| utrum per binam comestionem jejunium solvatur. | Article 4: Whether the fast is broken by two meals. |
| ad quartum sic proceditur. videtur quod per binam comestionem jejunium non solvatur. | Sub-article 1: It would seem not. |
| quia jejunium est determinatum ad subtractionem nutrimenti. sed non solum nutrimur cibo, sed etiam potu. cum ergo potus assumptus praeter comestionem statutum ab ecclesia jejunium non solvat, videtur quod nec etiam cibi bina assumptio. | Objection 1: For fasting is oriented to the denial of nourishment. But we are nourished not only by food, but also by drink. Therefore, since the fast is not broken, having taken drink besides the meal allowed by the Church, it would seem that neither the taking of food twice (would break the fast). |
| praeterea, aqua potata impedit sumptionem eucharistiae, sicut et sumptio alterius cibi: quia solvit jejunium naturae, quod requiritur in eucharistiam sumentibus, sicut et alii cibi. si ergo aqua potata non solvit jejunium ecclesiae, videtur quod nec alius cibus assumptus. | Objection 2: Furthermore, water consumed impedes the taking of the Eucharist, just as the taking of food (does). For it breaks the fast of nature which is required for the taking of the Eucharist, as of other foods. Therefore, if water consumed does not break the fast of the Church, it would seem that neither does food taken. |
| praeterea, electuaria etiam cibi quidam sunt. sed eorum assumptio jejunium non solvit; quod patet ex communi consuetudine multorum, qui etiam diebus jejunii absque conscientia fractionis jejunii electuaria in magna quantitate manducant. ergo nec ciborum aliorum iterata assumptio jejunium solvit. | Objection 3: Furthermore, electuaries are a kind of food. But the taking of these does not break the fast, which is clear from the common practice of many who, even on the days of fasting, without an awareness of breaking the fast, consume electuaries in great quantities. Therefore, neither, again, does the taking of the other kinds of food break the fast. |
| praeterea, odor jejunium non solvit. sed odore aliqui reficiuntur, sicut et cibo. ergo nec cibus. | Objection 4: Furthermore, odor does not break the fast. But some are refreshed by odor, just as (they are) by food. Therefore... |
| sed contra est, quia in hoc distinguuntur jejunantes a non jejunantibus, quia semel manducant. si ergo bina comestio jejunium non solveret, non esset differentia inter jejunantes et non jejunantes. | On the contrary: Those fasting are distinguished from those who do not in this, that they eat a single time. Therefore, if fasting is not broken by two meals, then there would be no difference between those fasting and those who do not. |
| ulterius. videtur quod esus carnium jejunium non solvat. | Sub-article 2: It would seem that the eating of meat does not break the fast. |
| quia jejunium est institutum ad comprimendum concupiscentiam. sed vinum magis inflammat concupiscentiam quam carnes. cum ergo potus vini non solvat jejunium, nec esus carnium solvet. | Objection 1: For fasting is instituted for the restraining of concupiscence. But wine inflames concupiscence more than meat does. Therefore since the drinking of wine does not break the fast, neither does the eating of meat. |
| praeterea, legumina inflativa sunt, et sic ad luxuriam provocant. sed esus eorum non solvit jejunium. ergo nec esus carnium. | Objection 2: Furthermore, legumes make one flatulent and thus excite one to inordinate veneral pleasure. But the eating of these does not break the fast. Therefore, neither the eating of meat. |
| praeterea, pisces aliqui ita delectabiliter comeduntur sicut carnes aliorum animalium. sed nulla caro piscium comesta jejunium solvit. ergo nec carnes avium aut quadrupedum. | Objection 3: Furthermore, some fish are delectably consumed in the same fashion as the meat of other animals. But no consumption of the flesh of fish breaks the fast. Therefore, neither the flesh of birds or quadrupeds. |
| praeterea, sicut in diebus quadragesimalibus abstinetur a carnibus, ita ab ovis et lacticiniis. sed in diebus jejunii quidam lacticiniis et ovis utuntur. ergo et carnibus uti possunt sine hoc quod jejunium solvatur. | Objection 4: Furthermore, just as one abstains from meat during the 40 day fast, so too (does one abstain) from eggs and dairy. But during the days of fasting, some dairy and eggs are used. Therefore, one is able to take meat without the fast being broken. |
| sed contra est generalis consuetudo ecclesiae, quae jejunantibus usum carnium interdicit. | On the contrary, there is the common custom of the Church which forbids those fasting the use of meat. |
| ulterius. videtur quod anticipatio temporis jejunium non solvat. | Sub-article 3: It would seem that anticipation of the time (of the fasting meal) does not break the fast. |
| sicut enim non servat tempus ab ecclesia institutum qui tardat comestionem, ita nec ille qui anticipat. sed ille qui tardat, non solvit jejunium ab ecclesia institutum. ergo nec ille qui anticipat. | Objection 1: For just as one who delays consumption does not preserve the time instituted by the Church, so too neither does one who anticipates it. But he who delays, does not break the fast instituted by the Church. Therefore, neither does he who anticipates it. |
