Lenten Observance - Fasting and Abstinence

RaeBeeBaby

Hi all!
My husband and I had an indulgent Fat Tuesday at our favorite Mexican restaurant last night. Carne Asada, Fajitas and Coronas were greatly enjoyed! Today is Ash Wednesday and the beginning of a period of fasting, abstinence and mindful reflection in preparation for Easter.

This year I am going to observe the traditional Catholic fasting and abstinence for Ash Wednesday and all the Fridays during Lent including Good Friday. I thought I'd share my plan and hope to hear what others are doing, as well. For me this means:

No meat on those days (fish is acceptable)
2 small meals and 1 larger meal with no snacks

I've already discovered that the fasting part is difficult. I'm a grazer and I normally eat 5 or more times a day. I also nibble and taste while I'm preparing food. (I do keep track and try to log all those bites throughout the day.)

For the fasting days the two smaller meals are not supposed to equal greater than the larger meal. That's a little hard to determine, so I decided to go by calories rather than portions. I'm also trying to still eat healthy meals although I know the calories are lower than normal by intention.

Here's my menu for today:

Breakfast: (150 cals)
1 scrambled egg
1/2 cup asparagus
1/2 cup chopped green and red peppers
1 cup of coffee w/ almond milk creamer

Lunch: (125 cals)
1/2 cup skinny tuna salad (albacore, celery, egg whites, pickles, plain low-fat Greek yogurt)
1/4 cup lowfat cottage cheese
3 cups iceburg lettuce
1 roma tomato

Dinner: (305 cals)
4 oz baked halibut
1/2 cup lemon rice
10 stalks roasted asparagus

I am also abstaining from alcohol during the Lenten period. Although weight-loss is not my main motivation, previous experience has shown to have a very positive outcome on the scale!

I would love to hear if others still observe this tradition and what do you abstain from during Lent? Do you do the traditional fasting? What do you eat on those days?

littlechiaseed

Why is fish acceptable? I grew up catholic but my mom could never give me a clear answer as to why fish didn't count as meat?

RaeBeeBaby

littlechiaseed wrote: »

Why is fish acceptable? I grew up catholic but my mom could never give me a clear answer as to why fish didn't count as meat?

There's a lot of different theories about this. One I've read is that meat from a land-locked animal like beef or poultry was very expensive and considered a decadent luxury during Biblical times. However, fish was cheap and easy to acquire by catching it yourself. Therefore, giving up meat was considered much more of a sacrifice than fish.

SuzySunshine99

RaeBeeBaby wrote: »

littlechiaseed wrote: »

Why is fish acceptable? I grew up catholic but my mom could never give me a clear answer as to why fish didn't count as meat?

There's a lot of different theories about this. One I've read is that meat from a land-locked animal like beef or poultry was very expensive and considered a decadent luxury during Biblical times. However, fish was cheap and easy to acquire by catching it yourself. Therefore, giving up meat was considered much more of a sacrifice than fish.

The history is a little sketchy, but it seems this tradition started in the Middle Ages, not biblical times. There is a theory that the fishermans lobby petitioned the Pope at the time to make this rule.

cwolfman13

littlechiaseed wrote: »

Why is fish acceptable? I grew up catholic but my mom could never give me a clear answer as to why fish didn't count as meat?

Fasting was instituted by the Church in order to bridle the concupiscences of the flesh, which regard pleasures of touch in connection with food and sex. Wherefore the Church forbade those who fast to partake of those foods which both afford most pleasure to the palate, and besides are a very great incentive to lust. Such are the flesh of animals that take their rest on the earth, and of those that breathe the air and their products.

For, since such like animals are more like man in body, they afford greater pleasure as food, and greater nourishment to the human body, so that from their consumption there results a greater surplus available for seminal matter, which when abundant becomes a great incentive to lust. Hence the Church has bidden those who fast to abstain especially from these foods.

~ St. Thomas Aquinas

All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

~First Corinthians 15:39

Jruzer

cwolfman13 wrote: »

littlechiaseed wrote: »

Why is fish acceptable? I grew up catholic but my mom could never give me a clear answer as to why fish didn't count as meat?

Fasting was instituted by the Church in order to bridle the concupiscences of the flesh, which regard pleasures of touch in connection with food and sex. Wherefore the Church forbade those who fast to partake of those foods which both afford most pleasure to the palate, and besides are a very great incentive to lust. Such are the flesh of animals that take their rest on the earth, and of those that breathe the air and their products.

For, since such like animals are more like man in body, they afford greater pleasure as food, and greater nourishment to the human body, so that from their consumption there results a greater surplus available for seminal matter, which when abundant becomes a great incentive to lust. Hence the Church has bidden those who fast to abstain especially from these foods.

~ St. Thomas Aquinas

All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

~First Corinthians 15:39

Yes. In English we use the word "meat" to refer to all animal bodies, but in Latin the word is "caro". Fish is not included in "caro".

