Good Friday Question

[untateve]

I am not religious and do not subscribe to any religion. My wife asked me what I wanted to do for dinner tonight and I said I'd like a nice steak. I said this because I know it is Good Friday and she "can't" eat any meat today. Then the question dawned on me:

 

Why not? What is the reason that Catholics don't/can't eat me on Good Friday (and on many Fridays for that matter)?

 

[Please note: This is not a thread designed to slam religion or otherwise denigrate the beliefs of others. I'm just really curious.]

[MikesVikes]

This is the best answer that I've seen.

There is an answer. It's a little bit complicated, and maybe more than you wanted to know. The Reader's Digest version is, the tradition developed in a culture where 1) blood was seen as the life-essence; 2) the word we translate "meat" specifically meant "bloody"; 3) fish don't bleed red the way land-animals do.

 

You can stop there, if you like. The rest is just explanatory detail.

 

(deep breath)....

 

Different languages have different "semantic segmentation;" a word can designate a range of things, and while the range of a word in one language may have a big overlap with a given word in another, the mapping of one range onto another is rarely perfect. A big headache for translators. Example: OE "frignan" is usually translated as "to hear." Actually, it means "to learn by hearing and after having asked." So much easier just to say "hear," and in most cases, no harm done, no confusion.

 

But sometimes the finer points of the categories matter. In English, "meat" means "dead animals used for food" (this is a narrowing of meaning; originally it simply meant "food," and the Middle English term for chicken feed was "hen's meat," which we could easily misunderstand as the bird itself cooked up for dinner). Now, the word in Latin which we usually translate as "meat" has the root "carn-" (as in "carne-val," for Mardi Gras, "farewell to meat"). The "carn-" root (as in "incarnation") seems ultimately to mean "red": cp the obsolete adj "incarnadine" used in Macbeth, or the name of the red flower. At least the ancestral carnation is red.

 

Comparative notes: Gk "κρέας" and Sanskrit "kravya" meant specifically "raw flesh," and the meaning of raw is clearly "bloody," as can be seen by looking at the Serbo-Croatian word krv, which simply means "blood."

 

So "carne" means specifically "red meat," "meat that bleeds." Fish doesn't bleed that much, at least not in comparison to a pig (which some say is the original meaning of "flesh"). Leviticus has all kinds of regulations about the handling of blood in food animals, and so the traditions of the Church may owe something to that, in addition to all the sound things you've already been told about the association of Christ with fish, the luxury which the flesh of land-animals has generally represented (because it requires the expense of raising it, rather than simply taking what God has raised in the water), and the simple fact of marking off some portion of the week for a practice which has no necessary connection with penance except that the particular day has rules which other days don't. We still experience it as a restriction, if not a privation.

 

(I would point out that the deepest, richest symbols are those that don't have single explanations, but penetrate and resonate into a variety of areas of life, and of history. There is a book to be written on fish-imagery in the Christian tradition, and it will be a thick one.)

 

Tertullian reflects at length on the reasons for changes in revealed dietary laws, and he makes special note of the role of blood-consumption as a contrast between "the fish of the sea" and "flesh in the blood of its own soul;" this obviously owes something to Eucharistic thinking that was not available to the Hebrews whose texts he is quoting (look at Chapter IV of "On Fasting In Opposition to the Psychics": http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf04/...m#P1726_505586

 

But the symbolism of not consuming what Latin thinks of as "blood-meat" is obviously connected with the coming memorialization in the liturgical year of the institution of the Body and Blood: we are in pentitential deprivation of the Precious Blood which will be shed for us. Easter will be celebrated with the slaughter of a spring lamb or piglet. We will consume blood again.

 

Here is what some people think.

I was told by a non-catholic that a catholic told her that it all stems back to a pope years ago trying to help the fishermen out because they were having a diffiicult time earning a living.

 

link

 

 

Others believe things like this.

