IV Sententiae d. 15, q. 3Concerning Fasting

utrum per binam comestionem jejuniumsolvatur.

Article 4: Whether the fast is broken by two meals.

ad quartum sic proceditur. videtur quod perbinam comestionem jejunium non solvatur.

Sub-article 1: It would seem not.

quia jejunium est determinatum adsubtractionem nutrimenti. sed non solumnutrimur cibo, sed etiam potu. cum ergopotus assumptus praeter comestionemstatutum ab ecclesia jejunium non solvat,videtur quod nec etiam cibi bina assumptio.

Objection 1: For fasting is oriented to the denial ofnourishment. But we are nourished not only byfood, but also by drink. Therefore, since the fast isnot broken, having taken drink besides the mealallowed by the Church, it would seem that neitherthe taking of food twice (would break the fast).

praeterea, aqua potata impedit sumptionemeucharistiae, sicut et sumptio alterius cibi:quia solvit jejunium naturae, quod requiriturin eucharistiam sumentibus, sicut et alii cibi.si ergo aqua potata non solvit jejuniumecclesiae, videtur quod nec alius cibusassumptus.

Objection 2: Furthermore, water consumedimpedes the taking of the Eucharist, just as thetaking of food (does). For it breaks the fast of naturewhich is required for the taking of the Eucharist, asof other foods. Therefore, if water consumed doesnot break the fast of the Church, it would seem thatneither does food taken.

praeterea, electuaria etiam cibi quidamsunt. sed eorum assumptio jejunium nonsolvit; quod patet ex communi consuetudinemultorum, qui etiam diebus jejunii absqueconscientia fractionis jejunii electuaria inmagna quantitate manducant. ergo necciborum aliorum iterata assumptio jejuniumsolvit.

Objection 3: Furthermore, electuaries are a kind offood. But the taking of these does not break thefast, which is clear from the common practice ofmany who, even on the days of fasting, without anawareness of breaking the fast, consumeelectuaries in great quantities. Therefore, neither,again, does the taking of the other kinds of foodbreak the fast.

praeterea, odor jejunium non solvit. sedodore aliqui reficiuntur, sicut et cibo. ergonec cibus.

Objection 4: Furthermore, odor does not break thefast. But some are refreshed by odor, just as (theyare) by food. Therefore...

sed contra est, quia in hoc distinguunturjejunantes a non jejunantibus, quia semelmanducant. si ergo bina comestio jejuniumnon solveret, non esset differentia interjejunantes et non jejunantes.

On the contrary: Those fasting are distinguishedfrom those who do not in this, that they eat a singletime. Therefore, if fasting is not broken by twomeals, then there would be no difference betweenthose fasting and those who do not.

ulterius. videtur quod esus carnium jejuniumnon solvat.

Sub-article 2: It would seem that the eating of meatdoes not break the fast.

quia jejunium est institutum adcomprimendum concupiscentiam. sedvinum magis inflammat concupiscentiamquam carnes. cum ergo potus vini nonsolvat jejunium, nec esus carnium solvet.

Objection 1: For fasting is instituted for therestraining of concupiscence. But wine inflamesconcupiscence more than meat does. Thereforesince the drinking of wine does not break the fast,neither does the eating of meat.

praeterea, legumina inflativa sunt, et sic ad Objection 2: Furthermore, legumes make one

luxuriam provocant. sed esus eorum nonsolvit jejunium. ergo nec esus carnium.

flatulent and thus excite one to inordinate veneralpleasure. But the eating of these does not breakthe fast. Therefore, neither the eating of meat.

praeterea, pisces aliqui ita delectabilitercomeduntur sicut carnes aliorum animalium.sed nulla caro piscium comesta jejuniumsolvit. ergo nec carnes avium autquadrupedum.

