Eating Fish

[TrueLight]

That is what I have been saying all along!

I know that. I am saying that by continuing to use the old definition of meat, people are inadvertedly making life harder for vegetarians as restaurants and many people seem to assume I still eat fish.

That’s what I’ve been asking!

You’re missing the point. This thread is not about whether we should refer to fish as meat.

No one is forcing anyone to eat fish, but one can if one wants to.

In fact, for the most part, I try to eat vegetarian on Fridays but if I go out, then I might or might not order fish for dinner.

The Church’s no meat rule exempts fish.

And that’s that.

 

[ora_pro_nobis]

You made the point that fish is meat to vegetarians, so what. My point is , if your a vegetarian, follow the rules that work for you. The constant implication is that Catholic church somehow has it wrong.

I hope I have never implied that the Church has it wrong. I always abstain from meat on Fridays in obedience to the Church, and do eat fish sometimes on Fridays as I’m allowed to, although because it is so delicious I would tend to take up another penance as well.

I’m totally fine with the Church saying that fish is acceptable as a non-meat, it’s just that I sympathise with those vegetarians who are presented with fish as an “alternative” in restaurants.

That’s twice now you’ve said “if your (sic) a vegetarian” - I’m not!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

That is what I have been saying all along!

I know that. I am saying that by continuing to use the old definition of meat, people are inadvertedly making life harder for vegetarians as restaurants and many people seem to assume I still eat fish.

That’s what I’ve been asking! /QUOTE

I thought that might be it.

It’s a question of semantics.

All you have to do is say that the Church’s rule of abstinence pertains to all meat except fish, which is permitted because ancient understanding exempted ‘cold blooded’ animals’, but that of course all who are vegetarians would not eat fish anyway.

Because the Church’s rules were not created for vegetarians. . .or carnivores. They were created for all people. Some people never ate meat of warm or cold blooded creatures anyway. Some people always ate meat but never fish; some ate fish but never other meat.

It reminds me in a way of the Eucharist being wine and wheat bread (unleavened in the West and leavened in the Orthodox). Celiacs cannot eat gluten (which is always found in wheat), and alcoholics cannot take wine, even the mustum, but we hold to the ‘ancient’ definitions of ‘wheat bread’ and ‘wine’. That’s why we don’t make rice or corn bread both of which in modern definition would be considered bread. And lots of people would say that ‘wheat bread’ could contain other things than flour and water. . .such as milk, eggs, soda. . .and still be ‘wheat bread’ by the modern definition.

The Church teaches for all time, and so we can’t just accept the ‘modern’ definition.

If we did, we would have to jettison centuries’ worth of teaching about prayer and worship, because ‘prayer’ and ‘worship’ did not mean the same thing ‘then’ as the ‘modern’ definition held by most people teaches today.

So I sympathize because yes, I know that by today’s definition of meat, fish is ‘meat’ just as much as chicken and pork –

and yes, I usually say "the Church’s rule of abstinence is from that of meat of warm-blooded creatures, but fish did not USE to be considered in the same class and is permitted so long as you’re not a vegetarian’,

But I would not insist that the Church ‘change’ the teaching and have to ‘redefine’ meat for the modern day understanding.

For all that I know, somebody will discover 100 years from now that there is something ‘different’ from the meat of warm blooded creatures and cold blooded creatures such that they are as different in substance from each other as chalk and cheese, and will indeed redefine meat as ‘fowl and warm blooded creature’ and flesh from cold-blooded creatures as, oh, we’ll call it 'pisca" (related to the Latin for fish). It could happen. Then people would be surprised that ‘pisca’ was ever lumped in with meat!

 

[LemonAndLime]

You’re missing the point. This thread is not about whether we should refer to fish as meat.

No one is forcing anyone to eat fish, but one can if one wants to.

In fact, for the most part, I try to eat vegetarian on Fridays but if I go out, then I might or might not order fish for dinner.

The Church’s no meat rule exempts fish.

