Abstinence
Introduction.-The whole of morality on its negative side may be included under Abstinence. Christian moral progress (sanctification) includes a holding fast () of the good, and an abstaining from () every form of evil (1Th 5:21 f.). While Christianity has general laws to distinguish the good from the bad, yet for each individual Christian these laws are focused in the conscience, and the function of the latter is to discriminate between the good and the bad-it cannot devolve this duty on outward rules. With it the ultimate decision rests, and on it also lies the responsibility (Rom 14:5, Heb 5:14). The lists of vices and virtues,* [Note: See Dobschtz, Christian Life in the Primitive Church, Eng. tr., 1904, p. 406ff., for lists.] of works of the flesh and fruits of the spirit, given in the NT are not meant to be exhaustive, but typical; nor are they given to make needless the exercise of Christian discernment. The NT is not afraid to place in the Christian conscience the decision of what is to be abstained from and what is not, because it believes in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and because it exalts personal responsibility. It is necessary to make this clear, because, as we shall see, the ultimate tribunal of appeal in matters of abstinence in the ordinary sense (i.e. in the sphere of things indifferent) is the Christian conscience. The ideal of Christian conduct is sometimes said to be self-realization, not self-suppression; consecration, not renunciation. These antitheses are apt to be misleading. In the self with which Christianity deals there are sinful elements that have to be extirpated. Christian sanctification takes place not in innocent men, but in sinners who have to be cleansed from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit (2Co 7:1). To purify oneself (1Jn 3:3) is not simply to realize oneself; it is to do no sin.
In all moral conduct there is suppression; in Christian conduct there is extirpation. This negative side of Christian conduct is abstinence. It is the crucifying of the flesh-death unto sin-and it is the correlative of living to righteousness, being risen with Christ, etc. Abstinence in this sense is an essential and ever-present moment in the Christian life.
More narrowly interpreted, abstinence is a refraining from certain outward actions-as eating, drinking, worldly business, marriage, etc. It is thus applied to outward conduct, while continence () is used of inward self-restraint. Cicero makes this distinction, though, from the nature of the case, he cannot always consistently apply it (see Lewis and Short, Lat. Dict., s.v. Abstinentia).
We may look first at the outward side of abstinence, and then try to find out what the Christian principles are (as these are unfolded in the apostolic writings) that determine its nature and its limits.
I. Ascetic practices
1. Fasting
(a) Fasting, or abstinence from food and drink, may be unavoidable or involuntary (e.g. Act 27:21-22, 1Co 4:11, 2Co 6:5* [Note: See Dobschtz, Christian Life in the Primitive Church, Eng. tr., 1904, p. 406ff., for lists.] 2Co 11:27,* [Note: These are sometimes explained as voluntary fasts-to use Hookers expression. (Ecc. Pol. v. 72. 8)-but the contexts seem decisive against that view.] Php 4:12). Such fastings have a religious value only indirectly. They may overtake the apostate as well as the apostle. If they are caused by devotion to Christian service, they are, like all other privations so caused, badges of fidelity; and they may be referred to with reasonable pride by Christs ministers (2Co 6:4 f.; 2Co 11:23). They ought to silence criticism (cf. Gal 6:17, where St. Paul speaks of his bruises as ), and they enforce Christian exhortation (Col 4:18, Eph 4:1). On the principle that he who chooses the end chooses the means, such fastings are real proofs of fidelity to Christ. They are like the scars of the true soldier.
(b) An absorbing pre-occupation with any pursuit may be the cause of fasting. The artist or the scientist may forget to take food, in the intensity of his application to his work; or any great emotion like sorrow may make one forget to take bread. Such a fast we have in Act 9:9, where St. Paul, we are told, was without food for three days after his conversion. As Jesus fasted in the wilderness (Mat 4:1-11), or at the well forgot His hunger (Joh 4:31 f.), so the ferment of the new life acted on St. Paul thus also. Fasting is not the cause of such pre-occupation, but the effect; and so its value depends on the nature of the emotion causing it. [Note: This was probably what Jesus had in view in the saying in Mat 9:15.] Such involuntary privations, however, are not fasting in the proper sense. In themselves they are morally indifferent, as they may overtake any one irrespective of moral conditions; but, when borne bravely and contentedly in the line of Christian duty, they are not only indications of true faith, but in turn they strengthen that faith (Rom 5:3-5, Php 4:11).
(c) Real fasting is purposive and voluntary. It is a total or partial abstinence from food for an unusual period, or from certain foods always or at certain times, for a moral or religious end. Such a fast is mentioned in Act 13:2-3; Act 14:23 in connexion with ordination. It is associated with prayer. Some hold that it was the form to be permanently observed in such cases (Ramsay, St. Paul, 1895, p. 122). There is no mention, however, of fasting at the appointment of Matthias (Act 1:24), or of the seven (Act 6:6). We cannot, therefore, take it as inherently binding on Christian Churches at such solemnities. It is rather the survival of ancient religious practices (like the fasting on the Day of Atonement), which on the occasions referred to were adopted through the force of custom, and served to solemnize the proceedings. The Atonement fast (Act 27:9) is mentioned only as a time limit after which navigation was dangerous. It is not said that St. Paul fasted on that day, though probably he did.
These Jewish survivals wore conserved without investigation by the Palestinian Church, though, after what Jesus had said on fasting, we may believe that the spiritual condition of the believer, rather than the performance of the outward rite, would be the essential element. Pharisaism, however, follows so closely on the heels of ritual that in some quarters it very early infuenced Christianity (cf. Did. i. 3: Fast for those who persecute you; and Epiph. Haer. lxx. 11: When they [i.e. the Jews] feast, ye shall fast and mourn for them; cf. also Polycarp, vii. 2; Hermas, Vis. iii 10. 6; and, in the same connexion, the Interpolations in the NT [Mat 17:21, Mar 9:29, Act 10:30, 1Co 7:5]). Even the Pharisaic custom of fasting twice a week (Monday and Thursday) was adopted in some quarters, though these days were changed to Wednesday and Friday (Did. viii. 1). These are the later dies stationum or (cf. Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. 12, p. 877). See Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics v. 844b.
To evaluate the practice of fasting, we must look to the end aimed at and the efficacy of this means to attain that end. (1) In many cases it would be mainly a matter of tradition. On any eventful occasion men might practise fasting, to ratify a decision or induce solemnity, as those Jews did who vowed to kill St. Paul (Act 23:12). Under such a category would fall the Paschal and pre-baptismal fasts. Though not mentioned in the NT, they were early practised in the Christian Church (Eus. HE [Note: E Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.).] Act 23:24; Did. vii.; Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 61). There can be no doubt that ordination and baptismal and Paschal fasts may serve to solemnize these events, yet there is no warrant for making them an ecclesiastical rule. In such traditional fasting there is often, consciously or unconsciously, implicated the feeling that God is thereby pleased and merit acquired, and the result in such cases is Pharisaic complacency and externalism. Jesus, following the great prophets (Isa 58:5-7, Zec 8:19), had relegated outward rites to a secondary place. He demanded secrecy, sincerity, and simplicity in all these matters, and the Apostolic Church never wholly lost sight of His guidance. St. James, while emphasizing the value of prayer (Jam 5:17-20), says nothing of fasting, and he makes real ritual consist in works of mercy and blameless conduct (Jam 1:27). Even when fasting was enjoined, the danger of externalism was recognized (Hermas, Sim. v. 1; Barn. ii. 10; Justin Martyr, Dial. 15). St. Paul had to prove that such fastings could not be redemptively of any value, that they were not binding, that they did not place the observer of them on a higher spiritual plane than the non-observer, that even as means of discipline they were of doubtful value, and that they were perpetually liable to abuse (Col 2:20 ff.).
(2) Fastings were used in certain cases to induce ecstatic conditions. This is a well-known feature in apocalyptic writings. Perhaps the Colossian heretics did this (cf. , Col 2:18). St. John and the other Apostles with him are said to have fasted three days before writing the Fourth Gospel (Muratorian fragment). The Apocalypse, however, though a (vision), is lacking in the usual accompaniments of a vision, viz. prayer and fasting (contrast Hermas, Sim. v. 1). St. Peters vision (Act 10:9-16) was preceded by hunger, but it was not a voluntary fast; nor is there any reference to fasting in the case of St. Pauls visions (Act 16:9; Act 18:9 f., 2Co 12:1 f.), and the reference in the case of Cornelius (Act 10:30) is a later interpolation. It was more when direct prophetic inspiration became a memory rather than when it was a reality that men resorted to fasting in order to superinduce it.
(3) Fasting was resorted to also that alms might be given out of the savings.
If there is among them a man that is poor and needy, and they have not an abundance of necessaries, they fast for two or three days, that they may supply the needy with necessary food (Aristides, Apology, xv.). Cf. also Hermas, Sim. v. 3. 7: Reckon up on this day what thy meal would otherwise have cost thee, and give the amount to some poor widow or orphan, or to the poor.
Origen (hom. in Leviticus 10) quotes an apostolic saying which supports this practice:
We have found in a certain booklet an apostolic saying, Blessed is also he who fasts that he may feed the poor (Invenimus hi quodam libello ab apostolis dictum-Beatus eat qui etiam jejunat pro eo ut alat pauperem).
This saying might legitimately be deduced from such passages as Eph 4:28 and Jam 2:16, but the practice easily associated itself with the idea of fasting as a work of merit.
More powerful than prayer is fasting, and more than both alms. Alms abolish sins (2 Clem. xvi. 4; cf. Hermas, Sim. v. 3).
Fasting done out of Christian love to the brethren is noble; but, when done to gain salvation, it becomes not only profitless but dangerous. Though I give all my goods to feed the poor and have not love, it profiteth me nothing (1Co 13:3).
(4) Again, fasting may have been viewed as giving power over demons (cf. Clem. Hom. ix. 9; Tertullian, de Jejuniis, 8: Docuit etiam adversus diriora demonia jejuniis praeliandum; cf. Mat 17:21, Mar 9:29). Some find this view in the narrative of the Temptation (see Encyclopaedia Biblica , article Temptation). This view of fasting, grotesque as it appears to us, is akin to the truth that surfeiting of the body dulls the spiritual vision, and that the spiritual life is a rigorous discipline (cf. 1Co 9:24-27).
What strikes one in the apostolic writings generally, as contrasted with later ecclesiastical literature, is the scarcity of references to fasting as an outward observance. Nowhere is the traditional Church ascetic held up to imitation in the NT, as Eusebius (HE [Note: E Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.).] ii. 23) holds up St. James, or Clement of Alexandria (Paed. ii. 1) St. Matthew, or the Clem. Hom. (xii. 6, xv. 7) St. Peter, or Epiphanius (Haer. lxxviii. 13) the sons of Zebedee.
In the NT the references to fasting are almost all incidental, and apologetic or hostile. It is regarded as due to weakness of faith, or positive perversion. Neither St. John, St. James, St. Jude, nor St. Peter once mentions it as a means of grace. This silence, it is true, ought not to be unduly pressed; yet it is surely a proof that they considered fasting as of no essential importance. Its revival in the Christian Church was due to traditionalism and legalism on the one hand, and to ascetic dualism (Orphic, Platonic, Essenic) on the other. In the NT the latter influence is strenuously opposed (Colossians and Pastorals), and the former is as vigorously rejected when it makes itself necessary to salvation, although it is tenderly treated when it is only a weak leaning towards old associations. The whole spirit of apostolic Christianity regards fasting as of little or no importance, and the experience of the Christian Church seems to be that any value it may have is infinitesimal compared with the evils and perversions that seem so inseparably associated with it. According to Eusebius (HE [Note: E Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.).] v. 18), Montanus was the first to give laws to the Church on fasting. The NT is altogether opposed to such ecclesiastical laws. The matter is one for the individual Christian intelligence to determine (Rom 14:5).
St. Pauls language in 1Co 9:24 ff. has been adduced in support of self-torture of all kinds; but, while we must not minimize the reality of Christian discipline, nothing can be legitimately deduced from this passage or any other in favour of fasting or flagellation as a general means of sanctification, nor is the Apostles view based on a dualism which looks on matter and the human body as inherently evil. It may be said that interpolations like 1Co 7:5 (cf. Act 10:30, Mat 17:21, Mar 9:29) reveal the beginnings of that ascetic resurgence which reached its climax in monastic austerities, and that there is at least a tinge of ascetic dualism in certain Pauline passages (e.g. Rom 8:13, 1Co 5:5; 1Co 7:1-8; 1Co 9:27, 2Co 4:10-11, Col 3:5); but even those who hold this view of these Pauline passages admit that there is very little asceticism, in the ordinary sense, in St. Pauls Epistles, while there is much that makes in the opposite direction (McGiffert, Apostol. Age, 1897, p. 136). We shall see, however, when we come to deal with the principles of abstinence as unfolded by St. Paul, that even this minimum residuum has to be dropped.
