|
0 members (),
503
guests, and
89
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,530
Posts417,674
Members6,182
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 335 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 335 Likes: 1 |
Please seek the advice of your spiritual father or priest regarding this matter. Its probably not something you would seek advice for on a public forum as it pertains directly to your spiritual and physical well-being.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 178
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 178 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 7
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 7 |
In the course of my recent Eastern explorations I have read that the Orthodox fast every Wednesday and Friday.
Quickly, from my own viewpoint, I can see the value in a discipline that extends beyond the extremely featherweight discipline of today's Roman Catholic Church. I would welcome a stricter discipline in this regard in my own life, but I would first like to hear the reflections of others on the matter. Roman, The RC fasting discipline is "featherweight" only because most people choose the minimum. There are many examples of extreme fasting in the Western Church even today. Regarding Eastern Catholics fasting and abstinence, one could also consider the commonly understood "mandatory" discipline to be "featherweight" but those who take time to try to understand the tradition do better than that. Personally I find that abstaining from meat on Wednesdays and Fridays throughout the entire year helps my prayer life. When I think of eating, I recall that I have given it up; my next thought is that God has provided well without that "extra" meat. What better way is there to "pray always." In our modern American society, I suggest that for some a better fast than that from foods is to fast from the television, radio, or the internet. I do agree that there has to be common sense, but the Western fast is "featherweight." We should go back to having the same fast as the East. At any rate, we should bring back the midnight fast for the reception of Holy Communion (possibly making it three hours for evening Masses as it was under Pius XII.) The one hour fast is no fast at all really. In order to break it, one would have to be actually eating during Mass. And abstaining from meat, but being able to eat fish is no penance for me, because I like fish. We are even allowed to eat duck on a day of abstinence, because they live in water! It should be remembered, however, that the Western Church's fasting guidelines are the absolute minimum for adults who are in good health. A lot more is expected of us. Personally, I try to follow the old fasts, which were more strict and there were far more of them, (normally unsuccessfully!)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,595 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,595 Likes: 1 |
We are even allowed to eat duck on a day of abstinence, because they live in water! WHAT ?? Surely you are having us on ?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 329
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 329 |
I've never heard of such an exemption for ducks, but such do exist for the South American rodents called "capybaras" as well as possibly for muskrat and beaver in certain formerly French parts of North America.
It's a bit like Easterners eating lobster on no fish days.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 7
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 7 |
It's true! Western rite Catholics cannot eat the flesh of any land-based animal on days of fast and/or abstinence. Ducks live on water, so we can eat them! It's the same with any water animal- they don't get classed as meat for some bizarre reason that I can't understand!
Today there are only two obligatory days of fast and abstinence, but until about 1970, there were loads. Strictly speaking, we are still not allowed to eat meat on a Friday, but in most jurisdictions the bishops have granted permission to substitute the abstinence for another act of penance. But fish or water animals don't get classed as meat, and eggs or dairy are not included, so it can hardly be described as a penance to abstain from "meat."
I had read an interesting fact about Scotland before- I don't know if it's true, but it sounds as if it could be! There was a brief period during the middle ages when the Scottish bishops decided that pigeon wasn't meat. So Catholics could eat pigeon on Fridays and during Lent. I have absolutely no idea what the rationale could possibly have been for this, but they must have found one. Apparently, that's why there are so many pigeon keepers in Scotland!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,595 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,595 Likes: 1 |
Maybe you should ask for guidance from Archbishop elect Philip Tartaglia - I have never heard this before .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 7
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 7 |
I'm certainly not advocating that people eat duck on days of abstinence! As I said, this is the absolute minimum that is required of Western Catholics according to Canon Law- we must try to do much better than that in practice. I think it's made as lenient as it is so that people who possibly ought not to fast don't overdo it. The problem is that many who can do more might think they don't have to.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 329
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 329 |
O.K. we're going to go pretty deep into the weeds here, but I managed to dig up a reference to ducks. Apologies for being too quick to rule it out. There's a reply in Vol. 58 (1918) of the American Ecclesiastical Review (pg. 208) [ books.google.com]: FISH AND FLESH.
Qu. Does the new Canon Law give an official interpretation of the words "fish" and "flesh" as they are used in the legislation of the Church in regard to fast and abstinence? Scientifically, of course, oysters and frogs are not fish, yet it is, or was, allowed to eat them on Fridays and other days of abstinence. Is there anything new in the matter? And are we still to regard doubtfully the custom, prevailing in some places, of eating certain kinds of duck on days of abstinence? I would like to know if there is anything official in the new legislation.
Resp. The Lenten regulations as found in the new Code of Canon Law are explained in the Review for January (pages 56 ff). The Code does not define the distinction between "fish" and "flesh", and, consequently, the traditional rule holds, that the flesh of "animals that live on the earth and breathe" ("animalia in terra viventia ac respirantia ") is forbidden on days of abstinence. Whatever was clearly included under the term " fish " is still included; whatever was a matter of doubt is still doubtful. In regard to the latter, Ballerini's optima lex is still the best guide: "De his optima lex est ut servetur consuetudo, et aestimatio fidelium in diversis locis pensetur; si enim haec adsint, non sunt inquietandi aut vexandi fideles" (Opus Morale, Vol. II, Tract. VII, sec. I, 12). The nearest thing to an official declaration of the meaning of "fish" is a decree of the S. Penitentiary, 16 January, 1834, which, in connexion with the now obsolete prohibition of the use of fish and flesh at the same meal during Lent, explains that by the word fish are understood frogs, oysters, turtles, and other sea molluscs. After all, though it is true that, strictly speaking, oysters are not fish, there is no great misunderstanding as to what one may eat on days of abstinence, and there was consequently no great need of defining terms in the new Code. "New legislation" and "new Code of Canon Law" here, of course, refer to the 1917 Code. Previously in Vol. 12 [ books.google.com] (1895) the editors had responded similarly (pg 337): SEAL-BIRDS ON DAYS OF ABSTINENCE.
