Fast this Friday Dec. 27

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Is there a fast obligation this Friday? It’s St . John the Evangelist today so I was wondering if there a fast obligation this Friday?

The default rule is abstinence from meat on all Fridays that aren’t solemnities.

Friday, December 27 was a feast - one rank below a solemnity. So technically, abstinence from meat still applies.

However… do you live in the United States? In the United States, abstinence from meat is obligatory only on Lenten Fridays (and Good Friday, and Ash Wednesday).

We are still urged to practice some form of penance on Friday, but seeing as it’s optional, I’d say a day in the Octave of Christmas is just about the best time to make an exception for yourself and refrain from any penitential practice.

To be precise, the only obligation to fast is Ash Wednesday and all the Fridays of Lent. But you are right that every Friday of the year there is an obligation to do some sort of penance, not necessarily fasting.

Not an obligation that binds under pain of sin. We are, however, urged to do some form of penance.

This is how it’s been explained to me at least: All eight days in the Octave of Christmas (Dec. 25 to Jan. 1) are Solemnities, that is, they are treated as Sundays, so the obligation to do penance on Friday is removed.

They are actually not solemnities. Within the Octave of Christmas, only Mary, the Holy Mother of God (Jan. 1) and the Nativity of the Lord (Dec. 25) are solemnities.

You might be thinking of the Octave of Easter, which is indeed one big week-long solemnity celebrating the Resurrection of the Lord.

Someone set me straight here please…

I thought “solemn feasts” trumped fasting and abstinence?

Feast days have one of four ranks:

Solemnity
Feast
Memorial
Optional Memorial

Only a solemnity - the highest class - supersedes the standard practice of Friday abstinence from meat.

Do keep in mind, however, that in the United States there is no obligation to abstain from meat on Fridays outside of Lent (and Good Friday, and Ash Wednesday). But Friday penance should still be done, it’s just not absolutely required.

Disobedience to the Bishop is a mortal sin, however. If the Bishop says, 'I urge you" then is that not a command?

(If your boss said it, or your mother said it, it would be, I think.)

It is not a command. This fact is abundantly clear.

Alex is correct when he said this:

I didn’t realize that as Catholics we lived in a world where you have either 1) mortal sin or 2) nothing when it comes to episcopal pronouncements. You know, there is quite a lot between those two extremes.

I’m just trying to point out that #1 not everyone here is from the United States (the OP doesn’t signify his place of residence) and #2, even in the States, the Bishops still think Friday penance is important.

Very true. The distinction is nonetheless important, though. A willful violation of the precept that requires us to keep the appointed days of fasting and abstinence is gravely sinful.

So, in the United States:

If I knowingly eat meat on a Friday of Lent, I have committed a grave sin.

If I knowingly eat meat on a Friday that is not during Lent, nor is Good Friday… I have not committed a grave sin.

I don’t think anyone here is saying that it’s okay to ignore penance. It’s not. Different matter entirely.

If you read my previous posts, you will see that divine law does bind you to do penance.

Yes, in general. If I go one day without doing penance on that day, however, I have sinned only if that is a day specifically prescribed by the Church for mandatory penance.

The Church prescibes the days of penance. If you choose not to obey, that is your choice.

Yes.

And in the United States, non-Lenten Fridays are not, strictly speaking, days of mandatory penance.

Friday, 27 December 2013, is not a solemnity. Your contention that acts of penance are not required on Friday is not Church teaching and violates divine law. If you choose to ignore divine law, the Code of Canon Law, the USCCB, the CCC and the Roman Missal, then that’s your choice. So, end of story, as you said.

Divine law requires penance in general.

Abstinence from meat, as a penitential practice, is a requirement that binds under pain of sin only when the Church says it does for a particular day or set of days.

Following so far? Good.

If a Catholic living in the United States ate meat on Friday, December 27, a couple days ago, they did not commit the grave sin of violating a precept of the Church.

By contrast, if that Catholic eats meat on, say, Friday, April 11, 2014 - which is a Friday of Lent - then they have sinned.

If that Catholic habitually neglects penance, that neglect constitutes a sin of omission. But no binding obligation required, in the United States, abstinence from meat on December 27 specifically.

Get it?

 

[AlexV]

Amen.

 

[felsguy]

Amen.