We may conclude, then, that, according to the NT, fasting is not enjoined or even recommended as a spiritual help. The ideal is life with the Risen Christ, which involves not only total renunciation of all sinful actions but self-restraint in all conduct. When the individual Christian finds fasting to be a part of this self-restraint, then it is useful; but one fails to find any proof in the NT that fasting is necessarily an element of self-restraint. When it is an effect of an absorbing spiritual emotion, or when practised to aid the poor, or involuntarily undergone in the straits of Christian duty, then it is highly commendable.
2. The use of wine.-While drunkenness as well as gluttony is sternly condemned, nowhere is total abstinence, in our sense, enforced. In one passage it has even been contended that St. Paul indirectly opposes it (1Ti 5:23), but his words in our time would be simply equivalent to medical advice to the effect that total abstinence as a principle must be subordinated to bodily health. Thus, while total abstinence is in itself not an obligatory duty, it may become so on the principle that we ought not to do anything by which our brother stumbles, or is offended, or is made weak (1Co 8:13). This principle, which is equally applicable to fasting, must be considered in deciding the Christian attitude towards all outward observances. While Christianity recognizes the indifferent nature of these customs, while its liberty frees Christians from their observance, yet cases may arise when this liberty has to be subordinated to love and the interests of Christian unity. In 1 Corinthians 8 the Apostle is dealing with the conditions of his own time; our conditions did not engage his attention. Christian abstainers can find an adequate defence for their position in the degrading associations of strong drink in our modern life. On the other band, total abstinence from strong drink is no more a universally binding duty than fasting is, nor are ecclesiastical rules called for in the one case more than in the other.* [Note: The water-folk found in the Eastern Church in the 3rd cent. (who objected to wine at the Lords Supper), cannot appeal to NT principles for a justification of their actions.] Both these customs fall within the sphere of things indifferent, and are to be determined by the individual in the light of the nature of the Christian life, which is neither meat nor drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost (Rom 14:17).
3. Marriage and celibacy.-We are not here concerned with the NT doctrine of marriage (q.v. [Note: quod vide, which see.] ) in its totality, but with the question as to whether celibacy is commanded as a superior grade of living, and as to whether this is based on a dualistic view which regards the sexual functions as in their very nature evil. To begin with, marriage is viewed by St. Paul as being in general a human necessity, as indeed a preventive against incontinency. It is a port of his greatness that, in spite of his own somewhat ascetic temperament, he was not blind to social and physiological facts (Drummond, quoted in Expositors Greek Testament on 1Th 4:4). He recommends those who can to remain single as he is himself. In view of the approaching world-end in which he believed, marriage meant the multiplication of troubles that would make fidelity to Christ more difficult; and perhaps in this light also the propagation of the race was undesirable. It is possible also that he may have been here influenced unconsciously by his Rabbinical training, and that he interpreted his own case as too generally applicable. He was a celibate for the Kingdom of Heavens sake (Mat 19:10-12), and he may have made the mistake of desiring to universalize his own exceptional case.
Yet there is no ground for the view that celibacy in itself is a superior form of life.* [Note: Harnack (on Did. xi. 8) thinks Eph 5:32 recommends celibacy as a higher life for the Christian. See, however, Schaff, The Oldest Church Manual, 1885, p. 202.] St. Paul does not say that it can produce that life or is necessary to it, but when it is a consequence of it, then it is of value. It is the supremacy of single-hearted devotion to Christ that ho holds out as an ideal, and his view is that in some cases marriage endangers this. Again, marriage is not to him simply a preventive against uncleanness (see article Soberness). It is also the object of sanctification, and its relations have their own honour (1Th 4:4; see Marriage, Virginity). He uses it as an illustration of the highest relationship; he opposes those who prohibit it (1Ti 4:2) owing to a false asceticism. It is true he does not there give reasons, as he does in the case of abstinence from food, because the same principle applies to both cases, While, then, we may admit that on this question his view was narrow, we may say with Sabatier (The Apostle Paul, Eng. translation , 1891, p. 164) that this narrowness, for which he has been so greatly blamed, does not arise from a dualistic asceticism. There is no dualism to be found in Pauls doctrine.
4. World-flight is not encouraged in the NT. Slaves even are warned to abide in their situations, knowing that they are Gods freemen (see article Abuse). The necessity of labour is unfolded in the Thessalonian Epistles, against the practice of those who had given up work under eschatological influences. World-flight is not conquering the world, but rather giving up the idea of conquering it, abandoning the battlefield, and, as such, is contrary to the apostolic view. St. Paul did not, it is true, expatiate after the manner of modern moralists on the dignity of labour, [Note: See Harnacks What is Christianity? (Eng. tr., 1904, p 123ff.) for remarks qualifying the idea underlying the phrase, the dignity of labour.] but he did insist on the divineness of those obligations and ties which constitute mans social life. The institutions of society-marriage, the state, the rights of possession-are of Divine appointment, and must be upheld and honoured, however short the time before the order to which they belong shall pass away forever (Stevens, Theol, of NT, 1899, p. 454).
II. Ascetic principles.-Abstinence is wider than fasting or outward observances; it implies principles by which these external actions are determined, and it keeps in view also the inner reality of which they are the expression. It includes character as well as conduct. Indeed, it is this inward reality which is mainly of value in the Christian ideal of abstinence.
1. The verb occurs only once in the NT (Act 24:16), in this sense of a life whose activities ore explained, in the way both of omission and commission, by an inner principle. St. Paul was accused of deliberately offending Jewish legal susceptibilities. He denies the charge. While he adheres to the heresy of the Way, he does so without intentionally coming into collision with the customs or prejudices of others. Not only so, but his plan is a studied attempt to conform to all customs of Jew and Gentile, of weak and strong, consistently with his faithfulness to God and his being under law to Christ. This is his for the gospels sake (1Co 9:19-22). His whole life is an illustration of this. He yielded to Jewish susceptibilities (Act 16:3; Act 18:18; Act 21:26), and bore with Gentile immaturity (1Th 2:7-12). This conduct was not due to fickleness or guile (1Co 2:15, 1Th 2:3), but to love (2Co 5:13 f.), and it was done in simplicity and godly sincerity of conscience (2Co 1:12, Act 24:16). It was different from the loveless superior liberty of Corinthian liberalism, and from the servile man-pleasing of weak Judaism (Gal 1:2). It was, in short, a reproduction of that of self (so different from selfish human acquisitiveness) which was the great feature of the life of Christ (Php 2:8).
To St. Paul this involved very real asceticism. In striking language he figures himself as in the course of his Christian race undergoing privations, abstinences, and self-discipline as great as any runner for the Isthmian prize or as any pugilist. It is not simply that this asceticism involved abstinence from sin-Christianity demands that from all; it involved also the giving up of privileges and rights, and the denial to self of anything that would hinder his being sure of the prize or that would weaken others or cause them to stumble. It is a warning to Christian liberalism in Corinth not to degenerate into licence and so to fall. Christian asceticism is the remedy against this. We are not to infer that St. Paul practised bodily torture, that he went, as it were, out of his way to invent austerities, self-imposed fastings, or flagellations. What he refers to here is the effect on his whole life of his absorbing passion for mens salvation. That was the expulsive power which made him an ascetic in this sense, which made him abnegate his rights of maintenance at Thessalonica and Corinth, which made him work at night though preaching through the day, which overcame his bodily weaknesses, which brought him into dangers by land and sea without being deterred by the fear of pain or privation.
Nor was this of his a superior form of life which was binding only on a few choice souls. St. Paul has no double morality. No one can empty himself too much for Christ or endure too much for Him. In this way must we explain the manifold passages where the Christian life is compared to a race, to an athletic contest, to military life and warfare. Just as these involve abstinence, so also does Christianity. This asceticism is, however, not arbitrarily imposed or cunningly invented; it is the consequence of fidelity to Christs cause. It arises out of the very nature of the Christian life. Its outward manifestation is accidental. What is essential is the presence of the self-denying spirit, which spends and is spent willingly out of love to Christ. It is a complete perversion to suppose that outward austerities can create this spirit. Outward hardships of any sort must be effects, not causes. This Christian asceticism is not due to any disparagement of the body or undervaluation of earthly relationships or a false view of matter. The asceticism born of these is at best only a * [Note: This is not athletics in our sense; it is a bodily discipline dictated by a philosophico-religious view of the body-a dualistic view of things (cf. 1Ti 4:3).] (1Ti 4:7 f.), while Christian asceticism is one whose end is piety. The one is of little profit, the other of eternal worth. This gymnastic for holiness arises out of the providential disciplines furnished copiously by a strict adherence to the line of Christian duty. It is the , the exhaustive labouring, and the abuse (or earnest conflict. [ of the man who sets his hope on the living God (1Ti 4:10).
2. What, then, are the principles that determine the nature and limits of Christian abstinence? We may learn these by considering the general word for abstinence () in the NT (Act 15:20; Act 15:29, 1Th 4:3; 1Th 5:22, 1Ti 4:3, 1Pe 2:11). These principles did not disengage themselves all at once in the Churchs consciousness. The first real attempt at such a disengagement is found in the so-called Apostolic Decree (Acts 15). This was nothing more than a working compromise to ease the existing situation. Attempts have been made often and early to moralize it and so find in it a valid basis for Christian abstinence. Thus blood was explained as homicide, and things strangled were omitted, as in Codes D; but such attempts are beside the point as surely as the attempts to judaize the document completely by making fornication mean marriage within the prohibited degrees. For our purpose the Decree is valuable historically rather than morally. It is a land-mark in the liberating of Christianity from ceremonial Judaism, similar to the evangelizing of Samaria by Philip and his baptizing of the eunuch, or the dealing of St. Peter with Cornelius. It does not, however, supply a logical or lasting basis for abstinence. Such a basis is furnished by St. Paul (1Th 4:1-8, 1Co 6:12-20, Gal 5:18 etc.; cf. 1Pe 2:11). The ground of Christian abstinence is found in the nature of the Christian life, which is a holy calling-a fellowship with the Holy One-whose animating principle is the Holy Spirit. The Christian man-body, soul, and spirit-is in union with Christ. Hence the very nature of the Christian life gives a positive principle of abstinence. Everything carnal is excluded. The carnal mind is enmity against God, it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be (Rom 8:7). This determines positively what is of necessity to be avoided, and lists of these sins are given in the NT (see above, Introduction). These are the works of the flesh. At the very lowest foundation of the Christian life there must be personal purity. is wholly opposed to (1Th 4:7).
Some have maintained that St. Paul tends to regard sanctification as mainly absence from sensual sin (Wernle, Beginnings of Christianity, Eng. translation , 1904, ii. 334), and others that he, possibly from his own bitter experience of this sin, emphasized this aspect of sanctification (A. B. Bruce, St. Pauls Conception of Christianity, 1894, p. 264). But St. Pauls view of sanctification includes the whole personality. He was keenly alive to the inconceivable evil of sensuality, although he himself had the charism of continence (1Co 7:7). The reason for his emphasis on personal purity is found in the immoral state of Grecian cities-the bottomless sexual depravity of the heathen world (Schaff, op. cit. p. 202)-and in the sensual bias of human nature. Christians had to learn this grace of purity (1Th 4:4).
The Christian life, then, is a positive life-a life that is being sanctified; and this includes all along a negative element, for Christianity does not deal with innocent men, but with sinners. Hence the crucifying of the flesh, with its affections and lusts, and the mortifying of the bodily members are just the negative side of advance in holiness.
It is sometimes held that at first St. Pauls teaching on this point was tinged with dualism, and that he tended to regard the body itself as essentially evil, and that it was only later on, when the full consequences of his early views were carried into effect, as in Colossians and the Pastorals, that he came to repudiate this dualistic asceticism (Baring Gould, A Study of St. Paul, 1897 [see Index, under Asceticism]), or it is maintained that his attitude towards the flesh changes-that at times he views it as something to be extirpated, while at other times and oftener his exhortations to his Christian readers have reference commonly not to the Christians attitude towards his fleshly nature, but to his relation to Christ or the Divine Spirit within him (McGiffert, Apostol. Age, p. 137f.). The truth is that the change was not in St. Pauls principle, but in the circumstances and conditions with which he happened to be at any time dealing, and that this opposition between a negative and a positive attitude is not a contradiction, but only exhibits the opposite sides of the one Christian principle of sanctification. Abstaining and retaining, pruning and growth, are not contradictories but complements. Even McGiffert, as we have seen, admits that there is very little asceticism, in the ordinary sense, in Pauls epistles, while there is much that makes in the opposite direction (op. cit. p. 136). These distinctions, however, are largely irrelevant. To St. Paul the Christian life was a life of sanctification, and this included both aspects.
This positive principle, then, of Christian abstinence is found in the very nature of the Christian life, which includes the affirmation of all the personality and its relationships as instruments of the spirit, and also the negation of the flesh and the world, or of personality and its relationships as alienated from the Spirit of God.
