Mortal Sin, Meat on Friday, Tim and Jesse

[Elzee]

I was listening to the tape ‘Catholicism Meets Calvary Chapel’ with Tim Staples and Jesse Romero (I think that’s his last name - it just this second slipped my mind - I’ve listed to the tape a doze times too!). Anyway, it is an EXCELLENT tape series. Tim and Jesse do an awesome job at defending the faith and I think, casting a lot of doubt on such beliefs as OSAS, etc. The ministers were clearly not as prepared, or perhaps not as knowledgeable as they should have been. There was one point that was made by the guys at Calvery Chapel, though, that went unanswered. I think it was the topic of infallibility,and one of the ministers said that the Church used to say that eating meat on Friday during Lent was a mortal sin. Now it is not. Does that mean that all those people who ate meat on Friday ‘back then’, and died without repenting are in hell, even though, now, it’s not a mortal sin. The point was how can a binding statement on what can send you to hell be changed? The topic then got side-tracked so Tim and Jesse didn’t respond. Can someone answser this for me? I thought it was a good point by the ministers and I can’t figure out the answer.

 

[DavidFilmer]

…one of the ministers said that the Church used to say that eating meat on Friday during Lent was a mortal sin. Now it is not.

The Church still requires abstinance from meat on the Fridays of Lent. Willfully disregarding this without compelling reason is still mortally sinful. But it’s not because the act of eating meat on Lenten Fridays is (in itself) sinful.

Things like abstaining from meat on Friday are diciplines of the Church. We make an explicit promise (at our Confirmation) and an implicit promise (by calling ourselves “practicing Catholics”) to abide by the Church’s diciplines (or, more precicely, “precepts”).

Eating meat on Friday is not inherently sinful (if it were, it would be sinful on ANY day). But if you promise to follow the diciplines of the Church, and the Church decides to make this a dicipline, you must obey or fall into sin (because you broke your promise).

Diciplines are meant to improve our spiritual awareness and progress. They do not fall under the mantle of infallabiltiy, and therefore may be changed at any time. As they change, faithful Catholics are obliged to adjust accordingly.

 

[Elzee]

DavidFilmer:

The Church still requires abstinance from meat on the Fridays of Lent. Willfully disregarding this without compelling reason is still mortally sinful…
Things like abstaining from meat on Friday are diciplines of the Church. We make an explicit promise (at our Confirmation) and an implicit promise (by calling ourselves “practicing Catholics”) to abide by the Church’s diciplines (or, more precicely, “precepts”).

Eating meat on Friday is not inherently sinful (if it were, it would be sinful on ANY day). But if you promise to follow the diciplines of the Church, and the Church decides to make this a dicipline, you must obey or fall into sin (because you broke your promise. .

I didn’t realize that not following a ‘discipline’ was a mortal sin. (I thought things like saying the rosay fell under a ‘discipline’ - not doing that is not a mortal sin?). Now I’m very confused.

 

[Tom]

Elzee:

I think it was the topic of infallibility,and one of the ministers said that the Church used to say that eating meat on Friday during Lent was a mortal sin. Now it is not. Does that mean that all those people who ate meat on Friday ‘back then’, and died without repenting are in hell, even though, now, it’s not a mortal sin. The point was how can a binding statement on what can send you to hell be changed? The topic then got side-tracked so Tim and Jesse didn’t respond. Can someone answser this for me? I thought it was a good point by the ministers and I can’t figure out the answer.

The sin is the willful disobedience. The discipline was not an infallible doctrine. There are other doctrines we must follow also, disregarding them is disobedience.
“the Church used to say that eating meat on Friday during Lent was a mortal sin. Now it is not. Does that mean that all those people who ate meat on Friday ‘back then’, and died without repenting are in hell, even though, now, it’s not a mortal sin.” The fact that the discipline changed does not negate the disobedience of one who broke from the edict prior to the change. The sin is not eating meat; it’s disobeying a discipline of the Church. The reason they are sins, is Jesus instructs His Church:
Matthew 16:19 - And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Disobeying an official Church doctorine is the same as disobeying Jesus Himself.
i hope this helps
May the peace and love of our Lord, Jesus the Christ, be with you

 

[RonWI]

Colossians 2:

16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

1 Corinthians 10:
25Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”

1 Corinthians 8:

8But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

Romans 14:
1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

Romans 14:

15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

 

[RonWI]

Matthew 15:

9They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.’

