Changing obligations and sin

[CMatt25]

I hear Catholics saying “Catholic Church teaching has never changed” when they compare the Catholic faith with others. But how is this so?

With the Lenten season soon upon us, I am thinking of just one example where the precepts of the Church have changed. Not all too many yrs ago relatively speaking, Catholics were required not to eat meat on any Friday of the yr. Then a change was made and the obligation to abstain is now only on Fridays of Lent.

I understand you will say the sin of eating meat is one of disobedience and not precisely the act of eating meat. But was it a mortal sin if someone disobeyed the Church by eating meat on a Friday in August back in the days when the obligation was to abstain on every Friday? And now that the obligation has changed, it is only sin if you disobey by eating meat on a Friday during Lent.

So if it was mortal sin, a soul back in the day may now be in eternal hell under Catholic teaching because they disobeyed and ate meat on an August Friday? But now because the obligation is changed, it would not be a sin to do so.

How does that make sense or is even fair to the soul from the earlier time? God is going to condemn someone for eating meat on a Friday in one era. But then He is going to change the obligation so it is no longer disobeying to eat meat on that same Friday now?

 

[Yerusalyim]

Our Dogma has remained the same…mere matters of discipline, such as the Lenten fast…are up for grabs.

One of my favorite old cartoons showed two devils in hell speaking…one turns to the other and says “What do we do with the Catholics here for eating meat on Friday?” (tried to find it on the web but it’s not where I can find it). It was a funny joke…but here’s the deal. It’s not that eating meat on Fridays in and of itself was a sin, the sin entered into the scenario either in Not Caring or deliberately ignoring a discipline of the Church.

The same is true in other areas…dogmatically, only men can be priests. However, we have no doctrine that prohibits priests from being married, or married men being ordained…it’s simply discipline.

By not changing we mean things like the Trinity, the homostatic union of Chist, the Real presence…these things will not change.

 

[Reuben_J]

Hi CMatt25.

Maybe you are confused by what we call Dogma, Doctrine and Discipline of the Catholic Church. As Yerusalyim mentioned above …

Dogma: “The deposit of faith” (1 Tim. 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:14) is made up of the entire revelation of Jesus Christ to the Church both in Doctrine and Morals.
A dogma is a truth revealed by God, and as such is proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as necessary for belief. A person remains a Catholic in good standing only if he accepts in its entirety the full revelation of the Faith in its integrity. Dogmas, because they are divinely revealed cannot change.

The deliberate denial of a dogma of the Faith is called heresy.

Doctrine: is the compilation of all the teachings of the Catholic Church. That includes those teachings which are necessary as well as those which are not essential to the complete integrity of the Faith. Also included in this category of revelation is the concept that there are dogmas which have yet to be defined, i.e., clarified, officially by the Church.

Doctrine differs from dogma in that it can be disputed and speculated upon until such time that it is officially defined by the Magisterium of the Church.

Some doctrines are non-essential to the Faith but are nonetheless, important to it cohesion as a unified whole while are essential not to the Faith but rather to the Moral Law of Christ.

Discipline: Any rule, regulation, law and direction set down by the authority of the Church for guiding the faithful toward the perfection of the Gospel in their own lives and the life of the Church as a whole.

The discipline of the Church is the one area that has most effective power over the faithful. This is the place where we feel it the most because this area is subject to change and is the most visible reflection of our every day faith. Examples of disciplinary customs and regulations would be; abstaining from meat on Friday, married clergy, communion in the hand, altar-girls, saying the Mass in Latin or the vernacular, the obligation to go to Mass on designated Holy Days, etc. These things can change due to circumstances within a particular diocese or throughout the entire Church. In matters of discipline the Church is not infallible.

The duty of the Magisterium in these matters is to create the most conducive atmosphere toward our salvation. The Church has the right and necessary obligation to place whatever strictures and sanctions it sees fit in order to coerce those who do not have the strength on their own to do those actions which are ultimately to their own benefit. For instance, before the strict prohibition not to eat meat (from any air-breathing animal) on all Fridays of the year with special exceptions made if a holiday fell on a Friday. The sanction was strict; “on pain of mortal sin” and the only exception made was if the person ate meat without realizing it was Friday. When the practice has differed somewhat, that we had matured as a People and we didn’t need to be directed toward sacrifice even for our own good. In the new Code of Canon Law the following laws are promulgated regarding this traditional prohibition. Read these canons carefully and then see whether or not the law has really changed.

