Meat on Good Friday...Mortal Sin?

[rcwitness]

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

Some more thought, and appreciation for this perspective that we share:

Isaiah 58

“Is not this the fast that I choose:
****to loose the bonds of wickedness,
****to undo the thongs of the yoke,
to let the oppressed go free,
***and to break every yoke?
7Is it not to share your bread with the hungry,
****and bring the homeless poor into your house;
when you see the naked, to cover him,
***and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?
8Then shall your light break forth like the dawn,
****and your healing shall spring up speedily;
your righteousness shall go before you,
the glory of theLordshall be your rear guard.
9Then you shall call, and theLordwill answer;
****you shall cry, and he will say, Here I am.

“If you take away from the midst of you the yoke,
***the pointing of the finger, and speaking wickedness,
10if you pour yourself out for the hungry
****and satisfy the desire of the afflicted,
then shall your light rise in the darkness…

*“If you turn back your foot from the sabbath,
****from doing your pleasure on my holy day,
and call the sabbath a delight
***and the holy day of theLordhonorable;
if you honor it, not going your own ways,
***or seeking your own pleasure or talking idly;
14then you shall take delight in theLord,
****and I will make you ride upon the heights of the earth;
I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father,
**for the mouth of theLordhas spoken.”

So how is the Catholic manditory fast of meat different than what St. Paul condemns in Colossians 2?

 

[rcwitness]

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;

I agree

…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.

I disagree. Not that seeking the theologians is wrong, but this forum is a place of fellowship. And we Catholics claim to possess the fulness of True Faith! Let us reason together and defend what we believe. If we think of ourselves as more united in our faith, let’s demonstrate that. If we think Protestants are lacking in a devotion and doctrine that we accept, then let us share the goodness of what we have and they reject.

This is a very profound question, because it carries so much weight according to the Catechism!

 

[frangiuliano115]

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!

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.

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!

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.

RC
Thanks for the nice response. I can agree with all you’ve said. I DO think that community worship if beautiful and should be followed. A problem I see within the church (which we are not going to fix) is that all these things you know are not known by the majority of parishioners. The only concept I would like to stick to is that if one is doing this fasting knowingly, that is very good because I agree with all you’ve said about it.
If one doesn’t understand, and the church also proclaims is to be a mortal sin - then that person could be turned off to church all together because the consequence, hell - is not proportional to the sin - not eating meat. And to them it’s just that Not Eating Meat, since they don’t understand what you’ve stated above.

The O.P.'s question cannot be answered because we are not God! Only he and God know what kind of relationship they have. Only he and God could know if he had intended to then confess this sin. With God it’s always a matter of the heart. If the O.P.'s man had a good relationship with God, I’d say he would have been saved.

Hey.

Let’s not kill a dead horse!

FG

 

[frangiuliano115]

Some more thought, and appreciation for this perspective that we share:

Isaiah 58

“Is not this the fast that I choose:
****to loose the bonds of wickedness,
****to undo the thongs of the yoke,
to let the oppressed go free,
***and to break every yoke?
7Is it not to share your bread with the hungry,
****and bring the homeless poor into your house;
when you see the naked, to cover him,
***and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?
8Then shall your light break forth like the dawn,
****and your healing shall spring up speedily;
your righteousness shall go before you,
the glory of theLordshall be your rear guard.
9Then you shall call, and theLordwill answer;
****you shall cry, and he will say, Here I am.

“If you take away from the midst of you the yoke,
***the pointing of the finger, and speaking wickedness,
10if you pour yourself out for the hungry
****and satisfy the desire of the afflicted,
then shall your light rise in the darkness…

*“If you turn back your foot from the sabbath,
****from doing your pleasure on my holy day,
and call the sabbath a delight
***and the holy day of theLordhonorable;
if you honor it, not going your own ways,
***or seeking your own pleasure or talking idly;
14then you shall take delight in theLord,
****and I will make you ride upon the heights of the earth;
I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father,
**for the mouth of theLordhas spoken.”

So how is the Catholic manditory fast of meat different than what St. Paul condemns in Colossians 2?