 

[Joseph_Bilodeau]

Elzee:

I didn’t realize that not following a ‘discipline’ was a mortal sin. (I thought things like saying the rosay fell under a ‘discipline’ - not doing that is not a mortal sin?). Now I’m very confused.

I would not categorize the Rosary as a discipline, but rather as a devotion, something we may choose to do out of love for our Lord and his mother, but something that the church does not oblige us to do or abstain from. Disciplines would include such matters as priestly celibacy, holy days of obligation, Lenten fasting and Friday pennance; Matters which the church has the authority to legislate and which legislation the Church for good reason may change.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Your point, Ron?

 

[moira]

RonWI:

Matthew 15:

9They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.’

You are taking this out of context. Read the whole chapter. Jesus is admonishing the Pharisees’ idea of tradition. Jesus argues that sometimes their tradition leads to breaking the clear commands of the law. He is refering to the commandment to ‘honor your father and mother’. But the Pharisees’ traditon allows a person to place property under sacred vow as a means of preventing the parents from having access to it. So they are using their ‘tradition’ to get around the law of honoring their parents.

 

[JackmanUSC]

I used to eat meat on Friday’s during lent until I figured out it was a no no. Now I do not.

 

[Scotty_PGH]

RonWI:

Matthew 15:

9They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.’

You should at least be intellectually honest enough to post the whole section, in context:

Matthew 15:1-14

1Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2"Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!"

3Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, 'Honor your father and mother’a] and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’**(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/index.php?search=matthew 15&version1=31#fen-NIV-23638b”)] 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ 6he is not to ‘honor his fatherc]’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8” 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'d]"

10Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. 11What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean.’ "

12Then the disciples came to him and asked, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?” 13He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14Leave them; they are blind guides.e] If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”

Sounds like “blind guide” perfectly describes what you’ve done in this thread. Be prepared for that fall into the pit.

 

[RonWI]

The proposition that eating beef on Fridays is a mortal sin is not a rule that came from God; the Bible teaches just the opposite: 25Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience . It is a rule of men. And the men who made the rule proceed to judge others by what they eat. Again, such judgment is directly contradictory to the Word of God: 16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink

I suppose that whoever made up the rule had his reason. But we know that the rule was NOT to bring us closer to God: 8But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
Out of context? Give me a break.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Ron, it is not the “eating meat on Friday” that was a sin, but the DISOBEDIENCE of the law that one should DO A PENANCE on Friday. You know, penance? Like what Jesus told us to do, right here? Luke 13:1-8? Job 21? Acts 2:38?

The penitential practice of not eating meat on Friday (the day of Jesus’s suffering on the cross) is part of the penitential practices that we should ALL be doing, as Jesus Himself requires. And it was the disobedience–the WILLFUL disobedience–that was the mortal sin. A person who unknowingly ate meat on a Friday committed no sin; a person who knowingly eats meat but doesn’t know it is sinful commits no MORTAL sin. Only a person who FULLY KNEW that the penitential requirement of not eating meat was a GRAVE matter, and FREELY chose to disobey, committed a mortal sin.

So much for the supposed millions who ate meat “rotting in hell”. Of those millions, how many do you suppose KNEW their sin and freely chose it and–the big kicker–DIED UNREPENTANT? You don’t know the state of any person’s soul with God save your own. But we do know that God has asked us to do penance, and that if we know this and disobey Him, there will be consequences, some of which may well be mortal consequences. He told us this Himself; see the passages above. He didn’t tell us that our penances could not include not eating meat, did He? Penance is a private, individual matter, isn’t it?

Paul’s words relate to those who were part of a “manichean” heretical offshoot of Christianity. These gnostics taught, and thought, that “matter” was bad and “spirit” good. And so, Paul reminded his disciples that “matter”–for example, in the context of the basic Christian of that era who came from the Jewish tradition–like “unclean” food, was not to be held as “unclean”–but he did NOT say that, because it was clean, it could NOT be “refrained from” on a PENITENTIAL basis!

What do you, Ron, think of vegetarians? THEY don’t eat meat. Are they heretics because they choose to follow a certain diet? Because they prohibit ALL meat based on their interpretation of “thou shalt not kill” including all forms of animal life?

 

[RonWI]

Tantum ergo:

What do you, Ron, think of vegetarians? THEY don’t eat meat. Are they heretics because they choose to follow a certain diet? Because they prohibit ALL meat based on their interpretation of “thou shalt not kill” including all forms of animal life?

I don’t think anything about vegitarians. 16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink What they eat does not make them heretics. 8But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. If they think “thou shall not kill” prohibits the eating of meat, I disagree with them, but I do not consider everone I disagree with a heretic.