Objection 3: Furthermore, some fish are delectablyconsumed in the same fashion as the meat of otheranimals. But no consumption of the flesh of fishbreaks the fast. Therefore, neither the flesh of birdsor quadrupeds.

praeterea, sicut in diebusquadragesimalibus abstinetur a carnibus,ita ab ovis et lacticiniis. sed in diebus jejuniiquidam lacticiniis et ovis utuntur. ergo etcarnibus uti possunt sine hoc quod jejuniumsolvatur.

Objection 4: Furthermore, just as one abstains frommeat during the 40 day fast, so too (does oneabstain) from eggs and dairy. But during the daysof fasting, some dairy and eggs are used.Therefore, one is able to take meat without the fastbeing broken.

sed contra est generalis consuetudoecclesiae, quae jejunantibus usum carniuminterdicit.

On the contrary, there is the common custom of theChurch which forbids those fasting the use of meat.

ulterius. videtur quod anticipatio temporisjejunium non solvat.

Sub-article 3: It would seem that anticipation of thetime (of the fasting meal) does not break the fast.

sicut enim non servat tempus ab ecclesiainstitutum qui tardat comestionem, ita necille qui anticipat. sed ille qui tardat, nonsolvit jejunium ab ecclesia institutum. ergonec ille qui anticipat.

Objection 1: For just as one who delaysconsumption does not preserve the time institutedby the Church, so too neither does one whoanticipates it. But he who delays, does not breakthe fast instituted by the Church. Therefore, neitherdoes he who anticipates it.

praeterea, jejunium est actus abstinentiae.sed abstinentia impeditur non solum peranticipationem horae comestionis, sedetiam per alias conditiones, quae hoc versucontinentur: praepropere, laute, nimis,ardenter, studiose. ergo cum nimiscomedere quantum ad quantitatem nonsolvat jejunium, nec ardenter quantum adaviditatem comedendi, nec laute, quantumad pretiosa quae in cibum quaeruntur, necstudiose, quantum ad exquisitum modumcibaria praeparandi (alias mortaliterpeccarent qui in diebus jejuniorum hocfacerent, quasi transgressores praeceptiecclesiae; quod durum est dicere): videturquod nec praepropere comedere, quod esttempus anticipare, jejunium solvat.

Objection 2: Furthermore, fasting is an act ofabstinence. But abstinence is impeded not onlythrough anticipation of the hour of consumption, butalso by other conditions, which are contained in the(following) verse: "very hastily, sumptuously,excessively, ardently, eagerly." Therefore, since toconsume excessively, as this is said with respect toquantity, does not break the fast, nor (does thisapply to consuming) ardently with respect to thelonging for consumption, nor sumptuously withrespect to the richnesses which are sought in food,nor eagerly with respect to the exquisite way ofpreparing food (some mortally sin who act in thisfashion during the days of fasting, beingtransgressors, as it were, of the precepts of theChurch, which is hard to say). It would seem not toconsume ahead of time, which is to anticipate thetime, breaks the fast.

sed contra est quod dicit conciliumcabilonense: in quadragesima nullatenuscredendi sunt jejunare qui antemanducaverunt quam vespertinum

On the contrary, is that which the Cabilonesecouncil states: "By no means during the 40 day fastis it to be believed that they fast who before theyhave eaten have celebrated the evening office."

celebretur officium. ergo anticipatio temporissolvit jejunium.

Therefore, anticipation of the time (of eating thefasting meal) breaks the fast.

respondeo dicendum ad primamquaestionem, quod jejunium duplicitersolvitur. uno modo quantum ad meritum, itaquod homo vel non meretur, vel minusmeretur; et de hac solutione jejunii nonintendimus ad praesens: quia conditionesquae meritum alicujus actus augent velminuunt, indeterminatae sunt, eo quodquandoque accidentaliter se habent adactum meritorium. alio modo solviturjejunium, secundum quod est ab ecclesiainstitutum; ex qua solutione homo efficiturtransgressor statuti ecclesiae de jejunioservando, vel saltem non observator, nisi exdispensatione vel causa legitima dimittat; etde hac solutione jejunii nunc quaerimus.

