Meat on Good Friday...Mortal Sin?

[rcwitness]

It is Good Friday and I have been reading about eating meat on Good Friday. If I understand the Catholic position the following scenario would be accurate:

A Catholic in good standing with the Church walks by a steak house on Good Friday and is suddenly tempted to have a good rib eye steak. He thinks about his temptation to eat the steak and admits to himself that he knows it is a mortal sin to succumb to his craving today but he willfully decides to eat one anyway. After he is finished eating he gets up from the table feeling very satisfied and immediately drops dead. No thought of confession or chance of confession occured. Does the Church teach that he would immediately have sent himself to Hell with this action?

I agree with all who say no. The Church does NOT Teach that would be the case.

If someone is judged by Him as meriting hell, as opposed to the promise of eternal salvation, they are sinning more than mere eating meat on Friday.

James 4

“Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.”

Would it be a sin? Definitely!

Would it lead to hell?Church Magisterium does not substitute herself for Jesus Christ, to decide the heart and blameworthiness of someone’s soul and relationship/condition of grace with Him.

 

[twf]

I think I know what you mean here, but was not the act of eating the steak the action of disobedience which has been classified a mortal sin?

Yes, it is a specific act of disobedience: disobeying the law on meat abstinence given to us by the Church.

 

[Wannano]

I agree with all who say no. The Church does NOT Teach that would be the case.

If someone is judged by Him as meriting hell, as opposed to the promise of eternal salvation, they are sinning more than mere eating meat on Friday.

James 4

“Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.”

Would it be a sin? Definitely!

Would it lead to hell?Church Magisterium does not substitute herself for Jesus Christ, to decide the heart and blameworthiness of someone’s soul and relationship/condition of grace with Him.

Ok, help me understand…CCC 1033 "To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from Him forever by our own free choice.

 

[rcwitness]

Ok, help me understand…CCC 1033 "To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from Him forever by our own free choice.

I don’t think not observing a fast qualifies as a mortal sin.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Ok, help me understand…CCC 1033 "To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from Him forever by our own free choice.

It means that if you commit a mortal sin and perish with that sin on your soul (you have not been absolved by a priest nor said an act of perfect contrition), you will go to Hell. Perfect contrition is when you are sorry for your sins because you have offended God (not simply because you are afraid of His punishments such as Hell) and have a resolve to never sin again and to confess your sin to a priest as soon as possible.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

I don’t think not observing a fast qualifies as a mortal sin.

Observing the days of fast & abstinence is a precept of the Church. To break the fast or abstinence constitutes a mortal sin.

 

[rcwitness]

Observing the days of fast & abstinence is a precept of the Church. To break the fast or abstinence constitutes a mortal sin.

Unfortunately, there is some truth to that. Knowingly and willfully rejecting what the Church has required us to observe would constitute mortal sin. But as the post referring to this particular fast demonstrates, the binding law of abstaining from meat on Fridays during lent has been terminated.

What needs to be distinguished is that eating meat on Friday during lent is not intrinsically evil. It is doing something in spite of knowing we are called through the Church to participate in that is gravely wrong.

 

[PJM]

Thank you for answering, Pjm

You’re VERY welcome:thumbsup:

God Bless you,
PJM

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Unfortunately, there is some truth to that. Knowingly and willfully rejecting what the Church has required us to observe would constitute mortal sin. But as the post referring to this particular fast demonstrates, the binding law of abstaining from meat on Fridays during lent has been terminated.

What needs to be distinguished is that eating meat on Friday during lent is not intrinsically evil. It is doing something in spite of knowing we are called through the Church to participate in that is gravely wrong.

The law of abstaining from meat on Fridays in Lent has not been terminated. Outside of Lent, yes, but we still must abstain on Fridays within Lent. You are correct in that the eating of meat is not intrinsically evil and that the sin lies in disobeying the Church.

 

[rcwitness]

The law of abstaining from meat on Fridays in Lent has not been terminated. Outside of Lent, yes, but we still must abstain on Fridays within Lent. You are correct in that the eating of meat is not intrinsically evil and that the sin lies in disobeying the Church.

I suppose. But does bulimia qualify as breaking the fast? Jk , I have listened to too many of the rediculous questions here! And I’m not talking about wannano’s.

 

[libre]

I was taught that meat after 3pm on Good Friday was ok. Am I wrong?

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

I was taught that meat after 3pm on Good Friday was ok. Am I wrong?

The discipline of fasting and abstinence always runs from midnight to midnight. So on Good Friday, you must abstain until midnight even though Our Lord died at 3 pm.

 

[Wannano]

The law of abstaining from meat on Fridays in Lent has not been terminated. Outside of Lent, yes, but we still must abstain on Fridays within Lent. You are correct in that the eating of meat is not intrinsically evil and that the sin lies in disobeying the Church.

I guess I get a little confused in all this. The scenario in my original post happening on a Friday in July before the law was terminated by the Church would have resulted in the man’s soul going to Hell. The day the law was terminated the same scenario occurring would not result in him going to Hell?

I understand that the sin lies in disobeying the Church however I get lost in the process.