This principle, just because it contained these two moments, was apt to be misunderstood. Its twofold unity was apt to be disrupted, and we may well believe that the later Gnostic dualism and licentious libertinism may both have appealed to the authority of St. Paul. The Apostle, however, had a second principle of abstinence which helps us to correct this antagonism. He clearly distinguished between those things that in their very nature were hostile to the Christian life and those things that were indifferent. The neglect or abuse of this principle is apt to confuse the whole question of abstinence. The difficulty is intensified by the fact that in this region of the indifferent we are dealing with the application of a universal principle to changing conditions, so that, to use logical language, while the major premiss is the same, the minor premiss varies, and thus the right conclusion has to be discovered from the nature of the conditions with which we are for the moment dealing. Thus we find that the conditions at Rome and Corinth were not the conditions present in Colossians or the Pastorals, and accordingly St. Paul deals with each according to its merits. His general principle in regard to indifferent things is, All things are lawful. This is universally applicable only inside this universe of discourse. It is not applicable to our relation to those things that by their very nature are inimical to the Christian life. To apply the principle to the latter sphere is to degenerate into libertinism such as St. John, St. Jude, and St. Peter had to face.
While St. Jude and St. Peter are content with combating this libertinism mainly by denunciation and exhortations to Christians, St. John applies St. Pauls positive principle of abstinence to refute it. He points out the inadmissibility of sin (1Jn 2:29 f.). By this neither he nor St. Paul means perfectionism, nor yet are they speaking ideally of the Christian life. It is not true, as the Gnostics say, that the gold of Christianity is not injured by the mud of impurity (Irenaeus, c. Hr. i. 6. 2). Some so explained the saying ascribed to Nicholas (cf. Rev 2:6; Rev 2:15), (the flesh must be abused). According to Clem. Alex. (Strom. ii. 20), abandoning themselves like goats to pleasure, as if insulting the body, they lead a life of self-indulgence. It is this that St. John is confuting in these perfectionist passages, just as St. Paul confutes ascetic severity towards the body in Colossians, by pointing to the nature of the new life the Christian has in Christ.
This Christian principle of abstinence, then, All things are lawful, does not apply to sin. It has further limitations. These are unfolded in 1 Cor. and Romans. The abstainers in both these cases were in the minority. They did not base their views on a material dualism. They were under the influence of an atmosphere rather than a system, and they were apt to be treated in a high-handed fashion. They were not endangering the very basis of Christianity as a free service of God, as the Galatians were. Hence they had to be defended rather than condemned. St. Paul says all he can in their favour, although he ranges himself in principle on the other side. He tells the advocates of liberty that love is superior to the Christians freedom towards things indifferent, that it makes liberty look as much on the weakness of others as on its own strength. The interests of brotherly love and Christian unity make liberty impose restraints on itself. This restraint is a noble asceticism. The liberty of faith is found in the bondage of love (Sabatier, Paul, p. 163). He warns the advocates of liberty also that they may apply this principle to matters that are essential and not indifferent. This warning was necessary, because idolatry was so identified with all social functions that it was difficult to escape it. Why not-to advert to the coming conditions-adore the image of the Emperor? Why not throw incense into the fire? Just because by so doing the first and major principle of Christian abstinence was destroyed, viz. that it was a holy life in fellowship with the risen Christ; and its second principle of freedom in things indifferent did not consequently apply.
Yet this second principle was distinctly valuable. It was a great step in advance to have it clearly enunciated. For the weak brother, as in Galatia, might become intolerant; he might become the victim of false views, which would look on the observance of indifferent rites as a necessary qualification of full salvation and Christian privilege. Then Christian liberty in its fullness must be maintained (Gal 5:1). This liberty-rightly understood-contains in itself the real principle of abstinence from what is sinful. Nowhere have we fuller lists of the works of the flesh given than in the Galatian Epistle.
Or, again, as in Colossians and the Pastorals, a false asceticism might be present which regarded matter and body as evil, in which case both principles would be used to destroy such a view.
(a) In regard to indifferent matters like food and drink God has given freedom. The argument is the same as that used by Jesus when He purified all meats (Mar 7:19). These minutiae of fasting are human inventions, not Divine commands; and to respect them casuistically is to blur the distinction between the essential and the indifferent. We get what God meant us to get from perishable meats when we joyfully use them with a thankful spirit towards God. They, like the bodily appetites which they satisfy, do not belong to the eternal world, but to the natural. Yet the natural world and its relations to us, our bodies and their requirements, are of God and can all be used to His glory. Our bodies, souls, and spirits are His. It is not by using severity towards the body or by abstaining from marriage or leaving our earthly callings that we can gain further sanctification. In fact, St. Paul says that this -severity towards the body-is of little practical value (Col 2:23). Its aim is to destroy the body, not to fit it for Gods service. Logically carried to its issue, this false asceticism would not only enfeeble the soul by debasing the body, but would destroy the body and matter altogether. But Gods ideal for the body is different (cf. Php 3:21), so that what is to be aimed at by the Christian is the destruction of the flesh (), not of the body as such ().
But (b) the Apostle uses the primary principle of Christian abstinence to refute this dualistic asceticism. He shows that Christianity is not a matter of prohibitions, but of a renewed life-a walking in the Spirit. Asceticism at its best leaves the house empty. It is doubtful from history and physiology if it can even do that, but the new life in Christ has an expulsive power against sin and a constructive power of holiness.
These, then, are the principles that govern Christian abstinence: (1) The Christian life as a holy calling demands abstinence from all sin. This prohibits not only sinful actions but sinful thoughts. This is what may be called essential abstinence. (2) Besides this, there may be abstinence in indifferent matters, but it rests with the individual conscience to determine when this is necessary for the furtherance of the new life in Christ. This sphere by its very nature is not subject to obligatory ecclesiastical rules, nor must such abstinence be made the basis of salvation or of a higher moral platform, nor must it be based on a false view of matter or of the human body or of human relationships.
See also articles Self-denial and Temperance.
Literature.-Consult the books referred to in the article and the various Commentaries. Sue also J. B. Lightfoot, Colossians3, 1879, p. 397ff.; C. E. Luthardt, Christian Ethics before the Reformation, translation Hastie, Edinburgh, 1889; O. Zckler, Kritische Gesch. der Askese, Frankfurt am M., 1897; A. Harnack, History of Dogma. Eng. translation , 1894-99., H. J. Holtzmann, NT Theologie, Tbingen. 1911, bk. iv. ch. vii.; A. B. D. Alexander, The Ethics of St. Paul, Glasgow, 1910; A. Ritschl, Entstehung der altkathol. Kirche, Bonn, 1857, p. 173ff.; E. Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church (Hibbert Lecture, 1888), London, 1890, Lecture vi.
Donald Mackenzie.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
ABSTINENCE
In a general sense, is the act of refraining from something which we have a propensity to or find pleasure in. It is more particularly used for fasting or forbearing of necessary food. Among the Jews, various kinds of abstinence were ordained by their law. Among the primitive Christians, some denied themselves the use of such meats as were prohibited by that law; others looked upon this abstinence with contempt; as to which Paul gives his opinion, Rom 14:1; Rom 14:3. The council of Jerusalem, which was held by the apostles, enjoined the Christian converts to abstain from meats strangled, from blood, from fornication, and from idolatry, Act 15:1-41 : Upon this passage, Dr. Doddridge observes, “that though neither things sacrificed to idols, nor the flesh of strangled animals, nor blood, have or can have any moral evil in them, which should make the eating of them absolutely and universally unlawful; yet they were forbidden to the Gentile converts, because the Jews had such an aversion to them, that they could not converse freely with any who used them. This is plainly the reason which James assigns in the very next words, the 21st verse, and it is abundantly sufficient. This reason is now ceased, and the obligation to abstain from eating these things ceases with it. But were we in like circumstances again, Christian charity would surely require us to lay ourselves under the same restraint.”
The spiritual monarchy of the western world introduced another sort of abstinence, which may be called ritual, and consists in abstaining from particular meats at certain times and seasons, the rules of which are called rogations. If I mistake not, the impropriety of this kind of abstinence is clearly pointed out in 1Ti 4:3.
In England, abstinence from flesh has been enjoined by statute, even since the reformation; particularly on Fridays and Saturdays, on vigils and on all days commonly called fish days. The like injunctions were renewed under queen Elizabeth; but at the same time it was declared that this was done not out of motives of religion, as if there were any difference in meats, but in favor of the consumption of fish, and to mariners, as well as to spare the stock of sheep.
See FASTING.
Fuente: Theological Dictionary
Abstinence
Inasmuch as abstinence signifies abstaining from food, the Bible narrative points to the first instance wherein such a course of conduct was imposed by law (Genesis 2:16-17). The obvious purpose of this mandate was to lead the moral head of the human race to recognize the necessary dependence of creature upon Creator. The hour which witnessed the transgression of this law marked an increase in the debt which the creature owed the Creator. Adam’s disobedience rendered all men criminal, and liable to the necessity of appeasing God’s justice. To meet this new exigency nature dictated the necessity of penance; positive legislation determined the ways and means whereby this natural obligation would best be concreted. The chief results of this determination are positive statutes concerning fasting and abstinence. Laws relating to fasting are principally intended to define what pertains to the quantity of food allowed on days of fasting, while those regulating abstinence, what refers to the quality of viands. In some instances both obligations coincide; thus, the Fridays of Lent are days of fasting and abstinence. In other instances the law of abstinence alone binds the faithful; thus ordinary Fridays are simply days of abstinence. The purpose of this article is to trace the history of ecclesiastical legislation regarding the law of abstinence, as well as to examine the motives which underlie this legislation.
THE BIBLE: ABSTINENCE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
Fasting implying abstinence was ordained by law for the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:29 sq.). The ceremony incident to this feast was observed by the Jews on the fifth day before the feast of Tabernacles. From evening of the ninth until evening of the tenth day labour and eating were strictly prohibited. Besides this passage the sacred narrative contains many others which show how adversity moved the Jews to assume the burden of fasting and abstinence in a spirit of penance (Judges 20:26; Judith 6:20; Joel 1:14; 2:15). Moreover, the Jews abstained on the ninth day of the fourth month, because on that day Nabuchodonosor captured Jerusalem (Jeremiah 52:6); on the tenth day of the fifth month, because on that day the temple was burned (Jeremiah 52:12 sq.); on the third day of the seventh month, because on that day Godolias had been murdered (Jeremiah 41:2); and on the tenth day of the tenth month, because on that day the Chaldees commenced the siege of Jerusalem (2 Kings 25:1 sq.). They were told that fidelity to these regulations would bring joy, gladness, and great solemnities to the house of Juda (Zechariah 8:19). During the month of new corn they were obliged to spend seven days without leaven, and to eat the bread of affliction in memory of their delivery from Egypt (Deuteronomy 16:3). In addition to those indications concerning the seasons of abstinence amongst the Jews, the sacred text contains passages regarding the ways and means whereby the law of abstinence assumed more definite shape amongst them. After the deluge God said to Noe: “Everything that moveth upon the earth shall be a meat for you, saving that flesh with blood you shall not eat” (Genesis 9:3, 4; similar passages are contained in Leviticus 7:26 sq.; 17:14 sq.; Deuteronomy 12:15,16). A prohibition whereby corn, oil, wine, and the first-born of herds and cattle are forbidden in towns is set forth in Deut., xii, 17. Priests were forbidden to drink any intoxicant lest they die (Leviticus 10:9). The eleventh chapter of Leviticus contains a detailed enumeration of the various beasts, birds, and fish that fall under the ban. Such were reputed unclean. Abstinence from things legally unclean was intended to train the Israelites in the pursuit of spiritual cleanness.
The Old Testament furnishes several instances of celebrated personages who betook themselves to this chastisement of the flesh. David kept fast on account of the child born of the wife of Urias (2 Samuel 12:16); Esther humbled her body with fasts (Esther 14:2); Judith fasted all the days of her life (Judges 8:6); Daniel ate neither bread nor flesh till the days of three weeks were accomplished (Daniel 10:3), and Judas Machabeus and all the people craved mercy in tears and fasting (2 Maccabees 13:12). Moreover, Esdras commanded a fast by the river Ahava (Ezra 8:21). The King of Ninive proclaimed a fast in Ninive whereby neither man nor beasts should taste anything, whether of food or drink (Jonah 3:7). Moses (Exodus 34:28) and Elias (1 Kings 19:8) spent forty days in abstinence and fasting. Finally, the Pharisee in the Temple declared that he fasted “twice in a week” (Luke 18:12). Apropos of this passage Duchesne says that Monday and Thursday were days of fasting among the pious Jews (“Christian Worship”, London, 1903, 228).
