Meatless Fridays still? Yes or No

[lyoncoeur]

I was under the impression that the practice of abstaining from meat on fridays was still officially in effect, but that since V II it was allowed that if you made a different act of sacrifice, eating meat on Friday was allowed.

About a month {possibly 2} ago on the “Catholic Answers Live” radio show… one of the Q&A open forum days a caller asked the question about this practice and the apologist of the day {one of the regulars…but I can’t remember which one} said that he has not been able to find anyplace where it stated it was still expected of us.

This morning I am watching EWTN and there is a little “commercial” with two guys going out for lunch and one orders a cheese burger, the other a fish sandwich and they have a discussion about this matter…the fish guy states the rule as I understood it to be…the other guy stated that he diden’t know, and changes his order to fish… and all is happy.

Now I’m confused… any help strightening me out would be great… I still practice meatless {or extra works of charity} fridays myself no matter what…but I have told other people that it was still expected and now I don’t know for sure… I want to be sure I am making correct statements. Thanks.

 

[Madia]

Maybe this link will help:

ewtn.com/expert/answers/fast_and_abstinence.htm

 

[lyoncoeur]

Excellent, Madia, thankyou!

 

[netmilsmom]

We do meatless Fridays at our house.
When I have slipped, I love the idea that I can make it up in some other way.

 

[thistle]

lyoncoeur:

Excellent, Madia, thankyou!

See CCC 1438: The seasons and days of penance in the course of the liturgical year (Lent and each Friday in memory of the death of the Lord) are intense moments of the Church’s penitential practice. These times are particularly appropriate for spiritual exercises, penitential liturgies, pilgrimages as signs of penance, voluntary self-denial such as fasting and almsgiving, and fraternal sharing (charitable and missionary works).

It might be that in the USA you must abstain from eating meat on Fridays but it does not apply elsewhere and the CCC does not require it. You are to do some form of penance on a Friday, of which not eating meat can be a choice.

 

[Brenda_V]

My husband, a Lutheran, heard that piece on the radio. He then challenged me on it because I have been trying to go meatless on Fridays along with our daughters who were raised Catholic.

I keep trying to explain to dh that I don’t have to abstain but it is both the easiest as well as the hardest for me to follow. Easiest because it can become a habit yet hardest because I do slip and it takes a bit of planning for three meals to be meatless as I love my meat!

Brenda V.

 

[thistle]

Brenda V.:

My husband, a Lutheran, heard that piece on the radio. He then challenged me on it because I have been trying to go meatless on Fridays along with our daughters who were raised Catholic.

I keep trying to explain to dh that I don’t have to abstain but it is both the easiest as well as the hardest for me to follow. Easiest because it can become a habit yet hardest because I do slip and it takes a bit of planning for three meals to be meatless as I love my meat!

Brenda V.

Although its not required my choice is also meatless on Friday. If I forget, say at lunchtime, and someone points it out to me then I skip dinner and just have bread and water instead.

 

[mercygate]

Brenda V.:

My husband, a Lutheran, heard that piece on the radio. He then challenged me on it because I have been trying to go meatless on Fridays along with our daughters who were raised Catholic.

I keep trying to explain to dh that I don’t have to abstain but it is both the easiest as well as the hardest for me to follow. Easiest because it can become a habit yet hardest because I do slip and it takes a bit of planning for three meals to be meatless as I love my meat!

Brenda V.

I guess because Catholics for so many years were required to abstain from meat, a lot of people don’t understand that someone would do this voluntarily in commemoration of our Lord’s Passion and as a way of reminding ourselves that something is more important that our own immediate personal preference.

 

[Faustina]

See CCC 1438: The seasons and days of penance in the course of the liturgical year (Lent and each Friday in memory of the death of the Lord) are intense moments of the Church’s penitential practice. These times are particularly appropriate for spiritual exercises, penitential liturgies, pilgrimages as signs of penance, voluntary self-denial such as fasting and almsgiving, and fraternal sharing (charitable and missionary works).

It might be that in the USA you must abstain from eating meat on Fridays but it does not apply elsewhere and the CCC does not require it. You are to do some form of penance on a Friday, of which not eating meat can be a choice.

