Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

IV Sententiae d. 15, q.

3
Concerning Fasting
utrum per binam comestionem jejunium
solvatur.

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

ad quartum sic proceditur. videtur quod per Sub-article 1: It would seem not.
binam comestionem jejunium non solvatur.
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 Sub-article 2: It would seem that the eating of meat
non solvat.
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 Objection 2: Furthermore, legumes make one

luxuriam provocant. sed esus eorum non


solvit jejunium. ergo nec esus carnium.

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


Objection 3: Furthermore, some fish are delectably
comeduntur sicut carnes aliorum animalium. consumed in the same fashion as the meat of other
sed nulla caro piscium comesta jejunium
animals. But no consumption of the flesh of fish
solvit. ergo nec carnes avium aut
breaks the fast. Therefore, neither the flesh of birds
quadrupedum.
or quadrupeds.
praeterea, sicut in diebus
Objection 4: Furthermore, just as one abstains from
quadragesimalibus abstinetur a carnibus, meat during the 40 day fast, so too (does one
ita ab ovis et lacticiniis. sed in diebus jejunii abstain) from eggs and dairy. But during the days
quidam lacticiniis et ovis utuntur. ergo et
of fasting, some dairy and eggs are used.
carnibus uti possunt sine hoc quod jejunium Therefore, one is able to take meat without the fast
solvatur.
being broken.
sed contra est generalis consuetudo
On the contrary, there is the common custom of the
ecclesiae, quae jejunantibus usum carnium Church which forbids those fasting the use of meat.
interdicit.
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

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."

celebretur officium. ergo anticipatio temporis Therefore, anticipation of the time (of eating the
solvit jejunium.
fasting meal) breaks the fast.
respondeo dicendum ad primam
I respond to the 1st question (sub-article 1) saying
quaestionem, quod jejunium dupliciter
that the fast is broken in two ways. In one way, in
solvitur. uno modo quantum ad meritum, ita relation to (the) merit (that attends to the fast), so
quod homo vel non meretur, vel minus
that man either does not merit, or merits less (those
meretur; et de hac solutione jejunii non
things promised or gained by the fast). Concerning
intendimus ad praesens: quia conditiones this breaking of the fast, we do not intend (to
quae meritum alicujus actus augent vel
discuss) at the present moment. For the conditions
minuunt, indeterminatae sunt, eo quod
which either augment or diminish the merit of an
quandoque accidentaliter se habent ad
act are indeterminate, in that they are sometimes
actum meritorium. alio modo solvitur
accidentally related to the meritorious act. The
jejunium, secundum quod est ab ecclesia second way in which a fast is broken is said in
institutum; ex qua solutione homo efficitur relation to that which is instituted by the Church.
transgressor statuti ecclesiae de jejunio
Through this breaking, a man is made a
servando, vel saltem non observator, nisi ex transgressor of the statutes of the Church
dispensatione vel causa legitima dimittat; et concerning the observance of fasting; at the least,
de hac solutione jejunii nunc quaerimus.
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

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.

propter hoc nec statutum ecclesiae frangit, According to this, he does not break the statute of
nisi fraudem faciat: quia legem violat qui in the Church, except where he engages in a
fraudem legis aliquid facit.
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

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

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.
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.

reparation, so too has she determined that one


abstain from meat because with this kind of food,
concupiscence especially is encouraged and
strengthened.

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.

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.

ad tertium dicendum, quod pisces frigidiores Response to the third objection: Fish are naturally
sunt naturaliter quam carnes, nec
colder than (other) meats; in this they do not
alimentum ita conveniens corpori praestant provide nourishment to the body like the other
sicut aliae carnes; unde non fuit tanta
meats. Hence it does not become as great a
necessitas prohibendi pisces, sicut carnes. 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,


I respond to the 3rd. question (sub-article 3) saying
sicut dictum est, ille jejunium solvit qui
that, as was said, he breaks the fast who does not
ecclesiae determinationem non servat.
preserve the Church's determination. Hence, when
unde cum ecclesia instituit certum tempus the Church institutes a certain time for eating for
comedendi jejunantibus; qui nimis
those who fast, he who perceptibly excessively
notabiliter anticipat, jejunium solvit. non
anticipates (the time of eating) breaks the fast. For
enim ecclesia arctare intendit ad subtilem the Church does not intent to bind one to an exact
temporis inspectionem; nec oportet
inspection of the time. Nor is it appropriate to use
astrolabium accipere ad horam comestionis an astrolabe so as to know the hour of eating.
cognoscendam. unde sufficit si circa horam Hence, it suffices if around the hour that the Church
illam quam ecclesia instituit, jejunans sumat has instituted, that he who fasts take food, even if
cibum, etiam si aliquantulum propter
he somewhat anticipates on account of some
aliquam necessitatem anticipet.
necessity.
ad primum ergo dicendum, quod omittere

Response to the first objection: It is not licit to

praeceptum ecclesiae non licet, sed


supererogare licet; et ideo cum tardatio
horae ad poenalitatem jejunii faciat, licet
tardare per horam, sed non anticipare.

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 Response to the second objection: Those things in
non potest accipi certa mensura, non cadunt which a certain measure cannot be taken, do not
sub determinatione legislatoris. et quia non fall under the determination of the legislator. Since
potest accipi certa mensura in quantitate
a certain measure cannot be taken in the quantity
cibi vel aliis conditionibus numeratis, sicut of food or in the other conditions enumerated, for
in tempore accipi potest; ideo conditiones this reason the conditions of the other four do not
aliae quatuor non cadunt sub
fall under the determination of the Church's
determinatione praecepti ecclesiae; et ideo precepts. And so, although he sins through a lack
quamvis per inordinationem circa illas
of proper ordering concerning those circumstances,
circumstantias peccet, et meritum jejunii
and loses the merit of fasting either in whole or in
amittat vel in toto vel in parte, non tamen
part, nevertheless the statute of the Church is not
ecclesiae statutum transgreditur; et ideo
transgressed. And so the fast is not broken.
jejunium non solvit.

Stephen Loughlin
(sjl1@desales.edu)

The Aquinas Translation Project


(http://www4.desales.edu/~philtheo/loughlin/ATP/index.html)