Meat on Good Friday...Mortal Sin?

[Wannano]

Keep in mind that our Merciful is not a “gotcha” type of God who sits around in Heaven waiting to zap some poor sinner here on Earth. Gotcha scenarios like your story are figments of a fevered imagination.

I don’t really know what a fevered imagination is for sure. I have already explained in an earlier post that I was reading an article that explains the Catholic viewpoint on the Good Friday abstinence on eating meat and that it is classed a mortal sin to do so. I understand a mortal sin to be one that eternally separates you from God if unconfessed. BECAUSE I also believe in the same merciful God that you do I formulated the scenario as presented to try to comprehend the logic of it.

So far the conversation has been very interesting, hopefully logic exists as well.
If disobedience of a church commandment bears the weight of mortal sin then surely the originators (Magesterium ?) .would have considered the weight of the consequence of disobedience?

 

[rcwitness]

I don’t really know what a fevered imagination is for sure. I have already explained in an earlier post that I was reading an article that explains the Catholic viewpoint on the Good Friday abstinence on eating meat and that it is classed a mortal sin to do so. I understand a mortal sin to be one that eternally separates you from God if unconfessed. BECAUSE I also believe in the same merciful God that you do I formulated the scenario as presented to try to comprehend the logic of it.

So far the conversation has been very interesting, hopefully logic exists as well.
If disobedience of a church commandment bears the weight of mortal sin then surely the originators (Magesterium ?) .would have considered the weight of the consequence of disobedience?

I think if we look at what fasting is, then we might see it in a better light.

Mark 9
And he said to them, “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer and fasting.”

Luke 2
as a widow till she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day.

Acts 13
While they were worshiping the Lord andfasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”

You see? Fasting is a former of worship, just like prayer, penance, almsgiving. When we come together, do we not pray the Our Father as one? Why can we not pray and fast as one.

But this is what we should be meditating on, on Good Friday:

Matthew 26
*And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.”And he came to the disciples and found them sleeping; and he said to Peter, “So, could you not watchwith me one hour?Watchand pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”

Does prayer, fasting and attending all the Masses guarantee we won’t fall away? No. Is it the devotion of the Church for the sake of all her children to avoid falling into temptation. But the more we do good, the closer evil seems to be!

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I’m rather appalled to be honest.
Priests have a difficult life and a life with much responsibility - no matter what they are doing at any given time. They will tell you that they’ve not given up anything to become a priest because the Lord called them - but they give up a lot.

I think your last sentence shows no respect.

FG

Thank you for your kind post. I appreciate it.

Rarely, but it did happen, we would have a student who would made it through the process and to the classroom and there showed a want of respect and was rude or impertinent. They did not last long in any formation program I was part of.

I wish you a most blessed Easter, Fran.

 

[HelenRose]

I don’t really know what a fevered imagination is for sure. I have already explained in an earlier post that I was reading an article that explains the Catholic viewpoint on the Good Friday abstinence on eating meat and that it is classed a mortal sin to do so. I understand a mortal sin to be one that eternally separates you from God if unconfessed. BECAUSE I also believe in the same merciful God that you do I formulated the scenario as presented to try to comprehend the logic of it.

So far the conversation has been very interesting, hopefully logic exists as well.
If disobedience of a church commandment bears the weight of mortal sin then surely the originators (Magesterium ?) .would have considered the weight of the consequence of disobedience?

I don’t like hypothetical situations wrapped up in the gobblygook of logical blather. The discussions of God, of eternity, of souls, of life, of sacrifice are far to serious for the mind games of logic sparring. To present a silly story of a man’s decision over a stupid piece of meat is unbecoming and it is a set up to diminish the justice and mercy of God and to present the Laws of God and our purpose in life as little more than the mere luck of the draw.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

A priest also told me that if we commit an act that we believe to be a mortal sin, we commit a mortal sin even if the act itself is not a mortal sin since, when we committed the act, we believed it to be a mortal sin. Here is what the Baltimore Catechism says about this.

