Why was abstaining from meat considered a penance if it was a relatively rare luxury for many?

[HomeschoolDad]

Here’s my reasoning: in simpler times, when people didn’t have as many different kinds of food available to them, for many (if not most) meat was a luxury, relatively rare compared to today, and very poor people couldn’t afford it at all. Yet giving it up was considered penitential. Would it not have made more sense in those times, for penance to have a “bite” to it (no pun intended), to give up a common staple food — such as bread, fruit, or vegetables — than to require people to abstain from a food that they didn’t eat that much anyway?

By the same token, today meat is commonplace and many people feel like they can’t really eat without it — “if there’s no meat, it’s not really a meal”. Prescribing abstinence from meat is a real penance for those whose palates are used to it. In our times, it makes perfect sense. But why in pre-modern times?

 

[stpurl]

A couple of points.

First, meat was actually in many societies and eras not a luxury at all. One could find animals to hunt (in the era prior to deforestation) more easily than vegetables or fruits, especially in colder countries with shorter growing seasons, and before more modern concepts like crop rotation.

Giving up that chunk of fat bacon in the soup pot was then indeed penitential; the soup was nourishing but less so.

Remember too that there was no refrigeration. Meat could be jerked and kept unspoiled for months; even fruits like apples would be rather unpalatable by February.

And remember, potatoes weren’t available for Christian Europe until the 17th century and later!

It wasn’t just meat either; eggs, dairy were also part of abstinence. (Almond milk and oils would be used).

But lest we truly worry, FISH was always available, and even when it was Serf City time (i.e. the forests were enclosed and trying to trap some food to keep your family alive meant you risked death), you could try to find some fish. Ice fishing was around then as now, and fish could be salted and smoked like meat could to provide longer lasting staples.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

And remember, potatoes weren’t available for Christian Europe until the 17th century and later!

I realize that. In fact, I have reflected upon all the nourishing, staple foods that the Eastern Hemisphere didn’t have before the Great Exchange — potatoes, tomatoes, corn (i.e., maize), squash, bananas — and I’ve wondered “just what did those people eat?”. You can’t cook east of the Rhein River without the potato. In Slavic lands it’s almost a food group unto itself. Your pierogi will thank you (even if they call themselves pirohi, varenyky, or whatever) oland:

 

[JerryZ]

Perhaps you are not considering the whole picture.
Lets go back to those “simpler times”
No preservation of food through refrigeration.
Everything they ate had to be either fresh or preserved via the ancient means like (Pickling, Salting, Smoking, Sun Drying, Curing and Fat Storing).
They did not have access to glass, it was VERY expensive so no jar preservation. Also no access to sugar, therefore no preservation via jams and the like.
You stick only to the list above.
So with this scenario in the winter and just before the Easter season, your stored goods are almost depleted. But for 40 days you will not eat meat anymore. So a great party ensues and all the remnants of cured and preserved meats are finally used.
After the Easter Sunday the new Season is starting and fresh vegetables are finally becoming available.
As others have also suggested when considering the kinds of meats that they consumed you need to include: Rabbits, both wild and reared, Birds, Fish and game animals.
Meat was a very important part of the diet of our ancestors in Europe and Middle East.

Peace!

 

[1ke]

in simpler times, when people didn’t have as many different kinds of food available to them, for many (if not most) meat was a luxury,

This is often stated, but lacks historical evidence. Also, the purpose of abstaining from flesh meats was because Jesus gave up his flesh on Good Friday, not because it was a luxury.

The fast was from meat and meat byproducts. So dairy, eggs, gravies, soup bases.

to give up a common staple food — such as bread, fruit, or vegetables

That is completely divorced from the reason for this penance. It is a commemoration of Christ’s sacrificial offering to the Father. It echoes the Jewish offerings of sacrifice also.

that they didn’t eat that much anyway?

This is not historically accurate. Medieval peasants ate a lot of stews with vegetables and meat such as mutton, beef, rabbit, etc.

By the same token, today meat is commonplace and many people feel like they can’t really eat without it — “if there’s no meat, it’s not really a meal”.

How people “feel” isn’t really relevant. And I don’t know where you’ve come up with that, because I’ve never heard anyone say that.

But why in pre-modern times?

See: Jesus’ sacrifice.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

to give up a common staple food — such as bread, fruit, or vegetables

That is completely divorced from the reason for this penance. It is a commemoration of Christ’s sacrificial offering to the Father. It echoes the Jewish offerings of sacrifice also.

