Talk:Fasting and abstinence in the Catholic Church

message: Cut and removed this table from the traditional days section.  Rewrote and summarized as an example of one implementation of the "traditional" times of penance.  Anyone have a reference that gives a time frame when this was actually the rule?  Gimmetrow 18:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: older entries

message: * Ember Wednesdays and Saturdays
* The vigil of Pentecost
* The vigil of All Saints October 31; transferred to October 30 if the 31st should be a Sunday
Also cut this, which doesn't appear to correspond to any law at any time.   Gimmetrow 18:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Partial abstinence

message: Is it worth mentioning the "fish story" one often hears about fish being allowed for economic reasons, that the fish markets put pressure upon the Pope (the story never really specifies which Pope...) to make that exception? Personally, I've always seen it as hogwash. Given the longer periods of fasting and abstinence that used to be required, removing all protein was potentially harmful and the more exotic methods that avoided meat (oils and the like) were available only to the rich. Fish was chosen because a) they're cold-blooded creatures and b) fish was readily available to anyone with a net versus red meat and poultry which was often more restricted to the rich (old-style poaching laws and all). Every Lent, I have someone telling me that they "heard somewhere" the market pressure version and it would be nice to have a place to point them. -Fuzzy (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pope "Fish Story" 

message: Is it true that Catholics were allowed to eat the breast of a duck on Fridays etc.? The reasoning being that the lower part of the duck spent much of its time in water and so could be classified as fish. Its something I heard a long time ago, but it may be apocryphal. Myrvin (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, but people did certainly consider the "fish-like" aquatic mammals such as seals to be fish. There were some stranger exception such as beavers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver#In_dietary_law) and capybara (no source) but it makes some sense if you've got obviously mammalian creatures excluded from the fasting rule. I think you'll find there is no church ruling on most of it because no one bothered asking them and they didn't strongly object. Nitwit005 (talk) 04:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duck 

message: There is an unsourced comment "The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is proposing in the very near future to re-introduce the required abstinence from meat on every Friday of the year, along with fasting and abstinence on Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, the Fridays of Lent, the Ember Days, the Rogation Days, the Fridays and Saturdays of Advent, and the vigils observed on the Saturday before Pentecost, August 14 (the vigil of the Assumption, October 31 (the vigil of All Saints), December 7 (the vigil of the Immaculate Conception, and December 24 (Christmas Eve).[citation needed]"
Does anyone know if this is true?  If so, where did you hear it?  To be completely honest, I think that would be a very excessive number of days of fast and abstinence.  With people leaving the church, it seems unlikely that they'd want to introduce a significant burden.  Ember and Rogation Days are especially surprising, since they aren't even observed in our current calendar.  Also, I've never heard of Saturdays during Advent ever being a day of fast or abstinence at any time in the past.  Christmas Eve is also surprising.  I realize that was a day of fast in the past, but nowadays, it's a big day for celebration and a big meal. 68.193.17.157 (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This whole section seems to be mostly uncited or a strange reading of what the references actually say. I have removed the speculative, uncited part mentioned above, and I am trying to rewrite the rest to follow what the references say. Myrvin (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States 

message: The Summary at the top of this page strikes me as particularly bad. It goes into detail about what it is assumed the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter is going to do (with no reference to the P/O of Our Lady of Walsingham), which seems out of place, in the summary at least. It also says the "pre-vatican II practice of abstaining from meat on fridays" which is odd given that the article goes on to give details that both in the England&Wales and US Bishops' Conferences this is the current practice (and my own experience, but of course that doesn't count).
I got this impression after reading the Summary, and I've only glanced over the rest of the article, but even that looks like it could do with some restructuring. I don't really know where to start or what structure to propose, but I wanted to flag this article for some serious work.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.111.129.114 (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Fasting and abstinence in the Roman Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090930112945/http://www.chowdc.org:80/Papers/Saunders%202001.html to http://www.chowdc.org/Papers/Saunders%202001.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Fasting and abstinence in the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111115004422/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4O.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4O.HTM
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060429165754/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19660217_paenitemini_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19660217_paenitemini_en.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Fasting and abstinence in the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141102050156/https://www.stthomas.edu/mcdc/topics/fasting/ to https://www.stthomas.edu/mcdc/topics/fasting/
*Added  tag to http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1401103.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060621164207/http://www.wf-f.org/FastandAbstinence.html to http://www.wf-f.org/FastandAbstinence.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article reads in part like an explanation of Catholic practice over the last couple of decades, and in part like a sad attempt to discuss eastern practice in 3 sentences.
As written, this article should be titled "Fasting and Abstinence in the Catholic Church since the 1980s, with funny stories from Sunday School and vague references to counter-Reformation re-interpretations of ancient practice".  
A better idea would be to re-title this "Fasting and Abstinence in the Christian Church" and include headings on "Antiquity to 1000", "Medieval Western Practice", "The Reformation and Counter-Reformation", "The Catholic Church in the 20th Century", and then sections on Eastern practice.  Eastern practices would have to divided between the Greek-Slavic groups, the Arabs, and the Ethiopian and other north African groups.
Some of that is wishful thinking, since it would require input from people more knowledgeable that what I have seen so far.  But I do think a change in the title might encourage more input.  I will try to add a section on pre-Reformation practice if I can find the time.  But really, can't some other people add something more useful than what they read in the last church newsletter? MonteGargano (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this article should be re-titled, as there are many distinct disciplinary practices under Catholic piety and canon law. But this page is a hot mess. I'm on it!  Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 12:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: This article should be re-titled

message: == Sedevacantist Catholic practice​ ==
This is a recent addition and it doesn't really belong. I can see a purpose for historical pre-"Vatican II" practices, but in this group isn't part of the Catholic practice. Why not include fasting practices for people who believe something else weird about the pope? Dominick (TALK) 11:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: This is a recent addition and it doesn't really belong. I can see a purpose for historical pre-"Vatican II" practices, but in this group isn't part of the Catholic practice. Why not include fasting practices for people who believe something else weird about the pope? Dominick (TALK) 11:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sedevacantist Catholic practice​