|
Objection 1: It would seem that fasting is not a matter of precept.
For precepts are not given about works of supererogation which are a
matter of counsel. Now fasting is a work of supererogation: else it
would have to be equally observed at all places and times. Therefore
fasting is not a matter of precept.
Objection 2: Further, whoever infringes a precept commits a mortal
sin. Therefore if fasting were a matter of precept, all who do not
fast would sin mortally, and a widespreading snare would be laid for
men.
Objection 3: Further, Augustine says (De Vera Relig. 17)
that "the Wisdom of God having taken human nature, and called us to
a state of freedom, instituted a few most salutary sacraments whereby
the community of the Christian people, that is, of the free
multitude, should be bound together in subjection to one God." Now
the liberty of the Christian people seems to be hindered by a great
number of observances no less than by a great number of sacraments.
For Augustine says (Ad inquis. Januar., Ep. lv) that
"whereas God in His mercy wished our religion to be distinguished by
its freedom and the evidence and small number of its solemn sacraments,
some people render it oppressive with slavish burdens." Therefore it
seems that the Church should not have made fasting a matter of
precept.
On the contrary, Jerome (Ad Lucin., Ep. lxxi) speaking of
fasting says: "Let each province keep to its own practice, and look
upon the commands of the elders as though they were laws of the
apostles." Therefore fasting is a matter of precept.
I answer that, Just as it belongs to the secular authority to make
legal precepts which apply the natural law to matters of common weal in
temporal affairs, so it belongs to ecclesiastical superiors to
prescribe by statute those things that concern the common weal of the
faithful in spiritual goods.
Now it has been stated above (Article 1) that fasting is useful as
atoning for and preventing sin, and as raising the mind to spiritual
things. And everyone is bound by the natural dictate of reason to
practice fasting as far as it is necessary for these purposes.
Wherefore fasting in general is a matter of precept of the natural
law, while the fixing of the time and manner of fasting as becoming and
profitable to the Christian people, is a matter of precept of positive
law established by ecclesiastical authority: the latter is the Church
fast, the former is the fast prescribed by nature.
Reply to Objection 1: Fasting considered in itself denotes
something not eligible but penal: yet it becomes eligible in so far as
it is useful to some end. Wherefore considered absolutely it is not
binding under precept, but it is binding under precept to each one that
stands in need of such a remedy. And since men, for the most part,
need this remedy, both because "in many things we all offend"
(James 3:2), and because "the flesh lusteth against the spirit"
(Gal. 5:17), it was fitting that the Church should appoint
certain fasts to be kept by all in common. In doing this the Church
does not make a precept of a matter of supererogation, but
particularizes in detail that which is of general obligation.
Reply to Objection 2: Those commandments which are given under the
form of a general precept, do not bind all persons in the same way,
but subject to the requirements of the end intended by the lawgiver.
It will be a mortal sin to disobey a commandment through contempt of
the lawgiver's authority, or to disobey it in such a way as to
frustrate the end intended by him: but it is not a mortal sin if one
fails to keep a commandment, when there is a reasonable motive, and
especially if the lawgiver would not insist on its observance if he were
present. Hence it is that not all, who do not keep the fasts of the
Church, sin mortally.
Reply to Objection 3: Augustine is speaking there of those things
"that are neither contained in the authorities of Holy Scripture,
nor found among the ordinances of bishops in council, nor sanctioned by
the custom of the universal Church." On the other hand, the fasts
that are of obligation are appointed by the councils of bishops and are
sanctioned by the custom of the universal Church. Nor are they
opposed to the freedom of the faithful, rather are they of use in
hindering the slavery of sin, which is opposed to spiritual freedom,
of which it is written (Gal. 5:13): "You, brethren, have
been called unto liberty; only make not liberty an occasion to the
flesh."
|
|