I respond to the 1st question (sub-article 1) sayingthat the fast is broken in two ways. In one way, inrelation to (the) merit (that attends to the fast), sothat man either does not merit, or merits less (thosethings promised or gained by the fast). Concerningthis breaking of the fast, we do not intend (todiscuss) at the present moment. For the conditionswhich either augment or diminish the merit of anact are indeterminate, in that they are sometimesaccidentally related to the meritorious act. Thesecond way in which a fast is broken is said inrelation to that which is instituted by the Church.Through this breaking, a man is made atransgressor of the statutes of the Churchconcerning the observance of fasting; at the least,he is not an observer (of those statutes), unless byreason of a dispensation (that he has received), or(that) he has been released through a legitimatecause. Concerning this breaking of the (Church's)fast, we here investigate (at the present moment).

ad hoc autem praecipue valet considerareintentiones statuentis. intendit autemecclesia certum modum statueremanducandi, ut scilicet semel in diejejunans manducet; et ideo si aliquorumsumptio, secundum quae manducatio soletcompleri, iteretur, jejunium praedicto modoacceptum solvitur. si autem aliqua sumanturquae ad manducandum de se ordinata nonsunt, sed ad alium usum, qui ususcommuniter manducatio non vocatur; taliscibi vel potus sumptio praetermanducationem unam ante vel post, nonfacit esse binam manducationem; et ideotalis sumptio jejunium non solvit.

In this regard, one is especially able to consider theintentions of the one who regulates (the rulesbinding and governing the fast). The Churchintends in a specific way to regulate the eating (ofthe fasting meal), namely that those fasting eatonce a day. And for this reason, if the taking ofsomething which one is accustomed in the act ofeating to consume, if this is taken again, fasting,understood in the second way, is broken. If,however, something is taken which is not orderedper se to the act of eating, but rather to some otheruse (which use is not generally called an act ofeating), the taking of this sort of food or drink (inaddition to the one act of eating, and this eitherbefore or after this one meal) does not make one toeat twice. Thus the taking of this sort does notbreak the fast.

ad primum ergo dicendum, quod quamvisaliquis potus aliquo modo nutriat, tamen dese non ordinatur ad nutriendum, sed magisad dispositionem bonam eorum quaenutriunt, ut scilicet per membra deducantur,et in stomacho non comburantur; undesumptio potus manducatio non dicitur: etideo ille qui potat extra horam unicaecomestionis, non dicitur bis manducare; et

Response to the first objection: Although a drinkmay nourish in some fashion, nevertheless in itselfit is not ordered to nutrition, but rather to the goodcondition of those which they nourish, so that,namely, (the water is) drawn away through one'smembers, and not consumed in the stomach.Hence, the taking of drink is not called an act ofeating. And thus, he who drinks outside of the hourof the single meal is not said to eat twice.

propter hoc nec statutum ecclesiae frangit,nisi fraudem faciat: quia legem violat qui infraudem legis aliquid facit.

According to this, he does not break the statute ofthe Church, except where he engages in adeception. For he who does something so as todeceive the law violates the law.

ad secundum dicendum, quod aqua etsisolvat jejunium naturae, quia aliquo modonutrit; non tamen solvit jejunium ecclesiae;quia ecclesia non attendit in statuendo idquod quocumque modo nutrire potest, sedid quod principaliter ad nutriendumordinatum est.

Response to the second objection: Even if waterbreaks the fast of nature, since it does nourish insome fashion, nevertheless it does not break thefast of the Church. For the church does not attendin the making of statutes to that which in any way atall is able to nourish, but rather is orderedprincipally to (what is involved in) nutrition (as wasdetailed in both the response and the prior reply).

