Since these things are so, the opinion of many authors, both older¹²¹⁸ and modern, seems preferable, who in every case permit the quantity of eight ounces of solid (but light) food at the evening collation. This opinion was already called most probable by the very illustrious Elbel.¹²¹⁹

For the vigil of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, St. Alphonsus permits a quantity twice as great at the collation; for he says that there is then a "joyful fast."¹²²⁰ On the vigil of Easter, however, the fast ceases after noon.¹²²¹

c) The quality of food permitted at the collation depends upon custom and particular statutes. Certainly, eggs, milk products, and larger fish are not of themselves excluded; nevertheless, all modern authors teach that it is not lawful to take the entire collation from such highly nutritive foods. Hence no moralist, as I think, would permit someone to eat four hens' eggs at the collation, which have a weight of about eight ounces; or that someone take two eggs and, in addition, four ounces of bread. It seems more conformable to the mind of Holy Church if lighter foods, and foods not so strongly seasoned with fat, are taken for the evening collation on fast days.

¹²¹⁷ L.c. n. 1462.

¹²¹⁸ See those authors in St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 1029, and Homo apost. tr. 12, n. 18.

¹²¹⁹ Cf. also Göpfert, Moraltheol. II, 203; Vermeersch, Theol. mor. III, 873. Capellmann (Pastoralmed. 120) rightly calls the contrary opinion "a peculiar opinion of the moralists," and Génicot (Theol. mor. I, 437) writes: "Nor does it seem equitable to permit the richer man to dip eight ounces of bread in wine while he eats them (which St. Alphonsus thinks lawful), but to prohibit the poor man from cooking the same quantity in water. Indeed, if recourse is had to common estimation and the end of the law, by which reasons Lehmkuhl n. 1211 [1462] endeavors to support the opinion of St. Alphonsus, this poor man, at least in our regions, will be judged to fast and exercise mortification better than the rich man using wine."

¹²²⁰ Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 1025.

¹²²¹ Code of Canon Law, canon 1252, § 4.

657. 3. On the morning morsel on fast days.

Today, even in religious communities and among God-fearing faithful, there exists the custom on fast days of taking in the morning a morsel of bread or another lighter food. The Church knows and tolerates this custom.¹²²² Moralists most commonly teach that this morsel can lawfully contain the quantity of two ounces, or about sixty grams, of solid food. Liquid, for example, coffee or tea with a small quantity of sugar or milk, ought not to be counted.

¹²²² Ib., canon 1251, § 1.

658. Time of fasting. The days of ecclesiastical fasting by common law are:

a) The time of Lent, that is, from Ash Wednesday until after noon on Holy Saturday. Sundays are excepted, but not even feasts of precept.

b) The Ember Days, namely, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday within the third week of Advent, the first week of Lent, within the octave of Pentecost, and the third week of September.

c) Four vigils, namely, of the Nativity of the Lord, Pentecost, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and All Saints. But if these vigils fall on a Sunday or a feast of precept, fasting and abstinence neither bind nor are to be anticipated.¹²²³

d) The day before the consecration of a church, both the consecrating bishop and the people who ask that the church be consecrated for them must fast. Hence, if a parish church is consecrated, besides the consecrating bishop all the faithful belonging to the parish must fast, provided that they built the church at their own expense; otherwise, the parishioners are not bound to fast. But if a religious church is consecrated, the consecrating bishop and the religious attached to that church seem to be bound to fast.¹²²⁴

¹²²³ Code of Canon Law, canon 1252, §§ 2 and 4.

¹²²⁴ Ib., canon 1166, § 2; cf. Pontificale Romanum, title De ecclesiae dedicatione; Sacred Congregation of the Council, July 3, 1909 (Acta Ap. Sedis I, 624f.), and Pontifical Commission, July 20, 1929 (Act. Ap. Sed. XXI, 573). In the ordination of clerics which takes place outside the Ember seasons, no obligation of fasting exists for anyone (cf. Gasparri, De s. ordinat. II, n. 771).

659. For Latin America, the Antilles, and the other islands of the Caribbean Sea, the law of fasting and abstinence has been almost abolished. For:

1. fasting and abstinence from meat are prescribed only on the following days of Lent: Ash Wednesday, Thursday of Holy Week, and all Fridays of this season. Therefore, on Holy Saturday it is lawful to eat meat;

2. fasting without abstinence is to be observed on the Fridays of Advent and the Wednesdays of Lent;

3. abstinence from meat without fasting is to be observed on the four vigils of the feasts of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Pentecost, the Assumption into heaven of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.

Religious of each sex also (who are not bound by a special vow), with the consent of their superiors, can use these indults as regards the abstinences and fasts prescribed in their own rule or statutes, at least if the religious are outside the cloister. Regular superiors, however, are to be exhorted to take care, as far as possible, to abstain from the use of an indult of this kind within the cloister.¹²²⁵ The law of fasting and abstinence has also been greatly mitigated for Switzerland.

¹²²⁵ Cf. Act. Apost. Sedis II, 215-217; cf. also Sacred Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, December 13, 1911, and December 10, 1912 (Act. Apost. Sedis III, 669, and IV, 230).

660. Persons bound to fast. All the baptized, from the completion of the twenty-first year of age to the beginning of the sixtieth, are bound by the precept of ecclesiastical fasting, unless they are excused by some just cause.¹²²⁶ There will be discussion below of these excusing causes.

The reason why adolescents are exempted from fasting is assigned excellently by St. Thomas:¹²²⁷ "In children the cause for not fasting is especially evident: both because of the weakness of nature, from which it follows that they need frequent food, and not much taken at once; and also because they need much nourishment on account of the necessity of growth, which is made from the residue of nourishment. And therefore, as long as they are in a state of growth, which in most lasts until the end of the third period of seven years, they are not bound to observe ecclesiastical fasts. Nevertheless, it is fitting that even during this time they exercise themselves in fasting, more or less according to the measure of their age."

Protestants and, in general, all non-Catholics, since they are subject to ecclesiastical laws, are of themselves bound to the observance of ecclesiastical fasting; nevertheless, since they are often in good faith and almost always have excusing causes, they are not to be condemned for mortal sin when they do not fast.

¹²²⁶ Code of Canon Law, canon 1254, § 2.

¹²²⁷ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 147, a. 4 ad 2.

661. Quality of the obligation. 1. The precept of ecclesiastical fasting obliges of its kind under grave sin; the transgression of this precept nevertheless admits of lightness of matter.

Thus all Catholic moralists teach. That ecclesiastical fasting is prescribed under mortal sin is evident from proposition 23 condemned by Alexander VII: "He who breaks a fast of the Church to which he is bound does not sin mortally unless he does this from contempt or disobedience, for example, because he does not wish to subject himself to the precept."¹²²⁸ That this precept admits of lightness of matter is evident from the unanimous doctrine of theologians. Theologians do not agree, however, as to what is slight matter in the transgression of this precept. The matter is slight if, besides the eight ounces of the evening collation and the two ounces of the morning morsel, a further two ounces are eaten.¹²²⁹ Therefore, it would not be a mortal sin if someone bound to fast were to take, besides the one complete meal, a further twelve ounces of food in one day. Whether it would be a grave sin if someone were to take fourteen ounces is not certain. Small eatings taken on the same day coalesce and can constitute grave matter, as is evident from proposition 29 condemned by Alexander VII: "On a fast day, he who eats a little something rather often does not break the fast, even if in the end he shall have eaten a notable quantity."¹²³⁰

2. The precept of abstinence from meat is negative, but the precept of fasting is affirmative.

Thus holds the common opinion. Consequently, he who eats meat several times on prohibited days commits as many sins as the times he unlawfully eats meat.¹²³¹ But he who, either culpably or inculpably, has violated the fast, for example, by taking a second complete meal, probably does not commit a new sin if he eats a third or fourth time. Thus St. Alphonsus¹²³² and with him almost all modern authors, although very many of the older authors, for example, Navarre, Billuart, Wigandt, etc., contradict them. It must be acknowledged that the reasons which Billuart¹²³³ brings forward for his opinion are not to be despised; nevertheless, since mortal sins are not to be multiplied without evident necessity, and since the Church even today has determined nothing concerning this controversy, the opinion of St. Alphonsus seems to be preferred in the confessional. But without sufficient reason it is taught by some theologians that he who culpably took two complete meals on a fast day indeed does not commit a mortal sin, but commits a venial sin by taking a third meal, because such a man acts against the end of the law, namely, by neglecting mortification. For the end of the law does not fall under the law, as the commonly admitted adage holds; nor can it be said that a man of this kind sins against prescribed mortification, for there does not exist on fast days a special positive precept of mortification besides the precept of fasting. Nor is the natural precept of mortification violated by a threefold meal; otherwise, even on other days a threefold meal would be a venial sin, as being contrary to the natural precept of mortification.

¹²²⁸ Denzinger, n. 1123.

¹²²⁹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 1025.

¹²³⁰ Denzinger, n. 1129.

¹²³¹ St. Alphonsus, l.c. n. 1030; Homo apost., l.c.

¹²³² L.c.

¹²³³ De ieiunio diss. 2, a. 5.

662. Scholion. On liquid on fast days. "Liquid does not break the fast," says the common adage. Hence it is lawful to take liquid several times on days of ecclesiastical fasting. Thus, at least, according to modern practice; for in ancient times it seems that during an ecclesiastical fast even liquid drink, and especially wine, was prohibited.¹²³⁴ Those things which are commonly taken as a vehicle for food have the character of liquid and drink; but not all those things which, although liquid, nevertheless have notable nutritive power. Therefore milk, melted chocolate, and broth, at least in a notable quantity, are excluded, for a little is reckoned as nothing; but wine, light beer, coffee, tea, water (even mixed with a small quantity of sugar), lemonade, etc., are permitted. Electuaries¹²³⁵ are also permitted, at least if they are taken in a small quantity. St. Thomas writes to the point:¹²³⁶ "Electuaries, even if they nourish in some manner, nevertheless are not principally taken for nourishment, but for the digestion of foods. Hence they do not break the fast, just as neither does the taking of other medicines; unless perhaps someone fraudulently takes electuaries in a large quantity by way of food."

¹²³⁴ Cf. Tertullian, De ieiunio c. 12, 5, 9, and Constitutiones apostolicae 5, 18.