 

Many year ago the fisherman discovered how to catch more fish and were unable to sell there extra fish and wanted to week end off. It just so happened that the fisherman's wife was the mistress of the on going pope. So she held back her favours to the pope until he made it a rule for all those in his kingdom eat fish on Friday. So it is written. This question is about faith and belief not fact or imperial thinking and needs no close examination. Sort of like religion. Its all about make believe.

 

link

[Chief Dick]

This is the best answer that I've seen.

There is an answer. It's a little bit complicated, and maybe more than you wanted to know. The Reader's Digest version is, the tradition developed in a culture where 1) blood was seen as the life-essence; 2) the word we translate "meat" specifically meant "bloody"; 3) fish don't bleed red the way land-animals do.

 

You can stop there, if you like. The rest is just explanatory detail.

 

(deep breath)....

 

Different languages have different "semantic segmentation;" a word can designate a range of things, and while the range of a word in one language may have a big overlap with a given word in another, the mapping of one range onto another is rarely perfect. A big headache for translators. Example: OE "frignan" is usually translated as "to hear." Actually, it means "to learn by hearing and after having asked." So much easier just to say "hear," and in most cases, no harm done, no confusion.

 

But sometimes the finer points of the categories matter. In English, "meat" means "dead animals used for food" (this is a narrowing of meaning; originally it simply meant "food," and the Middle English term for chicken feed was "hen's meat," which we could easily misunderstand as the bird itself cooked up for dinner). Now, the word in Latin which we usually translate as "meat" has the root "carn-" (as in "carne-val," for Mardi Gras, "farewell to meat"). The "carn-" root (as in "incarnation") seems ultimately to mean "red": cp the obsolete adj "incarnadine" used in Macbeth, or the name of the red flower. At least the ancestral carnation is red.

 

Comparative notes: Gk "κρέας" and Sanskrit "kravya" meant specifically "raw flesh," and the meaning of raw is clearly "bloody," as can be seen by looking at the Serbo-Croatian word krv, which simply means "blood."

 

So "carne" means specifically "red meat," "meat that bleeds." Fish doesn't bleed that much, at least not in comparison to a pig (which some say is the original meaning of "flesh"). Leviticus has all kinds of regulations about the handling of blood in food animals, and so the traditions of the Church may owe something to that, in addition to all the sound things you've already been told about the association of Christ with fish, the luxury which the flesh of land-animals has generally represented (because it requires the expense of raising it, rather than simply taking what God has raised in the water), and the simple fact of marking off some portion of the week for a practice which has no necessary connection with penance except that the particular day has rules which other days don't. We still experience it as a restriction, if not a privation.

 

(I would point out that the deepest, richest symbols are those that don't have single explanations, but penetrate and resonate into a variety of areas of life, and of history. There is a book to be written on fish-imagery in the Christian tradition, and it will be a thick one.)

 

Tertullian reflects at length on the reasons for changes in revealed dietary laws, and he makes special note of the role of blood-consumption as a contrast between "the fish of the sea" and "flesh in the blood of its own soul;" this obviously owes something to Eucharistic thinking that was not available to the Hebrews whose texts he is quoting (look at Chapter IV of "On Fasting In Opposition to the Psychics": http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf04/...m#P1726_505586

 

But the symbolism of not consuming what Latin thinks of as "blood-meat" is obviously connected with the coming memorialization in the liturgical year of the institution of the Body and Blood: we are in pentitential deprivation of the Precious Blood which will be shed for us. Easter will be celebrated with the slaughter of a spring lamb or piglet. We will consume blood again.

 

Here is what some people think.

I was told by a non-catholic that a catholic told her that it all stems back to a pope years ago trying to help the fishermen out because they were having a diffiicult time earning a living.

 

link

 

 

Others believe things like this.

