Abstain from meat during Lent

[Billy_Buescher]

Hello,

A non-Catholic friend ask me this question, I need to know how to answer him.

According to Canon law 1252 persons over 14 are not to eat meat (flesh) on Ash Wednesday
or Fridays during Lent.
Ash Wednesday and Good Friday are obligatory days of fasting and abstinence for Catholics. In addition, Fridays during Lent are obligatory days of abstinence.

For members of the Latin Catholic Church, the norms on fasting are obligatory from age 18 until age 59. When fasting, a person is permitted to eat one full meal, as well as two smaller meals that together are not equal to a full meal. The norms concerning abstinence from meat are binding upon members of the Latin Catholic Church from age 14 on wards

This being said, as we believe that the Eucharist is physically the (real) Body and Blood of Christ. When we receive communion on those days, we are violating the law of abstinence, or is the communion not really what we say (hypocritical)?

 

[paperwight66]

You are misunderstanding the Real Presence. It is not a physical presence, but a sacramental one. The Host is not physical flesh and blood, otherwise it would go bad in the Tabernacle.

Receiving the Host and from the chalice does not violate any rule about abstinence, therefore.

 

[Stephen_says]

You are misunderstanding the Real Presence. It is not a physical presence, but a sacramental one. The Host is not physical flesh and blood, otherwise it would go bad in the Tabernacle.

Receiving the Host and from the chalice does not violate any rule about abstinence, therefore.

I’m not sure you’re correct here. Transubstantiation means that the host IS the flesh and blood, soul and divinity of Christ, it only appears to look and feel and taste like bread, but it is not bread.

I think what needs to also be pointed out is the purpose of abstinence and fasting is to honor God, and there is no better way of doing that then participating in the Eucharist.

 

[1ke]

This being said, as we believe that the Eucharist is physically the (real) Body and Blood of Christ. When we receive communion on those days, we are violating the law of abstinence, or is the communion not really what we say (hypocritical)?

False dichotomy.

The Church doesn’t teach that the Eucharist is flesh meat. The old “cannibalism” charge against the Church was refuted in the first few centuries.

As an aside, even if the Eucharist was flesh in the way your friend is asserting, it would not be any sort of violation of the abstinence rules because the abstinence is in recognition of Christ giving up his flesh for us. Receiving Christ’s flesh in the memorial meal of the Eucharist is the point of abstaining from meat during other times. The Church make the rules of fast and abstinence, and could exempt whatever it chooses, so really trying to say that something the Church does violates its own rules is quite silly.

 

[Mintaka]

Actually, I recently learned that one of the reasons in the early Church to abstain from flesh meat was to get away from any chance or appearance of eating food sacrificed to idols. Even after Christians were able to go to Christian butchers or kosher butchers, abstaining from meat still had that connotation of being pure and safe.

Obviously, there’s no chance that Jesus’ Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity have been sacrificed to idols at the meat market or the butcher’s.

 

[Beircheart]

To directly address the meat vs. Eucharist issue, it is important to not diminish the true miracle of Transubstantiation. Just as Jesus was true God and true Man so, too, is the Eucharist true bread and true flesh. Aquinas, I believe, went into great detail regarding “species” etc. and I refer you to his Summa Theologica.

As for abstaining from meat, eh. It is a remnant of an older sociological condition where meat as a staple was known only to the more privileged classes. Rightfully, the requirement has been broadened to a more general fasting and abstaining. If abstaining from meat isn’t meaningful then why bother? Chose something in your life that is meaningful. It comes down to a sort of letter of the law vs. spirit of the law thing.

Personally, I have no problem at all abstaining from meat. I love cheese dishes and seafood with equal relish. Same holds true for vegetarian dishes. In fact, given the cost of meats vs. seafood, it is the latter that is more of a treat than the former.

 

[Rosebud77]

In old age, life has become precious and I rarely touch meat anyways. I feel healthier for that and of course being on a pension makes meat a poor choice. I am past the stage thankfully of seeing ,meat as a treat… Fish too is costly. Cheese and eggs are fine.

 

[1ke]

Actually, I recently learned that one of the reasons in the early Church to abstain from flesh meat was to get away from any chance or appearance of eating food sacrificed to idols. Even after Christians were able to go to Christian butchers or kosher butchers, abstaining from meat still had that connotation of being pure and safe.

Obviously, there’s no chance that Jesus’ Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity have been sacrificed to idols at the meat market or the butcher’s.

This isn’t correct. Christians did not abstain from meat every day. Acts, Pauline and Petrine letters make that clear.