That’s predicated on a train of thought in moral theology that’s very old school indeed. The priest who told you that must be even older than I am. My. When was this Baltimore Catechism published in the United States?

 

[frangiuliano115]

Hi. I hope you know what you are saying in the context of your responding to my post. You are actually supporting what I was saying. We can think that some sins are silly which is what you are actually saying, specifically about eating meat on Friday. So no, I am not making fun of Eve or people of the Bible but just to demonstrate to you what people did that deserved the anger of God. And we can very well justify what they did as we do today.

As for eating steak on a Good Friday – no Catholics would do that if given all the information that he/she should know.

Do you observe Good Friday or what it means to you? I am asking because I am not sure how non-Catholics regard it.

As for Catholics, it is one day in a year that is most important to them, more than even a Christmas. We are taught to understand Good Friday and to know that God paid a price for giving us Easter. In some Catholic communities, people are willing to flog themselves as they remember Jesus death on the cross. Not that we should flog ourselves but just to tell you how profound it is for Catholics that Jesus gave his life for our redemption.

Good Friday is not just a day of rest but one of deep reflection and prayers. You cannot imagine how a Catholic feels on this day; you have to be one to know. What I am saying, to purposely enjoying yourself by treating yourself to a steak on this day instead of deep prayer and fasting, is like a rejection of Jesus, of the Church, a rebellion against what Jesus had done to you. …

It does not matter what you do but if it is against your belief and God, you can be sure you are committing sin.

Christianity is a community. We are a people who are set apart. In ordinary circumstances Uzzah or Ananias and Shapira could get away with what they did but they were ruled by the belief of their communities respectively and thus paid the price for their transgression. Sin is like that.

If you think it is not sin, you will do it but you don’t if you think it is. Those Catholics who purposely eat steak on a Good Friday, well, they have to face whatever consequence that come with their action. But that is beside the point. A sin is a sin.

I am glad you have a personal understanding of what is sin. We can differ on the specific depends on how we are taught or what our belief is. I am not going to argue on it because what you would tell me is valid for you.

Hi Reuben,
I came upon this post just now and had not seen it.
I’m sorry - I didn’t mean to ignore it.

I can say that I agree with what you say, but i’d like to answer you regarding how non-Catholics observe Easter (and also Good Friday).

Most Christian churches (other than Catholic) observe Maunday Thursday. I forget which language, but Maunday means Commandment. It’s to remember the commandments Jesus gave the Apostles at the Last Supper.

What is celebrated is the Last Supper (as Catholics also celebrate) and at this time there is washing of the feet in most churches. I cannot attest to all, I do not have that knowledge. The washing of the feet does not only show that we are to serve others, but it is also to show that we are to accept Jesus’ love. it’s not easy to accept love, if you think of it.

I must say that all believing Christians understand the sacrifice Jesus made and this is a very important and sacred time.

FG

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I don’t really know what a fevered imagination is for sure. I have already explained in an earlier post that I was reading an article that explains the Catholic viewpoint on the Good Friday abstinence on eating meat and that it is classed a mortal sin to do so. I understand a mortal sin to be one that eternally separates you from God if unconfessed. BECAUSE I also believe in the same merciful God that you do I formulated the scenario as presented to try to comprehend the logic of it.

So far the conversation has been very interesting, hopefully logic exists as well.
If disobedience of a church commandment bears the weight of mortal sin then surely the originators (Magesterium ?) .would have considered the weight of the consequence of disobedience?

I think your question is a perfectly reasonable one for someone who wishes to understand the thought of the Catholic Church on fast, abstinence and moral culpability, at least as it concerns her western expression since the Eastern Churches have their own disciplines for fast and abstinence; the forum in which you have chosen to pose the question, however, may be up to greater debate.

I say that because the premise of your scenario rests on a legislative text. What underlies the legislative text is theology. Ultimately, if you want to know definitively what the legislator, in this case Pope Paul VI, was promulgating and the permutations of its application, you should ask either a theologian or a canonist…not people on the Internet.

