Abstinence and the mitigation of the rule

The second point which the mitigation affected was abstinence. The mitigated rule permits the use of meat three or four times a week. This was not such an important deviation from the primitive rule as is sometimes stated. One of the most authoritative commentaries on the rule-that of Sibert de Beka (d. 1333) -- relates that when the Carmelites were transplanted to Europe and sought to adapt the rule to their new needs, before presenting it for the approbation of Pope Innocent IV (1247), and influenced perhaps by the Rule of St. Benedict which promises blessings for those who abstain from wine, they asked if they might no' rather abstain from wine. On this they were in agreement with the writers of the primitive rule who, according to Sibert, always followed the example of the Rechabites and the Essenes, whom they venerated as predecessors and models. The latter did not abstain from meat because they had to partake of the sacrifices in the temple. By virtue of an analogous principle St. Albert, the author of the rule of 1205, prescribed abstinence from meat and not from wine, matter of sacrifices in the New Testament. In 1247 two Dominicans were appointed by Innocent IV to revise the rule, Cardinal Hugh of St. Cher and William, Bishop of Tortose, who decided on abstinence from meat. They likewise admitted the possibility of dispensation. A significant episode! Carmelite spirituality will always insist rather on abstinence in general as a fundamental of the spiritual life than on the particular form of practicing it.