ad tertium dicendum, quod quidam dicunt,quod si electuaria comedantur addelectationem, solvunt jejunium; si autemcausa medicinae sumantur, non solviturjejunium. sed statutum positivae legis nonattendit intentionem observantis, sed ipsumactum; eo quod modus virtutis non cadit inpraecepto, sed est finis praecepti; sed exintentione potest aliquis mereri veldemereri. et ideo dicendum, quod electuariaetsi aliquo modo nutriant, non tamen hic estprincipalis usus eorum; unde nec locomanducationis sumi consueverunt; et ideotalis sumptio jejunium ecclesiae non solvit,quamvis homo possit totaliter vel in parte exhoc meritum jejunii perdere; vel etiammortaliter peccare, si sit immoderata libido.non tamen est transgressor praeceptiecclesiae nisi in fraudem sumeret, aut si eisquasi aliis cibis uteretur ad famemextinguendam.

Response to the third objection: Some say that ifelectuaries are eaten for pleasure, they break thefast. If, however, they are taken as medicine, theydo not. But the statute of the positive law does notattend to the intention of the one observing (thefast), but rather to the act itself, in that the mode ofvirtue does not fall within the precept, but is the endof the precept. But because of (one's) intention,someone can merit or not. Therefore, it should besaid that electuaries, even if they do nourish insome way, nevertheless this is not its principal use.Hence they have not customarily been taken on theoccasion of eating. Thus, this sort of taking doesnot break the fast of the Church, although one canwholly by this destroy the merit of the fast, or evenmortally sin, if there is immoderate pleasure.However, he is not a transgressor of the Church'sprecept unless he were to engage in deception, orif he were to utilize them like other foods so as toextinguish hunger.

ad quartum dicendum, quod odor non nutrit,ut patet per philosophum in libro de sensuet sensato, sed aliquo modo confortat; undenon solvit neque jejunium naturae nequejejunium ecclesiae.

Response to the fourth objection: Odor does notnourish as is clear from the Philosopher in his bookConcerning Sense and Things Sensed, but, rather,comforts in another way. Hence it breaks neitherthe natural or ecclesial fast.

ad secundam quaestionem dicendum, quodille dicitur jejunium ecclesiae solvere quimodum abstinendi statutum ab ecclesia nonservat. cum autem jejunium ecclesiainstituerit ad satisfaciendum, etconcupiscentiam reprimendum, sicutdeterminavit ad abstinentiam jejuniiquantum ad numerum, ut scilicet semeltantum jejunans comederet ad afflictionem

I respond to the 2nd question (sub-article 2) sayingthat he is said to break the ecclesial fast who doesnot preserve the mode of abstinence instituted bythe Church. Since the ecclesial fast was institutedfor the sake of reparation, and for the restraint ofconcupiscence, just as she (the Church) hasdetermined the abstinence of the fast with respectto number, namely so that he who fasts eats onlyonce for the affliction of his flesh on account of

carnis propter satisfactionem; ita taxavit ut acarnibus abstineretur, quia hoc genere cibipraecipue concupiscentia fovetur etroboratur; unde comestio carnium jejuniumsolvit ab ecclesia institutum.

reparation, so too has she determined that oneabstain from meat because with this kind of food,concupiscence especially is encouraged andstrengthened.

ad primum ergo dicendum, quod vinumconcupiscentiam incitat inflammando permodum alterantis; et quia tales alterationesnon diu manent, ideo potus vini non adeoefficaciter operatur ad concupiscentiaefomentum, sicut esus carnium, quopraecipue materia concupiscentiaeministratur, et calor naturalis confortaturradicitus magis; et ex alia parte subtractiovini nimis debilitaret naturam propterdigestionis impedimentum.

Response to the first objection: Wine incitesconcupiscence by inflaming through the mode ofalteration. And since these kinds of alterations donot endure for long, the drink of wine does not, to agreat extent, work efficaciously to theencouragement of concupiscence, just as theeating of meat by which the matter ofconcupiscence is especially ministered to and thenatural heat is strengthened much more radically;on the other hand, the denial of wine excessivelyweakens nature on account of hindering digestion.

et similiter dicendum ad secundum deinflatione leguminum, quod est accidentaliscausa concupiscentiam provocans, et citotransit.

