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.
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.