**Can.1251–Abstinence from eating meat or another food according to the prescriptions of the conference of bishops is to be observed on Fridays throughout the year unless they are solemnities; abstinence and fast are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and on the Friday of the Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Canon 1253–It is for the conference of bishops to determine more precisely the observance of fast and abstinence and to substitute in whole or in part for fast and abstinence other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety.**

Canon 1253 seems to give leeway for your local Bishop to make his discretion in this matter of discipline.

You are right in the sense that it is a sin of disobedient to the Church, but it should be left at that. Eating of meat on Friday was sin before because the Church pronounced it as a discipline. It is not now because there is a modification to this discipline.

God bless.

freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2396160/posts

 

[Pug]

The topic you are asking about reminds me of “family obligations”. My obligation is to be a member of my family. What that entails will change with time and with the member, but the obligation remains the same. I remember feeling a bit miffed when I realized that because of my age, I would have to attend zillions of weddings and shell out $50 a pop worth of presents for the rest of my life, but none of these people had to do the same for me. I guess they’ll all have to show up for my funeral, and I’ll miss all of theirs.

 

[JRKH]

I hear Catholics saying “Catholic Church teaching has never changed” when they compare the Catholic faith with others. But how is this so?

With the Lenten season soon upon us, I am thinking of just one example where the precepts of the Church have changed. Not all too many yrs ago relatively speaking, Catholics were required not to eat meat on any Friday of the yr. Then a change was made and the obligation to abstain is now only on Fridays of Lent.

I understand you will say the sin of eating meat is one of disobedience and not precisely the act of eating meat. But was it a mortal sin if someone disobeyed the Church by eating meat on a Friday in August back in the days when the obligation was to abstain on every Friday? And now that the obligation has changed, it is only sin if you disobey by eating meat on a Friday during Lent.

So if it was mortal sin, a soul back in the day may now be in eternal hell under Catholic teaching because they disobeyed and ate meat on an August Friday? But now because the obligation is changed, it would not be a sin to do so.

How does that make sense or is even fair to the soul from the earlier time? God is going to condemn someone for eating meat on a Friday in one era. But then He is going to change the obligation so it is no longer disobeying to eat meat on that same Friday now?

Others have given very good answers and clarifications so I would just like to add one thing.
There is a widely spread misunderstanding about the Friday obligation. The fact is that it still exists. What happened is only that the strict abstaining from meat was replaced with the option of choosing another form of abstinance or other act of charity. We are still required to do perform some act of repentance on fridays.

I’m sorry that I do not have a reference for the above. Perhaps someone else can supply a link.
The point is that the principle of the teaching has not changed, only the method of practice has changed.

Peace
James

 

[slammers007]

I am trying to better understand my faith and be able to explain it to others. What is the purpose behind not eating meat on Fridays? I don’t understand what purpose this serves.

 

[JRKH]

I am trying to better understand my faith and be able to explain it to others. What is the purpose behind not eating meat on Fridays? I don’t understand what purpose this serves.

FROM HERE

The practice of refraining from the consumption of meat by Catholics is known as abstinence and is an old and venerable tradition. St. Thomas Aquinas gives the three purposes of fasting and abstaining: “in order to bridle the lusts of the flesh…that the mind may arise more freely to the contemplation of heavenly things…and in order to satisfy for sins.”

In ages past, the consumption of meat was not as frequent as today and celebrations were marked with meat-filled meals. Because Jesus was crucified on a Friday, for Christians, this day has always regarded as a penitential day marked by the abstention from consuming flesh.

Follow the link above for more.

Peace
James

 

[Reuben_J]

FROM HERE

The practice of refraining from the consumption of meat by Catholics is known as abstinence and is an old and venerable tradition. St. Thomas Aquinas gives the three purposes of fasting and abstaining: "in order to bridle the lusts of the flesh…that the mind may arise more freely to the contemplation of heavenly things…and in order to satisfy for sins."