Qu. Does the privilege, which exists in the Southern States, of eating seal-duck on days of abstinence, extend to all parts of the country?
Resp. "De his optima regula est" says Ballerini (Opus Morale Vol. II, Tract . VII, sect. I, 12), "ut servetur consuetudo, et aestimatio fidelium in diversis locis pensetur; si enim haec adsint, non sunt inquietandi aut vexandi fideles."
In other words, wherever this species of sea-fowl is commonly reckoned in the same category of food as turtles, lobster, frogs, oysters, etc., which though they cannot be called fish, are nevertheless held to be lenten food, there the practice of serving seal-duck is licit. Some regard as included in this category even the meat of beavers, others, coots and other semi-marine animals which live almost exclusively in the water and obtain their food there. "Pisces aut habentur aut saltem iis acquiparantur limaces, testudines, ranae, locustae, conchae, viperae, et juxta quosdam fibri (castori), lutrae, anates cujusdam speciei, fulicae, et quidam addunt corvos marinos. (Ball. loc. cit). I'd suggest that the fact that we now regard the past permissions to eat duck, beaver, etc. as a "surprising" exception to the law rather than a reflection of the sense of the faithful that these are "held to be Lenten food" suggests that their place as such remains at least doubtful (as the 1918 reply notes). But per Canon 14 (of the 1983 Code): "Laws, even invalidating and incapacitating ones, do not oblige when there is a doubt of law." Given that and the Gospel injunction in Matthew 23:4, I wouldn't tell people that it's sinful to eat water dwelling birds, or beavers, or whatever. However, I stand by my other earlier comment. If I'm going out and eating super tasty Duck Pad Thai on all Fridays in Lent or Lobster drenched in butter, I may not be sinning, but I'm doing it wrong and not getting the benefit that is intended... just like if I eat super tasty imported cheese, or whatever... it doesn't follow the spirit of the law. I'm reminded of this bit from Tito Colliander's The Way of the Ascetics: How do you benefit if, for example, you begin to sleep on a hard mattress but instead indulge in warm baths? Or if you try to give up smoking but give free rein to your urge to prattle? Or if you deny your urge to prattle, but read exciting novels? Or if you stop reading novels but let loose your imagination and quiver in sweet melancholy?
Last edited by JBenedict; 08/16/12 04:47 PM. Reason: spelling
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421 |
Dang it ... I was really looking forward to Peking Duck restaurants during all the fasts!
I did eat a wonderful Pigeon casserole in Cairo Egypt once on Friday - I wonder if the muslims think the same way about fasting - ok to eat pigeones.
My wife gets really mad about fasting - she sees the "Fish" as a rich man's food (scallops, abalone, lobster etc) and sees no redeeming value in fasting in the modern era.
Her view is that hamburger is now the food of the "poor" and not fish as was in the past.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 844
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 844 |
I often wish that sea gulls/lake gulls were considered edible poultry, that would have been just as good as ducks and/or geese as water birds.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 7
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 7 |
I think the overall objective is to mortify oneself by performing an act of penance. To settle for the minimum, and then try to find ways around even that, goes completely against the spirit of the law.
I think the Eastern Churches approach fasting slightly differently to the modern Western Church. This is just my impression, but it seems that you tend to make quite a strict fast the general rule, and then grant dispensations for people who cannot adhere to it for whatever reason, while the modern Western Church tends to state what the minimum is, which is very lenient, but then expect that people who are able will exceed that. It's a bit like the rule that we only have to go to Confession at least once a year. I know I certainly have to go a bit more frequently than that!
It's been very interesting for me finding out about the variances in customs between the East and West. I normally try to follow the older Western customs, but I may try to do some of the Eastern customs too.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 844
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 844 |
Now I'm wondering...in Eastern Tradition, for families grieving after a loss of a family member due to death, I'm wondering if this is grounds for fasting from the time of the death up to, and during that time, until the deceased family member had his/her funeral liturgy and burial. If it's not a custom, it should be, since it will remind others of their own mortality, and their closeness to God. Of course, after the burial, and at the reception, that ends the fasting, basically.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,356 Likes: 100
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,356 Likes: 100 |
Christ is in our midst!!
Speaking as a professional in the field of death care, I think the idea of haivng a family fast as you suggest would be an even greater stress on them than the actual death of a loved one--which does stress the body and the immune system of the grieving. It's been documented that people in grief over a death are more susceptible to illness than the run of the mill person, just as people are who lose a job or face other really stressful life situations.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,528 Likes: 26
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,528 Likes: 26 |
Having studied and presented on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, changes in eating habits and digestive problems are very common during the first days after a death; more likely and more severe if the death was unexpected or violent.
In other words, God has already provided the mechanism for fasting...we do not need to augment it.
Last edited by Thomas the Seeker; 08/17/12 09:11 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