¹²³⁵ Commonly Kompott, Latwerge, confiture, electuary [compote, medicinal confection, preserve, electuary].

¹²³⁶ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 147, a. 6 ad 3.

555. • I. All the faithful, from the twenty-first year of age completed, are bound under grave sin to observe fasting on the appointed days, unless they are legitimately excused, or dispensed by Superiors. It is a most ancient obligation, which is said to have been handed down by the Apostles themselves. Moreover, concerning this obligation there is proof from various Constitutions of the Supreme Pontiffs, and from all the Catechisms of the ecclesiastical Provinces.

I said: 1° under grave sin; because the law regards grave matter, since it is something which greatly conduces to the salvation of souls. It is clear moreover from Proposition 23 condemned by Alexander VII, p. XIV.

I said: 2° from the twenty-first year completed; because the Church, as a pious mother, does not wish to impose upon boys and adolescents a law surpassing their strength. This is clear from universal custom and from all Catechisms.

II. Ecclesiastical fasting consists, as it were, in three parts, namely 1° in one meal through the twenty-four hours of the day, with an evening little collation added; - 2° in abstinence from flesh-meat, and in Lent from milk-products; - 3° in the time determined for taking the meal. - Yet observe that the custom of places and times contributes very much to determining, or modifying, or restricting the nature and obligation of ecclesiastical laws, especially of fasting.

556. Principles. - I. The one meal is the primary condition of fasting; for in this especially is situated its essence, and when this is removed, no one is ever said to fast, while on the contrary a fast is conceived without abstinence from flesh-meat and milk-products.

II. But small eatings which are done besides are venial sins when taken separately; but, if repeated more often on the same day, they can coalesce into grave matter, as is clear from Proposition 29 condemned by Alexander VII, p. XIV, and because otherwise fasting would be done away with.

III. The fast is not broken by a draught of water, wine, and other drinks which of themselves are ordered, and are commonly used, to quenching thirst, although according to the first discipline of the Church Christians abstained altogether from wine and similar liquors. Hence the axiom: Liquid does not break the fast.¹ But by liquid is understood everything which, from the common estimation of the faithful, is held as drink, even if perhaps, as beer, it nourishes.²

557. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Does wine drunk for allaying hunger break the fast?

Resp. In the negative, more probably. The reason is that the law of fasting prescribes only abstinence from food, but not from drink, and according to St. Thomas³ "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." - St. Alphonsus.⁴

Quaer. 2° Does a draught of coffee and tea break the fast?

Resp. In the negative, unless an excessive quantity of sugar is mixed in; because these do not have the nature of food, but of drink or medicine. - So the common sentence. - Moreover from custom it is permitted that in the morning with coffee or tea a little crust of bread (of two ounces) be taken. On this matter see the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary for Canada (z), p. 470.

558. • Quaer. 3° Does a draught of water mixed with sugar, or made from the juices of oranges or lemons, break the fast?

Resp. In the negative of itself, that is, unless you mix in a great quantity of their substance, which is judged to have the character of food. - So commonly. - The reason is that all these things from the common estimation are regarded as drinks. Moreover St. Alphonsus² grants that this very thing is licit even if these have been congealed by ice.

Quaer. 4° Does a drink of chocolate break the fast?

Resp. In the affirmative, if, rich as is the custom outside the time of fasting, it supplies nourishment to you. - But in the negative, if a moderate quantity of chocolate is taken, as is accustomed among us,¹ and is done only once in the day. The reason is drawn from general custom.² - What quantity can be taken? The holy Author says that not less than an ounce and a half of chocolate is accustomed to be put into ordinary cups; for thus, by a practice tolerated by the Church and observed commonly by pious faithful, it is accustomed to be done.

Quaer. 5° Is it licit to mix coffee and tea with milk?

Resp., as to the question concerning chocolate; for the same reason is valid here, yet preserving in Lent the law of abstinence from milk-products, unless derogation has been made from it by custom or dispensation has been granted in it.

559. • Quaer. 6° Is it licit on a day of fasting to taste some food, for example an ounce before drink, lest this do harm?

Resp. This certainly is not licit as often as one pleases, although Diana, Leander, and others also grant it; for then the law of fasting would be ridiculous. Therefore it can be permitted only once or twice in the day.³

Quaer. 7° Do electuaries break the fast?

Resp. Electuaries are those things which are made from selected things, for example from sugar and juniper, etc. But they are not judged illicit on fast-days if they are taken in the manner of medicine and in moderate quantity. Any reasonable cause suffices for excusing from all fault, for example for the digestion of foods, strengthening the stomach, tolerating the foul smell of the mouth, conserving the voice, and similar things. - St. Thomas,¹ Sporer, Elbel. - St. Alphonsus² adds that probably those also are excused who take something lest their strength fail, when they must delay dinner beyond the common hour. - Indeed the obligation of taking something will urge, if this is necessary for observing the fast. Namely, if by using this help you can bear a fast which otherwise you would not bear, the obligation itself of fasting requires of you that you use that help. See Croix.³ From this it is clear that certain men deserve entirely badly of fasting when, either under pretext of a custom which has not yet prevailed in their own province, they forbid the faithful to take anything in the morning, or they restrict this very thing to a mere small drink, with a little crust forbidden. For thus they effect this one thing: that many who otherwise would bear the yoke of fasting entirely cast it off.

560. • Quaer. 8° What quantity of food is judged slight matter, if it is taken outside the meal and the little supper?

Resp. A quantity of two ounces. So St. Alphonsus.⁴

Quaer. 9° Does he who culpably has taken a double meal sin gravely if he adds a third?

Resp. In the negative, at least more probably. The reason is that the precept of fasting urges in an indivisible way during the day of precept; hence he who has once violated it does not sin again and again by eating. Therefore, once mortal sin has been committed by violation of the fast, the whole law urging on that day has been violated. Therefore, etc. - St. Alphonsus,⁵ Mazzotta, Roncaglia, and others commonly.

Yet he who breaks the fast by eating forbidden flesh-meat or milk-products several times sins as often as he eats.⁶

561. • Quaer. 10° Is he who inculpably has taken a double meal in the day, once the error has been detected, bound under grave sin to abstain from a third?

Resp. In the affirmative, more probably. The reason is: because he harmed the fast only materially, not formally; wherefore, as soon as he adverts to the law of fasting, he is bound to observe it, as the rest do; otherwise he would violate it formally. So St. Alphonsus in the Homo Apostolicus,¹ who, on account of the observation alleged in the Vindiciae Alphonsianae,² p. LXXXVIII. 2., seems here to be preferred to the Larger Work,³ where the denying sentence is also called probable. Add that the holy Doctor in the work Conf. diretto per le conf. della gente di camp.⁴ reports only the affirmative sentence, while in the work Istr. e pratica pei confess. he only adds that he does not reprobate the denying sentence. Cf. p. LXXXIX. 4.

562. • Quaer. 11° What if on a fast-day you have taken breakfast inadvertently?

Resp. 1° If you have taken only a little, for example two ounces of food, you indeed ought from custom to fast, without leaving the meal and the little supper at the customary hours; for the fast was not substantially harmed.

2° If you have taken a quantity equivalent to the little supper, you must transfer dinner to the evening time, or abstain from the little supper itself, unless this falls to you into grave inconvenience.

3° Yet if a quantity of this kind was equal either to almost a double little supper or to the accustomed meal, you ought, having omitted dinner, to take only the evening little supper, yet take it earlier if you cannot wait without grave difficulty. Moreover you could increase this little supper according to the measure of necessity.

Besides the customary meal it is licit, from universal custom introduced over many centuries and tolerated by the Church, indeed also tacitly approved, to take toward evening a little refreshment from lighter foods. - So all.

563. Questions. - Quaer. 1° What quantity of food can be taken in the little supper?

Resp. From present and common custom, about eight ounces of food can be taken, at least speaking ordinarily.⁶ - But others say that a fourth part of supper is to be permitted. But this doctrine is too vague or liable to scruples. - A quantity of eight ounces is to be denied to no one, but a greater is to be conceded to those for whom this would not suffice. - St. Alphonsus,¹ Elbel, Lacroix. - Certainly no entirely fixed rule can be established, since attention must also 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 impedes him from suitably fulfilling his offices. - Scavini, Gousset. - Account also must be taken of one's own region, if somewhere a greater quantity of food is necessary.

564. • Quaer. 2° What excess is judged grave in the little supper?

Resp. All agree that an excess of two ounces is slight matter.² See what was said above, n. 560, q. 8°.

Quaer. 3° Must sugar and milk, which are mixed with coffee or tea, be computed among the eight ounces?

Resp. By distinguishing according to those things which we said at n. 557, q. 2°, and n. 558, q. 5°.

Quaer. 4° What quality of foods can be used in the little supper?

Resp. Bread, any fruits whatever, any vegetables also, and sweetmeats of various kinds. But especially the custom of places is to be observed. For many things are permitted in various dioceses or provinces which are forbidden elsewhere: thus, for example, among us and elsewhere generally it is licit to eat cheese.

565. • Quaer. 5° Is it licit to eat eggs and butter in the evening little supper?

Resp. In the negative, generally, although dispensation is had for milk-products, as is clear from the Decree of Benedict XIV and Clement XIII. Yet among us, from present custom, it is licit to take some butter or cheese; but eggs are by no means permitted, because they are of very great substance,³ unless a contrary custom or dispensation is present.

Quaer. 6° Are fish permitted in the little supper?

Resp. In the affirmative, if it is a question of little fish, especially dried, and probably also of larger fish; yet St. Alphonsus⁴ thinks that with regard to these the weight of two or three ounces is not to be exceeded.

566. Principles. - I. To all the faithful using reason, by the precept of the Church the eating of flesh-meat is forbidden on each day of fasting. Hence by the law of fasting a double precept is imposed, as Benedict XIV also defines, namely of abstaining from several meals, and of abstaining from flesh-meat; therefore contrary to what several of the older authors hold, one dispensed or unable as to one is not for that reason and by this very fact to be excused from the other.¹ - Under the name of flesh-meat come all animals living and breathing on land; therefore frogs, tortoises, etc., are not prohibited. In doubt, if custom is lacking, one should attend to whether the animal is similar to what is forbidden and whether it nourishes more strongly. If the doubt persists, the Holy See should be approached.²

II. In the Lenten time eggs and milk-products also are prohibited, namely all those things which draw their origin from flesh. This is clear from the practice of the Church, from its dispensations, and from Proposition 32 condemned by Alexander VII, p. XIV. Now, however, in most places an almost general dispensation from that law is conceded to the faithful. Indeed today Bishops, from an indult conceded by the Roman Pontiff, grant to the whole diocese a dispensation also as to the eating of flesh-meat for the principal part of Lent. On the use of fat see what was said at n. 552, Quaer. 3°.

