FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-06-2003, 03:22 PM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Twin Cities, USA
Posts: 3,197
Question The truth behind giving up meat for Lent?

Is it true that the reason Catholics give up red meat on Friday's for Lent is because Jesus "gave up his flesh" on a Friday (i.e. Good Friday)?
Bree is offline  
Old 03-06-2003, 03:51 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: las vegas, nevada
Posts: 670
Default

Don't know if this provides the answer as I've not read it, but here's a shot:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09152a.htm
themistocles is offline  
Old 03-06-2003, 04:23 PM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Augusta, Georgia, United States
Posts: 1,235
Default

I heard (take that for exactly what it's worth) that the reason to give up meat on Fridays was that during a time way later than Bible time (6th or 16th century, or somewhere in-between), the people in Italy were experiencing a time of great prosperity. They got to eat meat at every meal, and everyone was happy. Except the fishermen. They were broke. Everybody had meat, so no one had to "settle" for fish. So they beseeched their political and economic leader, the Pope, to help them out, and the Pope, by Papal decree, made it a sin to eat mean on Fridays. And they lived happily ever after. Except the vegetarians, who want us to believe that fish is meat.

Jen
Ensign Steve is offline  
Old 03-06-2003, 04:26 PM   #4
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by themistocles
Don't know if this provides the answer as I've not read it, but here's a shot:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09152a.htm
Fascinating.

Quote:
The passage of primary importance is one quoted by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., V, xxiv) from a letter of St. Irenaeus to Pope Victor in connection with the Easter controversy. There Irenaeus says that there is not only a controversy about the time of keeping Easter but also regarding the preliminary fast. "For", he continues, "some think they ought to fast for one day, others for two days, and others even for several, while others reckon forty hours both of day and night to their fast". He also urges that this variety of usage is of ancient date, which implies that there could have been no Apostolic tradition on the subject. Rufinus, who translated Eusebius into Latin towards the close of the fourth century, seems so to have punctuated this passage as to make Irenaeus say that some people fasted for forty days. Formerly some difference of opinion existed as to the proper reading, but modern criticism (e.g., in the edition of Schwartz commissioned by the Berlin Academy) pronounces strongly in favor of the text translated above.
So it's all based on a mistranslation of Eusebius?
Toto is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:03 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.