My point was, if you want to assign a real penance, make people give up some food that they eat all the time, not something they rarely eat in the first place. And as several point out here, whether meat was common or not depended upon the culture.

HomeschoolDad:

By the same token, today meat is commonplace and many people feel like they can’t really eat without it — “if there’s no meat, it’s not really a meal”.

How people “feel” isn’t really relevant. And I don’t know where you’ve come up with that, because I’ve never heard anyone say that.

I’'m not sure I’ve ever heard anybody say those exact words, but at least in my part of the country, people devour meat — barbecue, sausage, fried chicken, ham, bacon — and if you served a meal without it, you’d get very funny looks. Except during Lent, Friday abstinence is unknown. Non-Catholics just can’t grasp it. And for one such as me, who adheres to the default practice of abstinence on all Fridays (not just Lent), no one knows quite what to make of it — it is not something I discuss, but if I do have to tell anyone, Catholic or non-Catholic, they find it very strange.

 

[1ke]

if you want to assign a real penance

And if you want a theologically significant and symbolic penance on the day Jesus died, giving up his flesh for the life of the world, then the penance is abstaining from flesh meat.

 

[JSRG]

Didn’t they abstain not only from meat, but also from milk, eggs, and some other animal-derived foods?

 

[Margaret_Ann]

And for one such as me, who adheres to the default practice of abstinence on all Fridays (not just Lent), no one knows quite what to make of it — it is not something I discuss, but if I do have to tell anyone, Catholic or non-Catholic, they find it very strange.

In the UGCC, Friday abstinence is required except for the Privileged Weeks: 1) the week after Pascha/Easter, 2) the week after Pentecost (this Friday is actually an Ember Day on the TL calendar; so we feast while they fast ), 3) from the Sunday of the Publican and the Pharisee to the Sunday of the Prodigal Son, and 4) from Dec. 25 - Jan. 4 inclusive (1-2 Fridays depending on when the Nativity falls).

However, since my boss abstains from meat on Friday I usually end up abstaining even during the Privileged Weeks (unless I ear dinner at home).

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Didn’t they abstain not only from meat, but also from milk, eggs, and some other animal-derived foods?

Yes, and that’s still the traditional fast in the Byzantine Tradition. We just finished the Dormition Fast and I read somewhere that even though it’s only 2 weeks the Dormition Fast is stricter than the Great Fast (Lent) because of the foods which are and are not permitted.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

if you want to assign a real penance

And if you want a theologically significant and symbolic penance on the day Jesus died, giving up his flesh for the life of the world , then the penance is abstaining from flesh meat.

No doubt it is theologically significant and symbolic. But I find Friday abstinence, taken all by itself, to be more of a minor inconvenience than anything else. I like meat, and due to medical needs, I must have protein in abundance, and meat is the most efficient, concentrated way of getting this. For breakfast, it is soy sausage in lieu of “real” pork sausage — not the best, but it’s okay, goes well with my morning eggs. For lunch, usually something with beans and/or cheese — Taco Bell is my friend. For dinner, usually fish. Sometimes I will flip-flop that, go to a fish restaurant for lunch, and have beans or macaroni and cheese for dinner, or an egg dish. A truncated diet, a diet that many hungry people in the world would dearly love to have, but still, something that requires a bit of forethought. I always say that one good thing about Friday abstinence, you have to remind yourself constantly that it’s Friday, the day of Christ’s Passion.

The medieval penances of abstinence from all animal products — dairy, eggs, fats — now there was a penance! But I joyfully accept the Church’s wise judgment in our present day, and as any good confessor would tell you, this is just the minimum — you can, and should, do much more.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

soy sausage

Aaaugh!!! Try OrGain or PlantFusion ready to drink proteins. Those are yummy.

 

[CathBoy1]

I’'m not sure I’ve ever heard anybody say those exact words, but at least in my part of the country, people devour meat — barbecue, sausage, fried chicken, ham, bacon — and if you served a meal without it, you’d get very funny looks. Except during Lent, Friday abstinence is unknown. Non-Catholics just can’t grasp it. And for one such as me, who adheres to the default practice of abstinence on all Fridays (not just Lent), no one knows quite what to make of it — it is not something I discuss, but if I do have to tell anyone, Catholic or non-Catholic, they find it very strange.

