Fasting
FASTING
The author of the “Definitive Guide
to Catholic Fasting and Abstinence,”[1]
has a really odd take on legitimate fasting practices from the late 19th
and early 20th century. Mr. Plese even wrote an article on his blog calling
into question the traditionalism of Fr. Thomas Asher, SSPX, and St. Aloysius
Gonzaga Retreat Center because they wouldn’t accommodate his shellfish food
allergy but also wouldn’t adhere to “Pre-1962” fasting laws.[2]
Mr. Plese's notion of “pre-1962” fasting laws indirectly insinuates that Pius
XII enforced dangerous disciplines upon the Church. Even Bishop Sanborn and his Most Holy
Trinity Seminary, who adhere to the Cassiciacum Thesis and observe the pre-55
Liturgy, also observe the fasting laws for America from 1956-1958. The CMRI observe the discipline from this time as well. Also, Don Francesco Ricossa and the Instituto Mater Boni Consilii (IMBC) follow this line of observaiton. The 1917
Code of Canon Law allows the mitigations put in place in the mid-20th century.
And the relative standard adopted by the U.S. Bishops in America does not
violate nor contradict the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The Church’s discipline is a
part of the secondary object of infallibility. If you are going to claim that
these fasting mitigations are modernism then you have to implicate Pope Pius
XII in this. This is something that not even Sedes would do. Decrees of the
Holy See and Sacred Congregations approved by the Pope must be given internal
and religious assent. That is theologica certa.[3]
They want some sort of anchorite fast that has not been seen in over 500 years without even taking into consideration the milieu of reasons why the fasts were mitigated to begin with, and the fact that a good number of people today, because of sociological, physiological, and psychological reasons, could not do a fast like that. This view of fasting doesn’t even take into account:
- The debates theologians had between the absolute standard and relative standard when it comes to the quantity & quality of food for the fast.[4]
- Differences between cultures, i.e., Europeans eat less at breakfast and/or do not eat breakfast at all as compared to the American diet.
- Differences between climates and types of work.
- The physiological, sociological, and psychological development of human beings in the last 500 years.
The disciplines of the Church are for
EVERY Catholic. They must be accessible to EVERY SINGLE Catholic to obey. This
was the concern of moral theologians in the late 19th and early 20th
centuries. They saw that many Catholics were not partaking in the fast. And
moral theologians wanted everyone to be able to partake in the fast. And so a
slew of articles were written explaining that the fast could be observed by
everyone and explained in detail the mitigations and what could and could not
be done in observing fast and abstinence.
Now, does this justify what was done
to fasting laws post-Vatican II? Certainly not. And what happened to fasting
laws post Vatican II was the phenomena caused by the Modernists and liberals
infiltrating the hierarchy and church buildings and wreaking havoc by
abandoning pretty much everything and setting the bar so low which made it
obvious to all what their intentions were.
In fact, all the really grand
concessions and relaxations for fasting came after World War II. It started in
1949 with the wartime dispensations being granted universally and perpetually.
Then Pius XII curtailed this and made the fasting laws stricter. Then the
Eucharistic fast was relaxed, then a series of other relaxations which lead to
their culmination in the discipline which resulted in 1964 in the midst of the
IInd Vatican Council. The reason for this was explained somewhat by
Cardinal Ottaviani. His Eminence gave a lecture as to how Western Europe and
the United States recovered financially and to some extent politically after
World War II, but they hadn’t yet recovered psychologically from WWII.
Setting the fasting and abstinence
laws (within reason) so that everyone may partake in the fast does not have to
turn fasting into what it has become post-Vatican II and it does not have to
preclude those who are able to do more by observing stricter and more austere
fasts if it will be to the betterment of their spiritual life with the guidance
of a spiritual director. The answer of going back to the Middle Ages is
subjective historicism. Applying that on the practical level is extemely
difficult.