Gosh RC. This is a whole lesson! It’s really too much to handle. You’re a little slave driver! Let me give you this and cut it down a bit. Isaiah 58:6-14

Isaiah 58:6-7
This says that actual good works are more important than rituals. Observances seem to be secondary to the Law of mercy and also of faith. It reminds me of Mathew when Jesus said the Pharisees were hypocrites because they did everything for show; like praying and even helping the needy and also giving to the church when they would do these things in conspicuous ways. Jesus said to pray in our prayer closet and not to give to the church by “sounding a trumpet” so thal all will know. Mathew 6:2
Mathew 6:5-6

It would seem that in verse 7 some were keeping the rituals but were not doing their proper duty of feeding the poor, clothing the naked, etc. as in Mathew 25:35-40

It seems to go along with my idea, I think yours too - about how fasting has to be an act from the heart.

What say you?

FG

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I disagree. Not that seeking the theologians is wrong, but this forum is a place of fellowship. And we Catholics claim to possess the fulness of True Faith! Let us reason together and defend what we believe. If we think of ourselves as more united in our faith, let’s demonstrate that. If we think Protestants are lacking in a devotion and doctrine that we accept, then let us share the goodness of what we have and they reject.

This is a very profound question, because it carries so much weight according to the Catechism!

Well, after my decades of being a theologian and teaching the subject after ordination, I don’t see my field the way I guess that you do. It is rather like when I have a question in physics. I don’t ask a theological colleague if he has some opinion about the topic…I simply ask a physicist.

I don’t consider this topic theologically that profound but rather more technical. Perichoresis, on the other hand, is profound from my perspective.

 

[rcwitness]

Well, after my decades of being a theologian and teaching the subject after ordination, I don’t see my field the way I guess that you do. It is rather like when I have a question in physics. I don’t ask a theological colleague if he has some opinion about the topic…I simply ask a physicist.

I don’t consider this topic theologically that profound but rather more technical. Perichoresis, on the other hand, is profound from my perspective.

Hey! I thought you weren’t gonna post again!!

But thanks for coming back. I didn’t mean to draw you back against your will.

Like I said, having a theologian’s answer is great, but not always necessary or good for all reasons. This question gets people like me to contemplate it, and forces Catholics to understand their own practice and defend it.

It’s not silly to ask this question to Catholics. It would be silly to ask an Islamist or a Buddhist, but not a Catholic.

Anyway, if you care to stick around, I have been trying to reconcile St Paul’s song stance in Colossians 2 with the Catholic mandi tory meat fast/abstinence during Lent.

 

[Reuben_J]

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!

Hi. You can post any question on the Forum for inter-religious discussion. This is just a forum, and as the name implies, a place for discussion. Membership is across the board; we do not really know who they are in persons as we are just using usernames. They are as good as their word, but even then it depends on how we perceive and receive them.

In other word, this is not an authority on the subject. Having said that, there are many posters here that I have read, want to be here because they want to hear how ordinary people (Catholics/Protestants) express their views and their lives vis-s-vis their faith.

They can always find it out from different websites/sources if they want a different perspective for their questions.

We appreciate those who can give deep (name removed by moderator)ut on the subject, but as members of the Forum, position does not count much as compared to real life. It is about opinion and facts too. So you have different opinions, and disagreements are common here. Trying to act as if one is in his/her church with the position/authority they have is missing the point here.

God bless.

Reuben

Edit: A more appropriate place for questions on the Catholic Church, if one wants to hear a more definitive answers, would be in the Apologetic section of this Forum.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Well, after my decades of being a theologian and teaching the subject after ordination, I don’t see my field the way I guess that you do. It is rather like when I have a question in physics. I don’t ask a theological colleague if he has some opinion about the topic…I simply ask a physicist.

I don’t consider this topic theologically that profound but rather more technical. Perichoresis, on the other hand, is profound from my perspective.

Good evening Don Ruggero,

It’s nice that you’ve returned.

Of course to you everything must seem easy!

Can we put a more theological twist to this?

If the man in the O.P’s scenario eats the meat, does he eat it because God predestined him to?

I find the theory of John Calvin very disturbing. I don’t know very much about it but what I do know changes the God i know and love.