In ages past, the consumption of meat was not as frequent as today and celebrations were marked with meat-filled meals. Because Jesus was crucified on a Friday, for Christians, this day has always regarded as a penitential day marked by the abstention from consuming flesh.

Follow the link above for more.

Peace
James

Good reference from Aquinas there.

As an aside, due to my health condition, prohibiting me from eating meat is a God send present. Abstaining from meat does not hurt me as I would like to avoid it whenever possible, thus for me not having to eat meat is actually not an abstinence and it does not bridle the lust of my flesh whatsoever. The only reason if I abstain from meat is only to obey the Church, otherwise I am better off without eating it.

Sorry for the digression …

 

[CMatt25]

Thank you all for your responses. The definitions of all the various parts, dogma, doctrine, etc has always been confusing to me. So if disciplines are fallible and even some doctrine not essential, why would “on pain of mortal sin” be a sanction for not obeying a discipline?

 

[Pug]

Answering your particular combination of question about pain of mortal sin and meat on Friday isn’t my forte, but no one is answering and this is a fast board, so I’ll try to be useful.

The thing is that penance itself as an entire concept is something we need to do, so there is no wiggling out of it as a general thing. It is no mere observance, with no relation to what and who we are. Three things are connected: prayer, fasting (abstinence falls under this too), and almsgiving (or charitable works). Jesus details in the sermon on the mount how we are to do all three of those things. When we fast, pray, and give alms, our Father who sees in secret will reward us. Let us store up treasure in heaven and so put our heart there. Maybe try reading Matthew 6:1-21, part of the sermon on the mount, about those three items.

We need to repent and believe in the gospel, and respond to it as men, with our whole selves (we are a body and a soul). We need to turn to God with our entire heart and being. We need to bear fruit in keeping with repentance. I’ve noticed how works of charity, fasting, and prayer involve both our body and soul. Anyway, the Church, in order to unite the faithful in some common form of penance, in addition to what we do separately as individuals, sets up days of penance. Those are the days of which Fridays in Lent are an example. They are designed to dispose us to be prepared to celebrate the death and resurrection of our Lord. What I can’t tell you because I don’t know, is if the Church really even has a choice about making it binding under venial instead of grave sin, given the importance of penance. It is essential to our spiritual life.

If you are into reading Church documents, the place I suggest for your topic is Paenitemini (Apostolic Constitution on Fast and Abstinence). It has norms/rules near the end, but I mean all the exposition stuff before that. It at least would give you an overview of what the Church thinks about the general topic of penance. Note it starts the whole document out with, “Repent and believe in the gospel,” the words of Jesus. They use a different translation, though.

 

[Third_Day]

I
So if it was mortal sin, a soul back in the day may now be in eternal hell under Catholic teaching because they disobeyed and ate meat on an August Friday? But now because the obligation is changed, it would not be a sin to do so.

How does that make sense or is even fair to the soul from the earlier time? God is going to condemn someone for eating meat on a Friday in one era. But then He is going to change the obligation so it is no longer disobeying to eat meat on that same Friday now?

No one committed a mortal sin for eating meat on a Friday. If they committed a mortal sin it is for knowingly and willingly rejecting the teaching of the Church. They would have had to say “I know this is a mortal sin but I am going to do it anyway”. That still holds true today.

 

[KathleenGee]

The Church must follow the Gospel…that Jesus Christ said His burden is light, His yoke is easy…’

If the conditions of our times change beyond our control, the Church must accommodate us…

I think it exemplary that Catholics choose to continue to avoid meat on Fridays in recognition of all the Lord suffered for us…

 

[JRKH]

No one committed a mortal sin for eating meat on a Friday. If they committed a mortal sin it is for knowingly and willingly rejecting the teaching of the Church. They would have had to say “I know this is a mortal sin but I am going to do it anyway”. That still holds true today.

Thank you for making this very important point.
Mortal sins proceed, and have always proceeded from a rejection of God and God’s Love.

So many seem to be so wrapped up in the “rules” and what seems “fair” that they forget to look at the root of our faith. That root is Love. It is far better to look at how this or that “rule” stems from Love.
In the case of eating meat or not eating meat on Friday, it stems from our Love, and sorrow, and gratitude ofr what Christ did for us on that Friday so long ago. It also stems from Christ, through His Church, helping his brothers to discipline themselves so as to be better equiped to receive and respond to the Graces of God and to resist tempation.
In short the rule stemed from Love.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Actually this question reminds me of a story I heard on a program about Father Solanus Casey.

