Meat on Lenten Friday = mortal sin = hell?

[fix]

Would you be obedient to the leaders if they came out in support of abortion? I wouldn’t. Sorry, while obedience is important, it does not override everything.

But, the teaching of the Church in these matters can never be immoral. Disciplines are based in infallibility. If you check the old Catholic CE you can read that while disciplines can change as needs change the Church cannot impose anything contrary to the faith in Her disciplines.

The problem you seem to have is with authority. Either Christ is the authority behind His Church or He is not.

 

[Melissa]

I disagree. Christ would want us to bound those things that are morally correct and holy—but because of human flaws, we could be incorrect about what He wants to be bound.

This is exactly why I don’t want to get into quoting the Bible. We are not Biblical scholars. How do you know that Jesus meant exactly “WHATEVER” was bound on earth is bound in heaven? It could be that when he said that he meant it in the sense that only GOOD things can be bound. Do you think his saying applies to binding blatantly immoral and evil acts? If the Church came out in support of abortion, say?

Do you believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church or not? If it is true that the Holy Spirit guides the Church (as the Church teaches, based on scripture), then the Church can no more come out “in support of abortion” than She can create square circles or female priests or any other oxymoron you’d care to come up with.

The discipline of abstinence is binding on all baptized who have the use of reason and are at least 14 unless excused or dispensed, and to deliberately disobey Church law is just as serious as deliberately disobeying one of the Ten Commandments.

 

[gerard811]

But, the teaching of the Church in these matters can never be immoral. Disciplines are based in infallibility. If you check the old Catholic CE you can read that while disciplines can change as needs change the Church cannot impose anything contrary to the faith in Her disciplines.

The problem you seem to have is with authority. Either Christ is the authority behind His Church or He is not.

Of course Christ is the authority behind His Church. But those who speak for the Church are human. And humans are flawed creatures. They can make errors.

 

[Tsuwano]

You weren’t addressing me, but I’d like to say…we’re not talking about “accidently” eating meat here. And yes, I think everyone here would obviously agree that authentic penance must be from the heart, not the actions alone. And God certainly DOES love us more than we can imagine, enough to humble Himself through kenosis, and die for us. But He did not swoop us all up in His immense love and carry us off to heaven…He left the Church to shepherd our free wills unto Himself, and the test of our free will (true love) response to Him is accomplished through faith and obedience to His commands. These commands come in many many forms, which as a Catholic, I know you understand. The discipline of penance happens to be one of those commands, and through The Church, God requires us to demonstrate the ascent of our will, and obediently observe the disciplines He puts before us. We willfully and knowingly disobey this command at our own peril.

God bless

Thank you. I agree with you in full here.

 

[gerard811]

Do you believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church or not? If it is true that the Holy Spirit guides the Church (as the Church teaches, based on scripture), then the Church can no more come out “in support of abortion” than She can create square circles or female priests or any other oxymoron you’d care to come up with.

The discipline of abstinence is binding on all baptized who have the use of reason and are at least 14 unless excused or dispensed, and to deliberately disobey Church law is just as serious as deliberately disobeying one of the Ten Commandments.

Yes, the Holy Spirit does guide the Church. Unfortunately, humans are flawed.

As for the second part of your reply, that’s basically what I find so absurd. To believe that murdering someone and eating a piece of meat incur the same punishment: eternal damnation.

 

[Tsuwano]

I am saying mortal sin involves more than murder. Disciplines can bind in a serious way. It is a matter of obedience. To intentionally disregard such binding is seriously wrong.

I think it depends on why one is disregarding the law. In the scriptures we see Jesus and his disciples deliberately disregarding the Jewish laws regarding eating on the Sabbath. I agree with you in principle, but obedience is not the goal of fasting during Lent. The goal of fasting during Lent is to focus our minds on the sacrifice of the Lord so as to bring us to repentance of our sins.

 

[Alkrod]

I believe the subject can be framed in different terms. Whether or not it is a mortal sin, you are fasting for yourself, for the Church and for God. When you are devoted to something, such as being Catholic, you must continue to be devoted regardless of convenience. By remaining steadfast to your commitments you become a better person, which is what God wants for you. Therefore, you should not eat meat on Lenten Friday because it is detrimental to you in life even if it is detrimental to you after death; you are moving away from becoming the person God wants you to be, one who upholds his/her commitments to him. It may not be the official view but this is my take on things.

 

[Tsuwano]

Why did God deny His love to ALL of creation (not just one person) over one bite from an apple?