 

[rcwitness]

I guess I get a little confused in all this. The scenario in my original post happening on a Friday in July before the law was terminated by the Church would have resulted in the man’s soul going to Hell. The day the law was terminated the same scenario occurring would not result in him going to Hell?

I understand that the sin lies in disobeying the Church however I get lost in the process.

Yes, I understand your struggle. And it’s largely because you are trying to determine what we believe will send someone to hell. The answer is ultimately unknown to us.

It’s like asking, “what if the man didn’t know the precept was terminated and did it?”

It’s silly to try to find out what specific scenerio sends a believer to hell!

Consider this one from Paul to Timothy:

“Command this, so that they may be without reproach.*If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

The purpose isn’t to figure out what person has denied the faith and headed to hell. It’s to compel them to do what is right.

 

[Gorgias]

I think I know what you mean here, but was not the act of eating the steak the action of disobedience which has been classified a mortal sin?

No. ‘Eating steak’, per se, is not mortal sin. If there is sin here, it comes from a different consideration.

Some here have given particular interpretations, but they leave out some important notions or conflate the salient issues. Some simply reply ‘yes’, others ‘no’, and still others have attempted to help you understand what the church teaches. Yet, you continue to ask, so it seems that more explanation is necessary.

First, there is a difference between ‘grave matter’ and ‘mortal sin’. You seem to be aware of this, by framing things up in terms of ‘full knowledge’ and ‘deliberate consent’. Yet, you seem to want to caricature this situation as “Catholics think that eating steak condemns a person to hell.” :nope:

This caricature seems to want to ridicule the Church by trivializing her teachings. I assure you, the teaching isn’t as absurd as you make it out to be. Let’s look at it in detail…

You pose the situation as something that seems trivial: ‘eating meat on Good Friday’. Let me ask you a question: what was the sin of Ananias and Sapphira? Was it really simply that they held money back? Or, was it that they bore false witness to the Church and their faith? That is, the capital sin that they committed was that they claimed to be Christian, but refused to live out their faith through their actions.

In Mt 16:19, Jesus tells Peter (alone) that what he looses on earth will be loosed in heaven, and what he binds on earth will be bound in heaven. Therefore, what Peter binds, God binds. So, when one disobeys Peter’s authority… whose authority is he really disobeying?

As some have mentioned, the rule of Lenten abstinence is a rule of the Church – that is, it is a rule instituted by those to whom Peter has passed the mantle of authority (see Acts 1 for a Scriptural example of ‘apostolic succession’). Therefore, one who disobeys the rule of abstinence… disobeys what is bound in heaven.

Now, on the face of it, your story seems like a rather trivial misstep that is punished harshly. Yet, by your telling of it, the person has said, “I know what the Church teaches, and I know that what the Church binds is bound by Jesus… but hey – I’m gonna disobey here and eat meat anyway.” In other words, what the person is saying isn’t simply “I want a nice steak”, but rather, “Jesus, I really don’t care that this is what you’re holding me to – I’m gonna do what I want, simply because I want it.”

So, you tell me: do all who merely cry out “Lord, Lord!” inherit the kingdom of heaven, or are there those who cry out “Lord, Lord!” and do not enter into the kingdom of heaven?

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

I guess I get a little confused in all this. The scenario in my original post happening on a Friday in July before the law was terminated by the Church would have resulted in the man’s soul going to Hell. The day the law was terminated the same scenario occurring would not result in him going to Hell?

I understand that the sin lies in disobeying the Church however I get lost in the process.

Yes, once the law was terminated, eating meat no longer constituted a mortal sin of disobedience since there was no law to disobey. When the law was in place, disobedience would constitute a mortal sin. You can’t disobey a law that doesn’t exist. It’s okay that you get confused by this, I used to be quite confused by this as well.

 

[Wannano]

No. ‘Eating steak’, per se, is not mortal sin. If there is sin here, it comes from a different consideration.

Some here have given particular interpretations, but they leave out some important notions or conflate the salient issues. Some simply reply ‘yes’, others ‘no’, and still others have attempted to help you understand what the church teaches. Yet, you continue to ask, so it seems that more explanation is necessary.

First, there is a difference between ‘grave matter’ and ‘mortal sin’. You seem to be aware of this, by framing things up in terms of ‘full knowledge’ and ‘deliberate consent’. Yet, you seem to want to caricature this situation as “Catholics think that eating steak condemns a person to hell.” :nope:

This caricature seems to want to ridicule the Church by trivializing her teachings. I assure you, the teaching isn’t as absurd as you make it out to be. Let’s look at it in detail…

You pose the situation as something that seems trivial: ‘eating meat on Good Friday’. Let me ask you a question: what was the sin of Ananias and Sapphira? Was it really simply that they held money back? Or, was it that they bore false witness to the Church and their faith? That is, the capital sin that they committed was that they claimed to be Christian, but refused to live out their faith through their actions.

In Mt 16:19, Jesus tells Peter (alone) that what he looses on earth will be loosed in heaven, and what he binds on earth will be bound in heaven. Therefore, what Peter binds, God binds. So, when one disobeys Peter’s authority… whose authority is he really disobeying?