I think the meatless Fridays are observed globally, but the option to do another form of penance, besides abstaining from meat, is not observed globally. I believe that a special request was made by our Conference of Bishops to the Holy See, to allow an option of penance. Either giving up meat on Friday or to do some other form of penance.

 

[tee_eff_em]

thistle:

It might be that in the USA you must abstain from eating meat on Fridays but it does not apply elsewhere and the CCC does not require it. You are to do some form of penance on a Friday, of which not eating meat can be a choice.

It is not required by the CCC because it is disciplinary, not doctrinal. It is, then, required by Canon Law:

Can. 1250 The days and times of penance for the universal Church are each Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent.

Can. 1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

Can. 1252 The law of abstinence binds those who have completed their fourteenth year. The law of fasting binds those who have attained their majority, until the beginning of their sixtieth year. Pastors of souls and parents are to ensure that even those who by reason of their age are not bound by the law of fasting and abstinence, are taught the true meaning of penance.

Can. 1253 The Episcopal Conference can determine more particular ways in which fasting and abstinence are to be observed. In place of abstinence or fasting it can substitute, in whole or in part, other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety.

In the US, the Episcopal Conference does allow the faithful to substitute some other piety on non-solemn Fridays, but they are still penitential days (even if not as well emphasized as some might prefer).

tee

 

[oat_soda]

In the US, the Episcopal Conference does allow the faithful to substitute some other piety on non-solemn Fridays, but they are still penitential days (even if not as well emphasized as some might prefer).

i actually asked a knowledgable jesuit (one of the good ones) and he told me we are not obliged to treat friday any different then any other day of the week under the penalty of sin.

i belive that apologist jimmy akins has written a good deal on this topic. he seems pretty knowledgable.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

While the USCCB document does say that Catholics *should *abstain from meat on all Fridays and *can *substitute something else that seems more fitting, I don’t remember their document containing any language that clearly conveys a moral obligation to observe Friday as a day of penance.

The law in force is still according to the NCCB Complementary Norms on Penance and Abstinence which, although the USCCB site is difficult to search through, can be found here:
cin.org/mateo/9512291.html
in a form which does not seem altered from what I remember reading on a more official site and which corresponds to other sites citing the same document.

Many sites devoted to the topic of Friday abstinence point out, however, that universal Church law still mandates that Friday be observed as a penitential day, even if some other form of penance is substituted. Thus, it would seem that the American bishops did not need to include this in their guideline removing the pain of sin from abstinence as that was not within the competence of their conference to change (conferences were only able to allow the substitution of other practices, not abolish the obligation of a penitential day altogether).

This would mean that we still have an obligation under pain of sin to observe Friday as a penitential day. The Church’s preference is that we abstain from meat, but if we feel something else will be more meaningful or provide a better witness, we who live in areas whose bishops have allowed it may substitute some other penance to fulfill the obligation.

Does that reasoning conform to what everyone else has been thinking?

 

[msproule]

Andreas Hofer:

Does that reasoning conform to what everyone else has been thinking?

Andreas,

I am with you. When I first read the Canons in the 1983 Code and then the USCCB document from 1966, it does not seem to me that the USCCB accurately established particular law within the competency allowed through universal law. Apparently, oat soda’s Jesuit priest, Jimmy Akin, and the Canon Law Society of America disagree with us, but let’s pretend we do not know that for a moment.

From the 1917 Code of Canon Law:
Canon 1250. The law of abstinence prohibits meat and soups made of meat but not of eggs, milks, and other condiments, even if taken from animals.

**Canon 1252. 1. **The law of abstinence only must be observed every Friday.

**Canon 1254. 1. **The law of abstinence binds all those who have completed seven years of age.
There is no provision here for establishing particular norms. I then wonder why the USCCB published such norms in 1966? Was there another edition of the Code of which I am unaware? Then, within the context of the revised 1983 Code, the 1966 document still ignores the requirement of establishing some other form of penance. I am confused. Can somebody explain this?

 

[tee_eff_em]

oat soda:

i actually asked a knowledgable jesuit (one of the good ones) and he told me we are not obliged to treat friday any different then any other day of the week under the penalty of sin.