I get what you mean, I myself fast every Wednesday and Friday from meat (lots of pasta, pizza and seafood), it usually only comes up in conversation when going out to eat with others on either Wednesday or Friday…

…I find that most people (not all) are familiar with Friday fasting, but I’ve gotten some strange looks for Wednesday fasting.

 

[Vico]

… Would it not have made more sense in those times, for penance to have a “bite” to it (no pun intended), to give up a common staple food — such as bread, fruit, or vegetables — than to require people to abstain from a food that they didn’t eat that much anyway?
…

Summa Theologiae > Second Part of the Second Part > Question 147 Fasting >
Article 8. Whether it is fitting that those who fast should be bidden to abstain from flesh meat, eggs, and milk foods?

I answer that, As stated above (Article 6), fasting was instituted by the Church in order to bridle the concupiscences of the flesh, which regard pleasures of touch in connection with food and sex. Wherefore the Church forbade those who fast to partake of those foods which both afford most pleasure to the palate, and besides are a very great incentive to lust. Such are the flesh of animals that take their rest on the earth, and of those that breathe the air and their products, such as milk from those that walk on the earth, and eggs from birds. For, since such like animals are more like man in body, they afford greater pleasure as food, and greater nourishment to the human body, so that from their consumption there results a greater surplus available for seminal matter, which when abundant becomes a great incentive to lust. Hence the Church has bidden those who fast to abstain especially from these foods.

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3147.htm

 

[Jen7]

But why in pre-modern times?

I think it was to make a point about the “meat” (Christ) sacrificed on the Cross to God the Father. Many regions performed sacrifices to false gods and animals were sacrificed and the meat eaten. OnFriday, in honor of the Pascal Lamb sacrificed once for all, we eat no meat. Except perhaps His Body in Communion.

I think it has less to With abstaining from meat being “hard” and more to do with it being symbolic.

 

[tuffsmurf]

The luxuriousness of meat in pre-modern times is often exaggerated. But sure, friday penance probably wasn’t much harder than it is today (lent is another question). Many people, myself included, eat vegetarian a couple of days a week.

 

[1ke]

No doubt it is theologically significant and symbolic. But I find Friday abstinence, taken all by itself, to be more of a minor inconvenience than anything else.

That’s fine. I’m not sure what you think the penance is supposed to be?

I always say that one good thing about Friday abstinence, you have to remind yourself constantly that it’s Friday , the day of Christ’s Passion.

Aha! I think you are on to something.

 

[stpurl]

I always thought to myself that Henry VIII might have been far better natured had he been able to enjoy potato chips and corn on the cob, followed by a couple of chocolate bars.

 

[TK421]

Here’s my reasoning: in simpler times, when people didn’t have as many different kinds of food available to them, for many (if not most) meat was a luxury, relatively rare compared to today, and very poor people couldn’t afford it at all. Yet giving it up was considered penitential. Would it not have made more sense in those times, for penance to have a “bite” to it (no pun intended), to give up a common staple food — such as bread, fruit, or vegetables — than to require people to abstain from a food that they didn’t eat that much anyway?

By the same token, today meat is commonplace and many people feel like they can’t really eat without it — “if there’s no meat, it’s not really a meal”. Prescribing abstinence from meat is a real penance for those whose palates are used to it. In our times, it makes perfect sense. But why in pre-modern times?

Before the emancipation of serfs in Europe, their lives were pretty much irrelevant other than as an object to produce food.

For those that did have somewhat regular access to meat, it was theologically and symbolically a fitting penance and it still is today.

And yes, meat was eaten in much smaller proportions than it commonly is today. Proportionally, the amount of land required to raise animals, feed the animals, and eventually slaughter them for meat is much more than the land required for grains or even for vegetables, and this was all done with far more primitive equipment. Livestock are a significant contributor to man-made climate change precisely for this reason. Using a bone to flavor a large quantity of food might have been possible, but actual full cuts of meat were costly, especially when the animals raised at the time would have yielded significantly less meat than the animals of today.

 

[Ridgerunner]

A bit off topic, but I recall reading the account of some traveler in the 18th Century remarking that the Irish were the healthiest and best looking people in Europe. Their diet, this person said, pretty much lacked grain products or any substantial amount of meat. Though both were plentiful in Ireland, the English landowners took most of that for rent and sold it for cash. Anyway, the Irish diet was boiled potatoes with the skin on, and buttermilk (the butter went to the landlords) with a trifling bit of meat (usually pork) or fish.

A healthy diet, I guess.