If you think this is the last we’ll hear on this matter, let me tell you about this bridge in New York that I can get for you at an after-Christmas 60% off

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Teaching rules that the Church does not teach, imposing rules that the Church does not impose and threatening people with hell on subjects where the Church does no such thing is a form of spiritual bullying that will not be tolerated. You may express your opinion, but you must limit yourself to saying that it’s your opinion, not the Catholic opinion.

 

[MikeDunphy]

…the Code of Canon Law leaves the question of whether doing penance on a Friday is “required” to a Conference of Bishops. That decision is not left up to an individual bishop. Despite your claims to the contrary, Jmcrae, there is not a single region in the United States where American Catholics are “required” to do penance each Friday.

Is that simple enough for you?

Not simple enough for me.

I’ve copied the relevant canons below. Which one leaves it up to episcopal conferences to decide whether Friday penance is required? I see that abstinence is to be observed on all Fridays; also that the Episcopal Conference can “substitute, in whole or in part, other forms of penance”. Doing nothing at all isn’t really an “other form of penance”, is it?

*Can. 1250 The days and times of penance for the universal Church are each Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent.

Can. 1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

Can. 1253 The Episcopal Conference can determine more particular ways in which fasting and abstinence are to be observed. In place of abstinence or fasting it can substitute, in whole or in part, other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety.*

 

[Sirach2]

Not simple enough for me.

I’ve copied the relevant canons below. Which one leaves it up to episcopal conferences to decide whether Friday penance is required? I see that abstinence is to be observed on all Fridays; also that the Episcopal Conference can “substitute, in whole or in part, other forms of penance”. Doing nothing at all isn’t really an “other form of penance”, is it?

Can. 1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

Can. 1253 The Episcopal Conference can determine more particular ways in which fasting and abstinence are to be observed. In place of abstinence or fasting it can substitute, in whole or in part, other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety.

What you and others are failing to understand, is that Canon Law is Universal, intending to be general for all countries. However, note the bolded sections that refer the legislation to each Episcopal Conference. And in the US, it was stated that there is no binding obligation to substitute another penance for the abstinence of meat on Fridays outside of lent.

In the UK, abstinence was reinstated and made obligatory, yet their Bishops’ Conference stated clearly that even if the person eats meat, there is no sin involved. This arbitrariness in refusing to grant the USCCB the liberty to regulate its Friday disciplines is really getting offensive. Did you read Thomas Casey’s post just before yours?

 

[MikeDunphy]

What you and others are failing to understand, is that Canon Law is Universal, intending to be general for all countries. However, note the bolded sections that refer the legislation to each Episcopal Conference.

You underlined the word can. The episcopal conferences can substitute “other forms of penance”. They don’t have to. If they don’t, then abstinence from meat on Fridays is the rule. The canons don’t say anything about eliminating all forms of penance.

This arbitrariness in refusing to grant the USCCB the liberty to regulate its Friday disciplines is really getting offensive.

Don’t blame me, I didn’t write the canons.

 

[Sirach2]

Don’t blame me, I didn’t write the canons.

The USCCB, our Episcopal Conference of Bishops, has stated that in the US there is no binding obligation to substitute another penance for the abstinence of meat on Fridays outside of lent. This overrules the Canon, which gives them permission to regulate. You are still missing the point, but I give up. As long as our readers know the difference while you prefer to remain arbitrary, it’s no biggee for me to argue with you.

 

[AlexV]

One advantage of the days when Canon Law and other such documents were written only in Latin was that the number of armchair canonists, liturgists, etc. was kept pretty small.

As I noted on another thread, the 1917 Code, in force until 1983, made quite clear there was a clear preference for separating men and women in churches. Apparently the Vatican never cared about its own law post 1917, since the separation was not practiced, e.g., in the major basilicas of Rome herself.

Laws are interpreted as a regular matter of course. In this case, the American bishops have been quite clear. Abstinence from meat/some other food is not required outside of Lent, and there is no question of sin (grave or otherwise) in the issue. This might seem to violate Canon 1251, but canons are interpreted authoritatively, and in this case, the American bishops did just that.

 

[JM3]

in the US there is no binding obligation to substitute another penance for the abstinence of meat on Fridays outside of lent.

Can you, please, show me where this is stated? I cannot find it.

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/liturgical-resources/lent/us-bishops-pastoral-statement-on-penance-and-abstinence.cfm

“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us… If we say that we have not sinned, we make [God] a liar, and His word is not in us” (1 Jn 1:8-10).

