[Mr. K]

wrong... research your history

The catholic church made a deal with local fishermen to get people to eat more fish

I am not going to sacrifice meat eating for the church to make a buck

[terycarl]

wrong... research your history The catholic church made a deal with local fishermen to get people to eat more fish I am not going to sacrifice meat eating for the church to make a buck

wrong....interpret history correctly....under your scenario, the church made no money, the fishermen did.....

[Eepsy]

If you’re going to research history, you must follow it through to the end. For much of Christian history, flesh meat was a delicacy for landowners and out of reach for most of the population. Fish was the one protein the poor could add to their primarily porridge based diet without spending a lot of money or endangering themselves by poaching.

The meals of the wealthy, conversely, consisted of course after course of cattle and game. In essence, you’re complaining that the church forced the rich to eat like poor people once a week.

[AnAmericanMother]

Completely wrong. I read medieval history as an undergraduate, long before I was Catholic (although reading folks like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas will push you in that direction.)

For most of the first thousand years or so of Western (Christian) Europe, meat - mutton, beef, poultry, and especially venison - was a delicacy that only the rich could afford, and fish was the food of the poor.

So much so that the London apprentices petitioned their masters' guilds that they only be forced to eat salmon twice a week.

You can't believe everything you read around the internet.