Moreover, although the eating of eggs and milk-products could not be excused from grave sin, of itself, according to the common sentence, nevertheless smallness of matter seems more easily to be admitted in these than in the eating of flesh-meat.

567. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Must abstinence from milk-products be observed also in fasting outside the Lenten time?

Resp. In the negative. Because an obligation of this kind is imposed by no general law. It is the common sentence, says St. Alphonsus.³ Yet somewhere, for example at Rome, a custom has prevailed, having the force of law, that abstinence of this kind is to be observed also on certain other days, for example on Ember Days.

Quaer. 2° Must abstinence from milk-products be observed on the Sundays of Lent?

Resp. In the affirmative, because neither law nor custom excepts Sunday. - St. Alphonsus,¹ and others commonly against some, whose sentence is not probable according to St. Alphonsus.

568. • Quaer. 3° In the time of Lent is it licit in the meal to eat breads made with eggs?

Resp. In the negative, unless eggs have been permitted; the reason is that their substance is not lost from the fact that it is mixed with flour.²

Quaer. 4° Are those dispensed for milk-products judged by that very fact also dispensed for eggs?

Resp. In the affirmative, because these are equated from custom (n. 145), unless a distinction is clearly expressed in the dispensation.

Quaer. 5° Can those dispensed for flesh-meat on days of fasting also eat fish?

Resp. In the negative, if it is a question of eating fish in the same meal. This is clear from the Constitution of Benedict XIV Non ambigimus. See also Response concerning Fasting, questions 5 and 10, pp. L, LI. It is said in question 10 "on days of fasting"; for that a mixture of this kind is licit outside Lent, when only abstinence is to be observed, is clear from the Response to question 6, p. LI. (e) p. 481.

569. • Quaer. 6° Whether the faithful exempt from the law of fasting because of laborious arts, in the time of Lent, when the eating of flesh-meat and milk-products is permitted to all for one meal, can eat flesh-meat and milk-products several times in the day, no otherwise than on the Sundays of the same Lent, on which the obligation of fasting does not urge?

The Sacred Penitentiary (on 16 Jan. 1834) responded: "The faithful who, by reason of age or labor, are not bound to fast, can licitly in Lent, when an indult has been granted, on all days comprehended by the Indult, eat flesh-meat or milk-products permitted by the same Indult, as often as they eat through the day." But this is not valid in a diocese whose Bishop by apostolic authority concedes that on certain weekdays of Lent it is licit once in the day to eat flesh-meat and eggs, at the same time permitting those who by reason of age or labor are not bound to fast to use eggs more often in the day. So the same Penitentiary, 27 May 1863. The Acta compose each response very well (f) p. 481.

570. • Quaer. 7° What is to be said about Catholics who on days of abstinence supply flesh-meat to non-Catholics with whom it happens that they are at table?

Resp. They are not to be blamed, if either 1° this is permitted to them from the Apostolic Indult which our Bishops have by force of the Extraordinary Faculties C. (see p. LXXII. 5); or 2° some just cause concurs, provided nevertheless that in either case scandal and contempt of the ecclesiastical law are absent.

In our times, from universal custom, the meal is licitly taken almost about noon.¹

571. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Does the hour of the meal pertain to the essence of fasting, so that he sins gravely who notably, for example by an hour, anticipates it without grave cause?

Resp. The sentence which affirms is probable only according to St. Alphonsus.²

Quaer. 2° Is the fast broken if the little supper is taken at midday, but the meal in the evening?

Resp. It is not broken essentially, and therefore if it is done without cause, it does not exceed venial sin. But even from this venial sin a reasonable cause, and the custom of the place or condition, excuses. Indeed in many places by present custom the little supper can be taken at the tenth hour in the morning, and the meal in the evening. The Response to question 1 among the Responses concerning fasting, p. L, agrees.

Quaer. 3° How long can dinner be prolonged?

Resp. Nothing absolutely can be determined concerning this; but it does not seem that without some fault it can be prolonged beyond two hours. - St. Alphonsus,³ Lacroix, Billuart, etc.

572. • Quaer. 4° Does he break the fast who interrupts the meal and, after an interval has elapsed, approaches it again?

Resp. 1° If the interruption is slight, for example of a sesquiquadrans, or even of half an hour, it lacks every fault, even if it is done without reason.⁴

2° If it is of one hour and without reason, the fast is judged morally interrupted.

3° If the interruption, even for one hour, is made from a just cause, for example for doing some business, it will be excused entirely from all fault.

But however great an interruption there may be for a just cause, there is no sin in returning to table when the preceding meal was not sufficient and the fast cannot be borne without grave inconvenience; because the Church never intends to obligate one to pass the day without sufficient refreshment.¹

Quaer. 5° Can he who has risen from table with the intention of eating no more sit again at the table?

Resp. In the affirmative, 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, or if the interruption was slight. The reason is that it is still judged morally the same dinner.²

Quaer. 6° If someone in the morning, for the sake of a journey, has taken breakfast, is he bound to fast if afterward he does not set out?

Resp. In the affirmative, of itself. The reason is that, since the essence of the fast has not yet been destroyed, its obligation continues to urge. Yet make exception if, through that one eating, he cannot conveniently fast for the rest of the day.³

St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 147; St. Alphonsus, III, 1004; ed. G., II, p. 384; Billuart, de Jejunio; Fagundez, Quaest. in quinque Eccl. praec.; Righetti, Del digiuno eccl.; Ferraris, v. Jejunium; Villien, Histoire des commandements de l'Eglise, c. VII; Wernz, Jus Decr., III, n. 408.

To be treated: 1. concerning the obligation of fast; 2. concerning the form of fast prescribed by the Church; 3. concerning causes excusing from fast.

1218. FAST, in general, imports abstinence from food.

A threefold fast is distinguished: 1. natural, or abstinence from every food and drink absolutely, such as is required for receiving the Holy Eucharist; 2. moral (the fast of virtue), or abstinence from food taken immoderately; 3. ecclesiastical, which is abstinence from food, defined by the precepts of the Church.

1219. The days of ecclesiastical fast are: 1. LENTEN TIME, which was instituted by the Apostles themselves, for imitating the fast of our Lord, so that the faithful may thus duly prepare themselves for the paschal solemnity. It commonly begins from Ash Wednesday, endures up to the feast of Easter, exclusively; although the Milanese church retains the use of beginning only from the first Sunday of Lent exclusively. Yet Sundays are excepted, on which only abstinence is prescribed, although fast, at least from present discipline, is not prohibited if it is observed for the sake of mortification (cf. St. Thom., 2. 2, q. 147, a. 5, ad 3).

2. THE FOUR TIMES, which likewise are said to have taken beginning from the Apostles (Eusebius being witness, Hist. Eccl., l. 5, c. 23) and were instituted for this end, both that the Christian faithful at every time of the year expiate their crimes and demand graces for themselves, and that they obtain good ministers from God. But the Four Times are celebrated on Wednesday and Friday and Saturday, after the third Sunday of Advent, after the first Sunday of Lent, after Pentecost Sunday, and finally after the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross.

3. Certain VIGILS, namely of the Nativity of the Lord, Pentecost, Assumption, St. John the Baptist, of the individual Apostles (excepted the vigils of Sts. Philip and James, and also St. John the Evangelist) and of All Saints. The end of these fasts is that the coming feasts may be celebrated worthily and devoutly.

1220. PRINCIPLES. I. Moral fast is prescribed by the natural law itself. For thus St. Thomas teaches: "It has been said that fast is useful for the deletion and restraint of fault and for the elevation of the mind into spiritual things. But each one from natural reason is held to use fasts so much as is necessary for himself for the aforesaid things. And therefore fast in common falls under the precept of the law of nature" (2. 2, q. 147, a. 3).

1221. II. The precept of ecclesiastical fast obliges, under grave matter, all baptized persons having use of reason, unless they are totally or partly exempted. It is established from the practice of the Church and the common opinion of Doctors (III, 1035; cf. Billuart, a. 3). See n. 194.

We have said: 1. Under grave matter; because the law regards matter grave per se, inasmuch as it conduces notably to the salvation of souls. Hence this proposition 23 was condemned by Alexander VII: "One breaking the fast of the Church, to which he is held, does not sin mortally, unless from contempt

or disobedience he does this." Yet smallness of matter is admitted (cf. n. 1225 and 1226).

2. Baptized persons having use of reason, namely in the sense explained in the treatise on Laws, n. 195 ff.

3. Unless they are exempted; but legitimate custom exempts, or at least excuses; for since the law is of positive and human Right, just as it is confirmed by the consent of those using it, so by contrary custom it is weakened and taken away. Wherefore, at diverse times and in diverse regions, the form of ecclesiastical fast is diverse (III, 1025). b) A special cause, for example impotence, labor, piety, etc., as will be explained below (n. 1232 ff.).

4. Totally or partly; for the obligation of fast is divisible, and he who is excused or dispensed from one part, for example from abstinence from meat, is not for that reason freed from the other conditions of fast, as is established from definitions of the Apostolic See (III, 1005). Cf. n. 1242.

Note. a) The fasts of vigils have almost everywhere by pontifical indult been reduced, or transferred (as in the dear City the fasts for vigils of the Apostles, the vigil of Sts. Peter and Paul excepted) to Fridays and Saturdays of Advent. In France, by Decree of Card. Caprara, 9 Apr. 1802, the obligation of fasting on the vigils of suppressed feasts was taken away, even of those whose solemnity is transferred. In Belgium, from the year 1896, the same law has force. From a declaration of the S. C. C. it is established that vigils of suppressed feasts must be observed if up to now they have been observed from precept or vow. Cf. Decrees of 18 Sept. 1911 and 25 Feb. 1912 (A. A. S., III, p. 480; IV, p. 142).

b) The fast on the day before the consecration of a church, prescribed in the Roman Pontifical, is of strict obligation for the Bishop consecrating, and only for those who ask that the church be consecrated for them; therefore also for the rector of the church, but for him alone, if he alone presented the suppliant petition for asking the consecration. S. R. C., n. 2519.