As some have mentioned, the rule of Lenten abstinence is a rule of the Church – that is, it is a rule instituted by those to whom Peter has passed the mantle of authority (see Acts 1 for a Scriptural example of ‘apostolic succession’). Therefore, one who disobeys the rule of abstinence… disobeys what is bound in heaven.

Now, on the face of it, your story seems like a rather trivial misstep that is punished harshly. Yet, by your telling of it, the person has said, “I know what the Church teaches, and I know that what the Church binds is bound by Jesus… but hey – I’m gonna disobey here and eat meat anyway.” In other words, what the person is saying isn’t simply “I want a nice steak”, but rather, “Jesus, I really don’t care that this is what you’re holding me to – I’m gonna do what I want, simply because I want it.”

So, you tell me: do all who merely cry out “Lord, Lord!” inherit the kingdom of heaven, or are there those who cry out “Lord, Lord!” and do not enter into the kingdom of heaven?

I a sorry you feel I am trying to ridicule the Church, nor am I saying the Church says eating steak is a sin! I never said anything was absurd. I have long wondered about the meatless Fridays and when I read about it yesterday I had questions. I have a better understanding now I think.

 

[Wannano]

Yes, once the law was terminated, eating meat no longer constituted a mortal sin of disobedience since there was no law to disobey. When the law was in place, disobedience would constitute a mortal sin. You can’t disobey a law that doesn’t exist. It’s okay that you get confused by this, I used to be quite confused by this as well.

Thank you for understanding.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Thank you for understanding.

You’re welcome.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I a sorry you feel I am trying to ridicule the Church, nor am I saying the Church says eating steak is a sin! I never said anything was absurd. I have long wondered about the meatless Fridays and when I read about it yesterday I had usquestions. I have a better understanding now I think.

I am sorry you were accused of trying to ridicule the Church by your question. You are not Catholic and trying to understand a concept that is, frankly, actually very badly understood and applied by many Catholics, especially it seems to me in the United States, as the responses here show. I find several American priests writing on this subject even to provide commentary that seems to miss the key phrases in Paenitemini, the apostolic constitution by the Blessed Paul VI which is dispositive.

Therefore, the following is declared and established:

I. 1. By divine law all the faithful are required to do penance.

1. The prescriptions of ecclesiastical law regarding penitence are totally reorganized according to the following norms:

II. 1. The time of Lent preserves its penitential character. The days of penitence to be observed under obligation throughout the Church are all Fridays and Ash Wednesday, that is to say the first days of “Grande Quaresima” (Great Lent), according to the diversity of the rites. Their substantial observance binds gravely.

The fact that the prescriptions of ecclesiastical law regarding penitence are specifically declared to be totally reorganised means that one cannot properly look back to what “was” in making a determination as to what “is” since the legislator is informing us that what “was” has been displaced.

The last sentence of the quote from Paenitemini above is what is also crucial. It is the substantial observance that binds gravely…not the individual instance. If the hypothetical person in your scenario has otherwise kept the observance of fast and abstinence during Lent, except for this one failure on Good Friday, he has substantially observed the Lenten discipline of fast and abstinence.

The one caveat would be that if he rushed into the steakhouse to eat the steak motivated solely by utter hatred of ecclesiastical authority, that could reach the conclusion you propose…of him committing mortal sin. It is an absurd premise and more the sort of anecdote moral theologians talk about in a light-hearted moment at an academic gathering than anything one will likely encounter in the “real world”.

You had earlier asked me to weigh in on your scenario…I resisted because, as written, the scenario is a bit problematic in its premises. But given how the responses have gone, I see I should weigh in. So…

A Catholic in good standing with the Church walks by a steak house on Good Friday and is suddenly tempted to have a good rib eye steak. He thinks about his temptation to eat the steak and admits to himself that he knows it is a mortal sin to succumb to his craving today but he willfully decides to eat one anyway.

In fact, one act of eating meat when there is an obligation to abstain is not a mortal sin. All he has done is failed to observe the abstinence in this instance. Assessment of moral guilt by him – assuming his conscience has been properly formed – and by the priest hearing his confession – trusting that he is acquainted with the governing norms – would have to look beyond the one instance and to a variety of other factors in assessing what sin, if any, was committed and invites absolution.

After he is finished eating he gets up from the table feeling very satisfied and immediately drops dead. No thought of confession or chance of confession occured. Does the Church teach that he would immediately have sent himself to Hell with this action?

No, the Church would never teach such a thing.

From the perspective of moral theology, one must differentiate between an act which contravenes a disciplinary measure on the one hand and an act which is, for example, in violation of a divine commandment on the other hand. This is anything but equivalent to dying in the classic in flagrante delicto moment.

The fundamental value also has to be understood in order to understand what is derived from it:

• The need to do penance is from divine positive law. In other words, God has said it and therefore we must comply with it.
• The ecclesiastical law is there to provide to the faithful, especially those who are not theologians, guidance in how to fulfill the obligation imposed by God to do penance.