RaeBeeBaby

We are certainly able to eat fish, because the Lord accepted one after the resurrection. Neither the savior nor the apostles have forbidden this.

St. Isidore of Seville 560-636 AD

Jruzer

We follow the precepts that the church lays out.

We are having buttered noodles with homemade croutons tonight. I had a Kind bar during the day.

I am giving up eating after dinner. This is a physical pleasure I've come to enjoy too much. I will spend some time each evening doing spiritual reading instead.

lemurcat12

littlechiaseed wrote: »

Why is fish acceptable? I grew up catholic but my mom could never give me a clear answer as to why fish didn't count as meat?

Latin. The rules are to abstain from "carnem" (or whatever), essentially a word for flesh that did not include fish. That fish wasn't seen as luxurious, expensive food and meat was during a large part of history in relevant areas was probably important too.

stubbysticks

I'm following the same guidelines, but why are your calories so low if you're not trying to lose weight? Quite frankly, even if you were trying to lose weight, that's excessively low. I'm going with 250-500 calories for breakfast/dinner then 500-1000 for dinner. I have a lot of weight to lose so my weight loss target is pretty high & I'm keeping the ranges pretty broad since eating mostly vegetarian is new for me <--- that will be the real challenge. I'm not much of a snacker so the light meals during the day isn't terribly difficult, but the discipline of trying to stay on track with two weekends of travel coming up will be hard! I'll be spending a lot of time reading/praying to stick to the plan.

stubbysticks

Also wanted to share a resource I discovered last year since that was the first time I ever observed Lent "for real": http://onlineministries.creighton.edu/CollaborativeMinistry/Lent/ I enjoy the daily readings. I print them out for the week & carry it (& my bible) around with me to read whenever I feel tempted to go off-plan.

lemurcat12

Re: "why are your calories so low": One day has nothing to do with weight loss. I like to do a full fast, because I find it useful (and actually do like the idea of the more difficult to live by Lenten rules of the past -- for the same reason I usually go vegetarian during Lent as well as doing some other sacrifice and try to just eat/live a bit more simply), but fasting/sacrifice during Lent for me isn't related to weight at all and when I was really actively losing weight I chose not to do a food-related observation for that reason; it would have been too hard to keep them separated in my head. Not saying that's the only right approach, though, just what makes sense for me.

But as I understand the current Catholic requirement for a fasting day it's no more than one regular meal and then two snacks that don't add up to as much as one regular meal, and I think that's what the OP is talking about, not a way of eating every day. (I just realized you might think she meant for every day.)

zyxst

I haven't observed Lenten traditions since I turned 18 and wasn't forced to go to church every week. I understand and accept those who follow it, but it didn't work out for me.

RaeBeeBaby

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Re: "why are your calories so low": One day has nothing to do with weight loss. I like to do a full fast, because I find it useful (and actually do like the idea of the more difficult to live by Lenten rules of the past -- for the same reason I usually go vegetarian during Lent as well as doing some other sacrifice and try to just eat/live a bit more simply), but fasting/sacrifice during Lent for me isn't related to weight at all and when I was really actively losing weight I chose not to do a food-related observation for that reason; it would have been too hard to keep them separated in my head. Not saying that's the only right approach, though, just what makes sense for me.

But as I understand the current Catholic requirement for a fasting day it's no more than one regular meal and then two snacks that don't add up to as much as one regular meal, and I think that's what the OP is talking about, not a way of eating every day. (I just realized you might think she meant for every day.)

This is correct! I have no intention of eating this low of calories every day! I just wanted to observe the traditional fast today, and also will do so on Good Friday this Lent. This has more to do with practicing self-sacrifice and letting go of overindulgence, if only just for a day or two.

I have done lots of different practices for Lenten observance in the past. I've given up chocolate, coffee and alcohol at various times. Many years I did nothing more than abstain from eating meat on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday (a family tradition). Last year I resolved to mindfully let go of worry and anxiety and to reach out to someone each week with whom I had lost contact over time.

I was just interested to hear if others are observing similar traditions and how.

RaeBeeBaby

@lemurcat12 - when you say a "full fast" do you mean not eating at all for a day? I have read that fasting in various religions meant either not eating at all or not eating until after sundown (or variations on that theme).

Gisel2015

No, I don't follow Lent or fasting traditions. Although I was raised catholic and I went to "nun's school," my parents never allowed fasting in the house. Fish on Friday's was the only tradition that they followed (I don't).

I respect people's choices but it is just not for me. I never quite understood the reason for it. Oh boy, I am probably dammed for eternity.

daworley

My family practices traditional US Catholic observances during Lent. Today has been tough - we just don't eat a lot on any day, any more, but we made it! Although we abstain from meat on Ash Wednesday and Fridays, I don't find it a sacrifice as we love meatless meals! I do consider Lent as a holy time of personal renewal and time I gain strength in the personal commitments in my life including those commitments to my overall health.