THE NEW TESTAMENT
In the first portion of his Gospel St. Matthew relates how Christ passed forty days in the desert, during which time neither food nor drink passed his lips. No doubt this penance of the God-man was not only expiatory, but also exemplary. True, Christ did not explicitly define the days nor the weeks wherein his followers would be obliged to fast and abstain. At the same time his example, coupled with his reply to the disciples of the Baptist, is an evidence that the future would find his followers subjected to regulations whereby they would fast “after the bridegroom had been taken away”. The only piece of clearly defined legislation concerning abstinence embodied in the New Testament was framed by the Council of Jerusalem, prescribing “abstinence from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled” (Acts 15:29). Nevertheless the Acts of the Apostles give evidence of a tendency on the part of the Church, as an organized body, to prepare the way for important events by abstinence and fasting (Acts 13:3; 14:22). In fine, St. Paul sets forth the necessity of abstinence when he says that “everyone striving for the mastery must abstain from all things” (1 Corinthians 9:25); and “let us exhibit ourselves as the ministers of Christ in labours, watchings, and fastings ” (2 Corinthians 6:5), which he had often practiced (2 Corinthians 11:27).
THE LATIN CHURCH: SUBJECTS UNDER, AND MATERIAL ELEMENT OF, THE LAW
Throughout the Latin Church the law of abstinence prohibits all responsible subjects from indulging in meat diet on duly appointed days. Meat diet comprises the flesh, blood, or marrow of such animals and birds as constitute flesh meat according to the appreciation of intelligent and law-abiding Christians. For this reason the use of fish, vegetables, mollusks, crabs, turtles, frogs, and such-like cold-blooded creatures is not at variance with the law of abstinence. Amphibians are relegated to the category whereunto they bear most striking resemblance. This classification can scarcely preclude all doubt regarding viands prohibited by the law of abstinence. Local usage, together with the practice of intelligent and conscientious Christians, generally holds a key for the solution of mooted points in such matters, otherwise the decision rests with ecclesiastical authority. Furthermore, on many fasting days during the year the law of abstinence bars the use of such viands as bear some identity of origin with flesh meat. For this reason eggs, milk, butter, cheese, and lard are interdicted (St. Thomas, Summa, II-II, Q. cvii, art. ult., ad 3). The Church enjoins the ways and means whereby her subjects must satisfy the obligation of doing penance inculcated by natural law. Many of the Fathers allude to the exercise of ecclesiastical authority in reference to the obligation of abstinence. The disciplinary canons of various councils bear witness to the actual exercise of authority in the same direction. Texts of theology and catechisms of Christian doctrine indicate that the obligation of abstaining forms an element in one of the Commandments of the Church. Satisfaction for sin is an item of primary import in the moral order. Naturally enough, abstinence contributes no small share towards the realization of this end. As a consequence, the law of abstinence embodies a serious obligation whose transgression, objectively considered, ordinarily involves a mortal sin. The unanimous verdict of theologians, the constant practice of the faithful, and the mind of the Church place this point beyond cavil. They who would fain minimize the character of this obligation so as to relegate all transgressions, save such as originate in contempt, to the category of venial sin are anathematized by Alexander VII [Cf. Prop. 23, ap. Bucceroni, Enchiridion Morale, 145 (Rome, 1905)]. In fine, the Trullan synod (can. 58, ap. Hefele, “History of the Councils of the Church”, V, 231, Edinburgh, 1896) inflicts deposition on clerics and excommunication on laymen who violate this law. Furthermore, theologians claim that a grievous sin is committed as often as flesh meat is consumed in any quantity on abstinence days (Sporer, Theologia Moralis super Decalogum, I, De observ. jejunii, # 2, assert. II), because the law is negative, and binds semper et pro semper. In other words, the prohibition of the Church in this matter is absolute. At times, however, the quantity of prohibited material may be so small that the law suffers no substantial violation. From an objective standpoint such transgressions carry the guilt of venial sin. Moralists are by no means unanimous in deciding where the material element of such minor disorders passes into a material disorder of major importance. Some think that an ounce of flesh meat suffices to constitute a serious breach of this law, whereas others claim that nothing short of two ounces involves infringement of this obligation. Ordinarily, the actual observance of the law is confined to such circumstances as carry no insupportable burden. This is why the sick, the infirm, mendicants, labourers, and such as find difficulty in procuring fish diet are not bound to observe the law as long as such conditions prevail.
DAYS OF ABSTINENCE
(1) Friday
From the dawn of Christianity, Friday has been signalized as an abstinence day, in order to do homage to the memory of Christ suffering and dying on that day of the week. The “Teaching of the Apostles” (viii), Clement of Alexandria (Strom., VI, 75), and Tertullian (De jejun., xiv) make explicit mention of this practice. Pope Nicholas I (858-867) declares that abstinence from flesh meat is enjoined on Fridays. There is every reason to conjecture that Innocent III (1198-1216) had the existence of this law in mind when he said that this obligation is suppressed as often as Christmas Day falls on Friday (De observ. jejunii, ult. cap. Ap. Layman, Theologia Moralis, I, iv, tract. viii, ii). Moreover, the way in which the custom of abstaining on Saturday originated in the Roman Church is a striking evidence of the early institution of Friday as an abstinence day.
(2) Saturday
As early as the time of Tertullian, some churches occasionally prolonged the Friday abstinence and fast so as to embrace Saturday. Tertullian (De jejunio, xiv) calls this practice continuare jejunium — an expression subsequently superseded by superponere jejunium. Such prolongations were quite common at the end of the third century. The Council of Elvira (can. xxvi, ap. Hefele, op. cit., I, 147) enjoins the observance of one such fast and abstinence every month, except during July and August. At the same time the fathers of Elvira abrogated the “superposition” which had up to that time been obligatory on all Saturdays (Duchesne, op. cit., 231). Moreover, Gregory VII (1073-85) speaks in no uncertain terms of the obligation to abstain on Saturdays, when he declares that all Christians are bound to abstain from flesh meat on Saturday as often as no major solemnity (e. g. Christmas) occurs on Saturday, or no infirmity serves to cancel the obligation (cap. Quia dies, d. 5, de consecrat., ap. Joannes, Azor. Inst. Moral. I, Bk. VII, c. xii). Various authors have assigned different reasons to account for the extension of the obligation so as to bind the faithful to abstain not only on Fridays, but also on Saturdays. Some hold that this practice was inaugurated to commemorate the burial of Christ Jesus; others that it was instituted to imitate the Apostles and Disciples of Christ, who, together with the Holy Women, mourned the death of Christ even on the seventh day; while others claim that it owes its origin to the conduct of St. Peter, who passed Saturday in prayer, abstinence, and fasting, to prepare to meet Simon Magus on the following day (Acts, viii, 18 sq.; cf. Migne, P. L. XLIX, coll. 147, 148). Though the Roman Pontiffs have constantly refused to abrogate the law of abstaining on Saturday, special indults dispensing with the obligation have been granted to the faithful in many parts of the world.
(3) Lent
In point of duration, as well as in point of penitential practices, Lent has been the subject of many vicissitudes. In the days of St. Irenaeus (177-202) the season of penance preceding Easter was of rather short duration. Some fasted and therefore abstained from flesh meat etc. for one day, others for two days, and others again for a greater number of days. No distinct traces of the quadragesimal observance are discernible until the fourth century. The decrees of the Council of Nicaea in 325 (can. v, ap. Hefele, op. cit., I, 387) contain the earliest mention of Lent. Thenceforward ecclesiastical history contains numerous allusions to those forty days. Nevertheless, the earliest references to the quadragesimal season indicate that it was then usually considered a time of preparation for baptism, or for the absolution of penitents, or a season of retreat and recollection for people living in the world. True, fasting and abstinence formed part of the duties characterizing this season, but there was little or no uniformity in the manner of observance. On the contrary, different countries adopted a different regime. At Rome it was customary to spend but three weeks, immediately before Easter, in abstinence, fasting, and praying (Socrates, H. E., V, 22). Many attempts were made to include Holy Week in Quadragesima. The attempt succeeded at Rome, so that thenceforward the Lenten season consisted of six weeks. During these six weeks Sundays were the only days not reached by the law of fasting, but the obligation to abstain was not withdrawn from Sundays. As a consequence, the Lenten season numbered no more than thirty-six days. Hence St. Ambrose (Serm. xxxiv, de Quadrag.) notes that the beginning of Lent and the first Sunday of Lent were simultaneous prior to the reign of Gregory I. In the seventh century four days were added. Some claim that this change was the work of Gregory I; others ascribe it to Gregory II (Layman, loc. cit.). Duchesne (op. cit., 244) says that it is impossible to tell who added four days to the thirty-six previously comprised in the Lenten season. It is likely, at all events, that the change was made so as to have forty days in which to commemorate Christ’s forty days in the desert. Be this as it may, the Church has never deviated from the ordinance of the seventh century whereby the Lenten season comprises forty days over and above Sundays.
(4) Ember Days
The beginning of the four seasons of the year is marked by Ember Week, during which Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday are days of fasting and abstinence. Ember Week occurs after the first Sunday of Lent, after Pentecost, after the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, and after the third Sunday in Advent. According to some writers the Ember Days in December were introduced by the Apostles as a preparation for the ordinations which occurred during that month (Layman, loc. cit.). The scriptural basis for this practice is to be found in Acts, xiii, 2 sq. The summer Ember Days were observed during the octave of Pentecost (St. Leo I, Sermo ii, de Pentecost.), and the autumn Ember Days in September (Idem, Sermo viii, De jejunio septimi mensis). In the False Decretals (c. 840-50) Pope Callistus (217-22) is made to add a fourth week. We decree, he says, that the fast which you have learned to keep three times yearly, shall henceforward be made four times a year (Epist., Decr. lxxvi, cap., i; Migne, P. G., X, 121). St. Jerome, in his commentary on the eighth chapter of Zachary, believes that the Ember Days were instituted after the example of the Jews, who fasted and abstained four times during the year, as noted in the preceding paragraph. St. Leo I (Sermo vii, De jej. sept. mensis) considers that the purpose of penance during Ember Week is to urge the faithful to special efforts in the cause of continency. The two views are entirely compatible.
(5) Advent
Radulphus de Rivo (Kalendarium eccles. seu de observations canonum, Prop. xvi) and Innocent III (De observ. jej., cap. ii) testify that the Roman Church appointed a period of fasting and abstinence as a preparation for the solemnization of Christmas. Traces of this custom are still to be found in the Roman Breviary indicating the recitation of ferial prayers during Advent just as on days of fasting and abstinence. Radulphus de Rivo (loc. cit.) remarks that the Roman Church appointed the first Sunday after St. Catharine’s feast as the beginning of Advent.
6. Vigils
In former times the clergy assembled in church, on the eves of great festivals, and chanted the divine office. In like manner the laity also repaired to their churches and passed the time in watching and praying. Hence the term vigil. Innocent III (op. cit., i) mentions the vigils of Christmas, the Assumption, and the Apostles (28 June). It is likely that the obligation of abstaining on the vigils of Pentecost, St. John Baptist, St. Lawrence, and All Saints was introduced by custom (cf. Azor., op. cit., VII, xiii), for, according to Duchesne (op. cit., 287), the element of antiquity is not the fasting, but the vigil. Formerly, the obligation of abstaining on vigils was anticipated as often as a vigil fell on Sunday. This practice is still in vogue.
(7) Rogation Days
These days occur on the Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday preceding the Ascension. Mamertus, Bishop of Vienne, introduced (some time before 474) the custom of reciting the Litanies on these days. He also prescribed fasting and abstinence thereon. This practice was extended to the whole of Frankish Gaul in 511 by the first Council of Orléans (can. xxvii). About the beginning of the ninth century Leo III introduced the Rogation Days into Rome (Duchesne op. cit., 289). An almost similar observance characterizes the feast of St. Mark, and dates from about the year 589 (Duchesne, op. cit., 288).
APPLICATION OF THE LAW IN THE UNITED STATES
Diversity in customs, in climate, and in prices of food have gradually paved the way for modifications of the law of abstinence. Throughout the United States the ordinary Saturday is no longer a day of abstinence. During Lent, in virtue of an indult, the faithful are allowed to eat meat at their principal meal on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, the second and last Saturdays excepted. The use of meat on such days is not restricted to the principal meal for such as are exempt from fasting by reason of ill health, age, or laborious occupations. Eggs, milk, butter, and cheese, formerly prohibited, are now permitted without restriction as far as the day of the week is concerned. The use of lard or dripping in preparing fish and vegetables at all meals and on all days is allowed by an indult issued 3 August, 1887. It is never lawful to take fish with flesh, at the same meal, during Lent, Sundays included (Benedict XIV, Litt. ad Archiep. Compostel., 10 June, 1745, ap. Bucceroni, Enchiridion Morale, 147). At other times this is not prohibited (Bucceroni, ib.). On Wednesdays and Fridays, as well as on the second and last Saturdays of Lent, flesh meat is not permitted. Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays during Ember Week are still days of abstinence and fasting. The vigils of Christmas, Pentecost, Assumption, and All Saints are also days of abstinence and fasting. In virtue of faculties granted by the Holy See, workingmen, and their families as well, may use flesh meat once a day on all abstinence days throughout the year except Fridays, Ash Wednesday, Holy Saturday, and the vigil of Christmas. This indult was issued for ten years, 15 March 1895, and renewed for another decade on 25 February, 1905. (See “Exposition of Christian Doctrine”, Philadelphia, 1899, II, 528-529 Spirago-Clarke, “The Catechism Explained”, New York, 1900; Diocesan Regulations for Lent.)