 

Many year ago the fisherman discovered how to catch more fish and were unable to sell there extra fish and wanted to week end off. It just so happened that the fisherman's wife was the mistress of the on going pope. So she held back her favours to the pope until he made it a rule for all those in his kingdom eat fish on Friday. So it is written. This question is about faith and belief not fact or imperial thinking and needs no close examination. Sort of like religion. Its all about make believe.

 

link

 

+1

[Double Agent]

Why not? What is the reason that Catholics don't/can't eat me on Good Friday (and on many Fridays for that matter)?

 

That's a unique approach. Mine just says she has a headache.

[untateve]

That's a unique approach. Mine just says she has a headache.

 

Sexual relations releases endorphins, thereby decreasing headache pain. She should ask you for sex when she has a headache.

[Furd]

Muskrat is an ideal compromise.

[chester]

Also, didn't it used to be ALL Fridays way back when?

[Savage Beatings]

Simple answer is fasting and abstinence are penitential, and help put us in the mind of sacrificing something in our lives in rememberence of the sacrifice that Christ made for us. Our tradition holds that he died on a Friday, which is why the fasting and abstaining occurs on Friday. FYI, it used to be that Catholics were required to fast and abstain on every Friday (not just during Lent). I don't think you have to dig too deep for meaning on this tradition. Meat is a huge staple for most people on most days. When you give it up (which is not as easy as it sounds) it's an easy way to bring to mind the reason why you are giving it up.

[Big John]

Also, didn't it used to be ALL Fridays way back when?

Yes, but American Catholic practices changed it during Lent, but encourages it on other Fridays

[Savage Beatings]

Here's a longer write up about it from a Catholic network EWTN:

 

It is a traditional doctrine of Christian spirituality that a constituent part of repentance, of turning away from sin and back to God, includes some form of penance, without which the Christian is unlikely to remain on the narrow path and be saved (Jer. 18:11, 25:5; Ez. 18:30, 33:11-15; Joel 2:12; Mt. 3:2; Mt. 4:17; Acts 2:38). Christ Himself said that His disciples would fast once He had departed (Lk. 5:35). The general law of penance, therefore, is part of the law of God for man.

The Church has specified certain forms of penance, both to ensure that the Catholic will do something, as required by divine law, while making it easy for Catholics to fulfill the obligation. Thus, the 1983 Code of Canon Law specifies the obligations of Latin Rite Catholics [Eastern Rite Catholics have their own penitential practices as specified by the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches].

 

Canon 1250 All Fridays through the year and the time of Lent are penitential days and times throughout the entire Church.

 

Canon 1251 Abstinence from eating meat or another food according to the prescriptions of the conference of bishops is to be observed on Fridays throughout the year unless they are solemnities; abstinence and fast are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and on the Friday of the Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Canon 1252 All persons who have completed their fourteenth year are bound by the law of abstinence; all adults are bound by the law of fast up to the beginning of their sixtieth year. Nevertheless, pastors and parents are to see to it that minors who are not bound by the law of fast and abstinence are educated in an authentic sense of penance.

 

Can. 1253 It is for the conference of bishops to determine more precisely the observance of fast and abstinence and to substitute in whole or in part for fast and abstinence other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety.

 

The Church, therefore, has two forms of official penitential practices - three if the Eucharistic fast before Communion is included.

 

Abstinence The law of abstinence requires a Catholic 14 years of age until death to abstain from eating meat on Fridays in honor of the Passion of Jesus on Good Friday. Meat is considered to be the flesh and organs of mammals and fowl. Moral theologians have traditionally considered this also to forbid soups or gravies made from them. Salt and freshwater species of fish, amphibians, reptiles and shellfish are permitted, as are animal derived products such as margarine and gelatin which do not have any meat taste.