RaeBeeBaby

Well, I found the fasting part of today to be difficult, as well. We eat a lot of vegetarian meals, but refraining from snacking was the tough one for me. I had to be very mindful about it. I also have new admiration for those pious people of yesteryear who fasted every day during Lent and many other times throughout the year. I bet none of them were overweight!

Going to bed a little hungry for the first time in I can't remember when!

lemurcat12

RaeBeeBaby wrote: »

@lemurcat12 - when you say a "full fast" do you mean not eating at all for a day? I have read that fasting in various religions meant either not eating at all or not eating until after sundown (or variations on that theme).

Yeah, not eating at all. (I'm Catholic, btw, so it's not religiously required, but recognized as something that can be beneficial, and was historically much more common. I only do that on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.)

annacole94

I'm a lapsed Catholic, but my boss is a Muslim who observes Ramadan. I admire his fortitude. Particularly as Ramadan has fallen in the summer for the last few years, so it's no food until about 10 pm, and then no food after about 4 am.

Good luck with your mindfulness and observance.

RaeBeeBaby

lemurcat12 wrote: »

RaeBeeBaby wrote: »

@lemurcat12 - when you say a "full fast" do you mean not eating at all for a day? I have read that fasting in various religions meant either not eating at all or not eating until after sundown (or variations on that theme).

Yeah, not eating at all. (I'm Catholic, btw, so it's not religiously required, but recognized as something that can be beneficial, and was historically much more common. I only do that on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.)

As I've been reading more about fasting in general it seems many of the religions, particularly Latin Catholics, loosened their requirements for fasting primarily because many people were not following the stricter dictates. Apparently, there are even special looser rules for American Catholics? I was raised Catholic and I remember my parents always gave up something for Lent and encouraged us to do it, as well. We followed the no meat on Fridays rule, but they never wanted us to fast (although I think they did). I admire your commitment to an entire day. I found it tough to just fast in the regular way and am really looking forward to break(ing)fast this morning.

I saw your post on another thread about Lent (about MFP potentially deleting all Lent related threads). While I understand MFP has to have rules, I don't think there is anything objectionable about discussing religious practices as they relate to food consumption. Food intake or restrictions has been part of religious life for millennia. I find the discussion highly educational.

lemurcat12

RaeBeeBaby wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

RaeBeeBaby wrote: »

@lemurcat12 - when you say a "full fast" do you mean not eating at all for a day? I have read that fasting in various religions meant either not eating at all or not eating until after sundown (or variations on that theme).

Yeah, not eating at all. (I'm Catholic, btw, so it's not religiously required, but recognized as something that can be beneficial, and was historically much more common. I only do that on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.)

As I've been reading more about fasting in general it seems many of the religions, particularly Latin Catholics, loosened their requirements for fasting primarily because many people were not following the stricter dictates. Apparently, there are even special looser rules for American Catholics?

I don't know that US rules are looser vs. non US Catholics. I'd be curious. Certainly possible.

Our (USCCB) Lenten rules for fasting are the one meal plus two other meals that add up to less than one full meal, and no meat. Plus, no meat (but fish is okay) on Friday (note: I think it's funny that people often see this as you are supposed to have fish on Fridays vs. fish being okay -- probably a leftover from the idea of a meal with no meat being troubling, which my parents had until recently, although they eat a lot of fish). We always gave up something else too, although I think that's common among many besides Catholics too. Many of my non Catholic friends would do it. Broader requirement is to focus on prayer, alms giving, and fasting, of course (with fasting meaning fasting from something you would normally do/eat/etc.). Increasingly people seem to like the idea of adding something in vs. cutting something out (the sacrifice being time). I like that idea, but think (for me, anyway) there's something to the idea of giving something up too, and that it's apparently counter-cultural in that many seem to think it's silly or overly rule-based or old-fashioned I think it's worth keeping or at least taking seriously and thinking about. That's actually how I came around on fasting too.

I saw your post on another thread about Lent (about MFP potentially deleting all Lent related threads). While I understand MFP has to have rules, I don't think there is anything objectionable about discussing religious practices as they relate to food consumption. Food intake or restrictions has been part of religious life for millennia. I find the discussion highly educational.

Oh, I agree, which is why I always end up participating in these! ;-)

BoxerBrawler

Born and raised Catholic. I don't follow that tradition because I believe it's a man-made one. (my) God loves me and created my body to function in a certain way and at a certain level when properly nourished, not with holding important nutrients. I do my own sort of observance but I don't do it for a few weeks in preparation of Easter, I do it every day! Anyway... like my Nanna used to say with regard to Lent... "It's not what goes into your mouth that counts, it's what comes out"!