In Great Britain and Ireland, Fridays during the year, Wednesdays during Advent, weekdays during Lent, Ember Days, the vigils of Christmas, Pentecost, the Assumption, All Saints, Sts. Peter and Paul, and St. Andrew (in Scotland only) are days of abstinence. Meat is allowed by indult at the principal meal on all days during Lent except Wednesdays, Fridays, Holy Thursday, and the second and last Saturdays. Eggs are allowed at the principal meal during Lent except on Ash Wednesday and the last three days of Lent. Milk, butter, and cheese are allowed at the principal meal, and at the collation during Lent, except on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. Lard and drippings are allowed at the chief meal and at the collation, except on Good Friday. Suet is prohibited whenever meat is not allowed. Fish and flesh are never allowed at the same meal on any fast day during the year (Catholic Directory, London, 1906). In Australia, Fridays during the year, Wednesdays and Saturdays during Lent, Holy Thursday, Wednesdays during Advent, Ember Days, the vigils of Christmas, Pentecost, the Assumption, Sts. Peter and Paul, and All Saints are days of abstinence. There is a somewhat general practice whereby the use of meat is allowed at the chief meal on ordinary Saturdays throughout the year. For the rest, the application of the law of abstinence is much the same as in Ireland (The Year Book of Australia, Sydney, 1892). In Canada, Fridays during the year, Wednesdays during Lent and Advent, Ember Days, the vigils of Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, the Assumption, Sts. Peter and Paul, and All Saints are days of abstinence. The abstinence incident to the feasts of Sts. Peter and Paul and the Assumption is transferred to the eve of the transferred solemnity. Milk, butter, cheese, and eggs are allowed during Lent even at the collation; lard and drippings as in the United States. (See “Expos. of Christian Doctrine”, Philadelphia, 1899, II, 528, 529.)
THE GREEK CHURCH
In the Greek Church the law of abstinence is designated by the term xerophagy in contradistinction to monophagy, signifying the law of fasting. In its strictest sense xerophagy bars all viands except bread, salt, water, fruits, and vegetables (St. Epiphanius, Expositio Fidei, xxii; Migne, P.G., XLII, col. 828; Apost. Const., V, xviii, ap. Migne, P.G., I, col. 889). On days of abstinence meat, fish, eggs, milk, cheese, oil, and wine are rigorously interdicted. This traditional custom of rigorous abstinence still binds the Greeks on all Wednesdays and Fridays, on all days of their Major Lent, including Saturdays and Sundays, except Palm Sunday, on which day oil, wine, and fish are now permitted, and on the vigils of Christmas and Epiphany. Xerophagy seems to have been obligatory only on these days. Another less severe form of abstinence, still common among the Greeks, prohibits the use of meat, eggs, milk, and sometimes fish on certain occasions. According to their present regime, the Greeks observe this mitigated form of abstinence during their Lent of the Apostles (i.e. from Monday after the feast of All Saints, celebrated on the first Sunday after Pentecost, until 29 June); during Mary’s Lent (1-14 August); during Christmas Lent, or Advent (also called St. Philip’s Lent, 15 November to 24 December); 29 August (commemoration of the Beheading of St. John Baptist) and on 14 September (feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross). The canonical regulations determining obligatory abstinence have suffered no substantial alteration during the lapse of many centuries. In its general outlines this legislation is the same for the Greek Church Uniat and non-Uniat. The Uniat Greek Church is not allowed to father any innovation without explicit authorization from the Holy See (Benedict XIV, Decret. Demandatam, # vi, in his Bullarium, I, 128, Venice ed., 1778). Though usage and dispensations have led the way to certain modifications, the canons covering this matter remain unchanged. Custom has made the use of wine and oil legitimate on xerophagy days. In many places fish is likewise allowed, except during the first and last week of their Major Lent. Goar (Euchologium, Venice, 1730, 175) says that the Greeks of his day were allowed by an unwritten law to eat fish, eggs, snails, and such-like viands on xerophagy days.
Innovations in the duration of the Greek penitential seasons have originated in usage. Thus arose their practice of spending the week preceding their Major Lent in minor abstinence, as a prelude to the more rigorous observance of the Lenten season (Nilles, Kalendarium, II, 36, Innsbruck, 1885; Vacant, Dict. de théol. cath., I, 264). This custom lapsed into desuetude, but the decrees of the Synod of Zamosc, 1720 (tit. xvi, Collect. Lacensis, II), show that the Ruthenians had again adopted it. The Melchites have reduced their xerophagy during Christmas Lent to fifteen days. The same tendency to minimize is found amongst the Ruthenians (Synod of Zamosc, loc. cit.). The Apostles’ Lent counts no more than twelve days for the Melchites. Goar says that their Christmas Lent is reduced to seven days. Other alterations in these seasons have been made at various times in different places. The Greeks enjoy some relaxation of this obligation on a certain number of days during the year. Accordingly, when feasts solemnized in the Greek Church fall on ordinary Wednesdays and Fridays, or on days during their various Lenten seasons (Wednesdays and Fridays excepted), a complete or partial suspension of xerophagy takes place. The obligation of abstaining from flesh is withdrawn on Wednesdays and Fridays between Christmas and 4 January; whenever Epiphany falls on Wednesday or Friday; Wednesday and Friday during the week preceding the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross; during the octaves of Easter and Pentecost. Some of the Greeks, especially the Melchites, hold that xerophagy does not bind from Easter to Pentecost [cf. Pilgrimage of Etheria (Peregrinatio Sylviae) ap. Duchesne, op. cit. 569]. In their partial suspension of the xerophagy the Greeks maintain the obligation of abstaining from flesh meat, but they countenance the use of such other viands as are ordinarily prohibited when the law is in full force. This mitigation finds application as often as the following festivals fall on Wednesdays or Fridays not included in their Lenten seasons, or any day (Wednesdays and Fridays excepted) during their Lenten seasons: 24 November, Feast of St. Philip; 21 November, Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary; 7 January, Commemoration of St. John Baptist; 2 February; Presentation of Christ in the Temple; 25 March, Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary; 29 June, The Apostles; 6 August, Transfiguration, 15 August Assumption; and Palm Sunday. St. Basil’s rule is followed by all monks and nuns in the Greek Church. Xerophagy is their general rule for penitential practices. The law of abstaining from meat admits no relaxation. The greater solemnities entitle them to use fish, eggs, milk, oil, and wine. Feasts of minor solemnity, falling on days other than Wednesday or Friday, admit fish, eggs, milk, oil, and wine, otherwise wine and oil only. Finally, simple feasts admit the use of oil and wine. The obligation of xerophagy on Wednesdays and Fridays dates its origin to apostolic tradition (cf. Teaching of the Apostles, viii, I; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. VI, lxxv; Tertullian, De jejunio, xiv). The xerophagy of Major Lent is likewise of ancient growth. There is strong reason to think that the question was mooted in the second century, when the Easter controversy waxed strong. Writings of the fourth century afford frequent references to this season. According to the Pilgrimage of Etheria (Duchesne, op. cit., 555), the end of the fourth century witnessed Jerusalem devoting forty days (a period of eight weeks) to fasting and abstinence. The season comprised eight weeks because Orientals keep both Saturday (save Holy Saturday) and Sunday as days of rejoicing, and not of penance. There are several noteworthy evidences of those forty days thus appointed by the Greeks for abstinence and fasting (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Procatech., no. 4, and Catech., iv, 3, ap. Migne, P. G., XXXIII, 341, 347; Eusebius, De solemnitate pascuali, no. 4, Migne, P. G., XXIV, 697; Apostolic Canons, can. lxviii, ap. Hefele, op. cit., I, 485). The canons of Greek councils show no traces of legislation regarding their Christmas Lent etc. prior to the eighth century. No doubt the practice of keeping xerophagy during these seasons originated in monasteries and thence passed to the laity. In the beginning of the ninth century St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, states that all are obliged to observe xerophagy during those seasons (Pitra, Juris Ecclesiastici Graeci Historia et Monumenta, Rome, 1868, II, 327). It is scarcely necessary to note here that the Greek Church has legislated nearly half of the year into days of fasting or abstinence or both. Nevertheless, many Oriental writers protest against a lessening of this number. In point of fact, however, many Greeks claim that many days of this kind scarcely win proper recognition from the faithful.
THE RUSSIAN CHURCH
The legislation of the Russian church relating to abstinence consists of an elaborate program specifying days of penance whereon various sorts of food are forbidden, and indicating several festivals whereon the rigor of the law is tempered to a greater or lesser degree according to the grade of solemnity characterizing the fast. Good Friday is signalized by their most severe form of exterior penance, namely complete abstinence. During their Major Lent cold, dried fare is prescribed for Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays, as well as for the first three days of Holy Week. On Saturdays and Sundays during this period fish is prohibited, and crustaceans are allowed. On Wednesdays and Fridays throughout the year, as well as on the vigil of Christmas, baked fare and fruit are enjoined. Oil is prohibited, and wine allowed, on Holy Saturday, on Thursday of the Major Canon (Thursday of the fifth week in Lent), and on Good Friday, whenever the Annunciation coincides therewith. Fish is interdicted, but fish eggs are permitted on the Saturday preceding Palm Sunday, and on the feast of St. Lazarus. Wine and oil are allowed on Holy Thursday. During their Christmas Lent, Mary’s Lent, and the Apostles’ Lent meat is prohibited, but wine and oil are allowed on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays. The same regulation applies to 14 September, 29 August, and 5 January. During Mary’s Lent milk diet is interdicted; fish diet is permitted on Saturdays and Sundays. During the other two minor Lents the same injunction holds on Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays, and Sundays. The same regulation binds on Palm Sunday, as well as on Wednesdays and Fridays of Paschaltide. Finally, the feasts of the Transfiguration, Mary’s Nativity, Annunciation, Purification, Presentation, and Assumption, the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, Sts. Peter and Paul, and the Commemoration of St. John the Baptist, 7 January, occurring during Lent, or on Wednesday or Friday, are marked by this same degree of abstinence. Meat diet is under the ban, except during the whole of carnival week. Russian monks are obliged to observe this part of the program during the whole year. The Russian Church suspends the obligation of abstinence during Christmastide (25 December to 6 January, minus the vigil of Epiphany), during Eastertide, and during the octave of Pentecost.
SYRIAN CHURCH
All branches of the Syrian Church abstain on Wednesdays and Fridays and during Lent, in keeping with the Apostolic Canons (Can. lxviii, Hefele, loc. cit). The Council of Laodicea (can. 1), recognized by all Syrians, enjoins xerophagy for Lent (Hefele, op. cit., II, 320). Nevertheless, changes and abuses have been gradually introduced into various portions of the Syrian Church.
JACOBITES
(a) Among the laity all adults are obliged to abstain on all Wednesdays and Fridays. On those days eggs, milk, and cheese are interdicted. During Lent their rigorous regime excludes the use of eggs, milk, butter, cheese, fish, and wine. The Apostles’ Lent is observed from Pentecost to 29 June. Abstinence is then recommended, not imposed. Mary’s Lent lasts fifteen days. The Christmas Lent is kept by monks forty days longer than by laics. During these periods a less rigorous regime is in vogue. Finally, their ninivitic, or rogation, abstinence continues for three days.
(b) Following the example of James of Edessa, the Jacobite monks and nuns observe alternately seven weeks of fasting and abstinence, with seven other weeks wherein such obligations apply on Wednesdays and Fridays only. Some eat no meat during the entire Year. Sozomen (Hist. Eccl., VI; Migne, P.G., LXVII, col. 393) speaks of Syrian anchorites who live on herbs without eating even so much as bread, or drinking wine. Rabulas, Bishop of Edessa (d. 435), and the Council of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (420) (Hefele, op. cit., II, 449 sq.) forbade monks and nuns to eat meat.
NESTORIANS
As a general rule, the laity follow the same regime as the Jacobites. With them Lent begins on Quinquagesima Sunday. Contrary to their ancient discipline, they abstain on Saturdays and Sundays. They observe the same minor penitential seasons as the Jacobites. Their ninivitic, or rogation, season is kept on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of the third week before Lent. The canonical regulations for monks and nuns prescribe fasting and abstinence as observed in other branches of the Syrian Church. Nevertheless, at various periods, innovations and relaxations have found their way into Nestorian communities of men and women (Vacant, op. cit., I, 268).
