Meat on Lenten Friday = mortal sin = hell?

[Sir_Knight]

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.

No can you name one Bishop who will tell his flock that they can violate Canon Law (1252) without just cause (and being hungry is not just cause unless the person is starving) and not be guilty of a mortal sin! And all it takes is one unrepentant mortal sin to land somebody in hell.

Recall the passage of the farmer and his two sons. He told both of them to go work in the field. The first one said that he would not but even though he didn’t want to do it, decided to go do the work. The second one said that he would but never went. Jesus commands us to be like the first NOT like the second. When we are lawfully commanded to do something by the Church, Jesus wants us to obey it.

 

[SteveGC]

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.

No, not US as the members of the Church…I meant…

What does He do for the Magisterium…the Pope and council of Bishops?

Does He not fully protect them from teaching error? Free will or not, when it comes to promulgating the deposit of faith, is it not humanly impossible for The Church’s teaching body to profess error (whether it be regarding faith, or morals)?

If not, then do you think that holding that view is contrary to Sacred Apostolic Tradition?

 

[Tsuwano]

No can you name one Bishop who will tell his flock that they can violate Canon Law (1252) without just cause (and being hungry is not just cause unless the person is starving) and not be guilty of a mortal sin! And all it takes is one unrepentant mortal sin to land somebody in hell.

Recall the passage of the farmer and his two sons. He told both of them to go work in the field. The first one said that he would not but even though he didn’t want to do it, decided to go do the work. The second one said that he would but never went. Jesus commands us to be like the first NOT like the second. When we are lawfully commanded to do something by the Church, Jesus wants us to obey it.

Your post seems to admit that there may indeed be a just cause or a legitimate reason for someone to disobey a canon of the church and not be guilty of mortal sin. I think this is true, though I have said over and over in my posts that obedience to the laws and principles of the Church are desirable and should generally be followed. Fasting during Lent is desirable and faithful Catholics should rejoice that their Lenten sacrifice calls to mind the greater sacrifice of Jesus on his cross. They should also rejoice in remembering that the sacrifice of Jesus is the direct result of God’s love for humanity and his desire to reconcile us to himself. I agee completely with your final statement that “When we are lawfully commanded to do something by the Church, Jesus wants us to obey it”, but I would take it a step further and say that Jesus also desires us to know why we should obey it, and the answer is not simply “because the Church says so.” The Church desires us to obey the laws and principles of the Church because these laws help draw us closer to the Lord and create a community of faithful believers who are witnesses to what the Lord has done for us. It is not a matter of obey or else. It is a matter of obey because these things we are asking you to do will build up the Church community and lead you deeper into God’s grace.

 

[fix]

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.

I would agree necessity can dispense form the law. But, I do not think that is what the OP is talking about. My point is that it is wrong to hold we are above the law imposed by the Church. Intentionally disregarding such a law is disobedient and goes to a much deeper problem with legitimate authority.

Why not obey and seek a deeper understanding, rather than finding a way to prove the Church is wrong?

 

[mrsd7]

First off, I don’t think God is going to condemn anyone to Hell for accidentally braking the Friday abstinence.

…

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.
…

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.

I agree with your whole post, Ghoti.

I explain this to my husband and kids as all about self-control. To do the right thing usually takes it, so we practise it in little ways, such as skipping meat of Fridays.

In Australia, we can substitute another penance instead (except for Ash Wednesday and Good Friday) but I think most of our congregations think, as you did, that the penance rule was all thrown out years ago. It’s a pain in the backside to go to church/parish school functions on a Friday and find they’re a BBQ with no “vegetarian” choices!

Frankly, I find it much easier to stick to the non-meat rule (my kids look forward to fish and chips on Friday - perhaps that defeats the purpose) than substitute other choices such as finding the time to attend Mass, say the Rosary or help out with a charity (to be fair, my knowledge of my range of appropriate penance substitutions is not very broad)!

How else do we practise self-control in such a relatively painless way ? Because it’s lack of self-control that seems to cause us falling in other areas! Some of which (such as obeying the desire to king-hit that guy we don’t like) really could have us end up in Hell !

 

[gerard811]

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.

To me, this line of reasoning is a problem. If their decisions are guaranteed to be correct, their free will is suspended.

 

[kage_ar]

“If that is the case, the Jesus lied when He promised to send His Holy Spirit to guide His Church in ALL truths and that the jaws of Hell would not overcome His Church and that whatever the Church bounded on earth would be bound in heaven.”

No, Jesus did not lie. The Church is made of human beings, however. And human beings are not perfect. It could be that the flawed humans have made an error in their judgment about eating meat = a mortal sin.

If you look through Church history, there were some down right terrible Popes and “leaders” in the Church. There have also been numerous scandals within the Church. So, sometimes, the leaders fail to guide the faithful properly. They sometimes fail to discern what exactly they are supposed to “bound” on earth.

