C
chrisetree
Guest
or is it venial?
wow, really? i had heard that it is only encouraged to give up meat during lent, not necessary.During Lent it is considered a mortal sin.
it depends on what your bishops have saidor is it venial?
Nope. It is obligatory for anyone 14 and up.wow, really? i had heard that it is only encouraged to give up meat during lent, not necessary.
No, not in every country.Nope. It is obligatory for anyone 14 and up.
Can you provide a reference for the legislation in the UK?It depends which country you are in. It is not a mortal sin in the UK, for instance. The mortal sin involved is the disobedience to the bishops of your own country. In other words, if your bishops have decreed that meat is not to be eaten in your country on Lenten Fridays but you go ahead with it quite happily, you have committed the sin of disobedience to lawful authority, which is a mortal sin. But if your bishops haven’t decreed that, then there is no sin.
It’s not the meat-eating in itself, it’s the disobedience or not.
it is not a whim, it is the considered judgement of the bishops conference of each country based on what they think is best for their people. To suggest that the bishops together or as individual govern on whim is a very callous POV.So, the whole “no meat on Fridays during Lent” thing is at the whim of each Bishop? Ugh. I never knew it was that arbitrary.
Here is an interesting discussion on that from Jimmy Akin.Regarding the penitential days in the Church: Their substantial observance binds gravely. See Pope Paul VI’s document.
and from Father BertramI haven’t tried to determine the answer in detail, but I have noted that the inclusion of the word “substantial” is meant to have a softening effect, in keeping with Paul VI’s overall relaxation of penitential discipline.
I would be uncomfortable with trying to find a way to sin a little, but this might provide some leniency in judging our neighbor on such matters, as if we should be doing that anyway.We think that the word “substantial” was chosen designedly, especially in order the better to show the personal responsibility of each one before God, so that every one may practice penance in spirit and in truth, without insisting too much on the traditional distinctions of casuistry between grave and light matter in the violation of the law. Consequently, a single violation could not be considered a grave sin, but the repeated and habitual violation would certainly be grave.