Did the Pope at one time establish eating meat on Fridays as a mortal sin? If so, would a person who violated this command face the possiblity of hell during that period of church history?
Thanks.
It was not “the Pope” alone who established this requirement of abstinence from meat. The Bishops have the authority to legislate fasting, abstinence, and other penances and disciplines within the Church.
Friday is a day of penance and has been since the beginning of the Church.
The three elements of mortal sin are grave matter, full knowledge, and free choice.
A person with full knowledge and free will who purposely violates a discipline the Church states is grave mater commits a mortal sin. They are free to avail themselves of the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
… the ‘offense’ we are talking about here is not the eating of meat on a Friday, but that of being DISOBEDIENT.
If one knew that one was not supposed to eat meat, and did so, not out of hunger (there was nothing else to eat), ignorance (didn’t realize it was a Friday - maybe in a hole somewhere or didn’t tear pages on the calendar) or some other reason that would not be related to defiance, that person was being defiant to the church.
Simple as that.
I happen to have issues with the number of Catholics that I’m around that REFUSE to abstain from meat on Fridays unless it’s during the lenten season - the ones I’m talking about aren’t doing anything else to replace the abstention. I would also bet that a great number of people that don’t go meatless the rest of the year likewise do not go meatless during Lent.
tsk tsk tsk
Come on now, lets deal with the issue here. The fact is there was once a requirement that one must not eat meat on Fridays. And those who were “disobedient” to this requirement was commiting a mortal sin. Right?
Now today this isn’t required except during the Lenten season. For the rest of the year, a person doesn’t have to worry about being “disobedient” over this requirement, even if they wanted to.
So how is it fair to those back then that might of died and gone to hell over eating meat on any given Friday?
The same way that it’s fair that I get fined or whatever for not wearing a seatbelt in the car, when even in my own childhood there were no laws requiring seatbelts to be worn by anyone :shrug:
And the same way that before Peter’s vision at Cornelius’ house he would have been in sin for not adhering to Jewish dietary law while afterwards he was free to break it.
Laws, secular and spiritual, change at times, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. Sometimes they’re stricter (our requirement of celibacy for priests), sometimes more lenient. Them’s the breaks.
That’s the way that I understand it. Yes.
Now today this isn’t required except during the Lenten season. For the rest of the year, a person doesn’t have to worry about being “disobedient” over this requirement, even if they wanted to.
So how is it fair to those back then that might of died and gone to hell over eating meat on any given Friday?
At the time they did it, if they were being disobedient (defiant) they were separating themselves, by their own choice, from the chuch, but being defiant.
The offense was the defiance… I think I mentioned that already.
(The ‘requirement’ is not that the form of penance be abstention of meat. The requirement remains that Friday is a day of penance)
Why would it be unfair? If a stop sign is in place for many years at one location and then removed one day because the authorities deem it unnecessary at the present time would those who ran it while it was up not have been law breakers?
Them the breaks-no way. :nope:
Lily M and Fix, were not talking about no slap on the wrist. We’re talking about death, the second death!! It was mortal sin for some who ate meat on a Friday some time ago and nothing for todays people who eat meat on a non-Lenten Friday.
Come, on, we all know God is no Grandfather whose justice gets softer to his grandchildren as the years go by, but he is a Father to every person. His love, mercy, kindness, and justice does not change.
This rule with eating meat on Friday with the penalty of second death if not confessed, has changed.
I’m not being facetious, so please explain again if you think I’m mistaken.
Thanks
Rules change. It used to be death to call for the abolition of the monarchy. Now it’s a hardy perennial in British sixth form debates.
Now while I qualify that I abstain from meat on every Friday of the year, it is NOT a sin in the US.
The source document is here:
usccb.org/lent/2007/Penance_and_Abstinence.pdf
and the relevant wording is here:
This said, we emphasize that our people are
henceforth free from the obligation traditionally binding
under pain of sin in what pertains to Friday abstinence,
except as noted above for Lent. We stress this so that “no”
scrupulosity will enter into examinations of conscience,
confessions, or personal decisions on this point.
and if you don’t believe the bishops, herfe is Jimmy Akin’s take:
jimmyakin.org/2004/07/since_tomorrow_.html
key words:
The big legal change comes in norm #3, where the bishops state that “we hereby terminate the traditional law of abstinence as binding under pain of sin, as the sole prescribed means of observing Friday.” So the obligation to abstain from meat is terminated. The question becomes: What obligation, if any, have the bishops put in its place?
The clause “as the sole prescribed means of observing Friday” is consistent with the idea that they did establish another obligation or a mandate to do penance in some form on Friday, but it also is consistent with the idea that they did not establish a new obligation.
EWTN airs a commercial that says that it is STILL a sin to eat meat on Fridays if it is not replaced by some charitable act.
Is this correct?