1222. There are three CONDITIONS which ecclesiastical fast requires: 1. abstinence from certain foods (the law of quality); 2. one meal in the day (the law of quantity); 3. the suitable hour of this meal. Each must be treated.

To be noted. a) Essentially, ecclesiastical fast consists in one meal. This is gathered from the Constitution Non ambigimus of Benedict XIV. For thus the primary end of fast is efficaciously reached, namely mortification of the flesh and diminution of the fervor of passions. Thus St. Alphonsus (III, 1030, q. 1) with St. Thomas.

b) The precept of abstinence from meats or other foods is the necessary complement of the things said above.

c) Determination of the hour of the meal is a less principal part of the whole precept.

1223. PRINCIPLES. I. The Church, on each day of fast, forbids the use of meat. It is established from universal custom, whose fittingness St. Thomas thus expresses (2. 2, q. 147, a. 8): "Fast was instituted by the Church for repressing the concupiscences of the flesh; and therefore the Church forbade to those fasting those foods which in eating especially provoke man to venereal things. Of this kind are the meats of animals born on the earth and breathing..."

1. By the name MEAT, understand not only the substance of animals, but also blood, fat, and lard, extract of meat, indeed even broth expressed from meat.⁰¹ But they are not to be disturbed, as the S. Poenit. declared, 17 Nov. 1897, who on days of abstinence use oil in which meat has already been cooked.

Animal fat, although it is to be reduced to the notion of meat, is nevertheless permitted under the notion of condiment (S. Off., 1 May 1889). Little pieces of lard similarly can be eaten if they continue to be part of a condiment (S. Poenit., 17 Nov. 1897); but they are prohibited if they are taken separately (Ami du Cl., 1914, p. 281).

Peptones, which are nothing other than the nutritive parts of nitrogenous foods (especially meats), made digestible by chemical process, seem, if they proceed from meats, to be comprehended under the name of meat (cf. Antonelli, II, 868, against Genicot, I, 442). As regards the condiment of broth invented by Maggi, it is not established that it is made from meat.

2. But by the name of meat which is forbidden, do not understand the substance of animals which are rather recalled to the genus of FISHES (H. Ap., XII, 2).

For discerning whether animals are to be recalled to the genus of fishes, "more attention must be given to the common estimation of the faithful and the judgment of physicians, if they regard them as meats or fishes" (III, 1011). But common estimation in our times establishes a GENERAL RULE: animals of warm blood are prohibited, but animals of cold blood are permitted on days of abstinence and fast. Yet experts add that, if in some region commonly certain animals of warm blood are recalled to the genus of fishes, one must stand by this estimation, although per se the eating of them would be prohibited.

In doubt whether the food set before you is meat or not, you can eat from it; because the law of abstinence is a prohibiting law, and until the prohibition is established, it does not bind your liberty (H. Ap., XII, 2). Cf. n. 46 and 55.

From these things you conclude: a) Prohibited animals (because they have warm blood) are: mammals, or mammifers, oxen, sheep, goats, etc. Likewise beavers or castors, otters, seals, walruses; yet these, if custom is present, can be permitted. All birds, even coots, wild ducks, aquatic or sea crows. But with custom and common estimation standing in some region, those birds are not prohibited. The eating of coots is read to have been conceded to the Fathers Minims by grace.

b) Animals conceded (because their blood is cold) are: all fishes; other animals, as reptiles, frogs, tortoises, snails, shells, oysters, crabs, lobsters, etc. Cf. Antonelli, II, n. 867 ff.

1224. II. In the time of Lent, besides meat, eggs and milk-foods are prohibited (even under grave matter). By the name milk-foods are understood milk, butter, cheese: namely all those things which draw their origin from flesh. It is established from the practice of the Church, and from proposition 32 condemned by Alexander VII: "It is not evident that the custom of not eating eggs and milk-foods in Lent obliges." Except Germany and northern regions, in which, by force of custom or of an always renewed dispensation, that law has become obsolete (III, 1029, 3).

It was said: in the time of Lent, namely on account of the greater solemnity of the fast. Whence: 1. This obligation does not comprehend other days of fast through the year; because it cannot be proved by common Right. Yet if somewhere (as at Rome) such a custom or special law has force, it must be observed under grave matter, since the matter is grave per se. 2. By common Right, it comprehends all Lenten days, even Sundays, because they are not exempted from the law of abstinence (III, 1007 and 1009, dub. 3). But see the things to be said n. 1242.

Note. a) In Italy abstinence from all those things which draw origin from flesh (namely milk, butter, cheese, eggs, and condiments from any animal fat whatever) is to be observed only on Friday of the Four Times in Lent, on Friday in Parasceve, on the vigils of the Assumption of the B. V. M. and of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ (S. Off., 7 Sept. 1906, n. 2). See below n. 1247.

b) But if meats, eggs, and milk-foods are considered in relation to one another, it must be said that eggs and milk-foods are equated, so that one dispensed in one is also dispensed in the other; but meats and milk-foods are not equated, but stand as greater to lesser, as will be plain below n. 1242.

c) The use of margarine is licit when butter is permitted (S. Off., 6 Sept. 1899).

1225. Questions. QUAER. 1. Whether, in Lent, it is licit to eat breads made with EGGS, or any food seasoned with EGGS?

Resp. Negatively, because the substance of eggs is not lost from the fact that they are mixed with flour or applied as condiment. The Response of S. Poenit., 17 Nov. 1897, agrees, where it was declared that condiment from eggs, when eggs are prohibited, is not licit.

QUAER. 2. What matter is judged grave in violation of fast or abstinence?

Resp. 1. As regards MEATS. St. Alphonsus with the Salmanticenses thinks the eighth part of an ounce (3 1/2 gr.) is grave matter. More recent Authors generally state that he commits grave sin who would exceed two ounces (60 gr.). The reason is that in this matter only that is called grave which notably nourishes. Indeed they say that a greater quantity is required if not meat properly so called, but something which proceeds from meat, is eaten.

2. As regards EGGS and MILK-FOODS. Authors always required, for grave matter, a greater quantity than for meat. More recent authors think grave matter is present if someone eats 3-4 ounces (90-120 gr.). Cf. St. Alph., III, 1029 and 1009, fin.; H. Ap., XII, 20; Lehmkuhl, I, 1450, 1466; Noldin, II, 674, 677; Berardi, Theol. mor. (1905), IV, n. 45.

3. As regards ESURIAL FOODS. Berardi says (l. c.) that four ounces constitute grave matter; because those foods nourish less than the aforesaid.

Note. The Roman ounce (about which it is here a question) is equivalent to 29 grams and 20 hundredths of the new weight; but the pound (of 12 ounces) to 350 grams. The German ounce exceeds the Roman ounce in weight.

1226. PRINCIPLES. I. "By the moderation of the Church it has been established that those fasting eat once in the day." Thus St. Thomas (2. 2, q. 147, a. 6). In this, as we noted above, consists the essence of fast.

Hence: 1. He who SEVERAL TIMES eats some little thing outside the meal sins mortally when he has come to a notable quantity. It is established from proposition 29 condemned by Alexander VII: "On a day of fast, he who several times eats some little thing, even if at the end he has eaten a notable quantity, does not break the fast."

But it is permitted to take a little food, for example an ounce, for driving away weakness, as is commonly taught. Some permit this as often as one must drink, lest the drink harm; but this, as others rightly say, scarcely can be permitted once and again in the day (H. Ap., XII, 11).

2. He who without cause INTERRUPTS the meal for a notable time, for example for an hour, no longer preserves the form of fast.

Nevertheless: a) With cause, it is licit to interrupt the meal for an hour; indeed, some concede up to two hours: but this is licit by right and deservedly, says Holzmann, only when someone has not been refreshed by sufficient food, and cannot tolerate the fast without grave inconvenience: then he can resume the meal, because the Church never intended to oblige someone to pass the day without sufficient refreshment. b) Without cause, and although someone had finished the meal, he can eat again if the table-companions continue to dine, or if other dishes which were not expected are brought to the table; because the same meal is still morally judged to endure. Indeed it is generally conceded that another food can be taken after one and a half quarters of an hour (III, 1020; H. Ap., XII, 10).

3. He who PROTRACTS the meal immoderately likewise offends the law of fast.

Probably, however, it is licit to protract it up to two hours; others, with Elbel, admit up to three or four hours, at least for Germans, with attention to

their custom, which St. Alphonsus neither approves nor disapproves (III, 1020, q. 5). But he adds with Cuniliati: "To protract the meal to several hours, if it is not done in fraud of fast, is not mortal" (Istruz., XII, 10, fin.).

1227. II. The law of fast permits several times taking those things which have the nature of true drink or medicine. The axiom is known: "Liquid does not break the fast." It is said: several times, that is, indeterminately, both outside the meal and the double little refreshment; nor do those things which are taken coalesce. But by liquid is understood only that which, from common sense, is taken by the mode of drink only, for quenching thirst or by the mode of medicine; but not that which is taken by the mode of food, for quenching hunger and nourishing the body, as milk, juice of fruits, broth, etc. (III, 1021).

Hence: 1. Wine is not prohibited; although the faithful, in the first times of the Church, abstained from it. If it nourishes someone, this is per accidens and therefore it does not break the fast, although it is drunk for quenching hunger; for intention does not change the nature of the act, nor does it fall under the precept (H. Ap., XII, 13). Wine to which soluble principles of meat would be mixed is without doubt permitted, since it is a true medicine.

2. Beer is not prohibited, nor drink of coffee or tea, or even water mixed with sugar, or made from the juices of oranges or lemons; unless too much milk, sugar, etc., is mixed in; because, with the restriction posited, these and similar things do not have the nature of food, but of drink or medicine. Nor does it matter if they have been frozen: for freezing does not change the nature of the thing (ib., 14).

3. Whey is not prohibited; for it is held as drink or medicine (Muller, Theol. mor., II, § 165, 7).

4. Electuaries or confections made from choice things (for example from sugar and juniper) are not prohibited if they are taken in moderate quantity on account of a reasonable cause, for example for helping digestion, for preserving the voice, for taking away odor of the mouth, and other things of this kind. Thus commonly with St. Thomas (2. 2, q. 147, a. 6, ad 3). See St. Alph., III, 1019; 1. El. qq. ref., n. 42.