| praeterea, jejunium est actus abstinentiae. sed abstinentia impeditur non solum per anticipationem horae comestionis, sed etiam per alias conditiones, quae hoc versu continentur: praepropere, laute, nimis, ardenter, studiose. ergo cum nimis comedere quantum ad quantitatem non solvat jejunium, nec ardenter quantum ad aviditatem comedendi, nec laute, quantum ad pretiosa quae in cibum quaeruntur, nec studiose, quantum ad exquisitum modum cibaria praeparandi (alias mortaliter peccarent qui in diebus jejuniorum hoc facerent, quasi transgressores praecepti ecclesiae; quod durum est dicere): videtur quod nec praepropere comedere, quod est tempus anticipare, jejunium solvat. | Objection 2: Furthermore, fasting is an act of abstinence. But abstinence is impeded not only through anticipation of the hour of consumption, but also by other conditions, which are contained in the (following) verse: "very hastily, sumptuously, excessively, ardently, eagerly." Therefore, since to consume excessively, as this is said with respect to quantity, does not break the fast, nor (does this apply to consuming) ardently with respect to the longing for consumption, nor sumptuously with respect to the richnesses which are sought in food, nor eagerly with respect to the exquisite way of preparing food (some mortally sin who act in this fashion during the days of fasting, being transgressors, as it were, of the precepts of the Church, which is hard to say). It would seem not to consume ahead of time, which is to anticipate the time, breaks the fast. |
| sed contra est quod dicit concilium cabilonense: in quadragesima nullatenus credendi sunt jejunare qui ante manducaverunt quam vespertinum celebretur officium. ergo anticipatio temporis solvit jejunium. | On the contrary, is that which the Cabilonese council states: "By no means during the 40 day fast is it to be believed that they fast who before they have eaten have celebrated the evening office." Therefore, anticipation of the time (of eating the fasting meal) breaks the fast. |
| respondeo dicendum ad primam quaestionem, quod jejunium dupliciter solvitur. uno modo quantum ad meritum, ita quod homo vel non meretur, vel minus meretur; et de hac solutione jejunii non intendimus ad praesens: quia conditiones quae meritum alicujus actus augent vel minuunt, indeterminatae sunt, eo quod quandoque accidentaliter se habent ad actum meritorium. alio modo solvitur jejunium, secundum quod est ab ecclesia institutum; ex qua solutione homo efficitur transgressor statuti ecclesiae de jejunio servando, vel saltem non observator, nisi ex dispensatione vel causa legitima dimittat; et de hac solutione jejunii nunc quaerimus. | I respond to the 1st question (sub-article 1) saying that the fast is broken in two ways. In one way, in relation to (the) merit (that attends to the fast), so that man either does not merit, or merits less (those things promised or gained by the fast). Concerning this breaking of the fast, we do not intend (to discuss) at the present moment. For the conditions which either augment or diminish the merit of an act are indeterminate, in that they are sometimes accidentally related to the meritorious act. The second way in which a fast is broken is said in relation to that which is instituted by the Church. Through this breaking, a man is made a transgressor of the statutes of the Church concerning the observance of fasting; at the least, he is not an observer (of those statutes), unless by reason of a dispensation (that he has received), or (that) he has been released through a legitimate cause. Concerning this breaking of the (Church's) fast, we here investigate (at the present moment). |
| ad hoc autem praecipue valet considerare intentiones statuentis. intendit autem ecclesia certum modum statuere manducandi, ut scilicet semel in die jejunans manducet; et ideo si aliquorum sumptio, secundum quae manducatio solet compleri, iteretur, jejunium praedicto modo acceptum solvitur. si autem aliqua sumantur quae ad manducandum de se ordinata non sunt, sed ad alium usum, qui usus communiter manducatio non vocatur; talis cibi vel potus sumptio praeter manducationem unam ante vel post, non facit esse binam manducationem; et ideo talis sumptio jejunium non solvit. | In this regard, one is especially able to consider the intentions of the one who regulates (the rules binding and governing the fast). The Church intends in a specific way to regulate the eating (of the fasting meal), namely that those fasting eat once a day. And for this reason, if the taking of something which one is accustomed in the act of eating to consume, if this is taken again, fasting, understood in the second way, is broken. If, however, something is taken which is not ordered per se to the act of eating, but rather to some other use (which use is not generally called an act of eating), the taking of this sort of food or drink (in addition to the one act of eating, and this either before or after this one meal) does not make one to eat twice. Thus the taking of this sort does not break the fast. |