I know that Catholics also believe in predestination and I forget much of what I used to know about it. I know for sure that God predestined those who would believe to become conformed to His Son. Romans 8:29-30

But this would not be the double pre-destination Calvin promulgated.
The verse just before would even go to this: Romans 8:28
If God works all things for the good to those who love Him, it must necessarily mean that He didn’t predestine the event that is being referred to.

There are those that believe that once a person becomes saved, he will always be saved. The bible scriptures they use are many. So this means a person cannot LOSE their salvation. If I cannot lose my salvation, it means my free will has been taken away since I cannot decide to walk away from my faith.

I wonder how these people could accept such a god? A God who would pick and choose whom He will save and whom He will condemn to hell. A capricious God who picks the saved based on NOTHING!

The natural conclusion of this is that God CAUSES the bad, instead of ALLOWING the bad. Now, we could debate there’s a real difference since the end result is the same - but I can accept a god who ALLOWS because we are living in the home of the prince of the air (although we don’t know why - at least I don’t think we do) and we have a system in place with two powers, a good and a bad and I can be sure that I want to be on the side of the good power!

On the other hand, if God CAUSES the bad (sickness, hurricanes, etc.) HOW could I ever LOVE such a god or serve such a god. It would mean that this is just a shoot of the dice or a game. We would just be puppets here to do the master’s will.

John 6:68 comes to mind. However, although I would be much distressed at the loss of God, I don’t see how I could ever worship such a god.

Would you have any thoughts on this? Am I right??

Fran

 

[rcwitness]

Gosh RC. This is a whole lesson! It’s really too much to handle. You’re a little slave driver! Let me give you this and cut it down a bit. Isaiah 58:6-14

I meant to post this passage to show what true fasting is. Or what true fasting/abstinence should be directed towards and led to do. Fasting/abstinence is not the end, but the self denial before God along with our prayers as a petition/appeal (within our worship) to do what pleases the Spirit. And this is for the benefit of others.

Isaiah 58:6-7
This says that actual good works are more important than rituals. Observances seem to be secondary to the Law of mercy and also of faith. It reminds me of Mathew when Jesus said the Pharisees were hypocrites because they did everything for show; like praying and even helping the needy and also giving to the church when they would do these things in conspicuous ways. Jesus said to pray in our prayer closet and not to give to the church by “sounding a trumpet” so thal all will know. Mathew 6:2
Mathew 6:5-6

Meanwhile the disciples besought him, saying, “Rabbi, eat.” But he said to them, “I have food to eat of which you do not know.” So the disciples said to one another, “Has any one brought him food?” Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work. Do you not say, ‘There are yet four months, then comes the harvest’? I tell you, lift up your eyes, and see how the fields are already white for harvest. He who reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit for eternal life, so that sower and reaper may rejoice together. For here the saying holds true, ‘One sows and another reaps.’ I sent you to reap that for which you did not labor; others have labored, and you have entered into their labor.” Wasn’t this Jesus fasting? Not to merely do without the food, but to do the will of the Father. Remember how He said His disciples did not need to fast while He (the Bridegroom) was with them? When did that change? I think it changed immediately after the Last Supper. When He entered into His hour, and the Shepherd was struck and the sheep scattered. Then they needed to begin to fast, and pray, and strengthen one another.

It would seem that in verse 7 some were keeping the rituals but were not doing their proper duty of feeding the poor, clothing the naked, etc. as in Mathew 25:35-40

Yes. Observing a fast without faithful works is an empty fast.

It seems to go along with my idea, I think yours too - about how fasting has to be an act from the heart.

What say you?

Oh definitely, a fast/abstinence must be from the heart.

What I am wanting to do, like I posted to Don Ruggero, is reconcile the precept of the Catholic Church to mandate a fast/abstinence on all the faithful with St Paul’s instructions in Colossians 2. I will give a thoughtful post about it when I have time and researched enough.

The thing about St Paul, is that he tends to have a single focus on something, at times, yet sound as though he is generalizing. I always wondered why Paul was given most volume of Scripture! He can be all over the place, but also convey the most beautiful things of God. Peter saw the potential his words had to be misconstrued. My favorite writer is Luke, and then James.

