Author Topic: Lent question. (Read 1358 times)

Raoul76 · « **on:** February 23, 2010, 06:27:34 PM »

During Lent we are allowed two small meals and one larger meal, correct? I just read in the Catholic Encyclopedia that in the Middle Ages most Catholics would eat only one meal at night. When did the two small meal, one large meal ritual begin? Is this a Pius XII fast-relaxation or does it go back further?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #1 on:** February 23, 2010, 06:47:05 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

During Lent we are allowed two small meals and one larger meal, correct? I just read in the Catholic Encyclopedia that in the Middle Ages most Catholics would eat only one meal at night. When did the two small meal, one large meal ritual begin? Is this a Pius XII fast-relaxation or does it go back further?

Look up the article on "the Black Fast"

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02590c.htm

Quote

In the fourteenth century the hour of taking this meal was changed to noon-day (Muller, loc. cit.). Shortly afterwards the practice of taking a collation in the evening began to gain ground (Thomassin, op. cit., II, xi). Finally, the custom of taking a crust of bread and some coffee in the morning was introduced in the early part of the nineteenth century. During the past fifty years, owing to ever changing circuмstances oftime and place, the Church has gradually relaxed the severity of penitential requirements, so that now little more than a vestige of former rigour obtains.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 23, 2010, 07:46:21 PM »

Telesphorus said:

Quote

During the past fifty years, owing to ever changing circuмstances of time and place, the Church has gradually relaxed the severity of penitential requirements, so that now little more than a vestige of former rigour obtains.

And that is from the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913, so the fast laws began to be relaxed around 1863.

I've been having a couple slices of bread and tea in the morning, then some crackers and coffee in the afternoon, and then my meal. It's too genteel and I can tell something is not right, because I am feeling too sprightly for Lent.

I was curious to see how the fast (d)evolved. I wish the article was more specific. I'm sure under Pius XII Lent became "Only two meals with meat per day!"

So let me get this straight, the difference between the Black Fast and the early 19th century fast is that in the early 19th century you could have a bread crust? I'd rather eat nothing at all than a bread crust. That would just leave you feeling more unsatisfied. Sometimes if you don't eat for long stretches you can attain a sort of light-headed, pleasant delirium. But if you eat a little, you end up actually more hungry. If you do physical labor, though, I don't see how the one-meal thing is even possible, unless it is a gargantuan meal.

Last question -- are you not supposed to take any liquids except during this one meal, if you're doing a severe fast?

Matthew · « **Reply #3 on:** February 23, 2010, 08:17:16 PM »

Fasting is a complicated topic, which should be approached in the context of obedience to a spiritual director.

Fasting, like all external works, can be taken to excess for many reasons, including (but not limited to): vainglory, pride, excessive concern about one's figure, etc.

One thing that should be kept in mind regarding fasting: Food today has almost no nutrition in it, compared to 200 years ago.
So that bread crust YOU eat is NOTHING AT ALL LIKE the crust of bread that you read about a saint eating. The wheat for that bread was not grown in over-farmed soil, sprayed with pesticides and chemical fertilizer to make it grow. Modern agriculture treats the soil like a sponge, to be filled with chlorinated water, chemical fertilizers, etc. Trace elements are long gone -- along with most vitamins.

Then when you microwave food, even MORE vitamins are destroyed. It's a testament to how well-designed the human body is that most of us aren't dead right now.

Long story short: It's providential, and clearly God's will, that the fasting regulations aren't unreasonable for the times we live in. Fasting was never intended to render the majority of men useless throughout Lent.

So we need to keep all this in mind when discussing the topic of fasting.

That having been said, there is room for mortification in each of our lives. If nothing else, we can forego seasonings, or include seasonings that don't belong (cinnamon on your hamburger) and stay healthy WHILE being mortified.

Matthew

Raoul76 · « **Reply #4 on:** February 23, 2010, 08:20:01 PM »

I don't really like to eat that much. Fasting is not the hardest part about Lent and is kind of nugatory for me. I say that just in case it seems like I'm boasting about my Lenten practice.

You're right, that crust of bread would be like a rock-salted, sourdoughy hunk. Great. Now I'm craving a rock-salted, sourdoughy hunk of bread.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 23, 2010, 08:22:02 PM »

Matthew said:

Quote

That having been said, there is room for mortification in each of our lives. If nothing else, we can forego seasonings, or include seasonings that don't belong (cinnamon on your hamburger)

Huh?

Double huh?

You're allowed to have meat? Or are you referring to Sunday?