| ad primum ergo dicendum, quod quamvis aliquis potus aliquo modo nutriat, tamen de se non ordinatur ad nutriendum, sed magis ad dispositionem bonam eorum quae nutriunt, ut scilicet per membra deducantur, et in stomacho non comburantur; unde sumptio potus manducatio non dicitur: et ideo ille qui potat extra horam unicae comestionis, non dicitur bis manducare; et propter hoc nec statutum ecclesiae frangit, nisi fraudem faciat: quia legem violat qui in fraudem legis aliquid facit. | Response to the first objection: Although a drink may nourish in some fashion, nevertheless in itself it is not ordered to nutrition, but rather to the good condition of those which they nourish, so that, namely, (the water is) drawn away through one's members, and not consumed in the stomach. Hence, the taking of drink is not called an act of eating. And thus, he who drinks outside of the hour of the single meal is not said to eat twice. According to this, he does not break the statute of the Church, except where he engages in a deception. For he who does something so as to deceive the law violates the law. |
| ad secundum dicendum, quod aqua etsi solvat jejunium naturae, quia aliquo modo nutrit; non tamen solvit jejunium ecclesiae; quia ecclesia non attendit in statuendo id quod quocumque modo nutrire potest, sed id quod principaliter ad nutriendum ordinatum est. | Response to the second objection: Even if water breaks the fast of nature, since it does nourish in some fashion, nevertheless it does not break the fast of the Church. For the church does not attend in the making of statutes to that which in any way at all is able to nourish, but rather is ordered principally to (what is involved in) nutrition (as was detailed in both the response and the prior reply). |
| ad tertium dicendum, quod quidam dicunt, quod si electuaria comedantur ad delectationem, solvunt jejunium; si autem causa medicinae sumantur, non solvitur jejunium. sed statutum positivae legis non attendit intentionem observantis, sed ipsum actum; eo quod modus virtutis non cadit in praecepto, sed est finis praecepti; sed ex intentione potest aliquis mereri vel demereri. et ideo dicendum, quod electuaria etsi aliquo modo nutriant, non tamen hic est principalis usus eorum; unde nec loco manducationis sumi consueverunt; et ideo talis sumptio jejunium ecclesiae non solvit, quamvis homo possit totaliter vel in parte ex hoc meritum jejunii perdere; vel etiam mortaliter peccare, si sit immoderata libido. non tamen est transgressor praecepti ecclesiae nisi in fraudem sumeret, aut si eis quasi aliis cibis uteretur ad famem extinguendam. | Response to the third objection: Some say that if electuaries are eaten for pleasure, they break the fast. If, however, they are taken as medicine, they do not. But the statute of the positive law does not attend to the intention of the one observing (the fast), but rather to the act itself, in that the mode of virtue does not fall within the precept, but is the end of the precept. But because of (one's) intention, someone can merit or not. Therefore, it should be said that electuaries, even if they do nourish in some way, nevertheless this is not its principal use. Hence they have not customarily been taken on the occasion of eating. Thus, this sort of taking does not break the fast of the Church, although one can wholly by this destroy the merit of the fast, or even mortally sin, if there is immoderate pleasure. However, he is not a transgressor of the Church's precept unless he were to engage in deception, or if he were to utilize them like other foods so as to extinguish hunger. |
| ad quartum dicendum, quod odor non nutrit, ut patet per philosophum in libro de sensu et sensato, sed aliquo modo confortat; unde non solvit neque jejunium naturae neque jejunium ecclesiae. | Response to the fourth objection: Odor does not nourish as is clear from the Philosopher in his book Concerning Sense and Things Sensed, but, rather, comforts in another way. Hence it breaks neither the natural or ecclesial fast. |
| ad secundam quaestionem dicendum, quod ille dicitur jejunium ecclesiae solvere qui modum abstinendi statutum ab ecclesia non servat. cum autem jejunium ecclesia instituerit ad satisfaciendum, et concupiscentiam reprimendum, sicut determinavit ad abstinentiam jejunii quantum ad numerum, ut scilicet semel tantum jejunans comederet ad afflictionem carnis propter satisfactionem; ita taxavit ut a carnibus abstineretur, quia hoc genere cibi praecipue concupiscentia fovetur et roboratur; unde comestio carnium jejunium solvit ab ecclesia institutum. | I respond to the 2nd question (sub-article 2) saying that he is said to break the ecclesial fast who does not preserve the mode of abstinence instituted by the Church. Since the ecclesial fast was instituted for the sake of reparation, and for the restraint of concupiscence, just as she (the Church) has determined the abstinence of the fast with respect to number, namely so that he who fasts eats only once for the affliction of his flesh on account of reparation, so too has she determined that one abstain from meat because with this kind of food, concupiscence especially is encouraged and strengthened. |