 

[frangiuliano115]

I meant to post this passage to show what true fasting is. Or what true fasting/abstinence should be directed towards and led to do. Fasting/abstinence is not the end, but the self denial before God along with our prayers as a petition/appeal (within our worship) to do what pleases the Spirit. And this is for the benefit of others.

Yes. Of course. This is what I’ve been saying exactly.

Meanwhile the disciples besought him, saying, “Rabbi, eat.” But he said to them, “I have food to eat of which you do not know.” So the disciples said to one another, “Has any one brought him food?” Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work. Do you not say, ‘There are yet four months, then comes the harvest’? I tell you, lift up your eyes, and see how the fields are already white for harvest. He who reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit for eternal life, so that sower and reaper may rejoice together. For here the saying holds true, ‘One sows and another reaps.’ I sent you to reap that for which you did not labor; others have labored, and you have entered into their labor.” Wasn’t this Jesus fasting? Not to merely do without the food, but to do the will of the Father. Remember how He said His disciples did not need to fast while He (the Bridegroom) was with them? When did that change? I think it changed immediately after the Last Supper. When He entered into His hour, and the Shepherd was struck and the sheep scattered. Then they needed to begin to fast, and pray, and strengthen one another.

If we continue, and you quote a scripture, could you post the book, chapter and verse? It would save me from having to use the concordance. (thanks).

YES! Very good. The apostles did not need to fast while He was with them. What would they have fasted for? HE was right there! Could you imagine?

I Have Meat To Eat That You Do Not Know Of: The apostles were always concerned with the temporal, Jesus was always concerned with the spiritual, since that - in the end - is more important. Spiritual things last forever, food does not.

My Meat Is To Do The Will Of Him Who Sent Me. This is for everyone, not just the apostles. Jesus feeds Himself by doing the will of the Father. It gives Him sustenance. Lesson could be made from each sentence…

And To Finish His Work: Jesus did not do a partial job - He completed it.

Lift Up Your Eyes and Look on the Fields: I see two different meanings. Just look up, close by, and you will see work that needs to be done. OR the fields are ready for the picking - there were those who planted, those who watered and now those who reap the harvest. There are man souls ready to enter into the Kingdom (which starts here).

He Who Reaps Receives Wages: The rewards that await us in heaven. NO. It’s the souls who are ready to be plucked and brought into the Kingdom.

He Who Sows and He Who Reaps: Everyone played his part in the harvesting of souls.

You Have Entered Into Their Labor: This is referring to the Patriarchs, Moses, etc. The Prophets who did much to keep Israel holy (set apart). The reaping is NOW. The fields are ready.

Yes. Observing a fast without faithful works is an empty fast.

Oh definitely, a fast/abstinence must be from the heart.

Almost erased this but it’s too important…

What I am wanting to do, like I posted to Don Ruggero, is reconcile the precept of the Catholic Church to mandate a fast/abstinence on all the faithful with St Paul’s instructions in Colossians 2. I will give a thoughtful post about it when I have time and researched enough.

I reread Colossians and I’m going to keep away from it. it would be best if Don Ruggero answered. What a priviledge to have him on board!

The thing about St Paul, is that he tends to have a single focus on something, at times, yet sound as though he is generalizing. I always wondered why Paul was given most volume of Scripture! He can be all over the place, but also convey the most beautiful things of God. Peter saw the potential his words had to be misconstrued. My favorite writer is Luke, and then James.

Paul is the best theologian the church (any church) has ever had. He studied for years before writing. Romans is a masterpiece and tells us all we need to know.
I have noticed, lately that Jesus was more demanding in what He wanted from us than Paul is. I just noticed this and haven’t reread everything with this in mind, will have to do.
I’m surprised at your two favorite writers. Would you care to say why?
Luke is great for the Christmas story. Why James?
My favorite are Mathew, John, Romans, Hebrews and Philippians.
(you didn’t give me a limit!)

FG

 

[rcwitness]

If we continue, and you quote a scripture, could you post the book, chapter and verse? It would save me from having to use the concordance. (thanks).