He did not deny his love to all of creation over one bite of an apple. As you note, the sin of Adam binds all humans into sin, not just Adam. But God doesn’t deny his love over this sin. Indeed, God expands his love at Adam’s sin to the point that he willingly enters into human history and suffers as a human being in the person of Jesus Christ in order to reconcile us to himself once again. Sin separates us from God. It does not separate God from us. This is what Paul means when he says that nothing can separate us from the love of God, not even death itself.

 

[Tsuwano]

I believe the subject can be framed in different terms. Whether or not it is a mortal sin, you are fasting for yourself, for the Church and for God. When you are devoted to something, such as being Catholic, you must continue to be devoted regardless of convenience. By remaining steadfast to your commitments you become a better person, which is what God wants for you. Therefore, you should not eat meat on Lenten Friday because it is detrimental to you in life even if it is detrimental to you after death; you are moving away from becoming the person God wants you to be, one who upholds his/her commitments to him. It may not be the official view but this is my take on things.

I generally agree with you. Fasting is a means toward an end; reconciliation with God. It is not the goal itself.

 

[jimmy]

It sounds rather pharisaical to me. They have made a fast and tell people their salvation hangs on whether they follow it or not. This is the type of thing that leads people to reject the Catholic view of salvation. You can lose your salvation at the drop of a dime for simply eating meat because the Church says so. It is irrelevant that eating meat is not an evil thing.

 

[Sir_Knight]

He did not deny his love to all of creation over one bite of an apple.

Really? We were thrown our of paradise, were stained with original sin giving us a sinful nature and were banned from heaven until Jesus paid the debt for our sins.

As you note, the sin of Adam binds all humans into sin, not just Adam. But God doesn’t deny his love over this sin. Indeed, God expands his love at Adam’s sin to the point that he willingly enters into human history and suffers as a human being in the person of Jesus Christ in order to reconcile us to himself once again. Sin separates us from God. It does not separate God from us. This is what Paul means when he says that nothing can separate us from the love of God, not even death itself.

May I remind you that prior to the fall God regularily walked with His creatures in the Garden. Just by two people eating the apple, we are forever denied that in this life when before eating the apple it happened regularily.

If we defy church teaching and don’t repent of it, we can earn hell for eating a ham sandwich – not because eating it is wrong but because disobeying church teaching is wrong.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I disagree and I think you’re misreading what I wrote. Maybe I didn’t explain it clearly enough. I meant that some leaders are not only sinful, but some of them also spread errors about what is right (which is different then a priest or leader, say, abusing someone and then trying to cover it up because they know what they did was wrong).

OFFICIAL Church teaching can NEVER be wrong. If it were, then that Church teaching would lead followers into sin and the gates of hell would have prevailed over the Church in contradiction to Christ’s promise.

If a group of sinful leaders came along in the Church and told people to participate in abortion for some kind of spiritual good, I would disobey them.

We’re not talking about a “group of leaders” or bishops or cardinals but OFFICIAL Church teaching. There in lies the difference.

We don’t just blindly follow authority. Do you think Jesus Christ would say, “Well, they have the authority. Go take part in the abortions. It’s not your fault. It’s the fault of the leaders”?

Did Jesus give the Church authority to bind & loosen or didn’t He?

 

[Sir_Knight]

I disagree. Christ would want us to bound those things that are morally correct and holy—but because of human flaws, we could be incorrect about what He wants to be bound.

I ask again, did Jesus lie to us when He said that He would send His Holy Spirit to guide His Church in all TRUTHS?

This is exactly why I don’t want to get into quoting the Bible. We are not Biblical scholars. How do you know that Jesus meant exactly “WHATEVER” was bound on earth is bound in heaven?

But the Church through the ages has contained MANY Biblical scholars since it was them who assembled the bible in the first place and they have told us what the meanings of these passages are.

It could be that when he said that he meant it in the sense that only GOOD things can be bound.

That’s not what scripture says.

Do you think his saying applies to binding blatantly immoral and evil acts? If the Church came out in support of abortion, say?

Now, you’re playing “what if’s” that haven’t happened.

 

[gerard811]

I ask again, did Jesus lie to us when He said that He would send His Holy Spirit to guide His Church in all TRUTHS?

But the Church through the ages has contained MANY Biblical scholars since it was them who assembled the bible in the first place and they have told us what the meanings of these passages are.

That’s not what scripture says.

Now, you’re playing “what if’s” that haven’t happened.

