Eating no meat on Fridays

[littlequestion]

Not when you have the best shrimp creole I’ve ever tasted in my life.

Now I have always wondered about the fact that if you love fish you look forward to Fridays! That was always “fish and chips” day, or even lobster in my family, and lately I’ve been enjoying smoked trout. Does this mean that I really should do something else as well as fast, in order to call it a penance? Or is it really more of a memorial, than a penance?

As it is, I can switch to tunafish sandwiches for Lenten Fridays just to make sure

 

[ProVobis]

Now I have always wondered about the fact that if you love fish you look forward to Fridays! That was always “fish and chips” day, or even lobster in my family, and lately I’ve been enjoying smoked trout. Does this mean that I really should do something else as well as fast, in order to call it a penance? Or is it really more of a memorial, than a penance?

As it is, I can switch to tunafish sandwiches for Lenten Fridays just to make sure

You bring up an interesting point. You can learn to love a certain type of fish too, can’t you? A newborn baby soon learns taught that any eating can bring about a certain amount of pleasure. Same with shrimp, in my case, as I didn’t always like them. And if all I had were octopus to eat, then I guess I’d have to learn to like that too.

And why can’t you “enjoy” performing a penance? I realize it may sound as if it’s defeating the purpose of doing penance to enjoy it but is it? I can enjoy doing God’s work on earth and obeying His Commandments and His Church, can’t I?

 

[QuickCat]

Friday fasting is a Church imposed discipline. As Catholics, we believe Christ gave the apostles the power of binding and loosing on earth, so the Church is within it’s rights to impose certain disciplines on it’s members. There is nothing explicit in scripture about fasting on friday, although there are certainly references to fasting in a general sense. Since we are not sola scriptura believing protestants, there isn’t really a disconnect between what’s in the bible and Church tradition. They go together.It’s the same as the Church saying it’s a mortal sin to miss mass on Sundays. Nothing in the bible about that, but the Church says it’s a sin, so that’s what we’re bound to believe.

1Ti4:1 ¶ Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Ti*4:3 **Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, **which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

 

[littlequestion]

1Ti4:1 ¶ Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Ti*4:3 **Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, **which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

That quote refers to general abstinence among heretical sects, for example, the Shakers and it also refers to vegetarians and vegans. Nobody violates doctrine when they personally choose celibacy or vegetarianism, of course, but if they preach it to others as a matter of sin, then you are right, that would violate God’s will for us. ThC VatII relaxation has nothing to do with that quote since they did leave the Lenten requirements in. It was nothing more than an effort by the Church to be a little less demanding, and so now we reflect on Fridays as a voluntary custom outside of Lenten time.

Did you post that to suggest that the entire question of scheduled fasting days and issues of sin are violations of God’s law? If so, then you must be a fundamentalist “sola scriptora” (splg?)Protestant because the Catholic doctrines have never changed. This is a Catholic board, you know. Maybe you were looking for the Apologetics section where they explain these things to Protestants?

 

[adstrinity]

Please click on the following link for the explination:



Kevin, what is your source for that?

 

[adstrinity]

That quote refers to general abstinence among heretical sects, for example, the Shakers and it also refers to vegetarians and vegans. Nobody violates doctrine when they personally choose celibacy or vegetarianism, of course, but if they preach it to others as a matter of sin, then you are right, that would violate God’s will for us. ThC VatII relaxation has nothing to do with that quote since they did leave the Lenten requirements in. It was nothing more than an effort by the Church to be a little less demanding, and so now we reflect on Fridays as a voluntary custom outside of Lenten time.

Did you post that to suggest that the entire question of scheduled fasting days and issues of sin are violations of God’s law? If so, then you must be a fundamentalist “sola scriptora” (splg?)Protestant because the Catholic doctrines have never changed. This is a Catholic board, you know. Maybe you were looking for the Apologetics section where they explain these things to Protestants?

I think QuickCat was pointing out that one could use the Bible to make a case for this practice.

 

[Lormar]

Kevin

Kindly direct us to an authoritative source for your statement that no meat on Friday was instituted to give the fishing industry a boost.

 

[littlequestion]

And if all I had were octopus to eat, then I guess I’d have to learn to like that too.