And with that, at post number 147, I choose to unsubscribe from this thread as so many are positing so much that actually has nothing to do with either the original question or the manner by which to legitimately answer it; even the effort to follow the conversation has become exceedingly difficult.

Good bye.

 

[Reuben_J]

I would just like to say that a rule of the church, IMHO, could NOT lead to hell.

FG

I think this sum it all, others may be just a distraction but beneficial pieces of the argument, but this is the crux of the matter in response to the OP’s question.

So, of course. You are entitled to your opinion albeit which in contrast to the Catholic Church. And my job was to explain my opinion on what the Church stands on this. I think that is fair enough.

As I already mentioned, the episodes in the Bible suggest that the church rule could result in a punishment.

Let’s look at them again:

**

1. 
   *]Eve was punished because he ate the apple (or the fruit).
   
   *]Uzzah was punished (by death) because he touched the Ark, and all by good intention.
   
   *]Ananias and Shapira in NT were punished by death because they did not give their belonging to the Church.
   
   **
   
   What is striking here - the first two were as a result of disobeying God’s commandment and the third was disobeying the apostles.
   
   Catholics believe that their church started at Pentecost, so Ananias and Shapira were already living in a church then, led by the apostles who in this case, as it is now, determine the Church’s Commandment.
   
   Today one does not have to declare his property much less gives it to the church. And if the sin of Ananias and Shapira was lying to the apostles, surely its punishment is not death as you have rightly said. So it could only mean that they disobeyed the Precept of the church then.
   
   As for whether transgressing the Church’s commandment can lead one to hell, in principle the answer is yes, because willfully doing it can be a mortal sin. The consequence of a mortal sin is eternal damnation.
   
   Now going back to the OP’s scenario – in my answer to it, post #83, no, we do not know, and the Catholic Church does not teach that the man will go to hell for eating meat on a Good Friday, no matter an abomination that is. That is simply because we do not know whether his whole action fulfill the requirement of a mortal sin and beside, the Church never make this call as to who went to hell, not even for Judas.
   
   God bless.
   
   Reuben

 

[susanlo]

I think this sum it all, others may be just a distraction but beneficial pieces of the argument, but this is the crux of the matter in response to the OP’s question.

So, of course. You are entitled to your opinion albeit which in contrast to the Catholic Church. And my job was to explain my opinion on what the Church stands on this. I think that is fair enough.

As I already mentioned, the episodes in the Bible suggest that the church rule could result in a punishment.

Let’s look at them again:

**

1. 
   *]Eve was punished because he ate the apple (or the fruit).
   
   *]Uzzah was punished (by death) because he touched the Ark, and all by good intention.
   
   *]Ananias and Shapira in NT were punished by death because they did not give their belonging to the Church.
   
   **
   
   What is striking here - the first two were as a result of disobeying God’s commandment and the third was disobeying the apostles.
   
   Catholics believe that their church started at Pentecost, so Ananias and Shapira were already living in a church then, led by the apostles who in this case, as it is now, determine the Church’s Commandment.
   
   Today one does not have to declare his property much less gives it to the church. And if the sin of Ananias and Shapira was lying to the apostles, surely its punishment is not death as you have rightly said. So it could only mean that they disobeyed the Precept of the church then.
   
   As for whether transgressing the Church’s commandment can lead one to hell, in principle the answer is yes, because willfully doing it can be a mortal sin. The consequence of a mortal sin is eternal damnation.
   
   Now going back to the OP’s scenario – in my answer to it, post #83, no, we do not know, and the Catholic Church does not teach that the man will go to hell for eating meat on a Good Friday, no matter an abomination that is. That is simply because we do not know whether his whole action fulfill the requirement of a mortal sin and beside, the Church never make this call as to who went to hell, not even for Judas.
   
   God bless.
   
   Reuben

1. 
   Acts 5New International Version (NIV)
   
   Ananias and Sapphira
   3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that** you have lied to the Holy Spirit** and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”
   
   I think that their punishment was for the deception to God, not to the apostles. Joseph/Barnabas had given money from the sale of land at the end of the last chapter and was praised for it. Ananias and Sapphira were deceptive with the price they received for the land. There are multiple places in the OT scriptures that God says it is wrong to lie.
   I do think that it is an extremely harsh punishment and we don’t see people who are dishonest with money within churches experiencing this today. I wonder if God wanted to set an example out of them right away.