Response to the second objection: And in a likeway do we treat of the flatulence of legumes, that itis an accidental cause provoking concupiscence,but which passes quickly.

ad tertium dicendum, quod pisces frigidioressunt naturaliter quam carnes, necalimentum ita conveniens corpori praestantsicut aliae carnes; unde non fuit tantanecessitas prohibendi pisces, sicut carnes.

Response to the third objection: Fish are naturallycolder than (other) meats; in this they do notprovide nourishment to the body like the othermeats. Hence it does not become as great anecessity to prohibit fish in the same manner asmeat.

ad quartum dicendum, quodquadragesimale jejunium arctius observaturquam alia jejunia, quia eo christi jejuniumsecundum modum nostrum imitamur; etideo, quamvis usus casei et ovorum inquadragesima sit generaliter interdictus,tamen in aliis jejuniis apud diversos in hisest diversus abstinentiae modus.

Response to the fourth objection: The 40 day fast ismore strictly observed than the other fasts becauseby it we imitate the fast of Christ according to ourstate. Hence, although the use of cheese and eggsis generally forbidden during the 40 days,nevertheless during the other fasts, there is adiversity of the ways of abstinence.

ad tertiam quaestionem dicendum, quod,sicut dictum est, ille jejunium solvit quiecclesiae determinationem non servat.unde cum ecclesia instituit certum tempuscomedendi jejunantibus; qui nimisnotabiliter anticipat, jejunium solvit. nonenim ecclesia arctare intendit ad subtilemtemporis inspectionem; nec oportetastrolabium accipere ad horam comestioniscognoscendam. unde sufficit si circa horamillam quam ecclesia instituit, jejunans sumatcibum, etiam si aliquantulum propteraliquam necessitatem anticipet.

I respond to the 3rd. question (sub-article 3) sayingthat, as was said, he breaks the fast who does notpreserve the Church's determination. Hence, whenthe Church institutes a certain time for eating forthose who fast, he who perceptibly excessivelyanticipates (the time of eating) breaks the fast. Forthe Church does not intent to bind one to an exactinspection of the time. Nor is it appropriate to usean astrolabe so as to know the hour of eating.Hence, it suffices if around the hour that the Churchhas instituted, that he who fasts take food, even ifhe somewhat anticipates on account of somenecessity.

ad primum ergo dicendum, quod omittere Response to the first objection: It is not licit to

praeceptum ecclesiae non licet, sedsupererogare licet; et ideo cum tardatiohorae ad poenalitatem jejunii faciat, licettardare per horam, sed non anticipare.

disregard the precept of the Church, but licit tomeet and exceed it. Hence, although lateness ofthe hour conduces to the penalty of the fast, it is licitto delay through the hour (appointed to eat), but notto anticipate.

ad secundum dicendum, quod ea in quibusnon potest accipi certa mensura, non caduntsub determinatione legislatoris. et quia nonpotest accipi certa mensura in quantitatecibi vel aliis conditionibus numeratis, sicutin tempore accipi potest; ideo conditionesaliae quatuor non cadunt subdeterminatione praecepti ecclesiae; et ideoquamvis per inordinationem circa illascircumstantias peccet, et meritum jejuniiamittat vel in toto vel in parte, non tamenecclesiae statutum transgreditur; et ideojejunium non solvit.

Response to the second objection: Those things inwhich a certain measure cannot be taken, do notfall under the determination of the legislator. Sincea certain measure cannot be taken in the quantityof food or in the other conditions enumerated, forthis reason the conditions of the other four do notfall under the determination of the Church'sprecepts. And so, although he sins through a lackof proper ordering concerning those circumstances,and loses the merit of fasting either in whole or inpart, nevertheless the statute of the Church is nottransgressed. And so the fast is not broken.

� Stephen Loughlin(sjl1@desales.edu)

The Aquinas Translation Project(http://www4.desales.edu/~philtheo/loughlin/ATP/index.html)