The early to mid 20th
century observance of - the main meal at 32 ounces, plus a frustulum of 2
ounces, and a collation of 8 ounces, with the allowance of milk and fruit
juices between meals, and meat taken Monday thru Thursday, is an observance
that most would not even be able to practice. Furthermore, American Moral
theologians in 1939, in answer to this, allowed a collation to be 16 ounces if
it was needed, basing this on St. Alsponsus Liguori. In 1951 the U.S. Bishops
adopted the Relative Standard for fasting. Hence, the frustulum can be 4 ounces
and the collation 12 ounces since that doesn't equal the one meal. Fr. Browne,
C.SS.R. noted that the absolute standard was introduced by St. Alphosus Liguori
to combat scrupulosity. And with the relative standard being adopted, more
people are able to do the fast. Mr. Plese wants to tell you that this isn't
traditional calling into question the reasoning of the Supreme Pontiffs and
their mitigations as if he himself has the authority of the Holy See.
I have seen this as a successful
endeavor. I have also seen it become a catastrophe, where a more severe
fast, like the one observed in the 13th century turned the individuals into
miserable curmudgeons with pride and disobedience issues. And the fast is
supposed to be accompanied with a certain amount of intentions as well as
mortification of the senses, and the mortification of the will. What about all
the mortifications which accompany fasting during the Lenten season? Penance is
usually what we are aiming at with fasting, prayer, almsgiving, and
mortification. But this has been disconnected with the subjective endeavor to
find the pinnacle of fasting laws from ages past.
This attitude can also be seen in their views on fasting which is mostly based on ascetics. They want some sort of anchorite fast that has not been seen in over 500 years without even taking into consideration the milieu of reasons why the fasts were mitigated to begin with, and the fact that a good number of people today, because of sociological, physiological, and psychological reasons, could not do a fast like that.
The author of this article has seen
this as a successful endeavor and he has also seen it become a catastrophe,
where a more severe fast, like the one observed in the 13th century
turned the individuals into miserable curmudgeons with pride and disobedience
issues. And the fast is supposed to be accompanied with a certain amount of
intentions as well as mortification of the senses, and the mortification of the
will. What about all the mortifications which accompany fasting during the
Lenten season? Penance is usually what we are aiming at with fasting, prayer,
almsgiving, and mortification. But this has been disconnected with the Recognize
& Resist school’s subjective endeavor to find the pinnacle of fasting laws
from ages past. So those pushing extreme fasts never mention this at all. Not a single time, it is just a matter of
pure ascetics. St. Bernard teaches us:
“During this Lent we must truly seek
with greater fervor that which is not just a part but is the entire mystery of
this whole season. Therefore if perhaps your zeal has somewhat abated during
recent days, it is fitting that you rekindle your fervor of spirit. If only the
belly has sinned, let it alone fast, and that will be enough; but it other
members have also sinned, why should they not fast as well? Let the eye fast
since it has ravaged the soul. Let the ear fast, the tongue, the hand, even the
soul itself. Let the eye fast from curious glances and from all wantonness,
that when well-humbled it may be brought to repentance, the eye that while free
wandered wickedly into sin. Let the ear fast that itches for tales and rumors
and whatever is idle and of no use for salvation. Let the tongue fast from
slander and grumbling, from fruitless, vain, and scurrilous words, and
sometimes, too, because of the importance of silence, even from the very things
that seem necessary. Let the hand fast from making useless signs and from all
work not explicitly commanded. But also, and much more, let the soul itself
fast from vices and from its own will. Without this kind of fast all the
rest is disagreeable to the Lord. As it is written, on your fast days do
what you want!”[5]
What is being done in regards to
securing the merit of the great Lenten Fast? Not to mention that we must ‘wash
our face and anoint our head,’[6]
meaning all this must be done in secret and not let anyone know that we are
fasting. The R&R trads pushing for the anchorite fasts of old are not
necessarily quiet about it. Humility must be the anchor of our fasting, which
would include an inclination and assent that the Church knows what it is doing
in its mitigations and that we do not assume a subjective authority and opine