Provide reference where any Pope has ever taught error in a matter of Faith and Morals.

 

[LilyM]

To me, this line of reasoning is a problem. If their decisions are guaranteed to be correct, their free will is suspended.

Wrong. Their free will is no more suspended than Our Lord’s free will, or Our Lady’s, were suspended by the fact of their being without sin. They COULD have sinned but CHOSE not to.

So our Popes CAN teach error, but thanks to the guidance of the Holy Spirit will CHOOSE, in those limited cases that fall under the charism of infallibility, not to.

 

[w_stewart]

Our bishop once told us there are only two days when we are required not to eat meat and these are Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

 

[LilyM]

Our bishop once told us there are only two days when we are required not to eat meat and these are Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

In some dioceses that is indeed the case, my own among them. Not in all dioceses, though.

 

[w_stewart]

In some dioceses that is indeed the case, my own among them. Not in all dioceses, though.

What could be the reason of the variation of the law of abstinence during Lenten season?

 

[SteveGC]

To me, this line of reasoning is a problem. If their decisions are guaranteed to be correct, their free will is suspended.

Free will is an immensely broad gift, gerard. Officially teaching faith and morals is but a small fraction of what any human will do in their lifetime. These men that officially teach are not impeccable, as you surely know already. They are as capable of sin as I am, but ex cathedra, I suppose you could say their free will to teach error is suspended, but I don’t like that term, for it really is more of an Agape-based cooperation with the Spirit.

I think a distinction must be made here. In the defining of doctrine, of decrees of faith and morals, error is impossible. The vast majority of this has been done long long ago, in the early centuries of The Church. The last time a Pope pronounced doctrine ex cathedra was 1950, and even that was just to define an already known understanding in the deposit of faith (the Assumption of Mary). But distinct from this, it does not protect your parish priest from sinfully teaching you a false doctrine. This could indeed happen. But the Holy Spirit protection also ensures that as a Catholic, you will have access to the Truth, through The Church as a whole, even though you may not find it fully at your parish. Thankfully, this type of free-will unprotected error happens only very rarely, and can be easily rectified by the heirarchical structure of Church oversight.

God Bless

 

[LilyM]

What could be the reason of the variation of the law of abstinence during Lenten season?

Simply put - it’s one of those disciplinary matters that is by Canon law left to the Bishops Conference of each country to determine for themselves. Similarly the Bishops of each country determine which days (apart from Sundays, Christmas, Easter and a few other feasts) are Holy Days of Obligation for that country.

The Church is Catholic, meaning universal - doesn’t mean its disciplines are, or ever have been, identical in every place. Look at the variations in liturgy among Eastern Catholics, for example. So there is latitude given in these sorts of disciplines.

 

[w_stewart]

Simply put - it’s one of those disciplinary matters that is by Canon law left to the Bishops Conference of each country to determine for themselves. Similarly the Bishops of each country determine which days (apart from Sundays, Christmas, Easter and a few other feasts) are Holy Days of Obligation for that country.

The Church is Catholic, meaning universal - doesn’t mean its disciplines are, or ever have been, identical in every place. Look at the variations in liturgy among Eastern Catholics, for example. So there is latitude given in these sorts of disciplines.

Thank you for the help, Lily.

 

[Tsuwano]

I would agree necessity can dispense form the law. But, I do not think that is what the OP is talking about. My point is that it is wrong to hold we are above the law imposed by the Church. Intentionally disregarding such a law is disobedient and goes to a much deeper problem with legitimate authority.

Why not obey and seek a deeper understanding, rather than finding a way to prove the Church is wrong?

Yes, I think you are right.

 

[fix]

To me, this line of reasoning is a problem. If their decisions are guaranteed to be correct, their free will is suspended.

Freedom is choosing what is right. Are the saints in heaven more free or less free than we are? Can they choose evil?

 

[gerard811]

Provide reference where any Pope has ever taught error in a matter of Faith and Morals.

Unfortunately, no matter what example I bring up, most of the people here will not accept the answer. That is because they assume it is impossible for the leaders to err on matters of faith and morals.

 

[kage_ar]

Unfortunately, no matter what example I bring up, most of the people here will not accept the answer. That is because they assume it is impossible for the leaders to err on matters of faith and morals.

It is because we BELIVE Jesus “the gates of hell shall not prevail”

 

[SteveGC]

Unfortunately, no matter what example I bring up, most of the people here will not accept the answer. That is because they assume it is impossible for the leaders to err on matters of faith and morals.

I think we’d be willing to listen to your examples. I know I would be.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Meat on Lenten Friday = mortal sin = hell?
Seems about as off the wall as missing the Assumption of Mary day of obligation and being then in mortal sin.