ProVobis, don’t tell me you don’t like *Calamari? *

 

[teadough]

As far as I am aware there is no basis for “No meat on Friday”; from what I recall it all started when the Pope proclaimed it to boost sales in the fishing industry, he had been bishop of Naples (a city heavily dependant upon the trade!) He was ‘protecting his electorate’. People ate fish thinking they were pious practitioners. .

You are joking,right? That is an old Protestant wivestale. The other version normally says that the Pope had a brother in the fishing industry and he was helping him out. Im sure there are other versions out there as well.

It could almost make sense if refrigeration had been invented. You can only gather so much fish in one day w/out it going bad. People of that time had fish as a regular diet, so having people gather up a bunch of extra fish for Fridays would have been pointless.

 

[astrowriter]

Question: A friend of mine – a practicing Catholic, but with a lot of questions – brought up this related question a couple of weeks ago: *If the Church used to say that eating meat on any Friday was a mortal sin, and now says that it is no longer a sin, doesn’t that violate the Church’s infallibility because both cannot be true?
*
The main answer offered to him by others was that the sin is in willfully ignoring or rejecting Church teaching, not in the eating or not eating of meat itself. He wouldn’t swallow that (he said, to paraphrase, that it was just an answer intended to put the Church in the best light possible. He didn’t take kindly to the rebuttal that the Church holds within itself Truth so of course we defend it, either).

I also doubt he would accept the argument that, because humans develop and our relationship with God develops over time, laws will change in order to further that relationship, not because God (or His Church) has changed (e.g. the argument re: Old Testament and New Testament laws).

Suggestions? The more analytic the better.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Not eating meat on Fridays is a discipline, not an infalliable teaching on faith and morals. The Church has the power to loose and bind (that *is *in the Bible!), so the Church can impose that sort of discipline on the faithful and we obey out of obedience. It does not affect the teaching of the Church on salvation if we are required to eat or not eat meat on certain days.

 

[littlequestion]

Question: A friend of mine – a practicing Catholic, but with a lot of questions – brought up this related question a couple of weeks ago: *If the Church used to say that eating meat on any Friday was a mortal sin, and now says that it is no longer a sin, doesn’t that violate the Church’s infallibility because both cannot be true?
*
The main answer offered to him by others was that the sin is in willfully ignoring or rejecting Church teaching, not in the eating or not eating of meat itself. He wouldn’t swallow that (he said, to paraphrase, that it was just an answer intended to put the Church in the best light possible. He didn’t take kindly to the rebuttal that the Church holds within itself Truth so of course we defend it, either).

I also doubt he would accept the argument that, because humans develop and our relationship with God develops over time, laws will change in order to further that relationship, not because God (or His Church) has changed (e.g. the argument re: Old Testament and New Testament laws).

Suggestions? The more analytic the better.

Well, it is a question of our concept of “obedience”, I think. The Church has created a structure within which we can maintaiin our relationship with God, preserving our Salvation, even if we fail in many ways to “measure up”. Our obedience to Church teachings on things like Friday fish is a method of establishing that we are continuously part of this community. It is not obedience of obligation, but it is an obedience of remembering Jesus and the Last Supper, and also all the suppers: the loaves and fishes, the work of the fishermen, etc. It doesn’t have that much to do with some formal “Truth” anymore than a strongly felt obligation to attend a family dinner regularly contains some formal truth. It is just the recognition that if you do not want to observe that periodic custom, you have to ask yourself if you want to consider yourself part of that family. It does come out of early tradition of the Church and we do hold such tradition to be co-equal with Biblical writings, so the question of why it is a sin to avoid Mass is obvious to many because of the Commandments written by Moses, but it is not obvious that there are other obligations not written. And actually, there are lots of reasonable discussions about whether the “Lord’s Day” observance should be as rigid as we hold it to be, which just goes to show that even if the Friday custom were spelled out in the Bible, people could still argue against it.

If we have no distinctive customs, we cease to exist as a distinctive people.

Hope this helps.

 

[ProVobis]

The Church has the power to loose and bind (that *is *in the Bible!), so the Church can impose that sort of discipline on the faithful and we obey out of obedience. It does not affect the teaching of the Church on salvation if we are required to eat or not eat meat on certain days.

