[MysticCat]

Originally posted by SydneyK
Not trying to be dense (or confrontational, either), but I don't get it. Obviously, I'm not Catholic, so ultimately it doesn't really affect me. But, I'm curious nonetheless.

Is this "rule" based on a particular scripture, or is it just the way Catholics choose to make sacrifices?

To add a little to what AlphaFrog said, fasting or abstinence (giving up meat or some other foods) during Lent is not a scriptural mandate, it is a church discipline. Indeed, observance of Lent, while very ancient, is not a scriptural mandate either, although the 40 days are modeled after Christ's 40 days in the wilderness.

Lent originally arose as a time for new converts who were being educated in the faith to prepare for their baptisms, which would take place on Easter. It was also a time for those who had become estranged from the church or excommunicated to seek reconciliation with the church. From these roots, it developed into a time for all Christians to engage in penitential disciplines as a way of preparing for Easter.

Note that if you check a calendar and count from Ash Wednesday to Holy Saturday (the day between Good Friday and Easter), you will get 46 days, not 40. That is because Sundays are not counted. Since at least the fourth century, it has been considered innappropriate to fast on Sundays, since each Sunday is a festival of the resurrection, or a "Little Easter." The same kind of reasoning can apply to other festivals and feasts that might occur during Lent.

As for Fridays, at the time of the early church, pious Jews fasted or abstained from certain foods on two days each week -- Tuesdays and Thursdays (unless a festival fell on one of these days). The church kept this tradition but moved the days to Wednesday and Friday, partly to distinguish their practice from the Jewish practice and partly as a rememberence of Good Friday (making every Friday a "Little Good Friday" just as every Sunday is a "Little Easter"). Eventually, only the Friday abstinence was observed. Since the Second Vatican Council, the Friday abstinence, while recommended throughout the year, is only obligatory during Lent.

Is St. Patty's Day a Catholic holiday of sorts? AGDee mentioned that the dispensation came about because "Saints" days are feast days (which conflicts with a fasting day). Now, maybe it's just me, but it seems like the sacrifices Catholics are expected to make on fasting days are more... important, if you will... than feasting days (but again, I have no idea - this is all just my opinion). Why would the Catholic Church side with the feast day, when it seems they should do just the opposite?

St. Patrick's Day is a feast day, especially for Irish Catholics and Catholics in dioceses where St. Patrick is the patron saint, such as New York. (And BTW, it's St. Paddy, not Patty. .) But "feast" here is being used in its original sense -- a religious festival commemorating an event or honoring God or a saint. The root of "feast" is the same as the root of "festival." Big, festive meals came to be called "feasts" because they occurred on "feast days."

Since early days, the church has commemorated saints and matyrs. Typically, and if known, the feast occurs on the day the saint or martyr died.

Also, if "rules" can be changed so easily, doesn't it kinda defeat the point of having them? I mean, they were implemented for a reason, right? If the rules are based on scripture, shouldn't the exceptions be, too?

The rules on fasting and abstinence during Lent are not meant to be hard and unbending or types of punishment -- they are spiritual disciplines designed to help people renew their faith and prepare to enter completely into the mystery and celebration of Easter. Given that, some flexibility is not only permissible but probably desirable. Otherwise, legalism rather than the spirit of penitence wins out.