The rule of fasting and abstinence that Catholic should follow is a controverted question. Fr Ricossa explains why the law of the 1917 Code is still in force.
Thanks to Fr. Ricossa for clearly laying out the laws of fasting and abstinence according to the 1917 Code of Canon Law. There are "Trads" who claim it's "lamentable" that the disciplines have been gradually relaxed over the centuries, and the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917 is the "final straw" for them. These "Trads" find the laws in that Code "too lax" and, instead, insist that the way to be "truly Traditional Catholics" is to practice *more* rigorous fasting.
We should return to the medieval practices, or even those of the ancient Church, because the laws of 1917 aren't restrictive enough; they bemoan being "put to shame" by our Eastern "brethren" (they would include the schismatics as well) not only eating a fully vegetarian diet, but also not even making use of oil or wine except on Sundays. But last year I had listened to a Lenten sermon by a sedevacantist priest on the subject of fasting, and his perspective is that it is "doubly meritorious" to zealously follow the laws of Holy Mother Church rather than to Pharisaically do more than is required in a spirit of pride and gain no merit at all.
I appreciate you sharing Fr. Ricossa's writing on the subject! May God bless you with many graces during this Lenten season!
Absolutely. The article that really helped me with that issue was, “The Lenten Fast: An Insupportable Burden?” By Fr. Twomey, S.J., published in the American Ecclesiastical Review, 1938. It goes into detail about the relative standard vs. the absolute standard of fasting in regards to Canon 1251 of the C.I.C. Not to mention, the differences in culture, climate, and the physiological & psychological development of peoples in America and Europe. Since reading that article the bemoaning of the “anchorite” trads doesn’t bother me as much.
It would not be “pharisaical” for someone to decide to go beyond the minimum of what is required of them by Church law as a pious practice, so long as they do so after reflecting prayerfully, and preferably after receiving some kind of spiritual direction.
If assuming pride on another's part is what this comment leans toward, the author should consider this. Only God knows the depths of each person's heart.
I’d be one of those bemoaning trads described earlier, who lament the needless relaxation of the Lenten observance, and reject the pretext justifying it (ie., that modern man and society are somehow organized and weakened such that laws must be correspondingly relaxed to make observance attainable).
Actually, I find the opposite to be the case: Unlike society 120 years ago, modern society offers so many substantial meatless food options, one could accidentally pass a Friday (and Saturday) abstaining without realizing one was being deprived of anything.
Sitting down to a couple lobster tails, a chilled glass of pinot grigio, asparagus, and baked potato is hardly penitential, but perfectly permissible according to the lax code.
No, I think we have lost something of the spirit of combat, and it’s difficult to tell whether the tail is wagging the dog in the alleged need to commute Lenten strictures. My suspicion is that all these relaxations were “signs of the times” in the new spirit blowing through the Church leading up to Vatican II.
We don't eat meat on Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays outside of Lent. So during Lent we only eat meat on Sundays. This was the custom in the old Catholic peasant world in Hungary. And somehow it survived.
"Fasting consists in taking a single meal per day, but two small collations – which theologians limit to 60g [about 2oz] in the morning and 250g [about 8-9oz] in the evening – are tolerated."
I am desperately curious to know which theologians and where -- not that I doubt Fr. Ricossa, but I'd like to see the more detailed explanations of the fast, especially given there are a number of other stipulations which the ICR has published on their explanations of the fast as well.
Thanks to Fr. Ricossa for clearly laying out the laws of fasting and abstinence according to the 1917 Code of Canon Law. There are "Trads" who claim it's "lamentable" that the disciplines have been gradually relaxed over the centuries, and the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917 is the "final straw" for them. These "Trads" find the laws in that Code "too lax" and, instead, insist that the way to be "truly Traditional Catholics" is to practice *more* rigorous fasting.
We should return to the medieval practices, or even those of the ancient Church, because the laws of 1917 aren't restrictive enough; they bemoan being "put to shame" by our Eastern "brethren" (they would include the schismatics as well) not only eating a fully vegetarian diet, but also not even making use of oil or wine except on Sundays. But last year I had listened to a Lenten sermon by a sedevacantist priest on the subject of fasting, and his perspective is that it is "doubly meritorious" to zealously follow the laws of Holy Mother Church rather than to Pharisaically do more than is required in a spirit of pride and gain no merit at all.
I appreciate you sharing Fr. Ricossa's writing on the subject! May God bless you with many graces during this Lenten season!
Thanks Christine!
Absolutely. The article that really helped me with that issue was, “The Lenten Fast: An Insupportable Burden?” By Fr. Twomey, S.J., published in the American Ecclesiastical Review, 1938. It goes into detail about the relative standard vs. the absolute standard of fasting in regards to Canon 1251 of the C.I.C. Not to mention, the differences in culture, climate, and the physiological & psychological development of peoples in America and Europe. Since reading that article the bemoaning of the “anchorite” trads doesn’t bother me as much.
It would not be “pharisaical” for someone to decide to go beyond the minimum of what is required of them by Church law as a pious practice, so long as they do so after reflecting prayerfully, and preferably after receiving some kind of spiritual direction.
If assuming pride on another's part is what this comment leans toward, the author should consider this. Only God knows the depths of each person's heart.
I’d be one of those bemoaning trads described earlier, who lament the needless relaxation of the Lenten observance, and reject the pretext justifying it (ie., that modern man and society are somehow organized and weakened such that laws must be correspondingly relaxed to make observance attainable).
Actually, I find the opposite to be the case: Unlike society 120 years ago, modern society offers so many substantial meatless food options, one could accidentally pass a Friday (and Saturday) abstaining without realizing one was being deprived of anything.
Sitting down to a couple lobster tails, a chilled glass of pinot grigio, asparagus, and baked potato is hardly penitential, but perfectly permissible according to the lax code.
No, I think we have lost something of the spirit of combat, and it’s difficult to tell whether the tail is wagging the dog in the alleged need to commute Lenten strictures. My suspicion is that all these relaxations were “signs of the times” in the new spirit blowing through the Church leading up to Vatican II.
I respect others see it differently.
We don't eat meat on Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays outside of Lent. So during Lent we only eat meat on Sundays. This was the custom in the old Catholic peasant world in Hungary. And somehow it survived.
"Fasting consists in taking a single meal per day, but two small collations – which theologians limit to 60g [about 2oz] in the morning and 250g [about 8-9oz] in the evening – are tolerated."
I am desperately curious to know which theologians and where -- not that I doubt Fr. Ricossa, but I'd like to see the more detailed explanations of the fast, especially given there are a number of other stipulations which the ICR has published on their explanations of the fast as well.
You can see Fr Davis on our site which discusses it. It's in the Top 5 Lent articles page.