Yes, but did the Church loosen all those that went to Hell because of their Friday hot dogs before they allowed it?

 

[Adeodatus]

Not eating meat on Fridays is a discipline, not an infalliable teaching on faith and morals. The Church has the power to loose and bind (that *is *in the Bible!), so the Church can impose that sort of discipline on the faithful and we obey out of obedience. It does not affect the teaching of the Church on salvation if we are required to eat or not eat meat on certain days.

Precisely. The Pope could have said “You have to drink a shot of vinegar on Friday to remind you of the Passion” and it would be valid. We’re remembering our Lord’s Passion. That’s the point… we deny ourselves a luxury to remember, in some small way, this holy event.

 

[BVM_1221]

Can someone tell me if not eating meat on a Friday was a man made rule or not. I thought it had some basis in scripture, but can’t remember where that might be. Thanks.

Not as such, but it has been a Church tradition for many centuries to observe abstinance (not fasting) on all Fridays. Friday was when Jesus shed his hot, red blood. In return we do not eat meat from animals with hot, red blood. Simple as that. A symbolic penance.

It is still mandatory on all Fridays of Lent. Outside Lent, you may substitute some other penance for abstinance.

Myself, I observe abstinance all Fridays of the year. Just to keep it simple. I don’t have to worry if my substitute penance is up to snuff.

Fasting is another subject. Some Catholics also fast on certain days, and friday is popular. Some, like myself, are able to do the 40 day Lenten fast. But at age 65 I had to clear this with both my Spiritual Director AND my Physician.

 

[StrawberryJam]

You are joking,right? That is an old Protestant wivestale. The other version normally says that the Pope had a brother in the fishing industry and he was helping him out. Im sure there are other versions out there as well.

It could almost make sense if refrigeration had been invented. You can only gather so much fish in one day w/out it going bad. People of that time had fish as a regular diet, so having people gather up a bunch of extra fish for Fridays would have been pointless.

You have never had pickled fish? Herring is pickled fish, and one can pickle any type of fish. Curing meats by salting would hardly be unique at that time.

Sardines anyone? Anchovies?

Mackerel? Canned salmon? Canned Tuna?

Snails, oysters. Seen them smoked. Preserves it fine.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Yes, but did the Church loosen all those that went to Hell because of their Friday hot dogs before they allowed it?

Well, since breaking the no-meat-on-Fridays rule is not the unforgivable sin, I doubt any one went to hell only for that reason.

It could be that because of willfulness (I’ll eat this hot dog just 'cause!) or carelessness (oops! You mean *today *is Friday?!) some people became immured to sin started in small ways and growing unchecked, so that yes, the did end up in hell. But in that case it wouldn’t be just the discipline of abstaining on Fridays so I think the church is off the hook for that one.

 

[ProVobis]

But in that case it wouldn’t be just the discipline of abstaining on Fridays so I think the church is off the hook for that one.

So the rule isn’t retroactive, huh?

btw, George Carlin had a field day with some of the Church rules on one of his albums. So did John Powers in his books. Do you think the Church took them seriously?

 

[teadough]

You have never had pickled fish? Herring is pickled fish, and one can pickle any type of fish. Curing meats by salting would hardly be unique at that time.

Sardines anyone? Anchovies?

Mackerel? Canned salmon? Canned Tuna?

Snails, oysters. Seen them smoked. Preserves it fine.

Having preserved fish on Fridays makes the story even less plausible and actually helps debunk the old story even more.

 

[Joseph629]

1. Over the past many years our family has generally observed not eating meat on Friday. However, if our fridge had too much meat, and we were concerned about it spoiling, we would eat it, and tell the kids that we had to do some other penance.
2. After hearing 2 priests on EWTN say that fasting from meat and eating your favourite fish food doesn’t really count as penance, well that’s a dilemma for me. My wife cooked fish (it’s not her favourite), but it is MY favourite; in fact fish and seafood is the best to me. So I’d eat the fish, but usually try to remember to do other penance.
3. Now I’m of age that I don’t have to abstain. So sometimes I do and sometimes I don’t. I generally try not to, but don’t feel guilty if I do. My decision (to eat meat) comes down to my "unique diet.