John Chrysostom

Again, he requires the greater alternative, that they should not only not force him, but even condescend to him. For he often did this himself also, as when he circumcised (Acts xvi. 3), when he was shorn (ib. xviii. 18), when he sacrificed that Jewish sacrifice. (ib. xxi. 26). And he does not say to the man "do so," but he states it in the form of a sentiment to prevent again making the other, the weaker man, too listless. And what are his words? "It is good not to eat flesh." And why do I say flesh? …

Homily on Romans 26 ↗

Theophylact of Ohrid

You, he says, compel your brother to eat what he does not dare to eat, but I say that you must abstain from everything that causes your brother to stumble, not because it is evil (for all things are clean), but because it causes stumbling. By the word "stumbles" he showed that he is blinded, for the blind stumble. And he "is offended" as one who is fickle, and "is made weak" as one of little faith. By all this he draws the stronger one to help his brother, as one who is utterly infirm.

Commentary on Romans ↗

Clement of Alexandria

"It is good, then, neither to eat flesh nor to drink wine," as both he and the Pythagoreans acknowledge. For this is rather characteristic of a beast; and the fumes arising from them being dense, darken the soul.

The Instructor Book 2 ↗

Thomas Aquinas

Second, he shows what is good in eating foods of this sort, saying: it is good not to eat flesh and not to drink wine, the first of which seems to be the principal food and the second the principal drink. He says that it is good to abstain from these either to tame the desires of the flesh, as it says in Ephesians: do not get drunk with wine, for in that is debauchery (Eph 5:18), or even to make a man more apt for contemplating spiritual things: I have thought to deprive myself of wine, that I might give my mind to wisdom (Eccl 2:3). …

Commentary on Romans ↗