| ad primum ergo dicendum, quod vinum concupiscentiam incitat inflammando per modum alterantis; et quia tales alterationes non diu manent, ideo potus vini non adeo efficaciter operatur ad concupiscentiae fomentum, sicut esus carnium, quo praecipue materia concupiscentiae ministratur, et calor naturalis confortatur radicitus magis; et ex alia parte subtractio vini nimis debilitaret naturam propter digestionis impedimentum. | Response to the first objection: Wine incites concupiscence by inflaming through the mode of alteration. And since these kinds of alterations do not endure for long, the drink of wine does not, to a great extent, work efficaciously to the encouragement of concupiscence, just as the eating of meat by which the matter of concupiscence is especially ministered to and the natural heat is strengthened much more radically; on the other hand, the denial of wine excessively weakens nature on account of hindering digestion. |
| et similiter dicendum ad secundum de inflatione leguminum, quod est accidentalis causa concupiscentiam provocans, et cito transit. | Response to the second objection: And in a like way do we treat of the flatulence of legumes, that it is an accidental cause provoking concupiscence, but which passes quickly. |
| ad tertium dicendum, quod pisces frigidiores sunt naturaliter quam carnes, nec alimentum ita conveniens corpori praestant sicut aliae carnes; unde non fuit tanta necessitas prohibendi pisces, sicut carnes. | Response to the third objection: Fish are naturally colder than (other) meats; in this they do not provide nourishment to the body like the other meats. Hence it does not become as great a necessity to prohibit fish in the same manner as meat. |
| ad quartum dicendum, quod quadragesimale jejunium arctius observatur quam alia jejunia, quia eo christi jejunium secundum modum nostrum imitamur; et ideo, quamvis usus casei et ovorum in quadragesima sit generaliter interdictus, tamen in aliis jejuniis apud diversos in his est diversus abstinentiae modus. | Response to the fourth objection: The 40 day fast is more strictly observed than the other fasts because by it we imitate the fast of Christ according to our state. Hence, although the use of cheese and eggs is generally forbidden during the 40 days, nevertheless during the other fasts, there is a diversity of the ways of abstinence. |
| ad tertiam quaestionem dicendum, quod, sicut dictum est, ille jejunium solvit qui ecclesiae determinationem non servat. unde cum ecclesia instituit certum tempus comedendi jejunantibus; qui nimis notabiliter anticipat, jejunium solvit. non enim ecclesia arctare intendit ad subtilem temporis inspectionem; nec oportet astrolabium accipere ad horam comestionis cognoscendam. unde sufficit si circa horam illam quam ecclesia instituit, jejunans sumat cibum, etiam si aliquantulum propter aliquam necessitatem anticipet. | I respond to the 3rd. question (sub-article 3) saying that, as was said, he breaks the fast who does not preserve the Church's determination. Hence, when the Church institutes a certain time for eating for those who fast, he who perceptibly excessively anticipates (the time of eating) breaks the fast. For the Church does not intent to bind one to an exact inspection of the time. Nor is it appropriate to use an astrolabe so as to know the hour of eating. Hence, it suffices if around the hour that the Church has instituted, that he who fasts take food, even if he somewhat anticipates on account of some necessity. |
| ad primum ergo dicendum, quod omittere praeceptum ecclesiae non licet, sed supererogare licet; et ideo cum tardatio horae ad poenalitatem jejunii faciat, licet tardare per horam, sed non anticipare. | Response to the first objection: It is not licit to disregard the precept of the Church, but licit to meet and exceed it. Hence, although lateness of the hour conduces to the penalty of the fast, it is licit to delay through the hour (appointed to eat), but not to anticipate. |
| ad secundum dicendum, quod ea in quibus non potest accipi certa mensura, non cadunt sub determinatione legislatoris. et quia non potest accipi certa mensura in quantitate cibi vel aliis conditionibus numeratis, sicut in tempore accipi potest; ideo conditiones aliae quatuor non cadunt sub determinatione praecepti ecclesiae; et ideo quamvis per inordinationem circa illas circumstantias peccet, et meritum jejunii amittat vel in toto vel in parte, non tamen ecclesiae statutum transgreditur; et ideo jejunium non solvit. | Response to the second objection: Those things in which a certain measure cannot be taken, do not fall under the determination of the legislator. Since a certain measure cannot be taken in the quantity of food or in the other conditions enumerated, for this reason the conditions of the other four do not fall under the determination of the Church's precepts. And so, although he sins through a lack of proper ordering concerning those circumstances, and loses the merit of fasting either in whole or in part, nevertheless the statute of the Church is not transgressed. And so the fast is not broken. |
� Stephen Loughlin
(sjl1@desales.edu)