Yes. I usually do, but when I dont, it’s cuz I’m using my phone and its more tedious.

I reread Colossians and I’m going to keep away from it. it would be best if Don Ruggero answered. What a priviledge to have him on board!

Well, for me, it’s the crux of the issue. That is: Is there goodness from above in the Catholic meat fast, or does it contradict what Paul is saying there? I have some thoughts, with other passages, so I want to have a well balanced understanding before saying too much. Here is one passage that helps:

1 Corinthians 10
…So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.*Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God,**just as I try to please all men in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.

I’m surprised at your two favorite writers. Would you care to say why?

Luke is great for the Christmas story. Why James?Luke seemed to be good at detail and event portrayal. He must have been a little spunge. And to give us a Gospel and the Acts is amazing! If we only had one N.T. author, He would be the most sufficient! And James provided some clarity to Paul, while expressing a profound wisdom from above (I know all Scripture is wisdom from above).

 

[frangiuliano115]

Yes. I usually do, but when I dont, it’s cuz I’m using my phone and its more tedious.

It’s ok. No problem. I hear esword is a good tool to download, but I’m so tired of learning new things and I think that’s a complicated program. It has Greek too.

Well, for me, it’s the crux of the issue. That is: Is there goodness from above in the Catholic meat fast, or does it contradict what Paul is saying there? I have some thoughts, with other passages, so I want to have a well balanced understanding before saying too much. Here is one passage that helps:

1 Corinthians 10
…So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.*Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God,**just as I try to please all men in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.

It’s late here now. But if you let me know the verses for Colossians I could look into it a bit tomorrow. Maybe with a commentary. I see a conflict, but it really isn’t one.
In colossians Paul is saying that what we eat or drink is NOT important.
And in Corinthians he’s saying NOT to be a bad witness. You’d be a bad witness if you caused a brother to stumble by eating meat on Friday if he looked up to you for faith reasons. OTOH, what you really eat or drink is not important if there’s only you and God.
That’s how I see it but if you’re confused about it, I would agree that it might be more important than this. If I hear back from you, I will look into it and then we could compare notes.

Luke is great for the Christmas story. Why James?

Luke seemed to be good at detail and event portrayal. He must have been a little spunge. And to give us a Gospel and the Acts is amazing! If we only had one N.T. author, He would be the most sufficient! And James provided some clarity to Paul, while expressing a profound wisdom from above (I know all Scripture is wisdom from above).

Yes. Interesting re Acts. But I don’t see how a Christian could get along without Romans. Thankfully, we have them all!

Good night.
(sometimes the quotes won’t work…)

FG

 

[rcwitness]

It’s late here now. But if you let me know the verses for Colossians I could look into it a bit tomorrow.

Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath.17These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.18Let no one disqualify you, insisting on self-abasement and worship of angels, taking his stand on visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind,19and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.

Warnings against False Teachers

20If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the universe, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world? Why do you submit to regulations,21“Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch”22(referring to things which all perish as they are used), according to human precepts and doctrines?23These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting rigor of devotion and self-abasement and severity to the body, but they are of no value in checking the indulgence of the flesh.

 

[Wannano]

Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath.17These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.18Let no one disqualify you, insisting on self-abasement and worship of angels, taking his stand on visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind,19and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.

Warnings against False Teachers

20If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the universe, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world? Why do you submit to regulations,21“Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch”22(referring to things which all perish as they are used), according to human precepts and doctrines?23These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting rigor of devotion and self-abasement and severity to the body, but they are of no value in checking the indulgence of the flesh.

So what are these verses saying?

 

[rcwitness]

So what are these verses saying?

Hey, that was my question! I guess we have to be a theologian to know…

 

[Wannano]

Hey, that was my question! I guess we have to be a theologian to know…

I did some digging, my commentary says “Paul is here referring to any system which makes salvation dependent on the observance of certain food taboos or rigid adherence to the observance of certain days as sacred.” Ahem, are we sure he was a Catholic?

 

[jmcrae]

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.

It’s about obedience.

A real-life analogy for you: there is a curve on the street where I live, where the posted speed limit seems to change about once a month.