No, Jesus did not lie to us. However, the Holy Spirit can only guide people. It does not guarantee that we’re going to think, say, and teach the right thing. There are errors and contradictions in the Bible even though it’s an inspired text. That’s because flawed human beings wrote it.

As for what scripture “says”, the intended meaning can be quite different than what it seems to be at first glance. Anyone who has taken a university level course knows this. We must examine the text within the era/culture it was written. Plus, the writers use all kinds of literary devices. Even Jesus speaks in parables. So, no. Many times when we read something in the Bible, it is not blatantly obvious what Jesus or the early leaders meant.

 

[SteveGC]

No, Jesus did not lie to us. However, the Holy Spirit can only guide people. It does not guarantee that we’re going to think, say, and teach the right thing. There are errors and contradictions in the Bible even though it’s an inspired text. That’s because flawed human beings wrote it.

As for what scripture “says”, the intended meaning can be quite different than what it seems to be at first glance. Anyone who has taken a university level course knows this. We must examine the text within the era/culture it was written. Plus, the writers use all kinds of literary devices. Even Jesus speaks in parables. So, no. Many times when we read something in the Bible, it is not blatantly obvious what Jesus or the early leaders meant.

Gerard, I’m now curious…

What would you say, precisely, that the Holy Spirit does for The Church? Do you agree that He provides protection? If so, what sort of protection to you believe it is?

Thanks.

 

[Ghoti]

First off, I don’t think God is going to condemn anyone to Hell for accidentally braking the Friday abstinence. I myself have done it, and it was actually quite stupid on my part: last Lent, I had been reading on the forums that the American bishops moved St Paddy’s Day observance to the Friday before, to make way for the feast of St Joseph; so the bishops granted an indult (or whatever the correct term is) for parishioners in a parish, diocese, etc dedicated to St Patrick so they could have their corned beef and cabbage. So, me being of Irish descent and having Patrick as my confirmation patron, I phoned the Archdiocese that Friday to see if it applied to me, too. After being on hold for 15 minutes, I was told, no, sorry, the CCCB did not make a similar decision. Unfortunately, while on hold, I was absently chewing on a slice of Polish sausage (I was still new to the abstaining thing). When I realized, I stopped. Did I sin? I don’t know. Had I continued with full knowledge, I would wager a definite “yes”. As it was, I confessed it.

Up to recently when I started reading these forums, I did not know about Friday abstinence. I was part of the crowd that thought that Catholics didn’t eat meat on Fridays until John XXIII said, nah, it’s all good. I only found out the rights of it in the past couple of years. Did I sin from the age of 7 until age 40? I don’t really think so: I was totally ignorant that the regulation still existed. So I think I incurred no mortal sin, because I didn’t wilfully break the law. Now I know, and can no longer claim ignorance. I think it is still possible that I might slip up – I almost took a free sample of some hors d’oeuvre at a grocery store on a Friday; I checked myself at the last second and asked, “Is there meat in this?” Reply: Yes. My reply: No thanks. Again, absent-mindedness, no intent to disobey, but luckily I caught myself.

It’s difficult, sometimes. I go to parties, or out to dinner, and I’m jonesing for a nice steak. Or I come home, and there’s nothing in the pantry but Chef Boy-Ar-Dee beef ravioli or Campbell’s chicken soup or Mr Noodle pork ramen. The irony is, that is when I can take the most comfort in the situation: I tell myself, John, if it were easy, it wouldn’t be penance.

And yet, it’s not that hard, really. Usually, it’s just inconvenient. Compared to what Jesus gave up on that Friday 2000 years ago, I’ve got it made in the shade. So it’s really such a tiny, tiny price. It’s just enough to put the brakes on my appetites, and to make me think about it, and why I am doing it.

God loved the world so much He sent His only Son to die on a cross for us. How much is that worth to you? Is it worth a few slices of luncheon meat? You are really not being asked for a lot here. The Church instituted this as a penance. Do you think if you come out of confession, the priest having given you ten Hail Marys as a penance, you can say, nah, I’ll just do five, God won’t damn me to eternal Hell for missing a few prayers?

I myself don’t think a lot about Hell. So I generally don’t think in terms of “If I do this will I go to Hell?”; I prefer to think in terms of “Am I doing what the Lord and His Church want me to do?” This mentality I find reflected in the Act of Contrition: “…because of Thy just punishments, but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, Who art all-good and deserving of all my love.…” — and the Confiteor: “…that I have sinned through my own fault…in what I have done, and what I have failed to do…”

And by the way: I don’t think the Church asking you to give up meat for one day a week is analogous (in even the remotest sense) to asking you to participate in wilful murder.