5. Whether the drinking of chocolate is prohibited is more disputed. St. Alphonsus indeed denies that chocolate can be regarded as drink, because it truly nourishes; but nevertheless he permits drinking it, by reason of custom, once in the day, and in moderate quantity, if namely one ounce and a half (44 gr.) of chocolate with water is placed in ordinary cups.⁰¹ But milk cannot be mixed in, unless this is conceded through dispensation concerning milk-foods: in which case account of it must be had in the weight of the food.

It must be observed: a) If someone uses drink immoderately, he sins against the end of the precept, and easily loses the merit of the fast, as St. Thomas warns (2. 2, q. 147, a. 6, ad 2). b) If someone can, by applying the aid of a drink of coffee, chocolate, etc., tolerate a fast which he otherwise would not tolerate, he is held, by the law itself of fast, to apply that aid, even if such a custom has not yet prevailed in his province (Croix, III, P. 2, n. 1325).

1228. III. It is licit to take, on days of fast, in the morning a little refreshment, and, toward evening, a little supper. The first is established from the Response of S. Poenit., 21 Nov. 1843, and from almost universal use. The second was similarly introduced by custom. "There is no doubt for anyone," says St. Alphonsus (H. Ap., XII, 16), "that in antiquity fast was observed more rigorously; but, according to modern discipline, the little evening refreshment is admitted by all."

In these matters attention must be given to what custom permits, both concerning the quantity and concerning the quality of foods.

Further: 1. Concerning the QUANTITY conceded in the little refreshment, use teaches that only two ounces are licit. As regards the little supper, "the opinion commonly accepted today permits indiscriminately to all (even to those who need little food)... the quantity of eight ounces (233 gr.); and something else (namely two other ounces, which is small matter) to him who would have need of greater nourishment.

On the vigil of the Nativity of the Lord, a little collation twice as great, namely of 16 ounces, is commonly admitted, by reason of the solemnity" (III, 1025; H. Ap., XII, 16). Yet see the things to be said at once n. 1229.

2. Concerning the QUALITY of foods, again both custom and dispensation must be considered: for those things which are permitted in some regions, these same things are forbidden in others.

Generally in the little refreshment only milk, coffee, tea, chocolate, and bread are conceded (Ami du Cl., 1912, p. 464). For the little supper, only lighter foods with bread are permitted, for example fruits, vegetables, small fishes, or even two or three ounces of a larger fish (III, 1028). Eggs and milk-foods are not permitted, unless somewhere a custom has force, for example of taking some cheese or butter, or unless an express dispensation has been given. But neither to those dispensed for meats, but not from fast, is another food permitted in the little collation, except that which is permitted to those not dispensed. See n. 1242, Rule 4.

1229. Let it be noted: a) From chemical analysis it is established that milk in a thousand parts contains almost 130 grams of elements which nourish. Yet from this it does not follow that, in the little supper, for example, it is licit if someone drinks two liters of milk, under the pretext that only 260 grams of principles which truly nourish are taken. Attention must also be given to the satiating force of the food. Thus therefore Authors permit for the supper 500-700 gr. of milk, if this alone is drunk. But for breakfast it certainly would not be licit to take 1/2 liter of milk (Ami du Cl., 1911, p. 252).

b) Eight ounces of bread cooked in water with oil may not licitly be taken in the little supper. The reason is not that through cooking a diverse substance arises, but because all these things satiate more. Thus custom interprets the law. Some indeed contradict, leaning on the general principle that for foods which contain much watery humor, the assigned quantity can be increased. Cf. Berardi, l. c., n. 23; Antonelli, II, 878. This principle indeed is not to be rejected absolutely, and can be applied for some foods; yet in our case, attention must primarily be given to custom. Cf. Lehmkuhl, I, 1462.

1230. Questions. QUAER. 1. How many sins does one commit who breaks fast through meals CULPABLY repeated?

Resp. 1. If he breaks the fast through eating non-esurial foods, as often as he eats, so often he sins, and therefore the number of acts must be declared in confession: because the precept of abstinence is negative, which obliges always and for always, as the Doctors say (III, 1029, 3).

Yet the sin would be venial if, once in the day, a small quantity were eaten (cf. n. 1225, q. 2).

2. If he breaks the fast by eating esurial foods several times in the forbidden quantity, from the common and more probable opinion, he commits only one grave sin against the precept of the Church; and the stronger reason is that the essence of fast consists in one eating: wherefore, the essence of fast having been destroyed through the second meal, the precept ceases in the third or fourth meal.

But they most commonly say that in these last meals venial sin is committed, because they are against the end of the law, which is mortification of the flesh; and indeed more probably, because to go against the end of the law is a certain inordination, which does not seem excused from every fault (III, 1030, Question 1).

QUAER. 2. Whether he who INCULPABLY refreshed himself twice in the day is held to abstain from a third meal?

Resp. It is controverted. Yet the affirmative opinion pleases the Holy Doctor more (H. Ap., XII, 20; Conf. dir., XII, 6; cf. note of Gaude, II, p. 415). The reason which he brings forward is the following: He who materially violated the fast by refreshing himself twice is held to abstain from a third meal, lest he seem to approve the material violation of fast. Yet this reason does not settle the controversy.

QUAER. 3. What ought he to do who on a day of fast inadvertently breakfasted in the morning in the accustomed way?

Resp. 1. If the breakfast was moderate, not morally exceeding the quantity of a little refreshment, he is held to observe the fast, as also others.

2. If the quantity of the breakfast is equated with the little supper, he is held (short of grave inconvenience) either to remit the meal to evening, or rather to take a lesser quantity of food in the evening. The reason is that the substance of fast can still be preserved, although attention can no longer be given to something accidental.

3. If finally the quantity must be almost assimilated to a meal, in the best way in which it can be done, the other prescriptions of fast should be observed. Yet the little supper can be more abundant, indeed it could be anticipated. Cf. St. Alph., III, 1030.

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.

S. Th. II-II, q. 147, a. 6 and 7.

954. The object of ecclesiastical fasting is indicated by can. 1251: "The law of fasting prescribes that only one meal be made in the day; but it does not forbid taking some food in the morning and evening, while preserving, however, the approved custom of places concerning the quantity and quality of foods." Therefore the Code did not change the law of fasting as to the object, but ratified it, which wholly depends upon legitimate custom, just as custom introduced it and through the course of centuries somewhat modified it, and thus confirmed it. Whence it follows that the law is to be interpreted in the same way as before the Code.¹

¹ This is very much to be noted. Many, after the Code was promulgated, were frustrated in their hope, since they were expecting from it a certain mitigation of the law. Nevertheless, desiring a milder mode of fasting, they proposed to introduce it, as may be seen in the periodical Ami du Clerge, 1921, and Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, 1927, and thus they attempted to attenuate the law of fasting. But the Code confirmed the custom as it existed; after the Code was promulgated, however, mitigation could not yet have been introduced by a new custom because sufficient time for this was lacking.

The essence of fasting, or the essential part without which fasting is not conceived, consists in this, that in the day, that is, from midnight to midnight, only one complete meal is taken, whose quantity is not determined; whence if it exceeds the limits of temperance, someone can sin against that virtue and wholly or partially lose the merit of fasting, yet he will not sin against the precept of ecclesiastical fasting.

"Fasting," says St. Thomas, a. 6, "is instituted by the Church for restraining concupiscence, yet so that nature be preserved. But for this one meal seems to suffice, by which man can satisfy nature, and yet it takes something away from concupiscence, by diminishing the times of eating. And therefore by the moderation of the Church it has been established that those fasting should eat once in the day."

But this can be violated in three ways: 1) by taking several meals or several parts of a meal; 2) by dividing the meal, or interrupting it for a notable time, because thus there would be several meals and not one morally continuous meal; 3) by prolonging the meal for a long time, because thus it would be virtually multiplied.

Still less can that be admitted which sometimes they profess, not indeed in writing but orally: that the law of fasting no longer obliges because only a few observe it. But this reason is not sufficient, because the law has not yet become harmful or contrary to reason.

They imagine for themselves another law which they would wish to be held more conformable to reason; but the old law has not yet been abolished. Indeed each year, on the occasion of the Lenten mandate, in the several dioceses and churches the law is customarily inculcated again; and the very dispensations which the faithful ask suppose the persistence of the law. These things therefore prevent a custom contrary to law from being able to be introduced. Therefore it is not licit to interpret the law of fasting otherwise than was received before the Code. - But if the ecclesiastical law were too much attenuated, the practice of penance among the faithful would be reduced to nothing.

955. The time through which the meal can last* is assigned differently by different men; but not without fault will it be prolonged beyond two continuous hours, unless there is a reasonable cause (for example, the custom of receiving friends in this way); or, as some say, if afterward only sweetmeats or altogether light foods (dessert) are set forth, especially if the little evening meal is omitted, but this can be done only rarely.

Interruption: 1) if it is very brief, for example, of one quarter of an hour or morally within half an hour, even without a just cause, it does not prevent the eating from being morally continuous, even if it is interrupted with the intention of continuing elsewhere, in an inn. Indeed, if someone has already finished with the intention of eating no more, he can return, for example, if the table companions are still eating, or if food is set forth which he did not know of, because intention alone, although it can multiply human acts, nevertheless cannot make the eating not one but twofold: for eating is an external fact, and all consider as one eating the fact of eating in several turns not much interrupted.

2. If it is brief or rather notable, for example, of half an hour or within an hour, and there is an intention of returning and a proportionate motive, it does not prevent the eating from being morally one, because the motive sufficiently unites the two parts; on the contrary if there is no reason, because the intention of man alone does not suffice to unite two eatings.

3. If it is truly notable, that is, of one hour or, according to others, morally beyond an hour, it always constitutes two meals; whence if someone had to interrupt the meal on account of a grave reason and was not sufficiently refreshed, he will be excused from the law of the single meal but will not fast, unless in the other part he takes a small matter of food.

956. The hour of the meal according to present-day custom is about noon.² But theologians dispute whether it is of the substance of fasting and an integral part of it, or only a certain accidental circumstance. Many more recent men probably deny the former, because the sole substance of fasting, at least today, is one meal; whence they say the hour is prescribed only under light obligation, as for the divine office, and therefore even notable anticipation is never mortal.