 

[Reuben_J]

Acts 5New International Version (NIV)

Ananias and Sapphira
3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that** you have lied to the Holy Spirit** and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

I think that their punishment was for the deception to God, not to the apostles. Joseph/Barnabas had given money from the sale of land at the end of the last chapter and was praised for it. Ananias and Sapphira were deceptive with the price they received for the land. There are multiple places in the OT scriptures that God says it is wrong to lie.
I do think that it is an extremely harsh punishment and we don’t see people who are dishonest with money within churches experiencing this today. I wonder if God wanted to set an example out of them right away.

Of course. You are right.

As you can see, I did not go to that. I only say they disobeyed the apostles. They kept the money to themselves.

One can speculate what happened then but we regard their situation as a church, in infancy nevertheless. Why did they have to reveal their income? Surely there must be some kind of an understanding and most likely directive, and they could only come from the apostles.

And why we do not do what they did then? Again, because the Church does not require us to. And whose decision is that? The Church, right?

So the Church did and does make decision on what to follow and failing to obey it can result in a punishment.

Similarly eating meat on a Good Friday? What are we transgressing here? You see, non-Catholics have every right to be utterly amused on why we should not eat meat. What has it got to do with believing in Jesus?

But the fact is, it is more than just eating meat on a certain Friday. The reason is deeper than that. It is about our faith that Jesus died on that day, and that his death gives us the salvation. Oh, for us, God was willing to give his own life. This is a statement of faith which the Church declares.

And how we do that? By observing and remembering what happened on that fateful Friday and believe that truly happened and believed that by his death, yes indeed we are now being saved.

So what we do on this Friday? We give this day to the Lord by fasting and prayers and declaring once again our faith that what happened then was true. Abstaining from eating meat is just a small matter; the implication behind it is great.

When we observe all that is required on Good Friday, we are actually declaring this belief. And failing to declare this belief, then it is a sin. The Church functions like that. That is why Ananias and Shapira were punished. Not so much as disobeying the apostles per se, but yes, you are right, by doing so, they are against the Holy Spirit. You can say that for Good Friday too. At least the Catholic Church says that. Yes, my explanation may not be the best in the world because it is in my own word which certainly is deficient but I hope you get the gist of it.

God bless you,

Reuben

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Apparently you have a misconception of what sin is.
GOD alone declares sin.
The church could make rules, regulations, doctrine, dogma. But only God can decide what sin is.

Also, you made your idea of the priests very clear in your first post to me. It seems you didn’t understand my reply. Are you living under the Old Covenant or the New Covenant?
When the priest holds up the eucharist, he proclaims The New and Everlasting Covenant. I was referring to that - I think you didn’t catch it. It seems important to me to know the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.

Who said you only have to believe in the name of the Lord to be saved. I did hate using the word “only” but I’m just repeating what you said. Believing in Jesus seems to be very important so the word “only” shouldn’t be in that same sentence.

Did we discuss works? I didn’t think so. You have many preconceived notions just because I have “christian” as my religious affiliation.

And now GOD KILLED PEOPLE WHO COMMITTED SERIOUS SIN.

i thought one of the commandments was. Thou Shalt Not Kill.

You mean God breaks His own rules and laws and commandments?
How does that let Him be a just God?
Did Jesus break any of the commandments?
Would it have been okay if He had just because He’s God?

There’s so much more to think about and ponder than sin. But there’s a particular sacrament that tends to let one do this. Concentrate on sin, I mean.

FG

I have repeated myself several times, so I won’t do so again. You raised some other questions, such as God breaking His own commandment, which I think others will be able to answer better than I. I did not have any preconceived notions of you. I actually thought you were Catholic.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

I agree that these two Precepts are very important. I don’t take them lightly. But I don’t do them out of mere obligation either. I do them because the Church does them. I believe participating in Mass should be done as often as we are able, this is true. I believe we should fast/abstain (probably in accordance with our prayers… to offer our sincerity), and the Easter season is appropriate for a corporal fast/abstinence.