1. Thus Sacred Scriptures declare our guilt to be universal; hence the universal obligation to that repentance which Peter, in his sermon on Pentecost, declared necessary for the forgiveness of sin (Acts 2:38). Hence, too, the Church’s constant recognition that all the faithful are required by divine law to do penance. As from the fact of sin we Christians can claim no exception, so from the obligation to penance we can seek no exemption.

1. Among the works of voluntary self-denial and personal penance which we especially commend to our people for the future observance of Friday, even though we hereby terminate the traditional law of abstinence binding under pain of sin, as the sole prescribed means of observing Friday,

 

[Sirach2]

Can you, please, show me where this is stated? I cannot find it.

No, and you are not interested in finding it. You were as active in the closed thread in Moral Theology, as you are here. In both instances, you refuse to listen to the many, many posts that gave you the information. I cannot help you with any further your legalism. It appears to be a guise to keep your drumbeat going.

 

[JM3]

No, and you are not interested in finding it. You were as active in the closed thread in Moral Theology, as you are here. In both instances, you refuse to listen to the many, many posts that gave you the information. I cannot help you with any further your legalism. It appears to be a guise to keep your drumbeat going.

Okay.

 

[Irish_Cabbie]

I think I am going to start a Sirach2 Fan Club.

 

[clem456]

III. THE CONVERSION OF THE BAPTIZED
…
11428 Christ’s call to conversion continues to resound in the lives of Christians. This second conversion is an uninterrupted task for the whole Church who, "clasping sinners to her bosom, [is] at once holy and always in need of purification, [and] follows constantly the path of penance and renewal."18 This endeavor of conversion is not just a human work. It is the movement of a “contrite heart,” **drawn and moved by grace to respond to the merciful love of God who loved us first.**19

IV. INTERIOR PENANCE

1430 Jesus’ call to conversion and penance, like that of the prophets before him, does not aim first at outward works, “sackcloth and ashes,” fasting and mortification, but at the conversion of the heart, interior conversion. Without this, such penances remain sterile and false; however, interior conversion urges expression in visible signs, gestures and works of penance.23

1431 Interior repentance is a radical reorientation of our whole life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, an end of sin, a turning away from evil, with repugnance toward the evil actions we have committed. At the same time it entails the desire and resolution to change one’s life, with hope in God’s mercy and trust in the help of his grace. This conversion of heart is accompanied by a salutary pain and sadness which the Fathers called animi cruciatus (affliction of spirit) and compunctio cordis (repentance of heart).24
…
V. THE MANY FORMS OF PENANCE IN CHRISTIAN LIFE
…

 

[MikeDunphy]

The USCCB, our Episcopal Conference of Bishops, has stated that in the US there is no binding obligation to substitute another penance for the abstinence of meat on Fridays outside of lent. This overrules the Canon, which gives them permission to regulate. You are still missing the point, but I give up. As long as our readers know the difference while you prefer to remain arbitrary, it’s no biggee for me to argue with you.

The point is, the canons give the USCCB the power to substitute other forms of penance. The canons do not give it the power to jettison the requirement. The distinction between penance is required on Fridays and penance is not required on Fridays is not an arbitrary one.

I am willing to be convinced otherwise, however. If there is a canon I have overlooked, just point it out. If I have misquoted or misunderstood one of three canons I mentioned, explain it to me. I’ll listen.

 

[MikeDunphy]

Laws are interpreted as a regular matter of course. In this case, the American bishops have been quite clear. Abstinence from meat/some other food is not required outside of Lent, and there is no question of sin (grave or otherwise) in the issue. This might seem to violate Canon 1251, but canons are interpreted authoritatively, and in this case, the American bishops did just that.

Going from “fasting and penance are to be observed” to a statement that fasting and penance are optional seems to be more of a contradiction than an interpretation. Please explain to me how the first statement can mean the second.

 

[JM3]

The point is, the canons give the USCCB the power to substitute other forms of penance. The canons do not give it the power to jettison the requirement. The distinction between penance is required on Fridays and penance is not required on Fridays is not an arbitrary one.