MARONITES
Lent for the laity commences on Monday of Quinquagesima week and continues until Holy Saturday. Saturdays and Sundays (Holy Saturday excepted), together with obligatory feasts occurring during Lent, are not fasting days, but even then meat and milk diet are strictly forbidden. Their Christmas Lent begins on 5 December and ends on 24 December. Mary’s Lent begins on 1 August and ends on 14 August; 6 August is not included therein. The Apostles’ Lent begins 15 June and ends 28 June, although 24 June is not therein included. Meat, eggs, and milk diet are interdicted on all Wednesdays and Fridays except such as occur during Christmastide, Eastertide, or the octave of Pentecost. This mitigation takes place during the week preceding their Major Lent and on the feasts of the Transfiguration, St. John the Baptist, and Sts. Peter and Paul. Their legislation for monks and nuns is simple and austere. They are forbidden to eat flesh meat under penalty of grievous sin, unless a physician should order it for them in case of illness. When obliged to make long journeys, they must have recourse to the bishop or their own local superior for permission to eat meat during the journey (Vacant, op. cit., I, 269).
ARMENIANS
Vartan, whom the Armenians regard as the leading exponent of their ecclesiastical traditions, held that they were bound not only to abide by the legislation framed in the Council of Jerusalem, but also to adhere to the Mosaic law regarding unclean animals (Vacant, op. cit., I, 269). The Council of Florence condemned this rigorism and decided that the decrees enacted in the Council of Jerusalem concerning this matter, as well as the Mosaic regulations regarding unclean animals, have no longer the binding force of law. The Armenians recognize the sixty-eighth canon of the Apostles, which prescribes abstinence on Wednesdays and Fridays, and on all days of Major Lent. The Greek canonists Zonaras and Balsamon liken the abstinence of Wednesdays and Fridays to that of Lent. During Lent nothing save bread, salt, herbs, and wine is allowed the laity. Meat, fish, milk, cheese, butter, eggs, and oil are under the ban. Nevertheless, with time there become visible traces of innovation in this discipline. At present the Armenians observe the law of abstinence on Wednesdays and Fridays, except during the octave of Epiphany and during Eastertide, i.e. from Easter Sunday to Ascension Day. Their Major Lent begins on Monday of Quinquagesima week and terminates on Holy Saturday. From Ash Wednesday until Easter Day they keep xerophagy except on Saturdays and Sundays, when milk diet is allowed. Besides, they devote the week preceding the feasts of the Transfiguration, the Assumption, the Holy Cross, and St. Gregory to abstinence and fasting. They are likewise obliged to abstain for one week during Advent, one week preceding the feast of St. James, and another immediately before the Epiphany. The Armenian monks and nuns never eat meat. With them the law of abstinence is quite rigorous. They may eat fish whenever the laity are allowed to eat meat.
COPTS
Lay people are obliged to abstain from flesh meat, eggs, and milk diet during all the penitential seasons. Such are Major Lent, Mary’s Lent, Christmas Lent, and the Apostles’ Lent. They are bound by the law of abstinence on all Wednesdays and Fridays, except during the interval between Easter and Pentecost, and whenever Christmas or Epiphany falls on Wednesday or Friday. The law of abstinence extends to Saturdays and Sundays during their penitential seasons. During Major Lent and Holy Week fish is prohibited. At other times its use is lawful. Some time has elapsed since the rigor peculiar to seasons of penance in the Orient was mitigated amongst the Copts. It was then restricted to the observance of abstinence during all seasons except Major Lent. Nevertheless, a goodly number of Copts continue to keep Mary’s Lent with pristine rigor. While residing in their monasteries, the Coptic monks and nuns are bound to abstain from meat, eggs, and milk diet throughout the year. Whenever they dwell outside the monastery they may conform to the regulations binding the laity.
MOTIVES OF ECCLESIASTICAL LAWS PERTAINING TO ABSTINENCE
According to the vagaries of the Manicheans, Montanists. and Encratites, flesh meat is intrinsically evil and merits the most rigorous kind of prohibition. Keenly sensible of this heterodoxy, the Church of Christ has not based her ordinances enjoining abstinence on any such unwarranted assumption. As the exponent of revelation, the Church knows and teaches that every creature in the visible universe is equally a work of the divine wisdom, power, and goodness, which defy all limitations. This is why the first pages of the inspired text indicate that the Creator “saw all the things that he had made and they were very good” (Genesis 1:31). St. Paul is, if anything, still more explicit in condemning the folly of those sectaries, though they originated after his day. “Now, the Spirit manifestly says that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils . . . forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful and by them that know the truth. For, every creature is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving” (1 Timothy 4:1, 2, 3). Neither is the Church, in her legislation on abstinence, animated by any such gross superstition as influences the adherents of Brahmanism or Buddhism. Moved by their theories regarding the transmigration of souls, they are logically induced to abstain from eating the flesh of animals, lest they should unconsciously consume their parents or friends. In consequence of those notions their diet is vegetarian. So rigorous is the law prescribing this diet that transgressions are visited with social and domestic ostracism. At the same time this ultra conservatism has not been espoused by all who share the doctrine regarding the transmigration of souls. Many of them have not hesitated to temper their belief in this creed with a mitigated form of abstinence from flesh meat.
Eagerness to harmonize her disciplinary regime with the exigencies of the Mosaic legislation did not prompt the Church in shaping the measures which she set before her children in regard to abstinence. Though the Law of Moses embodies a detailed catalogue of forbidden viands, Christ abrogated those prohibitions when the Law was fulfilled. The Apostles, assembled in the Council of Jerusalem, gave definite shape to their convictions concerning the passing of the Old Law, as well as to their divinely founded right to shape and mould the tenor of ecclesiastical legislation so as best to meet the spiritual needs of those entrusted to their charge (Acts 15:28-29). Nevertheless, legislation alone is well-nigh powerless in attempting to change abruptly the current of traditions and prejudices, when they are so deeply rooted in national institutions as to form an important factor in the growth and development of a nation. This was precisely the sort of problem that confronted the missionary enterprises of the Apostles. Their converts were recruited from Paganism and Judaism. Though Jews and Gentiles were doubtless sincere in their conversion to the new religion, previous habits of thought and action had left more than superficial traces in their character. As a consequence, many Jewish converts were unwilling to forego the Mosaic law concerning unclean meats, while Gentile converts could see no reason whatsoever for adopting the tenets of Judaism. This diversity of sentiment paved the way to misunderstanding, and all but open rupture, in various communities of the early Church. This is why St. Paul speaks so unequivocally regarding the lawfulness of all meats, but recommends due consideration for those Christians whose conscience will not brook this liberty (Romans 14; Galatians 3:28; Romans 2). Centuries of Christian life have so greatly simplified this matter that it is now well-nigh impossible to realize how there could then have been anything more than a passing controversy. At the same time it is well to bear in mind that in the beginning of the present era the Apostles were called upon to deal amicably with those who based their conservatism on the traditions of two thousand years of adhesion to the Mosaic legislation.
Daily experience testifies that the phenomena circumscribing the evolution of life in the material world are rooted in laws involving a process of transition from death unto life. “The struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest” is simply the dictum of science admitting the presence of this law in the animal kingdom. This law, so widespread in the material order, has been embodied in that economy wherein they who would imitate Christ must deny themselves, take up the cross, and follow Him. Hence, in molding her penitential discipline, the Church is inspired by the maxims and example of her Divine Founder. As a consequence, she is not the author of arbitrary measures in this matter; she simply frames her laws of abstinence to meet the exigencies of fallen nature. Darkness in the understanding, weakness in the will, and turbulence in the passions must ever remain to reveal the ravages of sin in fallen man. Though the passions are destined to satisfy the legitimate cravings of human nature, and enable man to develop his being according to the dictates of reason, still they give unquestionable evidence of a vicious propensity to invade the domain of reason and usurp her sovereignty. In order to check this lawless invasion of the passions, and to subordinate their movements to the empire of reason, man is obliged to labor unceasingly; else he is sure to become the slave of unbridled passion. This is what St. Paul means when he says: “The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh” etc. (Galatians 5:17). The substance of certain viands, especially meat, renders inestimable service to man in his efforts to gain and retain the desired supremacy. This is what St. Jerome means when, quoting Terence, he says: Sine Cerere et Baccho, friget Venus (Cont. Jov., II, 6), or, to use the words of St. Thomas (II-II, q. cxlvii, art. 1), “the ardor of lust is dampened by abstinence from food and drink.” Besides, abstinence exercises a salutary influence in leading man to suprasensible pursuits. For, according to St. Augustine (De oratione et jejunio, sermo ccxxx, de temp.), abstinence purifies the soul, elevates the mind, subordinates the flesh to the spirit, begets a humble and contrite heart, scatters the clouds of concupiscence, extinguishes the fire of lust, and enkindles the true light of chastity. This is summarized in the official message of the Church found in the Mass-preface used during Lent: “Who by bodily fasting suppresses vice, ennobles the mind, grants virtue and rewards.” It is no exaggeration, therefore, to maintain that Christians must find in abstinence an efficacious means to repair the losses of the spirit and augment its gains. Inspired by such motives, the Church wisely prohibits the use of flesh meat at duly appointed times. Seemingly harsh, the law of abstinence, in its last analysis, serves to promote bodily and spiritual well-being. The mechanism of the body stamps man as an omnivorous animal. Hence, all nations have adopted a mixed diet. Nay, more, a priori and a posteriori reasons prove that the occasional interruption of meat diet conduces to bodily and spiritual health. In case of less rugged constitutions, the Church tempers the rigors of her legislation with the mildness of her dispensations. Finally, the experience of nineteen centuries proves that transgression of this law neither promotes health nor prolongs life. Hence, consummate wisdom and prudence, seeking to safeguard the welfare of soul and body, inspire the Church in her laws pertaining to abstinence. (See ADVENT; LENT)
———————————–
TERTULLIAN, De Jejunio, P.L., II, ST. LEO I, Sermones, P. L., LIV; HERMAS Pastor, in Ante-Nicene Fathers (New York), II; CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, ibid., II; Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, ibid., VII, DUCHESNE, Christian Worship: Its origin and evolution (tr. London, 1904); Pilgrimage of Etheria (Sylviae), in DUCHESNE, op. cit., 547-577; HEFELE, A History of the Councils of the Church (tr. Edinburgh, 1896), I, II, V; ST. THOMAS, Summa, II-II, QQ. cxivii, cxlvii THOMASSIN, Traité des jeùnes d’ I’Egise (Paris, 16800; LAYMAN, Theologia Moralis (Padua, 1733); SPORER, Theologia Moralis super Decalogum (Venice, 1761), I; VACANT, Dict. de théol. cath (Paris, 1899), I, 262-277.
JAMES D. O’NEILL Transcribed by the Cloistered Dominican Nuns of the Monastery of the Infant Jesus, Lufkin, Texas Dedicated to St. Antony of Egypt
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume ICopyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Abstinence
(, not eating, Act 27:21), a general term, applicable to any object from which one abstains, while fasting is a species of abstinence, namely, from food. SEE FAST. The general term is likewise used in the particular sense to imply a partial abstinence from particular food, but fast signifies an abstinence from food altogether. Both are spoken of in the Bible as a religious duty. Abstinence again differs from temperance, which is a moderate use of food or drink usually taken, and is sometimes extended to other indulgences; while abstinence (in reference to food) is a refraining entirely, from the use of certain articles of diet, or a very slight partaking of ordinary meals, in cases where absolute fasting would be hazardous to health. SEE SELF-DENIAL.
1. Jewish. The first example of abstinence which occurs in Scripture is that in which the use of blood is forbidden to Noah (Gen 9:20). SEE BLOOD. The next is that mentioned in Gen 32:32 : The children of Israel eat not of the sinew which shrank, which is upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day, because he (the angel) touched the hollow of Jacob’s thigh in the sinew that shrank. SEE SINEW. This practice of particular and commemorative abstinence is here mentioned by anticipation long after the date of the fact referred to, as the phrase unto this day intimates. No actual instance of the practice occurs in the Scripture itself, but the usage has always been kept up; and to the present day the Jews generally abstain from the whole hind-quarter on account of the trouble and expense of extracting the particular sinew (Allen’s Modern Judaism, p. 421). By the law abstinence from blood was confirmed, and the use of the flesh of even lawful animals was forbidden, if the manner of their death rendered it impossible that they should be, or uncertain that they were, duly exsanguinated (Exo 22:31; Deu 14:21). A broad rule was also laid down by the law, defining whole classes of animals that might not be eaten (Lev 11:1-47). SEE ANIMAL; SEE FOOD. Certain parts of lawful animals, as being sacred to the altar, were also interdicted! These were the large lobe of the liver, the kidneys and the fat upon them, as well as the tail of the fat-tailed sheep (Lev 3:9-11). Every thing consecrated to idols was also forbidden (Exo 34:15). In conformity with these rules the Israelites abstained generally from food which was more or less in use among other people. Instances of abstinence from allowed food are not frequent, except in commemorative or afflictive fasts. The forty days’ abstinence of Moses, Elijah, and Jesus are peculiar cases, requiring to be separately considered. SEE FASTING. The priests were commanded to abstain from wine previous to their actual ministrations (Lev 10:9), and the same abstinence was enjoined to the Nazarites during the whole period of their separation (Num 6:5). SEE NAZARITE. A constant abstinence of this kind was, at a later period, voluntarily undertaken by the Rechabites (Jer 35:16; Jer 35:18). SEE RECHABITE.