Yes, I should have been clearer in my parentheses, that failure to observe the penitential nature of Friday seems not to carry the penalty of sin (in the US).

However, I don’t think it is within the competence of any bishops’ conference to declare that Fridays are not penitential days, even if that nature need not be observed. (That does seem to be doctrinal)

Or, I could be mistaken
tee

 

[tee_eff_em]

msproule:

There is no provision here for establishing particular norms. I then wonder why the USCCB published such norms in 1966? Was there another edition of the Code of which I am unaware? Then, within the context of the revised 1983 Code, the 1966 document still ignores the requirement of establishing some other form of penance. I am confused. Can somebody explain this?

That provision was given by Paul VI, of blessed memory, in the Apostolic Constitution on Penance, Paenitemini.

tee

 

[mosher]

In reference to this the USCCB back when they were the NCCB requested from Rome the permission to drop the universal mandate to obstain from meat in all Fridays and it was granted based on the document above cited that asks for a different form of penance to replace the universal norm. The moral implication is that if we do neither then we are not acting in good faith based on the intent of the US’s particular law. If we choose to not do some other penance then we revert the the universal norm which is mandated. The moral violation is one of obedience.

 

[thistle]

It is not required by the CCC because it is disciplinary, not doctrinal. It is, then, required by Canon Law:

In the US, the Episcopal Conference does allow the faithful to substitute some other piety on non-solemn Fridays, but they are still penitential days (even if not as well emphasized as some might prefer).

tee

Page 5 of the CCC. Statement from John Paul II headed the Doctrinal value of the Text.
“The Cathechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is **a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic ** doctrine…I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a vaild and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion…”

It sure sounds doctrinal to me.

 

[tee_eff_em]

thistle:

Page 5 of the CCC. Statement from John Paul II headed the Doctrinal value of the Text.
“The Cathechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is **a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic ** doctrine…I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a vaild and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion…”

It sure sounds doctrinal to me.

**It *[abstinence from meat] ***is not required by the CCC because **it *[abstinence from meat] ***is disciplinary, not doctrinal. **It *[abstinence from meat] ***is, then, required by Canon Law

Ie the same “it” as when you’d said “the CCC does not require it”

Sorry for the confusion,
tee

 

[Al_Masetti]

It’s late and I’m getting punchy. [Or “punch-ier”]

I read the EWTN thing.

Enmity. Wonderful word. So if some person I’m with will start World War III if I conspicuously don’t eat meat, then it’s ok to eat meat. Of course, it is not possible to be inconspicuous when the buffet has only meat.] I’m being cute here, but not by much.

I guess I can substitute fasting for abstinence on most Fridays (except during Lent), since I’m no longer required to fast because of age. I can skip a meal without perishing.

And tomorrow, I’m going to see if the supermarket has snake or alligator meat. Yum.

Only mammal meat is off limits. Reptile meat or amphibian meat… I mean, flesh, is ok. Gotta think about this.

For more than a half century, I always thought that no meat meant NO MEAT. Fish or cheese or bread or pasta or PB&J.

I had never actually read the word-for-word regulation before.

There seems to be some latitude. Or wiggle room. Or something.

I have always been accused to taking things too seriously. Even a CONSERVATIVE confessor once reprimanded me, “Al, quit trying to be holier than the Church”, he said.

Hmmm.

Maybe before I die, I’ll get this thing figured out.

But I better hurry up.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Al Masetti:

Only mammal meat is off limits. Reptile meat or amphibian meat… I mean, flesh, is ok. Gotta think about this.

For more than a half century, I always thought that no meat meant NO MEAT. Fish or cheese or bread or pasta or PB&J.

Think about it, Al. You say you thought abstinence was always cut and dried because “no meat meant NO MEAT.” None of this artificial distinction between mammal meat and the flesh of other animal families. That’s why instead of meat you had to eat bread, or fish… Well we all know you don’t eat the flesh of the fish… err, not the meaty flesh anyway…What I meant was that fish flesh is obviously not meat whereas alligator flesh obviously is…or something.

The distinction is nothing new. Unless you’re not too keen on fish (I’ve never been a big fan) you’ve probably been availing yourself of the very distinction you’re putting down.