 

[Sir_Knight]

No, Jesus did not lie to us. However, the Holy Spirit can only guide people. It does not guarantee that we’re going to think, say, and teach the right thing. There are errors and contradictions in the Bible even though it’s an inspired text. That’s because flawed human beings wrote it.

As for what scripture “says”, the intended meaning can be quite different than what it seems to be at first glance. Anyone who has taken a university level course knows this. We must examine the text within the era/culture it was written. Plus, the writers use all kinds of literary devices. Even Jesus speaks in parables. So, no. Many times when we read something in the Bible, it is not blatantly obvious what Jesus or the early leaders meant.

First off, the teachings of Christ were handed down from the Apostles to their disciples down to their disciples and so forth and so on. When it was time to assemble the bible, it was done so by those who had the teachings of Christ handed down to them. Any scripture passage which agreed with those teachings was included in the bible and any passage that did not agree with those teachings was excluded from the bible. That’s why the gospel of Matthew is included in the bible and the gospel of Thomas is excluded and the gospel of Mark is included and so forth and so on.

We know what the passages mean because they are based on the original teachings handed down to us from the Apostles. Also, whenever possible, we look to more than one passage on a topic to help clarify what a given passage is suppose to mean.

Using that approach, we see in numerous places where we are told that the Church is the fountain of truth which means that false teaching can not spring forth from it. We read that the gates of hell will not overcome the Church which means that official Church teaching will never guide it’s followers down an incorrect path with false teaching.

In Matt. 10:20 & Luke 12:12, Jesus tells His apostles it is not they who speak, but the Spirit of their Father speaking through them. If the Spirit is the one speaking and leading the Church,** the Church cannot err on matters of faith and morals. **

 

[gerard811]

Gerard, I’m now curious…

What would you say, precisely, that the Holy Spirit does for The Church? Do you agree that He provides protection? If so, what sort of protection to you believe it is?

Thanks.

The Holy Spirit inspires, guides, and protects. However, the Holy Spirit cannot override our free will. So even if someone was inspired or guided, he or she could still error. All of those things (inspiration, guiding, protecting) can only go so far. If they went too far, we’d be like robots.

 

[Tsuwano]

Really? We were thrown our of paradise, were stained with original sin giving us a sinful nature and were banned from heaven until Jesus paid the debt for our sins.

May I remind you that prior to the fall God regularily walked with His creatures in the Garden. Just by two people eating the apple, we are forever denied that in this life when before eating the apple it happened regularily.

If we defy church teaching and don’t repent of it, we can earn hell for eating a ham sandwich – not because eating it is wrong but because disobeying church teaching is wrong.

Yes, through sin we banished ouselves from paradise until Jesus redeemed us and reconciled us to the Father. But it is we who sinned against God, not the other way around. We removed ourselves from God. God has never removed himself from us.

Christians believe that God still walks with us and guides us through his Holy Spirit and the example of his son, Jesus. God has given us the Church to help us in our journey. We are not denied the privilidge of walking with God. You seem to think the only way God can be fully present to us is if we see him, touch his flesh or physically encounter him in some way. This is a poor understanding of how God interacts with his creation and imprisons God in a base image of presence. For those who have ears to hear and eyes to see, God is very much present.

I agree that disobeying church teaching can be wrong and that obedience to the will of God as presented through his Church is desirable. But again, it is not pure and simple obedience that is of value here, but rather what that obedience brings us to. The Church is aware of the grave responsibility it has to guide and teach Christians according to the Gospels handed down to us from the Disciples. The Gospels accentuate God’s love, mercy and justice in his relationship with humanity, which is why I doubt you can name one Bishop who would tell his flock they are going to hell for eating a ham sandwich on a Friday in Lent. If we consistantly defy Church teaching and fail to repent because we doubt the authority invested in the Church or we are simply obstinate, then yes, we are sinning greatly, but again, the eating of meat on a Friday in Lent is not the sin, pride is.

 

[Sir_Knight]

The Holy Spirit inspires, guides, and protects. However, the Holy Spirit cannot override our free will. So even if someone was inspired or guided, he or she could still error. All of those things (inspiration, guiding, protecting) can only go so far. If they went too far, we’d be like robots.

That is where you are wrong. Jesus assured us that when those that lead the Church speak, it is not them who are speaking but Jesus Himself and for that reason, official Church teaching can not be in error.