The double huh is because... Cinnamon on a hamburger?!?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #6 on:** February 23, 2010, 08:26:02 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Telesphorus said:
Quote
During the past fifty years, owing to ever changing circuмstances of time and place, the Church has gradually relaxed the severity of penitential requirements, so that now little more than a vestige of former rigour obtains.

And that is from the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913, so the fast laws began to be relaxed around 1863.

I've been having a couple slices of bread and tea in the morning, then some crackers and coffee in the afternoon, and then my meal. It's too genteel and I can tell something is not right, because I am feeling too sprightly for Lent.

I was curious to see how the fast (d)evolved. I wish the article was more specific. I'm sure under Pius XII Lent became "Only two meals with meat per day!"

So let me get this straight, the difference between the Black Fast and the early 19th century fast is that in the early 19th century you could have a bread crust? I'd rather eat nothing at all than a bread crust. That would just leave you feeling more unsatisfied. Sometimes if you don't eat for long stretches you can attain a sort of light-headed, pleasant delirium. But if you eat a little, you end up actually more hungry. If you do physical labor, though, I don't see how the one-meal thing is even possible, unless it is a gargantuan meal.

Last question -- are you not supposed to take any liquids except during this one meal, if you're doing a severe fast?

A visiting Redemptorist did a sermon on it on Sunday. I'll try and get a recording and upload it for you. It will be a couple of weeks. Anyway, notice the allowed evening collation is fairly substantial.

He said that Pius XII allowed Americans to drink fruit juice and milk, but wine, beer, coffee, tea, etc, were already allowed I believe.

For myself I drink some juice and coffee, and eat one meal, occasionally having an English muffin in the morning.

The ideal is probably to have just one meal. But people who are working might be hard-pressed to follow that.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 23, 2010, 08:27:39 PM »

I said:

Quote

You're right, that crust of bread would be like a rock-salted, sourdoughy hunk. Great. Now I'm craving a rock-salted, sourdoughy hunk of bread.

Lest THAT sound like I'm boasting, like "I'm craving something that I'm going to heroically not eat," not necessarily. I may just have a huge hunk of bread with my dinner.

Okay, I see this topic is volatile. No more talk of my Lenten practice, I'll keep it abstract.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #8 on:** February 23, 2010, 08:32:47 PM »

I heard St. Francis once went through almost the entire 40 days without eating or drinking, but then at the last minute surprised everyone by impulsively devouring half a loaf of bread. The reason is that he didn't feel worthy to accomplish what Jesus did so he destroyed his fast.

CM · « **Reply #9 on:** February 23, 2010, 10:37:35 PM »

The law, to the best of my research: No meat (except for working men and their families in the U.S. - anywhere else I am not sure), One meal, one collation. Collation not to exceed 8 ounces. Sunday's are free.

I'm hungry. :sad:

Raoul76 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 23, 2010, 11:15:46 PM »

It says two small meals from what I've seen, but that could be Vatican II. Great. First I miss two Holy Days of Obligation and now this. Off to a roaring start!

I am not hungry because I'm eating an enormous meal, which as far as I know is permissible even during a Black Fast.

Glad to see you back, by the way. Have the restrictions been lifted? I found another offensive passage in the Code of Canon Law 1917 that may interest you -- it says you can give extreme unction to a schismatic who is unconscious and dying as long as there is reason to believe they "implicitly reject their errors." Not only do we have implicit faith, now we have implicit abjuration.

CM · « **Reply #11 on:** February 24, 2010, 04:17:38 PM »

Raoul76 · « **Reply #12 on:** February 24, 2010, 07:16:26 PM »

Quote

Actually if the person was schismatic and had showed a clear expression of his desire to convert to the Catholic Church and abjure, it would seem to be lawful to administer to him the Last Sacraments.

I agree, but Benedict refers to those who never expressed any desire to be Catholic.

I was mistaken about this novel teaching being from the Code of Canon Law. It is a Reply of the Holy Office from May 17. 1916:

Quote

"Whether absolution and extreme unction can be conferred on schismatics at the point of death when unconscious?

Reply: Conditionally, in the affirmative, especially if from additional circuмstances it can be conjectured that they at least implicitly reject their errors, yet effectually removing scandal, at least by manifesting to bystanders that they accept the Church and have returned at the last moment to unity."

So as long as you pretend that this person has abjured their errors you have removed scandal that might be given to bystanders, I guess.

How can one man know for sure if another man has "implicitly rejected" his errors? Under Benedict XV I guess priests were required to be psychics, or to be God.

Does a decision of the Holy Office outrank Canon Law?