Christians fasted on Wednesdays and Fridays per the Didache (written prior to the close of the first century) St Ireneaus of Lyon wrote on abstaining from meat before Easter (202) and Pope Nicholas I decreed abstinence from meat on Fridays (867).

 

[Wesrock]

The Eucharistic offering is non-bloody.

Anyway, I think this is getting technical with the wording. The Blessed Sacrament is true flesh and blood under the appearance of bread and wine. But fasting was intended to avoid bloody and luxurious food, precisely to remind us of Jesus’ own blood spilt on the cross. Taking it so far as to avoid the Eucharist is to miss the point. We are supposed to draw closer to Jesus by avoiding meat, not avoid Him.

Anyway, I think it’s a moot point. “Abstain from meat” is a simplification. Is fish and other cold blooded animals meat? No, not according to fasting laws. Likewise, the Eucharist is excluded, whether it’s meat in the traditional sense or not. It’s just understood that way. If we’re being technical we could just be clearer when we state what the abstainance law is: “Avoid the meat of warm blooded animals, excluding the Blessed Sacrament.”

But let’s not get trapped in the letter of the law.

 

[Wesrock]

To directly address the meat vs. Eucharist issue, it is important to not diminish the true miracle of Transubstantiation. Just as Jesus was true God and true Man so, too, is the Eucharist true bread and true flesh. Aquinas, I believe, went into great detail regarding “species” etc. and I refer you to his Summa Theologica.

As for abstaining from meat, eh. It is a remnant of an older sociological condition where meat as a staple was known only to the more privileged classes. Rightfully, the requirement has been broadened to a more general fasting and abstaining. If abstaining from meat isn’t meaningful then why bother? Chose something in your life that is meaningful. It comes down to a sort of letter of the law vs. spirit of the law thing.

Personally, I have no problem at all abstaining from meat. I love cheese dishes and seafood with equal relish. Same holds true for vegetarian dishes. In fact, given the cost of meats vs. seafood, it is the latter that is more of a treat than the former.

It was not just about avoiding luxury foods. Maybe in part. But warm blooded animals are generally more bloody, and our abstainance from it is intended to be in remembrance of Christ’s blood spilt on the cross.

Also, I think the prevalence of meat nowadays compared to then makes abstaining from it all the more meaningful.

 

[Vico]

Hello,

A non-Catholic friend ask me this question, I need to know how to answer him.

According to Canon law 1252 persons over 14 are not to eat meat (flesh) on Ash Wednesday
or Fridays during Lent.
Ash Wednesday and Good Friday are obligatory days of fasting and abstinence for Catholics. In addition, Fridays during Lent are obligatory days of abstinence.

For members of the Latin Catholic Church, the norms on fasting are obligatory from age 18 until age 59. When fasting, a person is permitted to eat one full meal, as well as two smaller meals that together are not equal to a full meal. The norms concerning abstinence from meat are binding upon members of the Latin Catholic Church from age 14 on wards

This being said, as we believe that the Eucharist is physically the (real) Body and Blood of Christ. When we receive communion on those days, we are violating the law of abstinence, or is the communion not really what we say (hypocritical)?

We have a penitential period in preparation for a feast. Also see Catholic Answers which has:
Abstinence from certain foods is also a biblical discipline. In Daniel 10:2-3 we read, “In those days I, Daniel, was mourning for three weeks. I ate no delicacies, no meat or wine entered my mouth, nor did I anoint myself at all, for the full three weeks.” Catholics use a practice similar to Daniel’s when, as a way of commemorating Christ’s Crucifixion on a Friday, they abstain from eating meat on that day of the week during Lent. The only kind of flesh they eat on Friday is fish, which is a symbol of Christ.

catholic.com/quickquestions/why-do-catholics-practice-fasting-and-abstinence-during-lent

 

[Beircheart]

It was not just about avoiding luxury foods. Maybe in part. But warm blooded animals are generally more bloody, and our abstainance from it is intended to be in remembrance of Christ’s blood spilt on the cross.

Thanks, Wesrock. I’ve never heard of the blood tie between meat, Christ’s blood, and abstinence. Do you have a source or reference I could take a look at.

Also, I think the prevalence of meat nowadays compared to then makes abstaining from it all the more meaningful.

We seem to be having similar thoughts but coming to opposite conclusions. You point out that the prevalence of meat makes abstaining more meaningful. I see the prevalence of so many wonderful alternatives as making meat abstaining less meaningful. In the end, I tend to lean toward abstaining from what is to each individual meaningful, not simply ceremonial.

I would be grateful to those who are more knowledgeable if they could opine as to if I am missing the point or am being a “cafeteria Catholic” on this.