Among the early Christian converts there were some who deemed themselves bound to adhere to the Mosaical limitations regarding food, and they accordingly abstained from flesh sacrificed to idols, as well as from animals which the law accounted unclean; while others contemned this as a weakness, and exulted in the liberty wherewith Christ had made his followers free. This question was repeatedly referred to the Apostle Paul, who laid down some admirable rules on the subject, the purport of which was, that every one was at liberty to act in this matter according to the dictates of his own conscience, but that the strong-minded had better abstain from the exercise of the freedom they possessed whenever it might prove an occasion of stumbling to a weak brother (Rom 14:1-3; 1Co 8:1-13). In another place the same apostle reproves certain sectaries who should arise, forbidding marriage, and enjoining abstinence from meats which God had created to be received with thanksgiving (1Ti 4:3-4). The council of the apostles at Jerusalem decided that no other abstinence regarding food should be imposed upon the converts than from meats offered to idols, from blood, and from things strangled (Act 15:29). Paul says (1Co 9:25) that wrestlers, in order to obtain a corruptible crown, abstain from all things, or from every thing which might weaken them. In his First Epistle to Timothy (4:3), he blames certain heretics who condemned marriage, and the use of meats which; God hath created. He requires Christians to abstain from all appearance of evil (1Th 5:22), and, with much stronger reason, from every thing really evil, and contrary to religion and piety. SEE FLESH; SEE ALISGEMA.
The Essenes, a sect among the Jews which is not mentioned by name in the Scriptures, led a more abstinent life than any recorded in the sacred books. SEE ESSENES. They refused all pleasant food, eating nothing but coarse bread and drinking only water; and some of them abstained from food altogether until after the sun had set (Philo, De Vita Contemplativa, p. 692, 696). That abstinence from ordinary food was practiced by the Jews medicinally is not shown in Scripture, but is more than probable, not only as a dictate of nature, but as a common practice of their Egyptian neighbors, who, we are informed by Diodorus (1, 82), being persuaded that the majority of diseases proceed from indigestion and excess of eating, had frequent recourse to abstinence, emetics, slight doses of medicine, and other simple means of relieving the system, which some persons were in the habit of repeating every two or three days. See Porphyry, De Abst. 4. SEE UNCLEANNESS;
2. Christian.
a. Early. In the early Church catechumens could be admitted to baptism; they were required, according to Cyril and Jerome, to observe a season of abstinence and prayer for forty days; according to others, of twenty days. Extreme caution and care were observed in the ancient Church in receiving candidates into communion, the particulars of which may be found under the head CATECHUMENS SEE CATECHUMENS . Superstitious abstinence by the clergy was deemed a crime. If they abstained from flesh, wine, marriage, or any thing lawful and innocent, in accordance with the heretical and false notions that the creatures of God were not good, but polluted and unclean, they were liable to be deposed from office. SEE ABSTINENTS. There was always much disputation between the Church and several heretical sects on the subjects of meats and marriage. The Manichees and Priscillianists professed a higher degree of spirituality and refinement, because they abstained from wine and flesh as things unlawful and unclean, and on this account censured the Church as impure in allowing men the moderate and just use of them. The Apostolical Canons enjoin, That if any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any other clerk, abstain from marriage, flesh, or wine, not for exercise, but abhorrence forgetting that God made all things very good, and created man male and female, and speaking evil of the workmanship of God, unless he correct his error, he shall be deposed, and cast out of the church. At the same time, strict observance of the fasts of the church was enjoined, and deposition was the penalty in case of non-compliance with the directions of the canons on this subject.
b. Romish. In the Romish Church a distinction is made between fasting and abstinence, and different days are appointed to each. On days of fasting, one meal in twenty-four hours is allowed; but on days of abstinence, provided flesh is not eaten and the meal is moderate, a collation is allowed in the evening. Their days of abstinence are all the Sundays in Lent, St. Mark’s day, if it does not fall in Easter-week, the three Rogation- days, all Saturdays throughout the year, with the Fridays which do not fall within the twelve days of Christmas. The observance of St. Mark’s day as a day of abstinence is said to be in imitation of St. Mark’s disciples, the first Christians of Alexandria, who are said to have been eminent for their prayer, abstinence, and sobriety. The Roman days of fasting are, all Lent except Sundays, the Ember-days, the vigils of the more solemn feasts, and all Fridays except such as fall between Easter and the Ascension. SEE CALENDAR.
c. Protestant. The Church of England, in the table of vigils, mentions fasts and days of abstinence separately; but in the enumeration of particulars, they are called indifferently days of fasting or abstinence, and the words seem to refer to the same thing. The Word of God never teaches us that abstinence is good and valuable per se, but only that it ministers to holiness; and so it is an instrument, not an end. Bingham, Orig. Eccles, bk. 10, ch. 11, 9. SEE ASCETICISM.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Abstinence
Enjoined by God, from blood (Gen 9:4); and by the Jerusalem council, from blood and idol meats (Act 15:29), not to offend Jewish brethren in things indifferent (1Co 9:20-22). The blood was considered as the seat of the life, and as typifying the one Blood that cleanseth from all sin therefore it was treated as a sacred thing. “The children of Israel eat not of the sinew which shrank, which is upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day, because the angel touched the hollow of Jacob’s thigh in the sinew that shrank” (Gen 32:32); modern Jews, therefore, abstain from the whole hind quarter.
The law defined whole classes of animals, by the not eating of which the Israelites were distinguished from other nations (Leviticus 11); to mark the separation of the church from the world. Also certain parts of lawful animals, to teach typically that even in lawful things moderation and self control are needed (1Co 6:12-13; Lev 3:9-11). So the priests, from wine, during their ministration (See AARON) (Lev 10:1-9); also the Nazarites during their separation (Num 6:3-4); also the Rechabites, constantly, by voluntary vow (Jeremiah 35). All idol meats were forbidden, namely, such as after the first portion had been consecrated to the idol were then eaten as food among the Gentiles (Exo 34:15; Psa 106:28; 1Co 8:4-10; Rom 14:3).
Paul lays down the principle that Christians should act each according to his conscience in the matter, but not, even in the exercise of Christian liberty, so as to cast a stumbling-block before weaker brethren. This was the principle of the decree, Act 15:29. In 1Ti 4:3-4, he foretells the rise of Gnostic heretics, the forerunners of the ascetics of the apostate Greek and Latin churches who should forbid marriage, and command to abstain from meats which God created to be received with thanksgiving. Holy Scripture does not enjoin, nor yet forbid, vows of abstinence from intoxicants. The sacrifice of one’s lawful right for our neighbor’s good accords with the law of love: “It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.” (Rom 14:21; Jeremiah 35.) (See RECHABITES.)
Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary
Abstinence
The Scripture sense of both these words hath a very extensive meaning, beyond the mere abstinence of the body. Fasting from food is easily done, and it is to be feared is often done by many, who give unrestrained indulgence to the lusts of the flesh and the mind. The Holy Ghost, by his servants the apostles, hath given them very blessed directions of “abstaining from fleshly lusts which war against the soul: and from the very appearance of evil.” (1Pe 2:11; 1Th 5:22.)
Fuente: The Poor Mans Concordance and Dictionary to the Sacred Scriptures
Abstinence
absti-nens: Abstinence as a form of asceticism reaches back into remote antiquity, and is found among most ancient peoples. It may be defined as a self-discipline which consists in the habitual renunciation, in whole or in part, of the enjoyments of the flesh, with a view to the cultivation of the life of the spirit. In its most extreme forms, it bids men to stifle and suppress their physical wants, rather than to subordinate them in the interest of a higher end or purpose, the underlying idea being that the body is the foe of the spirit, and that the progressive extirpation of the natural desires and inclinations by means of fasting, celibacy, voluntary poverty, etc., is the way of perfection.
This article will be concerned chiefly with abstinence from food, as dealt with in the Bible. (For other aspects of the subject, see TEMPERANCE; SELF-DENIAL; CLEAN; UNCLEANNESS; MEAT, etc.). Thus limited, abstinence may be either public or private, partial or entire.
1. Public Fasts
Only one such fast is spoken of as having been instituted and commanded by the Law of Moses, that of the Day of Atonement. This is called the Fast in Act 27:9 (compare Ant, XIV, iv, 3; Philo, Vit Mos, II, 4; Schrer, HJP, I, i, 322).
Four annual fasts were later observed by the Jews in commemoration of the dark days of Jerusalem – the day of the beginning of Nebuchadrezzar’s siege in the tenth month, the day of the capture of the city in the fourth month, the day of its destruction in the fifth month and the day of Gedaliah’s murder in the seventh month. These are all referred to in Zec 8:19. See FASTS.
It might reasonably be thought that such solemn anniversaries, once instituted, would have been kept up with sincerity by the Jews, at least for many years. But Isaiah illustrates how soon even the most outraged feelings of piety or patriotism may grow cold and formal. ‘Wherefore have we fasted and thou seest not?’ the exiled Jews cry in their captivity. ‘We have humbled our souls, and thou takest no notice.’ Yahweh’s swift answer follows: ‘Because your fasting is a mere form! Behold, in the day of your fast ye find your own pleasure and oppress all your laborers’ (compare Isa 58:3; Expositor’s Bible, at the place). That is to say, so formal has your fasting grown that your ordinary selfish, cruel life goes on just the same. Then Yahweh makes inquest: Is such the fast that I have chosen? the day for a man to afflict his soul? Is not this the fast that I have chosen: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the bands of the yoke, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? Then shalt thou call, and Yahweh will answer; thou shalt cry, and he will say, Here I am (Isa 58:5-9). The passage, as George Adam Smith says, fills the earliest, if not the highest place in the glorious succession of Scriptures exalting practical love, to which belong Isa 61:1-11; Mt 25; 1Co 13:1-13. The high import is that in God’s view character grows rich and life joyful, not by fasts or formal observances, but by acts of unselfish service inspired by a heart of love.
These fasts later fell into utter disuse, but they were revived after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.
Occasional public fasts were proclaimed in Israel, as among other peoples, in seasons of drought or public calamity. It appears according to Jewish accounts, that it was customary to hold them on the second and fifth days of the week, for the reason that Moses was believed to have gone up to Mt. Sinai on the fifth day of the week (Thursday) and to have come down on the second (Monday) (compare Didache, 8; Apostolical Constitutions, VIII, 23).
2. Private Fasts
In addition to these public solemnities, individuals were in the habit of imposing extra fasts upon themselves (e.g. Judith 8:6; Luk 2:37); and there were some among the Pharisees who fasted on the second and fifth days of the week all the year round (Luk 18:12; see Lightfoot, at the place).
Tacitus alludes to the frequent fasts of the Jews (History, V, 4), and Josephus tells of the spread of fasting among the Gentiles (Against Apion, II, 40; compare Tertullian, ad Nat, i.13). There is abundant evidence that many religious teachers laid down rules concerning fasting for their disciples (compare Mar 2:18; Mat 9:14; Luk 5:33).
3. Degrees of Strictness in Abstinence
Individuals and sects differ greatly in the degrees of strictness with which they observe fasts. In some fasts among the Jews abstinence from food and drink was observed simply from sunrise to sunset, and washing and anointing were permitted. In others of a stricter sort, the fast lasted from one sunset till the stars appeared after the next, and, not only food and drink, but washing, anointing, and every kind of agreeable activity and even salutations, were prohibited (Schrer, II, ii, 119; Edersheim, Life and Times, I, 663). Such fasting was generally practiced in the most austere and ostentatious manner, and, among the Pharisees, formed a part of their most pretentious externalism. On this point the testimony of Mat 6:16 is confirmed by the Mishna.
4. Abstinence Among Different Kinds of Ascetics
There arose among the Jews various kinds of ascetics and they may be roughly divided into three classes.
(1) The Essenes
These lived together in colonies, shared all things in common and practiced voluntary poverty. The stricter among them also eschewed marriage. They were indifferent, Philo says, alike to money, pleasure, and worldly position. They ate no animal flesh, drank no wine, and used no oil for anointing. The objects of sense were to them unholy, and to gratify the natural craving was sin. They do not seem to come distinctly into view in the New Testament. See ESSENES.
(2) The Hermit Ascetics
These fled away from human society with its temptations and allurements into the wilderness, and lived there a life of rigid self-discipline. Josephus (Vita, 2) gives us a notable example of this class in Banus, who lived in the desert, clothed himself with the leaves of trees, ate nothing save the natural produce of the soil, and bathed day and night in cold water for purity’s sake. John the Baptist was a hermit of an entirely different type. He also dwelt in the desert, wore a rough garment of camel’s hair and subsisted on locusts and wild honey. But his asceticism was rather an incident of his environment and vocation than an end in itself (see Asceticism, DCG). In the fragments of his sermons which are preserved in the Gospels there is no trace of any exhortation to ascetic exercises, though John’s disciples practiced fasting (Mar 2:18).