You are focusing on the wrong thing. The sin is not/was not in eating meat on a Friday. The sin was in deliberately violating one of the Precepts of the Church. It is the same sin that you commit if you deliberately miss Mass on a Holy Day of Obligation, also deliniated in the Precepts of the Church. The days might be different in different countries but the obligation to obey the Precept is the same. The rules for abstinance may be different in different decades or in different countries but the obligation to obey the Precept is the same.
Deliberately violating a Precept of the Church is a grave sin. Always has been, still is, always will be.
Is it a mortal sin?
Suppose that someone were to eat a hot dog on Friday and not perform a charitable act on that day. Is that a mortal sin?
One could be condemned to Hell because they ate meat on a Friday.
The RCC has sinced changed the rules and now Catholics can eat red meat with impunity on most Fridays of the year. It makes one wonder whether God will let out of Hell those who were sent there by doing something Catholics today can do with the Church’s blessing.
I also wonder how someone is considered fasting as they eat a lobster tail platter but is worthy of Hell if they fast by merely eating a measly hotdog.
It makes no sense to me. Is this the Gospel?
…
Yes.
I’m sorry, I can’t quote the source, but the ruling (as I understand it) is that one may replace the Friday abstinence from meat with some OTHER penance on Fridays during the non-Lenten times of the year.
That means, that something ELSE MUST be done. If not, you should not eat meat.
Which I think is very confusing to most people. I personally think it would be so much clearer to the average American if the Magisterium (and the Bishops of the USA) would say that the Friday abstinence is in place for the entire year.
That’s just my call… ymmv
Specifically, because they did so in knowing and willful defiance of the Church’s rules, which it has authority from God to establish.
As someone else said, it is a parallel situation to the early Christians’ release from the Jewish dietary laws.
It has never been absolutely and immutably evil to consume any particular foodstuff. Yet some faithful Jews went through agonizing deaths rather than let pork pass their lips (see the story in the First Book of Maccabees, whether or not you consider it inspired Scripture). Why? Because they believed that to do otherwise would be to defy and deny God.
Likewise, it’s not that eating meat on Fridays was previously a terrible evil, and now is not. Rather, if you know about such a rule, believe that it was made with God-given authority, and deliberately break it anyway, you are saying “My will be done” rather than “Thy will be done,” which is the one thing that, if it persists until death, will send someone to Hell.
The RCC has sinced changed the rules and now Catholics can eat red meat with impunity on most Fridays of the year. It makes one wonder whether God will let out of Hell those who were sent there by doing something Catholics today can do with the Church’s blessing.
Again, no one was sent to Hell for the act of eating a hot dog in and of itself. I would strongly suspect that the vast majority of all Friday “slip-ups” by Catholics during that period were venial sins, because it’s hard to imagine that the psychological requirements for a mortal sin were generally met.
In those cases where that did happen, it would be the defiance of God persisting until death – the key feature of all souls that condemn themselves to Hell – rather than the specific physical act that was the reason.
I also wonder how someone is considered fasting as they eat a lobster tail platter but is worthy of Hell if they fast by merely eating a measly hotdog.
That’s actually a major reason behind the abolition of the rule. At one time, fish was the food of the poor, while other meats were luxury items – so abstaining from meat was nearly always a penitential act. The whole idea behind giving Catholics in certain countries the option to substitute another act of penance is that eating fish instead of meat no longer automatically means giving up someone that one would rather have had.
Also, fast and abstinence (from meat) are two different rules. One who is fasting is supposed to take only one normal-sized meal in a day, so pigging out on anything (whether or not abstinence from meat is also required on that day) would be against at least the spirit and most likely the letter of the fast.
It makes no sense to me. Is this the Gospel?
…
Is a single now-abolished rule the heart of the Gospel? No, else it would not have been able to be abolished. Was it intended to help people live more Christlike lives, and retired when it no longer served that purpose? Yes.
Fasting is certainly a Jesus-recommended spiritual discipline, and other forms of denying the appetites so as to build up resistance to temptation are at least implied in Paul’s letters (the “I pummel my body” bit, though historically some folks have taken that into the realm of sinful self-mutilation or gnostic body-hatred).
Usagi
Nobody is required to abstain from eating meat on Fridays apart from the Lenten season. What is required is an act of penance of which abstaining from meat is a choice.
CCC 1438 The seasons and days of penance in the course of the liturgical year (Lent, and each Friday in memory of the death of the Lord) are intense moments of the Church’s penitential practice. These times are particularly appropriate for spiritual exercises, penitential liturgies, pilgrimages as signs of penance, voluntary self-denial such as fasting and almsgiving, and fraternal sharing (charitable and missionary works).
Yes… I know. That’s why I think it would be clearer if the ruling were changed (to the way it was before) that EVERY Friday be a day of abstenance from meat.
You folks are funny. I posted the direct articles from the US Conference of Bishops web site and everyone keeps on askin’…:ouch:
At least not in the US. The change in the teaching left the specifics of the Friday (outside of Lent) pennance to the local congregations of Bishops. The traditional penance of abstaining from meat was one of the options. It is entirely possible that some Bishops’ Conference retained that.