And that’s that.

I am not being off topic.

I did not realise I would get such a hostile reaction for simply commenting that the old definition has stuck in the public mind and caused problems for vegetarians. It seems that people can easily mistake/misread and get quite abrupt and even, at one point, accuse me of insulting the Church.

So I am no longer going to participate in this thread. I have been shocked with how hostile responses have been by re-reading through it.

 

[johnnyjones]

I hope I have never implied that the Church has it wrong. I always abstain from meat on Fridays in obedience to the Church, and do eat fish sometimes on Fridays as I’m allowed to, although because it is so delicious I would tend to take up another penance as well.

I’m totally fine with the Church saying that fish is acceptable as a non-meat, it’s just that I sympathise with those vegetarians who are presented with fish as an “alternative” in restaurants.

That’s twice now you’ve said “if your (sic) a vegetarian” - I’m not!

I really dont"sympathise" with vegetarians. I have not seen a rash of restrictions on fish alternatives.

 

[KateKimmer]

What I always find odd is that is considered Penance to eat Lobster on Friday
but not considered Penance to eat a fast food hamburger on friday.

Eating seafood is not penance, (except of course if you loathe seafood!)

 

[johnnyjones]

I am not being off topic.

I did not realise I would get such a hostile reaction for simply commenting that the old definition has stuck in the public mind and caused problems for vegetarians. It seems that people can easily mistake/misread and get quite abrupt and even, at one point, accuse me of insulting the Church.

So I am no longer going to participate in this thread. I have been shocked with how hostile responses have been by re-reading through it.

Yes , quite abrupt on your end.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

What I always find odd is that is considered Penance to eat Lobster on Friday
but not considered Penance to eat a fast food hamburger on friday.

Eating seafood is not penance, (except of course if you loathe seafood!)

No, Kate. . .it is a penance to abstain from meat, if you normally eat meat. And that includes seafood, even if you like it. I don’t think you understand penance.

You do not have to eat lobster. You do not have to eat fish. You do not, on a Friday, have to eat anything at all (you could fast).

The whole point is not about the meat, but about sacrifice.

If I ate mostly meat, then on Friday, since I hate fish, I would eat a fish that was cheaper than my usual meat, and if there wasn’t such, I would eat a cheese sandwich or some brown rice or something. Since I normally eat meat, it would be a penance not to eat it.

If I were a vegetarian, on Friday I would eat a vegetarian meal that either contained a food I did not particularly care for (such as okra), or I would eat less than I do on other days.

Too many people make a logic ‘fail’.

A. Catholics abstain from meat on Lenten Fridays but may eat fish.
B. Lobster is fish.

Ergo: Catholics eat lobster and call it penance.

But they have skipped a bunch of assumptions.

Assumption A: Abstinence means you MUST eat fish.
Assumption B: The fish you eat must be really expensive and/or good.
Assumption C: Eating anything expensive or good is a luxury.
Assumption D. Eating lobster, which is expensive, is a luxury.
Assumption E. Catholics who abstain from meat will choose to eat lobster.

See all the unspoken assertions that get ASSUMED when one leaps from 'Catholics abstain from meat but may eat fish --or other non meat"

and segue to “Catholics eat lobster and call it Penance”, aren’t they hypocrites kind of attitude. .

 

[KateKimmer]

I enjoy seafood. So eating lobster, shrimp, or crab legs is not a penance for me.
Ever notice the Red Lobster parking lot is packed on lenten fridays?
and one more thing…I never said anyone was a hypocrite and did not appeciate your statement.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I enjoy seafood. So eating lobster, shrimp, or crab legs is not a penance for me.
Ever notice the Red Lobster parking lot is packed on lenten fridays?
and one more thing…I never said anyone was a hypocrite and did not appeciate your statement.

Do you enjoy meat? If so, then not eating meat is a penance.

Do you enjoy seafood? Fine.

Penance does not mean that you have to LOATHE what you are doing.