(3) The Moderate Ascetics
There were many pious Jews, men and women, who practiced asceticism of a less formal kind. The asceticism of the Pharisees was of a kind which naturally resulted from their legal and ceremonial conception of religion. It expressed itself chiefly, as we have seen, in ostentatious fasting and externalism. But there were not a few humble, devout souls in Israel who, like Anna, the prophetess, served God with fastings and supplications night and day (Luk 2:37), seeking by a true self-discipline to draw near unto God (of Act 13:2, Act 13:3; Act 14:23; 1Ti 5:5).
5. Abstinence as Viewed in the Talmud
Some of the rabbis roundly condemned abstinence, or asceticism in any form, as a principle of life. Why must the Nazirite bring a sin offering at the end of his term? (Num 6:13, Num 6:14) asks Eliezer ha-Kappar (Siphra), at the place); and gives answer, Because he sinned against his own person by his vow of abstaining from wine; and he concludes, Whoever undergoes fasting or other penances for no special reason commits a wrong. Man in the life to come will have to account for every enjoyment offered him that was refused without sufficient cause (Rabh, in Yer. Kid., 4). In Maimonides (Ha-Yadh ha-Hazakah, Deoth Joh 3:1) the monastic principle of abstinence in regard to marriage, eating meat, or drinking wine, or in regard to any other personal enjoyment or comfort, is condemned as contrary to the spirit of Judaism, and the golden middle-way of moderation is advocated.
But, on the other hand, abstinence is often considered by the rabbis meritorious and praiseworthy as a voluntary means of self-discipline. I partook of a Nazirite meal only once, says Simon the Just, when I met with a handsome youth from the south who had taken a vow. When I asked the reason he said: ‘I saw the Evil Spirit pursue me as I beheld my face reflected in water, and I swore that these long curls shall be cut off and offered as a sacrifice to Yahweh’; whereupon I kissed him upon his forehead and blessed him, saying, May there be many Nazirites like thee in Israel! (Nazr, 4b). Be holy was accordingly interpreted, Exercise abstinence in order to arrive at purity and holiness (Ab. Zarah, 20b; Siphra), Kedhoshm). Abstain from everything evil and from whatever is like unto it is a rule found in the Talmud (Hullin, 44b), as also in the Didache (3.1) – a saying evidently based on Job 31:1, Abstain from the lusts of the flesh and the world. The Mosaic laws concerning diet are all said by Rabh to be for the purification of Israel (Lev R. 13) – to train the Jew in self-discipline.
6. The Attitude of Jesus to Fasting
The question of crowning interest and significance to us is, What attitude did Jesus take toward fasting, or asceticism? The answer is to be sought in the light, first of His practice, and, secondly, of His teaching.
(1) His Practice
Jesus has even been accounted the Founder and Example of the ascetic life (Clem. Alex., Strom, III, 6). By questionable emphasis upon His forty days’ fast, His abstinence from marriage and His voluntary poverty, some have reached the conclusion that complete renunciation of the things of the present was the way of perfection according to the Saviour.
A fuller and more appreciative study of Jesus’ life and spirit must bring us to a different conclusion. Certainly His mode of life is sharply differentiated in the Gospels, not only from that of the Pharisees, but also from that of John the Baptist. Indeed, He exhibited nothing of the asceticism of those illustrious Christian saints, Bernard and John of the Cross, or even of Francis, who of all ascetics approached most nearly to the spirit of the Master. Jesus did not flee from the world, or eschew the amenities of social life. He contributed to the joyousness of a marriage feast, accepted the hospitality of rich and poor, permitted a vase of very precious ointment to be broken and poured upon His feet, welcomed the society of women, showed tender love to children, and clearly enjoyed the domestic life of the home in Bethany. There is no evidence that He imposed upon Himself any unnecessary austerities. The forty days’ fast (not mentioned in Mk, the oldest authority) is not an exception to this rule, as it was rather a necessity imposed by His situation in the wilderness than a self-imposed observance of a law of fasting (compare Christ’s words concerning John the Baptist: John came neither eating nor drinking, see the article on Asceticism, DCG). At any rate, He is not here an example of the traditional asceticism. He stands forth throughout the Gospels as the living type and embodiment of self-denial, yet the marks of the ascetic are not found in Him. His mode of life was, indeed, so non-ascetic as to bring upon Him the reproach of being a gluttonous man and a winebibber (Mat 11:19; Luk 7:34).
(2) His Teaching
Beyond question, it was, from first to last, instinct with the spirit of self-denial If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, is an ever-recurring refrain of His teaching Seek ye first the kingdom of God, is ever His categorical imperative (Mat 6:33 the King James Version; Luk 12:31). This is to Him the summum bonum – all desires and strivings which have not this as their goal must be suppressed or sacrificed (compare Mat 13:44-46; Mat 19:21; Mar 10:21; Luk 9:59, Luk 9:60; Luk 14:26 with Mat 5:29, Mat 5:30; Mar 9:43-47; Mat 16:24; Mar 8:34; Luk 9:23; and Luk 14:33). In short, if any man find that the gratification of any desire of the higher or lower self will impede or distract him in the performance of his duties as a subject of the Kingdom, he must forego such gratification, if he would be a disciple of Christ. If it cause thee to stumble, is always the condition, implied or expressed, which justifies abstinence from any particular good.
According to the record, Jesus alluded to fasting only twice in His teaching. In Mat 6:16-18, where voluntary fasting is presupposed as a religious exercise of His disciples, He warns them against making it the occasion of a parade of piety: Thou, when thou fastest, anoint thy head, and wash thy face; that thou be not seen of men to fast, but of thy Father who is in secret. In short, He sanctions fasting only as a genuine expression of a devout and contrite frame of mind.
In Mat 9:14-17 (parallel Mar 2:18-22; Luk 5:33-39) in reply to the question of the disciples of John and of the Pharisees, Jesus refuses to enjoin fasting. He says fasting, as a recognized sign of mourning, would be inconsistent with the joy which the sons of the bridexamber naturally feel while the bridegroom is with them. But, he adds, suggesting the true reason for fasting, that the days of bereavement will come, and then the outward expression of sorrow will be appropriate. Here, as in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus sanctions fasting, without enjoining it, as a form through which emotion may spontaneously seek expression. His teaching on the subject may be summarized in the one word, subordination (DCG).
To the form of fasting He attaches little importance, as is seen in the succeeding parables of the Old Garment and the Old Wine-skins. It will not do, He says, to graft the new liberty of the gospel on the body of old observances, and, yet more, to try to force the new system of life into the ancient molds. The new piety must manifest itself in new forms of its own making (Mat 9:16, Mat 9:17; Mar 2:21, Mar 2:22; Luk 5:36, Luk 5:38). Yet Jesus shows sympathy with the prejudices of the conservatives who cling to the customs of their fathers: No man having drunk old vane desireth new; for he saith, The old is good. But to the question, Was Jesus an ascetic? we are bound to reply, No.
Asceticism, as Harnack says, has no place in the gospel at all; what it asks is that we should struggle against Mammon, against care, against selfishness; what it demands and disengages is love – the love that serves and is self-sacrificing, and whoever encumbers Jesus’ message with any other kind of asceticism fails to understand it (What is Christianity? 88).
7. The Practice and Teaching of the Apostles
On the whole, unquestionably, the practice and teachings of the apostles and early Christians were in harmony with the example and teaching of the Master. But a tendency, partly innate, partly transmitted from Jewish legalism, and partly pagan, showed itself among their successors and gave rise to the Vita Religiosa and Dualism which found their fullest expression in Monasticism.
It is worthy of note that the alleged words of Jesus: ‘But this kind goeth not out save by prayer and fasting’ (Mar 9:29; Mat 17:21 the King James Version), are corruptions of the text. (Compare Tobit 12:8; Sirach 34:26; Luk 2:37). The Oxyrhynchus fragment (disc. 1897) contains a logion with the words legei Iesous, ean me nesteuete ton kosmon, ou me heurete ten basilean tou theou: Jesus saith, Except ye fast to the world, ye shall in no wise find the Kingdom of God, but the fasting here is clearly metaphorical.
Literature
Bingham, Antiquities, W. Bright, Some Aspects of Primitive Church Life (1898), J. O. Hannay, The Spirit and Origin of Christian Monasticism (1902), and The Wisdom of the Desert (1904); Thomas Kempis, Imitation of Christ, Migne, Dictionnaire d’ Asctisme, and Encyclopedia Theol., XLV, XLVI, 45, 46; Jewish Encyclopedia, and Bible Dictionaries at the place.
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Abstinence
Abstinence is a refraining from the use of certain articles of food usually eaten; or from all food during a certain time for some particular object. It is distinguished from Temperance, which is moderation in ordinary food; and from Fasting, which is abstinence from a religious motive. The first example of abstinence which occurs in Scripture is that in which the use of blood is forbidden to Noah (Gen 9:4) [BLOOD]. The next is that mentioned in Gen 32:32 : ‘The children of Israel eat not of the sinew which shrank, which is upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day, because he (the angel) touched the hollow of Jacob’s thigh in the sinew that shrank.’ By the law, abstinence from blood was confirmed, and the use of the flesh of even lawful animals was forbidden, if the manner of their death rendered it impossible that they should be, or uncertain that they were, duly exsanguinated ] (Exo 22:31; Deu 14:21). A broad rule was also laid down by the law, defining whole classes of animals that might not be eaten (Leviticus 11) [FOOD]. Certain parts of lawful animals, as being sacred to the altar, were also interdicted. These were the large lobe of the liver, the kidneys and the fat upon them, as well as the tail of the ‘fat-tailed’ sheep (Lev 3:9-11). Everything consecrated to idols was also forbidden (Exo 34:15). Instances of abstinence from allowed food are not frequent, except in commemorative or afflictive fasts. The forty days’ abstinence of Moses, Elijah, and Jesus are peculiar cases requiring to be separately considered [FASTS]. The priests were commanded to abstain from wine previous to their actual ministrations (Lev 10:9), and the same abstinence was enjoined to the Nazarites during the whole period of their separation (Num 6:3). A constant abstinence of this kind was, at a later period, voluntarily undertaken by the Rechabites (Jer 35:14-18). Among the early Christian converts there were some who deemed themselves bound to adhere to the Mosaic limitations regarding food, and they accordingly abstained from flesh sacrificed to idols, as well as from animals which the law accounted unclean; while others contemned this as a weakness, and exulted in the liberty wherewith Christ had made his followers free (Rom 14:1-3; 1 Corinthians 8). Mention is made by the apostle Paul of certain sectaries who should arise, forbidding marriage and enjoining abstinence from meats which God had created to be received with thanksgiving (1Ti 4:3-4). The council of the apostles at Jerusalem decided that no other abstinence regarding food should be imposed upon the converts than ‘from meats offered to idols, from blood, and from things strangled’ (Act 15:29).
Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature
Abstinence
forbearance of any thing. It is generally used with reference to forbearance from food under a religious motive. The Jewish law ordained that the priests should abstain from the use of wine during the whole time of their being employed in the service of the temple, Lev 10:9. The same abstinence was enjoined upon the Nazarites, during the time of their Nazariteship, or separation, Num 6:3. The Jews were commanded to abstain from several sorts of animals. See ANIMAL.
The fat of all sorts of animals that were sacrificed was forbidden to be eaten, Lev 3:17; Lev 7:23; and the blood of every animal, in general, was prohibited under pain of death. Indeed blood was forbidden by the Creator, from the time of the grant of the flesh of beasts to man for food; this prohibition was continued under the Jewish economy, and transmitted to the Christian church by Apostolic authority, Act 15:28-29. (See Blood.) The Jews also abstained from the sinew which is upon the hollow of the thigh, Gen 32:25; because of the shrinking of the sinew of Jacob’s thigh when touched by the angel, as though by that the part had been made sacred.
Among the primitive Christians, some denied themselves the use of such meats as were prohibited by the law; others treated this abstinence with contempt. St. Paul has given his decision on these questions in his epistles, 1Co 8:7-10; Rom 14:1-3. The council of Jerusalem, which was held by the Apostles, enjoined the Christian converts to abstain from meats strangled, from blood, from fornication, and from idolatry, Act 15:20.
The spiritual monarchy of the western world introduced another sort of abstinence which may be termed ritual, and which consists in abstaining from particular meats at certain times and seasons, the rules of which are called rogations. The ancient Lent was observed only a few days before Easter. In the course of the third century, it extended at Rome to three weeks; and before the middle of the succeeding age, it was prolonged to six weeks, and began to be called quadragesima, or the forty days’ fast.