 

On the Fridays outside of Lent the U.S. bishops conference obtained the permission of the Holy See for Catholics in the US to substitute a penitential, or even a charitable, practice of their own choosing. Since this was not stated as binding under pain of sin, not to do so on a single occasion would not in itself be sinful. However, since penance is a divine command, the general refusal to do penance is certainly gravely sinful. For most people the easiest way to consistently fulfill this command is the traditional one, to abstain from meat on all Fridays of the year which are not liturgical solemnities. When solemnities, such as the Annunciation, Assumption, All Saints etc. fall on a Friday, we neither abstain or fast.

 

During Lent abstinence from meat on Fridays is obligatory in the United States as elsewhere, and it is sinful not to observe this discipline without a serious reason (physical labor, pregnancy, sickness etc.).

 

Fasting The law of fasting requires a Catholic from the 18th Birthday [Canon 97] to the 59th Birthday [i.e. the beginning of the 60th year, a year which will be completed on the 60th birthday] to reduce the amount of food eaten from normal. The Church defines this as one meal a day, and two smaller meals which if added together would not exceed the main meal in quantity. Such fasting is obligatory on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. The fast is broken by eating between meals and by drinks which could be considered food (milk shakes, but not milk). Alcoholic beverages do not break the fast; however, they seem contrary to the spirit of doing penance.

 

Those who are excused from fast or abstinence Besides those outside the age limits, those of unsound mind, the sick, the frail, pregnant or nursing women according to need for meat or nourishment, manual laborers according to need, guests at a meal who cannot excuse themselves without giving great offense or causing enmity and other situations of moral or physical impossibility to observe the penitential discipline.

 

Aside from these minimum penitential requirements Catholics are encouraged to impose some personal penance on themselves at other times. It could be modeled after abstinence and fasting. A person could, for example, multiply the number of days they abstain. Some people give up meat entirely for religious motives (as opposed to those who give it up for health or other motives). Some religious orders, as a penance, never eat meat. Similarly, one could multiply the number of days that one fasted. The early Church had a practice of a Wednesday and Saturday fast. This fast could be the same as the Church's law (one main meal and two smaller ones) or stricter, even bread and water. Such freely chosen fasting could also consist in giving up something one enjoys - candy, soft drinks, smoking, that cocktail before supper, and so on. This is left to the individual.

 

One final consideration. Before all else we are obliged to perform the duties of our state in life. When considering stricter practices than the norm, it is prudent to discuss the matter with one's confessor or director. Any deprivation that would seriously hinder us in carrying out our work, as students, employees or parents would be contrary to the will of God.

 

---- Colin B. Donovan, STL

[BeeR]

Yes, but American Catholic practices changed it during Lent

Huh, I thought Vatican II changed that. Well long as it's not all year. PS pretty sure it didn't used to be fasting every Fri, just no meat.

 

Can't believe it's Good Friday already.

[polksalet]

This is one of the couple of main areas where I diverge with Catholicism. Its a tradition not backed by any scripture. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it I'm just saying it has no basis in the bible. That being said I could go for some catfish tonight.

[BeeR]

Since it's done in the spirit of repentence/turning away from sin/tribute to Jesus/etc, actually it has a great deal of Biblical basis. And really that's the key to it: the spirit in which it's done or underlying reasons if you will - not so much the thing itself.

[Big Country]

This is why you always can get Clam Chownder on Friday's.

[Savage Beatings]

This is one of the couple of main areas where I diverge with Catholicism. Its a tradition not backed by any scripture. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it I'm just saying it has no basis in the bible. That being said I could go for some catfish tonight.

 

 

Just gonna challenge you a little bit on this. Why would every religious practice that you have need to be found in scripture? Is there no room for any other revelation and devotion that may not have taken place back when these books were written?

[untateve]

Meat is a huge staple for most people on most days. When you give it up (which is not as easy as it sounds) it's an easy way to bring to mind the reason why you are giving it up.

 

Does this mean that all vegans have to go to Hell?

 

(and thanks for the replies)

[Square]

Does this mean that all vegans have to go to Hell?

I fracking hope so.

 

Man, those people are annoying (at least when you are a waiter).