Do these carry the same weight as corporal and spiritual works of mercy?

I agree with fran115 about Old and New separation. I don’t know about the rest of his/her post, but Catholics do tend to blur the line when using tenents of the O.T.

Only God judges, and I hope He does not use these precepts as a cause for condemning anyone to hell. And I think the Church would hope the same.

But a mortal sin is just that… a stubborn cold closed heart to God’s warm, life giving blood. A self willed defiance to remorse for offending God.

No, I don’t think the disciplines of the Church carry the same weight as the works of mercy.

People do condemn themselves to Hell by breaking the precepts of the Church. The Church hopes that the faithful will not break them and, thereby, not condemn themselves to Hell.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

That’s predicated on a train of thought in moral theology that’s very old school indeed. The priest who told you that must be even older than I am. My. When was this Baltimore Catechism published in the United States?

The quote from the Baltimore Catechism I gave came from Baltimore Catechism No. IV, published in 2015, based on the text from a 1921 version except for some Canon Law updates. The priest I mentioned was ordained in 1997 and, based on my pitiful age-judging skills, can’t be much older than 50.

 

[susanlo]

Of course. You are right.

As you can see, I did not go to that. I only say they disobeyed the apostles. They kept the money to themselves.

One can speculate what happened then but we regard their situation as a church, in infancy nevertheless. Why did they have to reveal their income? Surely there must be some kind of an understanding and most likely directive, and they could only come from the apostles.

And why we do not do what they did then? Again, because the Church does not require us to. And whose decision is that? The Church, right?

So the Church did and does make decision on what to follow and failing to obey it can result in a punishment.

Similarly eating meat on a Good Friday? What are we transgressing here? You see, non-Catholics have every right to be utterly amused on why we should not eat meat. What has it got to do with believing in Jesus?

But the fact is, it is more than just eating meat on a certain Friday. The reason is deeper than that. It is about our faith that Jesus died on that day, and that his death gives us the salvation. Oh, for us, God was willing to give his own life. This is a statement of faith which the Church declares.

And how we do that? By observing and remembering what happened on that fateful Friday and believe that truly happened and believed that by his death, yes indeed we are now being saved.

So what we do on this Friday? We give this day to the Lord by fasting and prayers and declaring once again our faith that what happened then was true. Abstaining from eating meat is just a small matter; the implication behind it is great.

When we observe all that is required on Good Friday, we are actually declaring this belief. And failing to declare this belief, then it is a sin. The Church functions like that. That is why Ananias and Shapira were punished. Not so much as disobeying the apostles per se, but yes, you are right, by doing so, they are against the Holy Spirit. You can say that for Good Friday too. At least the Catholic Church says that. Yes, my explanation may not be the best in the world because it is in my own word which certainly is deficient but I hope you get the gist of it.

God bless you,

Reuben

I don’t think that the Apostles commanded Ananias and Sapphira, or anyone else, to sell possessions or to reveal their income. I am not aware of that at least. I think many were doing this voluntarily as is mentioned in Acts 2 and at the end of Acts 4.
In Acts 5:4 Peter says that the property belonged to the couple, and after being sold the money was at their disposal. In Acts 5:8, Sapphira was asked directly about the price and lied straight out. It seems to me that their sin (and severe punishment) was for their deception only and not for disobeying a new commandment placed by an Apostle. That is how it sounds to me at least. There does seem like there should be more to the story, though.

 

[Wannano]

I think your question is a perfectly reasonable one for someone who wishes to understand the thought of the Catholic Church on fast, abstinence and moral culpability, at least as it concerns her western expression since the Eastern Churches have their own disciplines for fast and abstinence; the forum in which you have chosen to pose the question, however, may be up to greater debate.