It seems that a married couple who knew Father Solanus well were traveling back from vacation on a Friday and decided to stop and see him.
In the trunk of the car was a cooler that had had ice in it and one left over hot dog. The man wanted to eat the hot dog but his wife wouldn’t let him since it was Friday and this was pre-VAT II.
So - They are sitting and visiting with Father Solanus and the man is thinking about this hot dog. Finally he says to Fr Solanus, “Father, I’m not feeling well. Don’t you think I should eat something?” Fr Solanus asked why he was asking so the man explained.
Father Solanus suggested they go out to the car and see what was there.
When they opened the cooler all of the ice had melted and the hot dog was just floating in about 3 inches of water. Father Solanus stuck his head down close to the cooler and looked. Then he stood up and asked, “How long has it been in there?”
“About 2 days Father”, responded the man.
Father Casey turned and said, " That’s long enough. Call it a fish and eat it."

Peace
James

 

[CMatt25]

I understand the sin is disobedience. What I’m still having difficulty with is how what we must obey to avoid mortal sin is changable. By fairness I’m speaking of someone who disobeyed the abstinance rules back in the day and now may find themselves in hell. But nowadays someone is not disobeying if they eat meat on a Friday outside of Lent as long as they do another act of charity. Did the Catholic soul have the option to do another act of charity yrs ago or was it they had to abstain from eating meat back then, period… or else risk eternal damnation from mortal sin? My point is they would not have had the option of another act of charity to avoid mortal sin if they ate meat on any Fri of the yr. But now people do. Just seems like if this is the case, the poor soul who ate meat before faced an eternity without Christ without the option of doing some other act to avoid the sin. But now the same person could eat meat today but avoid mortal sin by doing some other act instead. Yet it’s too late for them if their soul has already been sent to hell because the requirements to fulfill the obligation were different back then.

 

[JRKH]

I understand the sin is disobedience. What I’m still having difficulty with is how what we must obey to avoid mortal sin is changable. By fairness I’m speaking of someone who disobeyed the abstinance rules back in the day and now may find themselves in hell. But nowadays someone is not disobeying if they eat meat on a Friday outside of Lent as long as they do another act of charity. Did the Catholic soul have the option to do another act of charity yrs ago or was it they had to abstain from eating meat back then, period… or else risk eternal damnation from mortal sin? My point is they would not have had the option of another act of charity to avoid mortal sin if they ate meat on any Fri of the yr. But now people do. Just seems like if this is the case, the poor soul who ate meat before faced an eternity without Christ without the option of doing some other act to avoid the sin. But now the same person could eat meat today but avoid mortal sin by doing some other act instead. Yet it’s too late for them if their soul has already been sent to hell because the requirements to fulfill the obligation were different back then.

In order to better understand, you need to let go of your “Rules” and “Fairness” mentality and look at the issue in the light of Love. Once you do this you will begin to see more clearly.

Back in the day, when meatless fridays were mandated, What would cause someone to eat meat on Firday, I can only think of three reasons,
The First is that they simply forgot it was Friday until after the act. Since there was no “Intent” to violate the rule, the sin is minimal - simply a matter of “lack of due diligence”, so to speak. No one is going to go to hell for this. Act of contrition, and confess it.
The Second is a person Knows full well that it is wrong and does it anyway without remorse. This is much more serious. Assuming that the person knows that a teaching of the Church is a teaching of Christ, then deciding to deliberately disobey the rule is to disobey Christ. Thus the sin is not about meat, but about rejection of God. A serious sin indeed. For rejecting God is rejecting God’s Love and violating the first of the two Great commandments, Love of God. That is why such a sin would be considered a grave sin.
The Third reason would be a person who deliberately eats meat on Fridays but is not properly formed in their faith and does not realize that they are rejecting God by what they are doing. Their ignorance acts as a mitigating circumstance in regards to the sin.

This third reason is, I suspect, where you are making an error. You have not equated the idea of disobeying the teachings of the Church with disobeying God.