I did not mean to imply that you personally stated anyone was a hypocrite. However, you seem to imply that Catholics who liked seafood were not doing penance if they ate seafood on Fridays. And that, forgive me, is wrong. I’ll restate, penance does not mean you have to dislike or loathe what you are doing.

 

[ora_pro_nobis]

I am not being off topic.

I did not realise I would get such a hostile reaction for simply commenting that the old definition has stuck in the public mind and caused problems for vegetarians. It seems that people can easily mistake/misread and get quite abrupt and even, at one point, accuse me of insulting the Church.

So I am no longer going to participate in this thread. I have been shocked with how hostile responses have been by re-reading through it.

Yeah, I don’t think I’ll bother either. Quite surprised at the reaction.

 

[KateKimmer]

yeah I get surprised at reactions on here often too.

 

[grasscutter]

I guess part of the heated discussion arose, because this is the Traditional Catholicism forum and the OP was asking about the Church’s teaching on abstinence. Certainly the question of whether fish is meat is a valid and worthy debate. Perhaps on a forum dedicated to food in general or vegetarianism in particular.

Certainly there was no need for anyone to get upset.

 

[TrueLight]

I am not being off topic.

I did not realise I would get such a hostile reaction for simply commenting that the old definition has stuck in the public mind and caused problems for vegetarians. It seems that people can easily mistake/misread and get quite abrupt and even, at one point, accuse me of insulting the Church.

So I am no longer going to participate in this thread. I have been shocked with how hostile responses have been by re-reading through it.

LemonandLime, I did not mean to come across as hostile. If I did, I apologize. As you noticed, I said that I agreed with what you said regarding “vegetarians” that eat fish. I just felt that the thread was derailing to a discussion on whether fish should be considered meat and the fact the Catholic Church has “perpetuated the idea that fish isn’t considered meat which leads to many dishes served in restaurants, with fish, being considered suitable for veggies.”

I did not mean to sound abrupt. I am typing in between working (which I probably should not be doing). So please forgive me.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

yeah I get surprised at reactions on here often too.

What is even more surprising is that probably 90% of the time posters will start off kind of on the wrong foot (neither one of them meaning to), misjudge each other (usually both of them much closer to agreement with the other on the topic than either realizes at first), often getting into fairly heated ‘discussions’ on several topics. . .and then when they least expect it, in response to some other topic, one will post something which makes the other poster completely reassess that poster and their interaction, and they’ll PM a compliment. . .which in turn has that poster reassess the other. . .and they wind up being fast friends. I have seen it happen over and over (not just with me LOL though if there were an Olympic Sport in “Jumping to Conclusions” I’d be a gold medalist). It’s wonderful how this forum can keep so many of its members humbled that way!

Because even with emoticons, we’re all such different people and communicate in such different ways, but we somehow expect that other people will understand that we’re ‘the way we are’ and expect them to either be the same or react the way that we would react.

 

[johnnyjones]

What is even more surprising is that probably 90% of the time posters will start off kind of on the wrong foot (neither one of them meaning to), misjudge each other (usually both of them much closer to agreement with the other on the topic than either realizes at first), often getting into fairly heated ‘discussions’ on several topics. . .and then when they least expect it, in response to some other topic, one will post something which makes the other poster completely reassess that poster and their interaction, and they’ll PM a compliment. . .which in turn has that poster reassess the other. . .and they wind up being fast friends. I have seen it happen over and over (not just with me LOL though if there were an Olympic Sport in “Jumping to Conclusions” I’d be a gold medalist). It’s wonderful how this forum can keep so many of its members humbled that way!

Because even with emoticons, we’re all such different people and communicate in such different ways, but we somehow expect that other people will understand that we’re ‘the way we are’ and expect them to either be the same or react the way that we would react.

Excellent point. I have often thought that if I was communicating my message verbally my point may be better received and /or even convincing.

 

[Jennet]

What I always find odd is that is considered Penance to eat Lobster on Friday but not considered Penance to eat a fast food hamburger on friday.

