You seem to have missed the point where the thread branched to discuss fasting before comunion as well as abstaining from meat on Friday. By 1957, for communion fasting the “midnight” rule had changed to the “three hour (solids) one hour (liquids)” rule–which was the point of my post.
I addressed abstaining from meat in a separate post.
So there used to be a rule about communion that essentially said “no breakfast before church” and they weakened that further? How odd.
I see the word “fast” being used here. I’m confused. Fasting is the abstaining from all food. How can you claim to be fasting if you’re eating anything, regardless of whether it’s beast or fish?
As a person of Indian origin, I was very confused when I was first told by a classmate about this fish on Fridays rule. “We can’t eat meat,” he said. It didn’t make any sense to me: fish is meat.
Fish on Friday wasn’t a rule. It was allowed that you could eat fish on Friday, as the RCC didn’t consider fish “meat”.
No it isn’t.
From Merriam-Webster:
Muslims are said to fast for the month of Ramadan, but they certainly don’t go without any food for a month.
Not according to usual usage. In English, “meat” can have the meaning of animal flesh in general, but it usually has the more specific meaning of the flesh of mammals and (often) birds, as opposed to fish and shellfish. On a restaurant menu, for example, you will usually see separate listings for “Meat” and “Fish.”
Yes, except that churches began adding more services on Sunday to accommodate the baby boom. I lived midway between two churches and between them we could attend a service as early as 6:00 a.m. or as late as 7:30 p.m. (Saturday evening services came along a few years later.) Obviously “no breakfast before church” was somewhat impractical if you had to wait 19 hours to eat anything. The rule was changed before I started receiving Communion, but my older siblings remember it clearly.
IIRC, the U.S. bishops changed the Friday abstinence rule in about 1966. I distinctly remember, as either a 13 or 14-year old, suddenly being able to have a hamburger on Friday, then abstaining during Lent, then beicoming a carnivore after Easter, then having to go back to meatless Fridays when my birthday rolled around.
Acsenray Catholics reder to a “complete” fast (no foods at all) or a “partial” fast (one full meal with only light nutrition throughout the day.) AFAIK, the U.S. has never required complete fasting. And as my own Catholic mother once said when I asked her, “a cow is meat. A fish is a fish.”
They fast during the day. No Muslim claims to fast at night during Ramadan.
As I specified, I was approaching this from my Indian background. To a Hindu, when you say you’re fasting, then you’re fasting. Hindus are required to fast before performing a puja. That means no food whatsoever. Following the puja, the temple will often serve a meal. Meat is forbidden in temples and “meat” includes any animal flesh, so you’ll get a meat-free meal: no mammals, no birds, no fish, no reptiles, no insects (not that most Indians would really notice the absence of reptiles and insects from the menu).
My point was that from my perspective what my Catholic friends were telling me seemed puzzling – you’re fasting but you’re eating? You’re not eating meat, but you’re eating fish? It seemed like a double oxymoron. It’s one thing to say “I fasted this morning, but now that the religious ceremony is over, I’m no longer required to fast.” It’s another thing to say “I’m fasting” while putting food in your mouth.
Well, then they don’t fast during Ramadan. (Actually, this confused me when I first heard about it as a kid. Not realizing Muslims were allowed to eat at night, I was extremely impressed by their fortitude in starving themselves for a whole month.)
Back when I was doing my time under the Brothers, it was clear to us that there were two things: fasting, and abstinence, the later referring to “meatless Fridays”.
And to tell the truth, I still get some residual guilt over having pepperoni pizza on Ash Wednesday, or beer on Good Friday…
There are two separate points of confusion.
Fasting is refraining from eating. This is true, regardless of other context. Of course, any fast has to involve a time period (you either begin fasting and stop fasting at some point or you starve to death). From that perspective, it should be noted that the rule was to “fast between meals.” In other words, no snacking, no progressive dinners. Fasting for an entire day was part of Christian tradition, but it was never part of church law.
The rule regarding meat was not fasting, but abstinence–abstaining from eating meat (or other specified foods). The definition of “meat” runs into both linguistic and cultural issues. First, these discussions use the four-letter word “meat” which has, at different times in English, meant the flesh of warm-blooded animals, the flesh of any animal, or any object that one might prepare as food. Similarly, the words in Latin and Greek that our word translates have meant, at different times, different things. The priniciple of abstaining from a specific type of food is very ancient, but the foods proscribed under different rules have varied widely by time and place.
Currently the Latin Rite of the Catholic church identifies meat (when written in English) as the flesh of warm-blooded animals and, until very recently, included animal products (eggs and dairy items) under the prohibition, but only on specific days, most of which are no longer on the liturgical calendar. The Orthodox communities tend to use a wider definition, restricting all animals and all animal products.
Now, there are certainly Catholics who grew up without quite learning the terms they used and I have certainly encountered some who confused the meanings of the words fasting and abstinence. This hardly helps them explain what they are doing when they grab the wrong word to explain.
Not ironic at all. The peasants don’t eat much meat, so one denies oneself by eating like the peasants do and also not eating meat.
To sum up all of the rules: Before Vatican II, all Fridays throughout the year and (I think) all days in Lent (except Sundays) were abstinance days. After Vatican II, Fridays in Lent are abstinance days, and abstinance is also recommended on other Fridays and Lent. On abstinance days, the flesh of warm-blooded creatures is not allowed, and one should properly eat “simple” foods, so one oughtn’t to eat lobster or the like (unless one is in Maine, where lobster is everywhere and dirt-cheap).
In addition during Lent, Catholics are encouraged to choose something more personal to give up. This can be a food, but not necessarily: Many folks give up cigarettes during this time, for instance, or television.
Ash Wednesday and Good Friday are fast days. Fast days count as abstinance days (though Good Friday is not technically part of Lent), and in addition, you should not eat between meals at all, and only eat the equivalent of two complete meals.
The fast before Mass is completely different. There, the requirement is that you not eat anything before Mass (how much before has varied in history; it’s now down to an hour). This applies throughout the year, and to any day on which one goes to Mass (most churches offer daily masses, and some Catholics go every day). It’s not a terribly onerous burden, since most folks go to Mass in the early morning, and you’re not eating anything while you’re sleeping anyway. To make it even laxer, by some interpretations, the critical time is one hour before Communion itself, which is almost at the end of the service, so the requirement is pretty much watered down to just “no eating in the pews”.
All of these rules have exceptions. For instance, if a Friday in Lent falls on a holiday of cultural or religious significance (such as St. Patrick’s Day, St. Joseph’s Day, or Chinese New Year), local bishops can waive the requirement of abstinence. There are also exemptions for medical reasons, age, or travellers.
Ooooh, you can afford Kraft Dinner once a week? Can I have your job?
Yes, as a vegetarian myself, I’m often informed that fish and birds are vegetables.
As I recall, and as tom’s posts indicate, it’s not a fast before Mass, but a fast before Communion. If you were going to Mass, but you didn’t intend to receive Communion, there was no requirement to fast.