² Thus from the fourteenth century. Anciently it was in the evening; afterward at the ninth hour (that is, 3 p.m.), and this usage still existed in the time of St. Thomas, who writes of it, a. 7: "because then especially the nature of the human body needs to be helped against the exterior heat of the air, lest the humors within be burned."

St. Alphonsus held this opinion as more probable, but afterward he retracted it altogether, because in the Middle Ages the hour was of the substance of fasting, as is had from canon law (cap. Solent, 50, de consecr. dist. 1): "In Lent they are in no way to be judged to fast who have eaten before the evening office is celebrated," and from St. Thomas (IV Sent., d. 15, q. 3, a. 4, ad 3): "He who too notably anticipates breaks the fast"; which would not be the case if only an accidental circumstance obligating under light obligation were violated. But now it is not proved that present-day custom has derogated from the ancient precept, or at least this is not certain; and therefore the precept possesses against liberty. Yet this last does not certainly conclude, because according to the doctrine of the Probabilists it suffices that the custom be solidly probable.

Nevertheless the hour seems to pertain to the substance of fasting: a) because the greater and principal difficulty of fasting consists precisely in this, that someone must wait a long time for the meal, which once taken, the hour of collation is already much more easily awaited; b) because the faithful think themselves obligated to this under grave obligation, nor would they judge that man to fast who took the meal at the eighth or ninth hour, whence custom does not seem to have abrogated this. Therefore the hour seems to pertain to the substance of fasting, and to conduce much to the end of the law, the mortification of the flesh, and therefore it is prescribed under grave obligation; and truly notable anticipation, because it is much contrary to this end, of itself is mortal.

957. Outside the meal all food is of itself prohibited, namely, everything which of itself or principally is ordained to nourishing the body, whether it is taken by eating, drinking, or sipping, such as porridge, milk,³ honey, broth, extracts of flesh, oil, sugar, fruits, juice of fruits pressed by the teeth, unless however they are mixed in a small quantity with drink, because then they are so liquefied that they seem to lose their proper nature and by the estimation of men are judged true drinks, for example, light lemonade, sugared water,⁴ etc.

³ Skimmed milk in some places is held as a drink, for example, among the Tyrolese.

⁴ Also chocolate, even if it is prepared not with milk but with water, is not a drink, since it does not principally serve to extinguish thirst, but is food because it rather nourishes. But in certain southern regions custom considers light chocolate as a medicine, insofar as it helps to carry food and to strengthen the stomach, as Benedict XIV and St. Alphonsus testify. According to that custom it can be used in a small quantity, which authors measure at one and a half ounces per day diluted in four or five ounces of water.

But these are not prohibited:

a) drinks or liquids, which are not ordained of themselves to nourishing the body, but to aiding the digestion of food and extinguishing thirst, for example, water, cider, beer, wine, tea, coffee: for nourishment, if present, accompanies accidentally, even if the liquid is frozen, because once put into the mouth it immediately liquefies and because freezing does not change the nature of the thing. Hence one who drinks immoderately can sin against the virtue of temperance and lose the merit of fasting, yet he does not sin against the precept of fasting;

b) medicines which are principally ordained to medication of the body or to promoting the operation of the physician;

c) electuaries prepared from chosen things, such as sugar, juniper, lemon (for example, jelly, preserves, candies, fondants, pastilles, jujube paste, almonds, conserves), if they are taken in the manner of medicine and in a moderate quantity (half an ounce or a little more in the day), for example, for the digestion of food, strengthening the stomach, removing odor of the mouth, preserving the voice, or lest drink harm, or lest strength fail when someone must defer dinner beyond the common hour. But if it is done in a great quantity, accidentally they will have the account of nourishment and will be taken in the manner of food in fraud of the law (a. 6, ad 3).

958. Custom introduced the collation and the little morsel, besides drink, medicine, and electuaries, concerning which it has been said.

A. From the time when the meal began to be taken about noon, there was introduced the little supper or collation, that is, the little meal which is taken toward evening from lighter foods. Now:

1. Their quantity seems of itself to be determined relatively to the condition of the person and occupations, the duration of the fast, and other circumstances; whence many authors indicate one-fifth or one-fourth part of a complete meal for such a person in such circumstances.1 Others, even St. Alphonsus, say that this rule is obscure and liable to scruples, and therefore determine the absolute quantity, and several allow up to eight ounces even for those who are thus refreshed to satiety (which is a sign of a weak stomach), and permit ten ounces to Germans and to those who have a German stomach, or for whom it is necessary for carrying out offices. The first opinion is in itself more reasonable; but the other, on account of custom, in fact is now practically certain (can. 1251). But now some would wish the quantity to be determined proportionally to the condition of the person, but far beyond the eight or ten ounces which St. Alphonsus generally permits: thus they are not choosing either opinion, but combining both; something which until now no one dared to put forth. Wherefore such a practice could not be introduced by private authority, nor by the power of a bishop or of a particular council, but only by the consent of the Holy See, or of a power delegated by it for this.

But an ounce is understood as the Roman ounce, which is worth 27-28 grams, and is the twelfth part of the Roman pound, which is worth about 325-330 grams.2

2. The quality of food licit of itself in the collation is no other than lighter Lenten food which does not nourish much, such as bread, fruits, legumes or vegetables, cakes, herbs, potatoes, rice, sweet things (jellies, preserves), etc.; in fact, however, it is to be determined according to the various customs of places:3 for whatever foods here or there are in use, even one or two eggs as in Germany, or broth; but nowhere flesh properly so called.4 In Belgium eggs and broth are not in use, as is established from the Lenten mandate, but as to part of the collation stronger foods are permitted, such as milk, cheese, small fish, or even a moderate quantity, namely, two or three ounces, of larger fish.

In the number of ounces, however, drink is not to be counted, unless a solid substance (rice, flour, legumes, bread, vermicelli, beans, pastilles, macaroni) is cooked with liquid (wine, beer, water), because 1) by cooking and fermentation the food by the estimation of men is judged to acquire another nature, and the drink with it becomes one so that it could not easily be separated from it; 2) the whole is judged and called food, nor is one part drunk, but all is eaten; moreover 3) no custom exists of increasing the number of ounces. - Nor does it stand in the way that the whole does not nourish more. For a) we will be more satiated; b) eight ounces of nutritive quantity are not granted, otherwise by chemical analysis we could also subtract the quantity of water from food (bread, potatoes), but eight ounces of that which according to the estimation of men is food are granted; c) just as food mixed with liquid in a small quantity is judged drink, so a certain quantity of drink mixed with food is judged food. This opinion seems solidly proved and is generally admitted by all, with a few excepted.5

According to some, however, even St. Alphonsus, it is probably licit: 1) to soak food in water or wine while someone eats, and immediately bring the food to the mouth, because then fermentation does not intervene and the liquid serves only as the vehicle of the food, and it is still generally judged drink; likewise 2) to take broth from herbs cooked with water and vinegar, or oil, or cooked wine (provided that the vinegar and oil, which are food, are computed in the weight): for custom permits this, and besides these do not become something one as in the first case, and the whole can be taken by drinking.

B. A little morsel of bread taken in the morning is also permitted. The S. Penitentiary, 21 Nov. 1843, only declared for the Canadian region that those who follow such a usage are not to be disturbed, but today it has now been introduced everywhere by custom, which custom was consecrated by can. 1251. Bread, chocolate, or another lighter food not prohibited can be taken, indeed, according to some, some milk, but this certainly has not been introduced everywhere since it is not permitted everywhere even in the collation; the quantity, drink being excluded, cannot exceed two ounces, according to the received custom.

For the quality, the custom of the region seems rather to be looked at by us; thus in southern regions a drink of chocolate is in use, in northern regions rather bread.

1. Lehmkuhl notes, Th. M. I, n. 1462, that no one indicates one-third part; in fact, however, eight ounces will sometimes be one-third part of a complete meal, if indeed the ordinary meal does not extend beyond two pounds.

2. Genicot seems to determine the ounce altogether accurately at 31.25 grams; but the calculation is false. He divided our German pound by sixteen, because it contains about so many ounces (500:16 = 31.25). But a) the question is not of our pound, but of the Roman, which is worth not 375 but about 325 grams; b) even our pound is not worth 500 grams but a little less. - Others have the ounce as 30 grams; but this is said approximately.

3. Vermeersch says, Th. M. III, n. 873: "Concerning quality a fairly great variety of usage is discerned. In a few places eggs themselves are permitted; in many at least dairy products are admitted; in others, for example, in Italy, only fasting foods; in Spain, if you except one or another diocese in the northern part, even fish or little fish are prohibited. And because approved custom is confirmed, therefore stricter abstinence is to be observed by all in Italy and in many places in the morning and evening than in the principal meal, where eggs are always permitted."

4. Their use even after the Code is illicit, as we know from the response of the president of the Commission of Interpretation, 29 Oct. 1919.

5. Namely, Berardi, Noldin, and Genicot, the last of whom, Th. M. I, n. 437, II, has these things: "A chemical change is to be considered as though the beginning of digestion, because it does not differ from that change which is effected at the beginning of digestion. But from this the nutritive matter is in no way increased. The quantity indeed of this soaked bread can create greater satiety than the same portion of dry bread, although even this difference is not so great (Capellmann, Med. past., p. 95). Nor does it seem equitable to permit the richer man to dip eight ounces of bread in wine while he eats them (which St. Alphonsus thinks licit), but to prohibit the poor man from cooking the same quantity in water. Indeed, if recourse is had to the common estimation and the end of the law, by which reasons Lehmkuhl (n. 1462) more fully supports the opinion of St. Alphonsus, that poor man, at least in our regions, will be judged to fast and to exercise mortification better than the rich man using wine." - But no one of the faithful, as I think, holds cooking as the beginning of digestion. - Moreover, one cannot argue logically from a probable opinion to overthrow that which is certain or more probable: St. Alphonsus thinks it probably licit to dip food into wine; but he holds as certain that the cooking of which there is question is not licit. But if the argument from parity were valid, one would have to conclude not that cooking is licit, but that dipping food into wine is also illicit. - Finally, a poor man can dip food into drink (water, coffee) just as a rich man can: in this there is no difference, but the whole difference is from the fact that the poor man does not have wine. But if he mixes food with drink, he will not fast better than a rich man using wine, although he will observe mortification better; but this is outside the question.