Agreed. As with so many requirements, it’s the spirit of the thing wherein lies the benefit, rather than the pure observance of the letter of the law.

(And being as this seems to have been a thread of insane misunderstandings, allow me to clarify that I am not saying those who eat things that don’t revolt them on Fridays are terrible Catholics; nor am I saying that people are justified in eating hamburgers on abstinence days either. )

 

[Woolybabe]

I am so sorry that my seemingly innocuous question has led to so much upset and hostility. I have only recently started looking into the Catholic faith, which means that I often might ask questions that are ignorant because I don’t fully understand, for example the question about eating fish, had I known that the reason was more about what is NOT eaten and not about what is eaten this hostile situation would not have risen. I just hope that if I ask any more questions on this site, that they won’t cause the same problem. How am I supposed to learn about your faith if I am too worried about starting a hostility? So can we please put a line under what has happened and either conclude this thread or carry on discussing, taking extra care to respect everyones view. From what I have learnt thus far is:
Eating fish is more about not eating other meats in order to remember the sacrifice Jesus made for us
FISH IS MEAT! (I have to say that not all restataunts do realise that though)
Some Catholics choose a different way of sacrificing something instead of giving up meat

Thank you very much for your answers and your help. Again apologies to anyone who has been upset by my question and the answers that have been given.

 

[johnnyjones]

I am so sorry that my seemingly innocuous question has led to so much upset and hostility. I have only recently started looking into the Catholic faith, which means that I often might ask questions that are ignorant because I don’t fully understand, for example the question about eating fish, had I known that the reason was more about what is NOT eaten and not about what is eaten this hostile situation would not have risen. I just hope that if I ask any more questions on this site, that they won’t cause the same problem. How am I supposed to learn about your faith if I am too worried about starting a hostility? So can we please put a line under what has happened and either conclude this thread or carry on discussing, taking extra care to respect everyones view. From what I have learnt thus far is:
Eating fish is more about not eating other meats in order to remember the sacrifice Jesus made for us
FISH IS MEAT! (I have to say that not all restataunts do realise that though)
Some Catholics choose a different way of sacrificing something instead of giving up meat

Thank you very much for your answers and your help. Again apologies to anyone who has been upset by my question and the answers that have been given.

The reason restaurants serve fish during lent is because they know Catholics can eat it as a substitute.Fish is the flesh of an animal, however the church doesn’t see it that way because the Latin word carne did not mean fish. This became the tradition and practice that Catholics followed. Hostile is a strong word. Firm or passionate can be misinterpreted.

Saying over and over that fish is meat doesn’t change the Catholic churches position on the issue. The bottom line is that it IS NOT meat as dictated by the church. If your interested in Catholocism, that it all that should matter. And your right, learning is important to.

 

[grasscutter]

I am so sorry that my seemingly innocuous question has led to so much upset and hostility. I have only recently started looking into the Catholic faith, which means that I often might ask questions that are ignorant because I don’t fully understand, for example the question about eating fish, had I known that the reason was more about what is NOT eaten and not about what is eaten this hostile situation would not have risen. I just hope that if I ask any more questions on this site, that they won’t cause the same problem. How am I supposed to learn about your faith if I am too worried about starting a hostility? So can we please put a line under what has happened and either conclude this thread or carry on discussing, taking extra care to respect everyones view. From what I have learnt thus far is:
Eating fish is more about not eating other meats in order to remember the sacrifice Jesus made for us
FISH IS MEAT! (I have to say that not all restataunts do realise that though)
Some Catholics choose a different way of sacrificing something instead of giving up meat

Thank you very much for your answers and your help. Again apologies to anyone who has been upset by my question and the answers that have been given.

It wasn’t your question that caused hostility. The hostility arose because, like with any large diverse group of people, there will always be some who are prickly and feel the need to further whatever agenda they have even if there is only the slimmest reason to justify doing so.

Please don’t stop asking questions. It’s the only way to learn.