This is why we can say that there are no people in hell just for eating meat on Friday. If they are in hell it is for rejecting God in full knowledge. Once they did that, it doesn’t matter what the sin was or what rule they broke, if they died in that state they were destined for condemnation.

Peace
James

 

[CMatt25]

In order to better understand, you need to let go of your “Rules” and “Fairness” mentality and look at the issue in the light of Love. Once you do this you will begin to see more clearly.

Back in the day, when meatless fridays were mandated, What would cause someone to eat meat on Firday, I can only think of three reasons,
The First is that they simply forgot it was Friday until after the act. Since there was no “Intent” to violate the rule, the sin is minimal - simply a matter of “lack of due diligence”, so to speak. No one is going to go to hell for this. Act of contrition, and confess it.
The Second is a person Knows full well that it is wrong and does it anyway without remorse. This is much more serious. Assuming that the person knows that a teaching of the Church is a teaching of Christ, then deciding to deliberately disobey the rule is to disobey Christ. Thus the sin is not about meat, but about rejection of God. A serious sin indeed. For rejecting God is rejecting God’s Love and violating the first of the two Great commandments, Love of God. That is why such a sin would be considered a grave sin.
The Third reason would be a person who deliberately eats meat on Fridays but is not properly formed in their faith and does not realize that they are rejecting God by what they are doing. Their ignorance acts as a mitigating circumstance in regards to the sin.

This third reason is, I suspect, where you are making an error. You have not equated the idea of disobeying the teachings of the Church with disobeying God.

This is why we can say that there are no people in hell just for eating meat on Friday. If they are in hell it is for rejecting God in full knowledge. Once they did that, it doesn’t matter what the sin was or what rule they broke, if they died in that state they were destined for condemnation.

Peace
James

James, I guess. So the teachings of what is required to love God can change then? Well I guess so if the disciplines can change as someone said earlier.

 

[kalt]

Your mother decided that running with sissors was bad, and she ordered you not to do it. You disobeyed her and ran like the wind with a two large sissors in each hand and a small one tucked in your pocket protector.

Later your mother decided that running with sissors was OK. (She didn’t like you much, anyway.)

Does your mother’s change of mind mean that you didn’t break a commandment when you ran with sissors in opposition to her order?

 

[Smart30]

I hear Catholics saying “Catholic Church teaching has never changed” when they compare the Catholic faith with others. But how is this so?

With the Lenten season soon upon us, I am thinking of just one example where the precepts of the Church have changed. Not all too many yrs ago relatively speaking, Catholics were required not to eat meat on any Friday of the yr. Then a change was made and the obligation to abstain is now only on Fridays of Lent.

I understand you will say the sin of eating meat is one of disobedience and not precisely the act of eating meat. But was it a mortal sin if someone disobeyed the Church by eating meat on a Friday in August back in the days when the obligation was to abstain on every Friday? And now that the obligation has changed, it is only sin if you disobey by eating meat on a Friday during Lent.

So if it was mortal sin, a soul back in the day may now be in eternal hell under Catholic teaching because they disobeyed and ate meat on an August Friday? But now because the obligation is changed, it would not be a sin to do so.

How does that make sense or is even fair to the soul from the earlier time? God is going to condemn someone for eating meat on a Friday in one era. But then He is going to change the obligation so it is no longer disobeying to eat meat on that same Friday now?

The Catholic Church is in a constant state of change in it’s beliefs. It’s almost a new church every 60 years.

 

[JRKH]

James, I guess. So the teachings of what is required to love God can change then? Well I guess so if the disciplines can change as someone said earlier.

I don’t understand you here.
Can you tell me what, in a general sense, is “required to love”, anyone?

I love my spouse. BECAUSE I love her, I do all that I can for her. I wish the highest good for her. I sacrifice willingly for her. I refuse to do anything that I know would hurt her in any way.
Are these things “Required to Love her”? Not at All!!! Rather they are the RESULT of loving her.

We could make the same case for our relationship with God.
If we Love Him we Willingly workd for Him. We sacrifice for Him. We refuse to do anything that would be offensive to Him. We obey those rules that have been laid down by Him for our own good.
We do these things, not becuase they are required in order to Love God, but rather as a RESULT of Loving God.

Our obedience flows from Love. Our love does not flow from obedience.

Do you see the distinction?

Peace
James