959. What of delaying, anticipating, and interverting the meal. - A. Delay of the meal, even without cause, is never a sin, because it conduces better to the end of fasting.

B. Anticipation of half an hour relative to the customary hour or, as St. Alphonsus says, within an hour relative to noon (11 a.m.) is slight and is judged nothing, and therefore is licit without cause. - Anticipation of one hour relative to the customary hour, or even within two hours relative to noon (after 10 a.m.), is rather notable and is judged small, and therefore is illicit unless there is a reasonable slight cause, such as the custom of then taking dinner, courtesy, for example, the arrival of a guest who must leave sooner, etc. - Anticipation of one hour beyond the licit time (to 10 a.m.) according to several, among whom is St. Alphonsus, is judged notable; that which notably exceeds two hours relative to noon (to 9:30 a.m.) is certainly truly notable and great; and therefore it is illicit unless there is a rather grave reasonable cause, and one graver to the extent that the anticipation is more notable.

The cause can be more or less grave: a necessary journey to be undertaken, a grave business to be performed, for example, necessity of preaching, teaching, rising very early, weakness of constitution, etc.

But if for someone, at least ordinarily, it would be too difficult to fast unless he notably anticipated the hour, he would not be bound to fast: for the faithful so judge, and rightly, because no one is bound, at least habitually, to observe the law in an extraordinary way and in a way which from its nature includes inconvenience.

C. Interversion between the meal and collation is not forbidden, as can. 1251, § 2 says: "Nor is it forbidden... to interchange the evening meal with dinner." Hence it is licit a) if the hours almost agree; b) probably if the hours do not altogether differ, and therefore, if there exists a reasonable cause for interversion (for example, the reason of studies), those are not to be disturbed who take the little meal at the eleventh hour or between the tenth and eleventh hour in the morning and defer dinner to the fifth or even sixth hour in the evening (S. Poen., 10 Jan. 1834; S. Off., 29 July 1837; S. Poen., 17 Sept. 1862); indeed c) according to a few, if the hours differ much, and thus the collation is licitly taken in the morning, the meal at noon, and the little morsel in the evening, because the whole substance of fasting is preserved.

Yet this cannot be composed with the opinion of St. Thomas according to which the hour is of the substance of fasting, and obliges under grave obligation; and therefore it is better said that for this there is required a rather grave cause, for example, rather great weakness, necessity of studies or business; indeed, if for someone, at least ordinarily, it would be too difficult to fast otherwise, he would not be bound to it.

This last also seems true in the opinion of others, because although the mode of interversion today is permitted, it is nevertheless extraordinary, against the customary mode, and as it were a privilege which no one is bound to use; indeed of itself it includes a great inconvenience.

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.

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.

It is to be noted from St. Bonaventure here, that Fasting signifies a certain abstinence.

FIRST, then, in the order of genus it signifies abstinence from all illicit voluptuousness, of which St. Augustine, tract. 17. in Ioan., and Isa. 58: Is not this rather the fast that I have chosen; loose the bands of impiety, etc. Properly, however, it signifies abstinence from food and drink.

SECONDLY, therefore, Fasting is called moral abstinence from foods and drinks according to the common norm of the virtue of Temperance, and this ought to be perpetual.

THE THIRD fasting is called Natural, which consists in abstinence of every kind from food and drink; which fasting is required in those about to receive the Eucharist. Nor is it solved by the receiving of the Eucharist; yet not without the Purification, which would break the natural fast.

THE FOURTH fasting is a certain special moderation, and a longer abstinence; and this is praised in the Scriptures.

A SINGLE meal, as I said, belongs to the essence of the fast; but by admitted custom the evening collation has also been allowed for some refreshment. We must therefore consider what quantity and what quality of food is allowed.

AS TO quantity, the first opinion allows three ounces. So James de Graff, Decis. part. 1. lib. 2. cap. 37. num. 29.

THE SECOND opinion extends it to four ounces. So Homob. in Exam. Eccles. part. 1. tract. 6. cap. 20. quaest. 9. Azor part. 1. lib. 7. c. 8. quaestio 8. Sà n. 8. Lezana 4. v. Ieiun. Victorellus in notis ad Manuale Nauar. cap. 21. and others.

THE THIRD opinion grants six ounces: Villalob. tom. 1. tract. 23. disp. 7. Filliucius tract. 27. part. 2. Fagundez 4. part. lib. 1. cap. 4. Diana part. 1. tract. 9. resol. 1. Sancius d. 52.

THE FOURTH opinion permits eight ounces. So Fagundez de praecep. Eccles. tract. 4. lib. 1. cap. 4. who says Suarez also answered thus. These opinions to be probable among the more recent authors, Bassaeus says, V. Ieiun. 1.

THE FIFTH opinion grants a fourth part of what is necessary for supper. So Reginaldus tract. 1. lib. 4. cap. 14. dub. 10. Layman lib. 4. tract. 8. cap. 1. Filliucius tom. 2. tract. 27. part. 2. cap. 3. quaestio 7. where he testifies that this was so defined in a famous Academy. But Diana, Loco citando, calls it lax; while Turrianus in select. centur. 2. dub. 34. calls it scandalous.

DIANA, p. p. Tract. 9., who de Ieiunio resol. 1., embraces the fourth.

HE CONCLUDES, however, with Lessius lib. 4. cap. 2. dub. 2. Bonacina de legibus, disp. ultim. quaest. 1. puncto 3. Tannero disp. 3. quaest. 3. dub. 5. num. 92. that as to quantity one must stand by the custom of places; by the custom, however, of good men who are of fearful conscience, not of the lax, as Fernandez also teaches part. 2. cap. 8. §. Tolet. lib. 6. cap. 2. Coened. quaest. 4.

SOMEONE will wonder that I alone wish to go before the others. I confess that none of these opinions pleases me, but I seek a proportion, with Bonacina part. 3. Lezana V. Ieiun. num. 4. Diana loco cit. Nauar. num. 13. Caietano V. Ieiun. Lessio lib. 4. cap. 2. dub. 2. num. 11. yet not one of places, as these say, but of persons.

FOR FIRST, since the evening collation has been granted by custom for a slight refreshment, the custom is not to be judged by places but by persons throughout the whole Church of God, since in it the precept is universal as a whole. Therefore, since for the fast only one meal is necessary, we must see what quantity can make a second meal; but this is not an absolute quantity, but one relative to persons. Hence, since persons vary in the quantity of food to be taken, various quantities also will have to be assigned; for there are some for whom eight ounces will be almost a whole supper, or at least half, or a third part.

WHEREFORE I think great prudence is necessary, that the matter be done justly; and accordingly, since in the same place there are diversities of complexions, ages, etc., each must be charged to refresh himself moderately, by as much as a small portion of supper is set forth, say a sixth; for that of a fourth part I reject, as lax. To this Azor alludes, lib. 7. cap. 8. quaestio 8.: nobles are granted a somewhat larger collation, because they are of weaker health and accustomed to more delicate banquets. Tannerus subscribes, num. 91. Sancius select. disp. 52. but it displeases me; for complexions must be reckoned, in which very many nobles are in excellent condition, while many of the non-noble are weakened by labors, slender diet, illnesses, and other discomforts of life. Indeed often a smaller allowance must be granted to nobles, who live in idleness. I should like to know what nobility adds to complexions, unless perhaps to declining labors. Badly indeed does Bassaeus say that thus nothing is determined and scruples are stirred up.

THE GREATER difficulty concerns the quality of foods.

THEREFORE Diana asserts that fish, eggs, milk-dishes, and other substantial foods customary at supper cannot be taken. The reason is, because custom never prescribed such foods. But Villalobos reports tom. 1. tract. 23. dub. 7. Azor p. p. lib. 7. cap. 8. quaestio 9. Reginaldus tom. 1. lib 4. dub. 14. Fillincius prima 2. tract. 27. part. 2. cap. 2. dub. 6. Layman lib. 4. tract. 8. cap. 1. Fagundez de praecep. Eccles. tract. 4. lib. 1. cap. 4. Angles de ieiunio , quaest. 9. art. 2. Vivaldum in Candel. part. ultim. cap. 11. Betarducium in sum. cor. part. 1. cap. 1. Ledesmam tom. 2. tract. 17. cap. 2. diff. 5. Graff. decis. part. 1. lib. 2. cap. 57. Vegam part. 1. cap. 15, casu 5. Antonium de isteratis part. 2. cap. 19. Molfesium tom. 1. tract. 10. cap. 3. Sylvium 2. 2. q. 147. art. 6. quaestio 2. and others.

THEREUPON he censures Bonacina Tract. de legib. dub. ult. puncto 3. for teaching the opposite; but on this side are Bassaeus, Pasqualig. decis. 113. and others among these authors.

THEY ASK, however, whether in the evening refreshment a broth from cooked bread, or bread with almonds, can be of the supper kind, even in that quantity which could be taken separately.

LAYMAN answers negatively lib. 4. tract. 8. cap. 1. Fillincius tom. 2. tract. 27. part. 1. cap. 2. Yet Azor concedes it part. 1. lib. 7. cap. 9. quaestio 8. Reginaldus tom. 1. lib. 4. cap. 14. num. 185. Bonacina loco citato.

FOR the night of the Nativity, however, Diana resol. 35. allows sixteen ounces of bread, or of sweetmeats, with Fagundez praecep. 4. lib. 1. cap. 24. and Llamas admits this custom even for religious part. 3. cap. 5. §. 25.

OTHERS, however, do not admit this opinion: Navar. man. cap. 25. Rodriquez Tom. 1. cap. 12. Angles in 4. tract. de ieiunio , quaest. 9. art. 2. diffic. 4. Comparing Diana, who was endowed, or rather burdened, with a tall body.

YOU WILL ASK: whether on a fast day it is lawful to take the evening collation in the morning, and to take supper at night.

Azor denies it part. 1. lib. 7. cap. 8. quaestio 6. Llamas part. 3. cap. 5. §. 16. Fagundez praecep. 4. lib. 1. cap. 4. num. 16. Valentia quaest. 2. puncto 3. citing Nauarum and Caietan.