I went through it at 40 kph three months ago, when the posted speed limit was 30 kph. I got caught and was given a ticket and a fine to pay.

A week after I got the ticket, the speed limit was raised to 50 kph.

I still have to pay the fine, because the speed limit was 30 kph at the time that I was going through it at 40 kph. The fact that the speed limit changed a week later has no bearing on the fact that I broke the law that was in place at that time.

I paid the fine.

The person breaking a precept of the Church knowingly and deliberately would go to Hell. “What thou Peter (the Pope) bind on earth is bound in Heaven.” The Pope makes the rule, and Jesus enforces it.

“What thou Peter (the Pope) loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven.” The Pope relaxes the rule, and Jesus stops enforcing it.

 

[jmcrae]

I did some digging, my commentary says “Paul is here referring to any system which makes salvation dependent on the observance of certain food taboos or rigid adherence to the observance of certain days as sacred.” Ahem, are we sure he was a Catholic?

Well, I think your commentator certainly isn’t Catholic. I am looking in my own Bible Commentary, but I can’t find anything substantial relating to this issue. My commentary is going on about Hellenistic mystery cults and how St. Paul’s teaching is intended to correct elements of these cults that seem to have crept into the Colossian community.

 

[Wannano]

It’s about obedience.

A real-life analogy for you: there is a curve on the street where I live, where the posted speed limit seems to change about once a month.

I went through it at 40 kph three months ago, when the posted speed limit was 30 kph. I got caught and was given a ticket and a fine to pay.

A week after I got the ticket, the speed limit was raised to 50 kph.

I still have to pay the fine, because the speed limit was 30 kph at the time that I was going through it at 40 kph. The fact that the speed limit changed a week later has no bearing on the fact that I broke the law that was in place at that time.

I paid the fine.

The person breaking a precept of the Church knowingly and deliberately would go to Hell. “What thou Peter (the Pope) bind on earth is bound in Heaven.” The Pope makes the rule, and Jesus enforces it.

“What thou Peter (the Pope) loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven.” The Pope relaxes the rule, and Jesus stops enforcing it.

Thank you for the reply, a question for you. Is it only the Pope that can get Jesus to enforce or stop enforcing a rule or could a priest or bishop also enact that. Some answers I received indicated that if the person in my scenario had the desire to obey but gave in in weakness or if he had observed all the other Lenten requirements the Church may overlook his transgression.

After various answers, some yes, some no, some maybe I admit I am not any more informed for asking the question. Sort of seems like it might depend on the Priest.

 

[jmcrae]

Thank you for the reply, a question for you. Is it only the Pope that can get Jesus to enforce or stop enforcing a rule or could a priest or bishop also enact that. Some answers I received indicated that if the person in my scenario had the desire to obey but gave in in weakness or if he had observed all the other Lenten requirements the Church may overlook his transgression.

If he didn’t do it on purpose or if there was a situation outside of his control where it would have gone against the law of charity to refuse to eat meat (since the law of charity supersedes all other laws) then no sin would have been committed. Also, if he totally forgot what day it is, and was eating meat before he remembered that he wasn’t supposed to.

An example where the law of charity would apply would be, someone who loves you, but is not aware that you are required to abstain from meat on this day, surprises you with an elegant meal of steak and ribs. She has gone to a great deal of work to make the meal, first of all. Secondly, she isn’t doing it out of malice to make you break your fast, but rather, out of love for you and in order to make you happy.

Telling her that you are fasting and that you are required to abstain from meat would not be helpful - the meal is already cooked. Therefore, you eat the meal that she has prepared for you, and you enjoy it, and you thank her for her thoughtful kindness to you.

There is no sin in this.

However, crashing an acquaintance’s barbecue and helping yourself to their steak and ribs when they feel compelled to offer it to you would be completely wrong. On so many levels. But especially where you are trying to get someone to offer you meat so that you can pretend you were following the law of charity.

After various answers, some yes, some no, some maybe I admit I am not any more informed for asking the question. Sort of seems like it might depend on the Priest.

Priests have been given authority to give dispensations, when it’s necessary for some reason.