 

[chadwilliams]

Three Conditions must be made for a sin to be “Mortal Sin”

1. Grave Matter
2. Full Knowledge
3. Deliberate Consent

“Back in the day” all Catholics were bound to abstain from meat on all Fridays during Lent. It was a practice so well known, that if you were a practicing Catholic, you knew that you were bound to this. Furthermore, if you, fully knowing that you were bound to abstian from meat, chose to “eat meat anyway,” then you are doing so with full knowledge and deliberate consent. Hence, you would be committing a mortal sin.

The Code of Canon Law now states:

Chapter II : DAYS OF PENANCE

---

Can. 1249 All Christ’s faithful are obliged by divine law, each in his or her own way, to do penance. However, so that all may be joined together in a certain common practice of penance, days of penance are prescribed. On these days the faithful are in a special manner to devote themselves to prayer, to engage in works of piety and charity, and to deny themselves, by fulfilling their obligations more faithfully and especially by observing the fast and abstinence which the following canons prescribe.

• 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.*

So, we see that every Friday is STILL a penetintial day. So, if any Catholic, fully aware of the fact that Friday is still a penetintial day, and they do not observe it properly as stated in Canon Law with full knowledge and deliberate consent, they have committed a mortal sin.

 

[RonWI]

Tantum ergo:

Ron, it is not the “eating meat on Friday” that was a sin, but the DISOBEDIENCE of the law that one should DO A PENANCE on Friday. You know, penance? Like what Jesus told us to do, right here? Luke 13:1-8? Job 21? Acts 2:38?

The penitential practice of not eating meat on Friday (the day of Jesus’s suffering on the cross) is part of the penitential practices that we should ALL be doing,

16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink

The passages you cite tell us to repent. Of course I fully agree. But they do not tell us to refrain from eating meat on Fridays. Some man at some time some where made up a rule: no beef on Fridays. Whoever decided that we were to repent the way he told us to, and then began judging us based on his homemade rule, forces us to ignore Paul 1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. and takes from us what Paul gave us: 25Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience

---

As an aside, if I am given the choice between grilled salmon with capers and cream sauce, or a boiled chicken, I do not see how restricting myself to the non-meat dish is an any way an act of penence. Last weekend I made linguine with shrimp scampi. Oh the sacrifice.

 

[Scotty_PGH]

RonWI:

I don’t think anything about vegitarians. 16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink What they eat does not make them heretics. 8But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. If they think “thou shall not kill” prohibits the eating of meat, I disagree with them, but I do not consider everone I disagree with a heretic.

Well here’s yet another example of an anti-Catholic taking ONE SENTENCE out of the Bible, totally out of context, and using it to “prove” a point.

First let’s look at the whole section:

** 1 Corinthians 8**

1Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all possess knowledge.a] Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. 2The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. 3But the man who loves God is known by God.

4So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. 5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

7But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. 9Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, won’t he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? 11So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall

Now answer me this, RonWI: Since you use the out-of-context statement "But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. " to condemn fasting, why exactly did Jesus fast? Why is the Bible FILLED with examples of people fasting specifically so they could get nearer to God?

 

[chadwilliams]

RonWI:

I suppose that whoever made up the rule had his reason. But we know that the rule was NOT to bring us closer to God: 8But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
Out of context? Give me a break.

Jesus disagrees with you:

Matthew 17:

*18 Then came the disciples to Jesus secretly, and said: Why could not we cast him out? 19 Jesus said to them: Because of your unbelief. For, amen I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, Remove from hence hither, and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible to you. 20 But this kind is not cast out but by prayer and fasting. *

The Church certainly had her reasons for the rule - it was to call to our minds by some form of penance that Jesus died for us on a Friday. That does bring me closer to God.

 

[chadwilliams]

RonWI:

As an aside, if I am given the choice between grilled salmon with capers and cream sauce, or a boiled chicken, I do not see how restricting myself to the non-meat dish is an any way an act of penence. Last weekend I made linguine with shrimp scampi. Oh the sacrifice.

Yes, it is very important to avoid that trap at all costs! Seafood is a luxury today, and I think that played a big part in the Bishop’s allowing the faithful to find their own means of penance on Friday’s throughout the year.

 

[Genesis315]

I suppose that whoever made up the rule had his reason. But we know that the rule was NOT to bring us closer to God: 8But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
Out of context? Give me a break.

Why did Jesus fast?