that we know better. Fr. Hamon teaches us this lesson:
“Because without humility, all the
mortifications of Lent would be devoid of merit. The Pharisees fast, said Jesus
Christ in the gospel of yesterday; but as they do it in order to obtain the
esteem of men, they do it without any merit, and receive their recompense upon
earth. The reason is, because to esteem ourselves is to transgress against the
truth, which tells us that we are nothing; and because to desire to be esteemed
is to transgress against justice, which exclaims to us: To God alone be honor and
glory (I. Tim. i. 17), to us, confusion (Baruch i. 15). Now, lies and injustice
are incompatible with merit. It is, 2d, because without humility there is no
true penance. True penance has for its basis the feeling of our misery, or the
humiliation of the soul, which confessing itself to be guilty, recognized
itself to be bound to make all sorts of reparations and satisfactions to divine
justice. He who esteems himself may, like the Pharisee, perform exterior acts
of penance, and say, like him: “I fast twice in the week; I pay the tax on all
my goods;” but at bottom, this penance cannot please Him who sounds hearts, and
who takes delight only in truth. The Pharisee, notwithstanding his fasts, was
none the less held in execration by God, for the sole reason that he esteemed
himself and sought for the esteem and praise of others. Let us fear lest it may
be so with us; and in order to prevent this misfortune, let us begin Lent in a
spirit of humility.”[7]
The traditionalists of Recognize &
Resist School do not teach this in their campaign to bring back the fasting
laws from centuries ago. It’s an exercise of ascetics and subjective, pretended
authority of what they think the fasting laws should be instead of merely
adhering to the laws of fasting, before the modernist and liberal heretics
infiltrated the hierarchy and hijacked the buildings, thereby kick starting the
crisis in authority in which we now suffer. One can see how the attitude and modus
operandi of the R&R school affects fasting. It is resistance to
discipline which is a secondary object of infallibility, it is pride and
disobedience and complete inversion of the intentions and purposes of fasting
and the kind of outcome it is supposed to produce in the soul and spiritual
life of the individual. Reducing the argument to the idea: that ‘mitigations on
fasting were more about acquiescence than about mercy’ is not entirely true,
misses the point, and completely ignores, as well as eschews the history of
mitigations in fasting. And they want to impinge the ancient fasts upon
everybody? Even if one did not deny outright the disciplines (laws of
fasting & abstinence) of the Supreme Pontiff but instead openly and
publicly scoffed at them, this would be aurium piarum offensiva to
faithful Catholics and disrupt the peace and tranquility of Christendom, as
well as mock filial obedience to the Supreme Pontiff which is due to him. Most
would say that a happy via media would be what the fasting laws were in
the late 19th and early 20th centuries. For the United
States that would be what the Council of Baltimore prescribed. And one may use
reason to suggest that this is where a future Pope, who restores everything
back to normal, would set it at. However, pushing it back to the 5th
or 13th century is unrealistic given the four reasons stated above
and would result in dangerous consequences with the majority of the Catholic
population being unable to fast.
[1] https://angeluspress.org/products/definitive-guide-to-catholic-fasting-and-abstinence
[2]
https://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2019/10/turned-away-from-sspx-retreat-for.html
[3] Cf. Fr. Joachim Salaverri, The Church of
Christ, De ecclesia.
[4] “The present regulations adopt the relative
norm of Fast, because experience shows that, according to this norm it is
possible for more persons to fast, whereas, according to the old absolute
norm of 2 and 8 ounces respectively, most persons cannot fast. This
relative norm is not contrary to the Code, and was in use in many places
in Europe before St. Alphonsus Liguori introduced the absolute norm as a
preventive of scrupulosity.” – Andrew F. Browne, C.SS.R., “Handbook of Notes on
Theology, 1962, pg.97.
[5] Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermons for
Lent and the Easter Season, Translated by Irene Edmonds; Edited by John
Leinenweber and Mark Scott, OCSO, pg. 38, Cistercian Fathers Series, No. 52. Emphasis
added in the quote.
[6] Cf. Matthew. VI. 17.
[7] Rev. Fr. M. Hamon, S.S., Meditations For
All The Days of the Year, For the Use of Priests, Religious, and the Faithful,
Vol. 2, pg. 108-109. Third Edition, Benzinger Brothers, 1894.
Comments
Post a Comment