I am willing to be convinced otherwise, however. If there is a canon I have overlooked, just point it out. If I have misquoted or misunderstood one of three canons I mentioned, explain it to me. I’ll listen.

jimmyakin.com/2004/07/friday_penance_.html

This may help in understanding their position. For myself, I do not believe that Mr. Akin has the authority to interpret the USCCB document, no matter his education. He, also, does not take into account divine law.

As for the conference of bishops in th UK, I found this statement rather telling.

catholic-ew.org.uk/Home/News/2011/Catholic-Witness-Friday-Penance/(language)/eng-GB

Respectful of this, and in accordance with the mind of the whole Church, the Bishops’ Conference wishes to remind all Catholics in England and Wales of the obligation of Friday Penance. The Bishops have decided to re-establish the practice that this should be fulfilled by abstaining from meat.

Here is an interesting article: hprweb.com/2013/10/fasting-and-the-call-to-holiness/

 

[JM3]

catholic.com/quickquestions/outside-of-lent-do-we-have-to-do-anything-special-on-fridays

Catholics are obliged to do some form of penance on Fridays and keep the day as per canon 1249, but now they can choose the form of penance they wish to do.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I’ve copied the relevant canons below. Which one leaves it up to episcopal conferences to decide whether Friday penance is required? I see that abstinence is to be observed on all Fridays; also that the Episcopal Conference can “substitute, in whole or in part, other forms of penance”. Doing nothing at all isn’t really an “other form of penance”, is it?

The point is, the canons give the USCCB the power to substitute other forms of penance. The canons do not give it the power to jettison the requirement. The distinction between penance is required on Fridays and penance is not required on Fridays is not an arbitrary one.

I am willing to be convinced otherwise, however. If there is a canon I have overlooked, just point it out. If I have misquoted or misunderstood one of three canons I mentioned, explain it to me. I’ll listen.

One of the canons says that they “can determine more particular ways in which fasting and abstinence are to be observed.”

Is it to some degree counterintuitive to suggest that this canon gives the U.S. bishops the authority to suspend the obligation to abstain from meat without legislating something in its place? Probably.

But Rome approved their decision, so that’s that. Please allow Jimmy Akin to elaborate further. Here is a relevant selection:

"*One will note that norm VI.2 only says that the conference is to notify Rome “by way of information”–i.e., so that it can keep track of what the bishops’ conferences are doing. It does not say that Rome must approve of the bishops’ complimentary norms on this matter before those norms take effect (a process normally referred to as obtaining Rome’s recognitio). The reveals a fairly permissive attitude on Rome’s part regarding what bishops’ conferences can do regarding penance in their countries. If Rome wanted to keep a tight reign on things, it would have required the conferences to obtain recognitio before letting their decisions go into effect. The fact that they only required the bishops to notify them “by way of information” is a signal that they’re pretty flexible on what they’ll let the bishops do.

This created a de facto situation where the bishops of a given country could write whatever norms they wanted on penance and these would have force of law in their territory unless they sent over the norms to Rome and Rome contradicted them.

So what happened when the U.S. bishops sent over their 1966 document?

Rome didn’t bark.

They may have even formally granted it recognitio (though this wasn’t required), but they certainly didn’t bark, as the complimentary norms currently on the bishops’ web site reveal (see below).

Given the way Paenitimini is written–and the absence of other law expressly granting the conference the authority to do what it did–Rome would have been entirely justified in saying, “Hey, wait a minute, guys! Y’all have exceeded your authority!” But they didn’t do that. They thus, at least by acquiescence, confirmed the U.S. bishops’ decision and allowed it to become law.*"

For myself, I do not believe that Mr. Akin has the authority to interpret the USCCB document, no matter his education.

And you do?

He, also, does not take into account divine law.

Yes, he does. This has been explained to you already: divine law requires penance in general. It is required on a particular day only if the Church says so. I recommend the above selection for your perusal.

 

[JM3]

And you do?

No, I don’t. However, I will point out a few details.

From #1 of the statement:

from the obligation to penance we can seek no exemption.

From #22:

Friday itself remains a special day of penitential observance throughout the year

“remains” would suggest that if there was an obligation before, then there is still an obligation (but that is just my interpretation. )

From #28:

let it not be said that by this action… we have abolished Friday,

Yet, this is what everyone seems to be saying.

It is required on a particular day only if the Church says so.

The Church has.

Can. 1250 The penitential days and times in the universal Church are every Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent.

I can find nothing in the USCCB statement that abolishes this canon.