 

Does this have butter in it?

I don't know, does it taste like tortured souls?

[Savage Beatings]

Does this mean that all vegans have to go to Hell?

 

(and thanks for the replies)

 

I sure hope so.

 

Nah, it just means that they would be asked to give up something else. Ultimately God knows what is in our hearts. If you're penitent in some way, He will know it.

 

I think it comes down to this... the Church celebrates the seasons as they follow the entire history of Christ each year. There are times when our attitude and demeanor is solemn and penitent, and their are times when our attitude and demeanor is festive and joyous. The Church asks us to match ourselves to the occassion being remembered. So, fasting on Good Friday is very appropriate while we are remembering the dark moment of Jesus' death, but fasting would be incredibly inappropriate while we are celebrating the glory of his resurrection.

[Savage Beatings]

Does this have butter in it?

I don't know, does it taste like tortured souls?

 

[polksalet]

Just gonna challenge you a little bit on this. Why would every religious practice that you have need to be found in scripture? Is there no room for any other revelation and devotion that may not have taken place back when these books were written?

 

My problem is not with practicing religious traditions. I'm a mason and we likely have more traditions than the Catholic church. BUT, I think the important things and/or the things that God wills us to do are in scripture. It is a dangerous path when we ignore scripture and make tradition official doctrine. I believe this is one of the prime dividing forces within Christianity.

[matt770]

I used to just assume it had to do with the symbolism of the body and blood of Christ. At communion they give you the wafer and wine and tell you it's the body and blood of Christ, so I figured they equated red meat with literally eating Jesus, and Good Friday is the day he was crucified, so that would be barbaric.

 

Then my uncle told me years ago that the fisherman in ancient Rome were in a slump so they bribed the church to set aside a day when everyone could only eat fish. That pissed me off.

 

Who knows why. I'll tell you what though, that Catholic guilt is no joke. I just ate a tuna sandwich, and we're going to Chickie & Pete's tonight for crab legs and mussels.

[Big Country]

Many year ago the fisherman discovered how to catch more fish and were unable to sell there extra fish and wanted to week end off. It just so happened that the fisherman's wife was the mistress of the on going pope. So she held back her favours to the pope until he made it a rule for all those in his kingdom eat fish on Friday. So it is written. This question is about faith and belief not fact or imperial thinking and needs no close examination. Sort of like religion. Its all about make believe.

 

I thought something smelled fishy with this story.

[HowboutthemCowboys]

I'll tell you what though, that Catholic guilt is no joke. I just ate a tuna sandwich, and we're going to Chickie & Pete's tonight for crab legs and mussels.

[bpwallace49]

Just gonna challenge you a little bit on this. Why would every religious practice that you have need to be found in scripture? Is there no room for any other revelation and devotion that may not have taken place back when these books were written?

 

There is also a difference between scripture and Catholicism, which is adopted interpretations that immediately become Catholic dogma once adopted.

 

Given the Catholic track record of abuses of power over the centuries, this can cause doubt in the "legitimacy" of the moral adaptations and interpretations that do not have literal definitions in scripture.

 

Not starting a holy war here savage, just pointing out why some may challenge and have issues with catholicism. :halo:

[wiegie]

So, last week I was at a conference and the main banquet was held on Friday night. Although the steak option was what I would have normally picked, during the registration period a few weeks ago I said that wanted the fish since I wanted to not completely betray my Catholic upbringing.

 

As it turned out, for lunch on Friday I was convinced by a Baptist friend of mine that I really needed to go with him to eat at an awesome Jewish deli he had found nearby. Given all of the stuff that was going on at the conference, I completely forgot what day it was and so at the deli I ordered and ate an incredibly delicious pastrami and corned beef on pumpernickel sandwich. It wasn't until I sat down at the banquet later that evening that I realized that I had been tricked into going to hell by a Baptist-Jewish conspiracy.

Edited April 22, 2011 by wiegie