I say that because the premise of your scenario rests on a legislative text. What underlies the legislative text is theology. Ultimately, if you want to know definitively what the legislator, iiin this case Pope Paul VI, was promulgating and the permutations of its application, you should ask either a theologian or a canonist…not people on the Internet.

And with that, at post number 147, I choose to unsubscribe from this thread as so many are positing so much that actually has nothing to do with either the original question or the manner by which to legitimately answer it; even the effort to follow the conversation has become exceedingly difficult.

Good bye.

I guess I posted on this forum because it is the only one I have ever followed. I see your point about asking a theologian but then numerous threads on this forum are dealing with theology so I never gave it a second thought.

So many threads do get lost. Thank you for kindly saying my question was a reasonable one. I guess I thought it was too!

 

[Wannano]

I don’t like hypothetical situations wrapped up in the gobblygook of logical blather. The discussions of God, of eternity, of souls, of life, of sacrifice are far to serious for the mind games of logic sparring. To present a silly story of a man’s decision over a stupid piece of meat is unbecoming and it is a set up to diminish the justice and mercy of God and to present the Laws of God and our purpose in life as little more than the mere luck of the draw.

I am truly sorry you feel this way. You maybe very gifted in discerning the motivation of other people but I don’t identify with your analysis.

 

[rcwitness]

I don’t think that the Apostles commanded Ananias and Sapphira, or anyone else, to sell possessions or to reveal their income. I am not aware of that at least. I think many were doing this voluntarily as is mentioned in Acts 2 and at the end of Acts 4.
In Acts 5:4 Peter says that the property belonged to the couple, and after being sold the money was at their disposal. In Acts 5:8, Sapphira was asked directly about the price and lied straight out. It seems to me that their sin (and severe punishment) was for their deception only and not for disobeying a new commandment placed by an Apostle. That is how it sounds to me at least. There does seem like there should be more to the story, though.

I agree. There seems to be important aspects of the story that would help. I wouldn’t come to too much conclusion other than this couple lied to the Holy Spirit. How they did so seems to be through telling the Apostles, but Peter knew the Truth somehow. Was it divine revelation, or was he made aware in another manner?

When I read these early days of the Church, I get the sense that Peter and the others were given such a high honor within the Church, but through such a supernatural way by the people. I mean, they all seemed to just “get it” and have joy in letting them be who they were appointed to be, and still letting Jesus and the Holy Spirit be who they are suppose to be in their lives!

At some point, it diminished away, and on both ends. The people no longer gave them the respect, and Peter and the Apostles showed themselves to still have human faults. Paul came along to “work harder than the rest” but his Teachings are “hard to understand” many times!

Anyway, the story of Ananias and his wife is intense, and humbling because i get the feeling that I have done worse! But my own father taught me that lying is very ugly. And I do have trouble lying when it comes down to it.

 

[DAML72]

I’m with you on that, KariBear. I went to lunch today with a Catholic and three non-Catholic guys. The Catholic had a fish salad of some sort, where one Protestant had ribs, another had a taco salad, and another had a loaded baked potato that had meat.

In their defense, I doubt it even dawned on them why the Catholic was eating fish nor was it an issue for them one way or the other. The Catholic guy is a good man whom I’ve known for a few years and he didn’t mention it nor did he appear offended that the others were eating meat. We all had a nice lunch together and chatted about work, our families, and other stuff.

I was sitting closest to my Catholic friend and I knew he wouldn’t be eating meat so I chose a baked potato with cooked veggies on top because I wanted to be in solidarity with him on this day. I love this particular restaurant’s ribs but I figured they could wait for another day.

That’s so sweet and thoughtful.

Honestly, I don’t mind when others eat meat in front of me on abstention days, and it actually is difficult for me to give up meat for a number of reasons (I usually end up fasting on those days because my other options are limited). But it was lovely of you to give up meat for that meal in solidarity.

 

[rcwitness]

You’re very good with scripture RC. I like talking to you because I like to hear different people - one could always learn something new. A different twist or perspective.