YET the more probable opinion is that it, even if done without reasonable cause, is only venial. So Layman lib. 4. tract. 8. cap. 1. Fernandez part. 2. cap. 8. §. Tolet. lib. 6. cap. 1. Fillincius tom. 2. tract. 27. part. 2. cap. 2. Lessius lib. 4. cap. 2. dub. 2. Villalobos Tom. 1. tract. 23. dub. 7. The reason is, because the substance of the fast is not broken, but only the circumstance of that little supper. So also Bassaeus V. Ieiun. 1.

DIANA, however, notes resol. 33. that this change, for a just cause, as on account of study, business, a journey, reading, etc., is not evil. Besides those cited he alleges Cenedum in qq. Can. quaest. 45. Bettam part. 1: casu 3. Naldum verb. Ieiunium , Tannerum disp. 3. quaest. 3. dub. 5. num. 92.

OMITTING the outdated usages concerning the hour of the meal on fast days, the time is now set at midday, not before, except for a special cause, as Lessius notes from cap. solent , et Gloss. ibidem de consecr. dub. 7. lib. 4. cap. 2. dub. 2. Bellarm. lib. 1. de bonis operibus , in partie. cap. 2. Tannerus disp. 3. quaest. 3. dub. 5. num. 96.

THERE is, however, a question: whether anticipating the hour of the meal without necessity, by the mere will of eating, is mortal sin.

THE FIRST opinion is that anticipating it, even notably, is only venial. So Gabriel in 4. dist. 16. quaest. 3. art. 3. dub. 1. Angel. verb. Ieiunium , quaest. 2. after Monocent. Ioan. Andr. Archid. Ostiensem. So also Tannerus num. 46. Lessius n. 13. Molfesius tom. 1. tract. 10. cap. 5. Tolerus lib. 6. cap. 2. Villalob. tom. 1. tract. 23. diffic. 9. Fillincius tom. 2. tract. 27. part. 2. cap. 4. n. 70. Bonacina de legibus , disp. ult. quaest. 1. puncto 4. Fernand. exam. part. 2. cap 8. §. 3. Palatius in sum. Caiet. verb. ieiunium , Richardus in 4. dist. 15. art. 3. quaest 8. Diana part. 1. tract. 9. de Ieiun. resol. 27. citing others, and Bassaeus num. 16.

THE SECOND opinion is that it is mortal sin. So Fagundez praecep. 4. lib. 1. cap. 13. Reginaldus tom. 1. lib. 4. cap. 15. num. 191. Azor part. 1. lib 7. cap. 11. quaestio 4. Caietanus 2. 2. cap. 147. art. 7. Nauar. man. cap. 21. num. 27. Paludanus in 4. dist. 15. quaest. 4. art. 4. Couar. lib. 4. variar. cap. 20. Syluester verb. ieiunium , Homob. de exam. Ecclesiae , part. 1. tract. 6. cap. 10. quaest. 90. Ledesma tom. 2. tract. 17. dub. 4. Ioan. de la Cruz part. 1. praecep. 4. art. 4. dub. 8. Diana does not refuse it. This, on account of the authority of the Doctors, is highly probable, Bassaeus says.

THE OPINION of St. Bonaventure is given in speculo animae , cap. 3. in these words: Si tempore ieiunii , quod est in praecepto , cum hora comedendi secundum iura , et consuetudinem assignetur post meridiem , qui horam notabiliter anticipat sine causa , sola comedendi libidine , fraudem facit , nec tale ieiunium reputatur , ut si quis forte hora tertia comederet , et sic se impleret , quod tota illa die non esuriret. Qui autem fraudem facit legi , peccat in legem : Unde Chalcedonense Concilium ait : Nullatenus iudicandi sunt ieiunare , qui ante comedunt , quam vespertinum celebretur officium , quod tempore quadragesimali dicitur. But otherwise after None.

From which we have that he holds the second opinion, if the fraud is grave; and he does not posit the anticipation as notable, according to the second opinion, from which Molfesius posits one hour, Azor a quarter, Fillincius above half an hour, Fagundez half an hour; Diana says that religious, who have the privilege of anticipating one hour, can also anticipate half an hour without sin.

HE POSITS, therefore, that anticipating Vespers, which are said before midday, by at least half an hour, according to the Council of Chalcedon, and much more to gorge oneself in the morning, is a fraud of the fast.

THE ASSERTION is now evident from the Council of Chalcedon. It is proven by the reasoning of St. Bonaventure: for the law of the fast intends the mortification of the flesh, and to fill oneself in this way is against the form and end of the fast; whence the argument of the first opinion falls, that this is an accidental difference: Many Doctors, in Bassaeus num. 16. concede that one may dine one hour before midday.

IT IS CERTAIN from the Councils and Fathers, cited dub. 3. et ex praxi antiquissima Ecclesiae, that the Ecclesiastical precept of fasting binds under mortal sin all the baptized, of legitimate age, not impeded, as the Theologians commonly teach with St. Bonaventure dist. 15. and in other places cited there, as Valentia notes disp. 9. quaest. 2. puncto 5. Tannet, disp. 3. q. 3. dub. 5. cum D. Thom. quaest. 147. art. 4.

AND indeed they are not bound from eating flesh before the seventh year, as Tannerus teaches num. 9. and others cited in him and in Diana resol. 42. Sanchez tom. 1. lib. 1. cap. 12. Villalob. tom. 1. tract. 23. dub. 4. Sanchez in select. disp. 41. num. 31.

WHETHER, however, they are bound immediately after the seventh year, I said in my Tract. de legibus.

BUT all, not impeded, are bound by the perfect Ecclesiastical fast after the twenty-first year, which is the completion of growth even of the just and perfect, as defined in Conc. Vienn.

THEY RAISE the question whether, if the 21st year is completed in the morning, one is bound from that point; and they cite Portel. addit ad dub. Regul. V. Ieiunium; Sanchez de matrim. tom. 1. lib. 2. disp. 24. num. 23. Yet this does not please Sancio select. disp. 54. See Diana resol. 49.

Titius, a missionary priest in England, in order that he may be able, in accordance with the First Council of Westminster, diligently to explain the laws of fasting at the beginning of Lent to the people committed to him, goes through a certain recent author and, from the reading of him, proposes for solution certain difficulties that have arisen. He asks in particular:

1. Is milk allowed whenever food or drink is taken?

2. What kinds of food and how much are allowed at the collation?

3. Many could fast by interchanging the little breakfast and the collation. Are they bound to this if they are unable to fast otherwise?

4. How often in the day may those dispensed from fasting eat meat when meat is permitted by indult?

5. Does Titius have the power to dispense from fasting, and whence does he have it?

1. Is milk allowed on fast days whenever the faster eats or drinks?

No; lacticinia, i.e., milk, butter, and cheese are by the common law forbidden at least during Lent whenever flesh meat is forbidden.¹ In some places lacticinia are also forbidden on other fasting days outside Lent. In England milk and butter are allowed by custom at the full meal outside Lent, and at least by indult in Lent at the full meal. By concession of the Holy See² milk, butter, and cheese are allowed by way of condiment at collation, also on all fasting-days except Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

1 Proposition 32, condemned by Alexander VII.

2 Sacred Office, March 18, 1880.

2. How much food and of what sort is allowed at collation?

About eight ounces of lighter food, excluding always flesh meat and eggs, are allowed at collation. In some places eggs also are allowed. According to an instruction issued by the archbishop and bishops of England in 1883, when fish is taken at collation, the quantity of it should not exceed two or three ounces.

3. Many could fast by taking the collation in the morning and two ounces of food in the evening. Are those who can not otherwise fast bound to adopt this method?

No; it is indeed allowed to fast in that way for some good reason, but as it is not the usual way of fasting in England, there is no obligation to adopt it.

4. How often may those who are dispensed from fasting eat meat on days when meat is allowed at the principal meal to fasters by indult?

That depends on the extent of the dispensation, but unless there is an express limitation, it is generally understood that they may eat meat as often as they please.

5. Have missionary priests in England the power of dispensing from fasting, and whence do they obtain it?

They seem to obtain the power of dispensing those who are committed to their charge from custom, the source whence parish priests obtain it. The existence of the power seems to be implied in the First Council of Westminster, decree XXIII, no. 3.

Case.—Arcadius, a young priest, was assigned one ember day by his pastor, who was suddenly called from home, to give a sermon during the triduum services to be held that evening. The work was gladly accepted, Arcadius saying to himself it would stand as a quid pro quo, in place of the fast prescribed for that day. A few days later, on another fast day, he settled down to a strenuous day’s work, laboring zealously in preparing his paper for the conference, writing his sermon for Sunday, etc., with the conviction that his efforts of the day were sufficient to excuse him from the obligation of fasting. Upon the pastor’s return the young priest acquainted him with the aforesaid facts, and was promptly told that the reasons set forth were not sufficient to excuse from so serious a law.

Question.—Was the pastor right?

Solution.—The obligation of fasting is a grave one, so that weighty and serious reasons are required to free the children of the Church from the binding force of this law. Such reasons make the law morally or physically impossible of fulfillment. Are the reasons alleged by Arcadius of such a nature? We do not think so. In the first instance, the preparation and delivery of one sermon, even under the given conditions of haste, etc., are usually not attended by such mental or physical fatigue as not to be compatible with even a rigorous compliance with the demands of the Church in the matter of fasting. There is a strain, of course, but our contention is that it is only a moderate one, and does not cause wear and tear enough to be seriously considered a legitimate excuse. Besides, we are not justified in substituting what we wish for any definite obligation that we are apt to find irksome. However, nothing is said in the statement of the case of the physical state of our young friend. If his health is not good, and this extra labor, even though moderate in itself, or when added to other labors of the day, would make it morally impossible for him to observe the strict fast, without injury to his weakened condition, or interference with his priestly duties, then, of course, his view of the case would be a perfectly proper one; his reason would be a valid one. But we fear there is nothing of this nature in the case, and must decide that Arcadius was wrong and his pastor was right.

In the second instance, the pastor was again in the right. The intense labor assumed on the fast day was not necessary for that day, was undertaken freely on that day in preference to other days, and for the sole motive of escaping the obligation of fasting on that day. This extraordinary labor brought no special benefit that could not be gained on any other day not a fast day. We know that the doing of corporeal or spiritual works of mercy, even undertaken freely on a fast day, are sufficient to relieve one of the obligation when found incompatible with it, because they bring a greater good than mere fasting. But no greater good accrues in this case. Arcadius would do well to mend his conscience.