Thank you very much. That is a cool compliment to hear! And yes, hearing other Christian’s study and view is good. I have heard many good “understandings” of things pertaining to God from “Protestants”. I have appreciated Martin Luthers section on Infant Baptism in his Catechism, the Church of God’s study on “porneia” and the meaning of divorce, and good sermons by men like Francis Chan! I have found them to express what Catholics believe in better ways than I’ve heard Catholics express it!

One should go to Mass/Service. I like to receive communion. But I’ve found that sometimes one is held back from this. For different reasons. Could be health, physical, mental. Could be family problems. Maybe one day you just can’t make it out of bed.
I dislike people telling others that they’re going to hell. They don’t know the situation.

Yes indeed! You are recognizing that there can be many factors which place the culpability of a Christian outside Mortal Sin! I strongly believe we need to form and maintain our consciences for this purpose of discerning our relationship with Jesus. So many times, Catholics post rediculous questions about whether they sinned or not. On the surface, it’s a good question, but the fact that they seem to not have a clue whether something is wrong or not is ugly.

We can judge a wrong action. We can say that the man in the O.P.'s example should NOT have eaten the steak. BUT, we cannot judge a persons soul. That is for God alone. We CANNOT say that person is going to hell because he has a mortal sin. Only God can know that. This is sometimes called legalism or phariseeism. Not good. We’re here to help each other and love each other. John 13:35

I think the interesting part of the question is just the fact that the Church puts “observing Lenten Abstinence” in a category of potential Mortal Sin. So I appreciate discerning what that means, and how would it actually be such. My intention in this thread has not been to say yes or no (though my initial post did) but to focus on WHY the Church keeps it so Sacred. And this is principally because it is a form of Worship (with prayer and penance) that She calls us into at such a high point in the liturgical season. It is the time of raising His Passion to a focus in heart, mind and body!

As far as eating meat on Friday; if you mean it and do it willingly and understand why, it’s fine. If you’re doing it just because the church told you to, it’s a waste of time. Maybe in some grand scheme of things it’s not a waste of time - God has mysterious ways. But it will not help the person. I know people like this. They seem to do all the right things, but are far from God.

I don’t know if you are familiar with Catholic “examination of conscience” guides? But there are many, and most follow the 10 commandments as the principle. I recently went to the Men of Christ conference, and in the booklet is provided one. Coincidentally, it is under the #3 Commandment (titled: Remember to Keep Holy the Lord’s Day) that it mentions “Intentional Failure to Fast or Abstain on Appointed Days”.

Like I’ve said before, I get what you are saying about placing a fast/abstinence over a Christian as a “Law”. It seems to overstep the boundary of The Church, and undermind the essence of willful fasting.

But the other perspective to this, is looking at this Fast/Abstinence as a form of prayer/worship that we are called to do as One body of believers. And I truly think it is most appreciated when one attends all of the services during Lent. It’s easy to become luke warm when we are not participating along with the Church in worship. BUT!..as you mentioned, it doesn’t make us immune to falling into snares of the evil one either! It actually can make us a target for Satan even more! I think it is the story of St Peter! He was set apart by Jesus, and he wanted so much to be close to Him. The devil demanded to sift him like wheat.

 

[Reuben_J]

I don’t think that the Apostles commanded Ananias and Sapphira, or anyone else, to sell possessions or to reveal their income. I am not aware of that at least. I think many were doing this voluntarily as is mentioned in Acts 2 and at the end of Acts 4.
In Acts 5:4 Peter says that the property belonged to the couple, and after being sold the money was at their disposal. In Acts 5:8, Sapphira was asked directly about the price and lied straight out. It seems to me that their sin (and severe punishment) was for their deception only and not for disobeying a new commandment placed by an Apostle. That is how it sounds to me at least. There does seem like there should be more to the story, though.

Hi. I thought you was a Catholic as I was typing my reply to your post. I apologize for that. I note this post and thank for sharing your thought on it even though it is not my belief. I cannot comment much on it as I do not have any background on Protestantism. I would usually try to explain some aspect of Catholic belief in a way I understand it, that is why I came to this thread.

God bless.

Reuben