Mortal Sin, Meat on Friday, Tim and Jesse

[Mad_Amos]

Text-proofing, although it certainly makes for riveting debate in matters of Scriptural interpretation, is ultimately a poor evangelical medium. After all, even the accuser used this very tactic in his efforts to tempt our Lord during his sojourn in the desert.

What is truly at issue is whether or not the Church has the authority to make her doctrinal assertions. As Catholics we believe, and defer to the Scriptural basis for such belief, that as Keeper of the Keys this spritual mandate has been imparted by Christ to His Church both implicitly and explicitly. It exists not as a matter of privilege but rather of obligation. In order to effectively minister Christ’s Gospel the latitude must exist for the proper governance of the faithful. Paul himself exercised this duty on several occasions through his myriad epistles.

The Law of Abstinence, which is the proper term for the Church precept discussed in this thread, is an outward expression of the spirit of penance and not an edict of supercilious proscription. Christ certainly did not regard food, be it beef or any other, as evil and neither does the Church. On the contrary, if meat were not considered “good” then the entire foundation for the practice of abstinence would be invalid. The disordered belief that sin somehow came into the soul from without was an ancient Judaic notion that was dismissed by Christian ethical thought. The focus one must place in fasting of any kind is the sacrifice of something pleasurable for the sake of honoring Christ’s Most Sorrowful Passion. Christ recommended fasting and the principle of penance to His disciples and ardently practiced it Himself.

Finally, recall that it was bread that the evil one used as a means of temptation toward our Lord. Certainly it would have been permissible for Him to have partaken of bread, the very staple of His culture. But such was not the point, as Christ had taken a sacred vow expressed in His extended fasting, and to partake of such food – even food that was good and pleasing – would have been an offense against His Almighty Father.

 

[JGC]

RonWI:

the Bible teaches just the opposite:

Says Who. You? The Lutheran Church? The Baptists? THe Presbyterians?

THe Bible is not self interpreting I’m afraid…

 

[JGC]

RonWI:

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

http://www.goarch.org/images/v_line.gif On Fasting
Metropolitan Maximos

                                      	var LinkURL  = 'http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Egoarch%2Eorg%2Fen%2Fourfaith%2Farticles%2Farticle8124%2Easp%3Faction%3Dshow

'; var LinkURL2 = 'http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Egoarch%2Eorg%2Fen%2Fourfaith%2Farticles%2Farticle8124%2Easp
'; function emailThisPage() { window.open(“http://goarchdev.goarch.org/ado/emailpage2.asp?pageURL=”+ LinkURL+"&refURL="+LinkURL2,“Email”,“width=500,height=350,toolbar=no,scrollbars=no,resizable=yes”); } http://www.goarch.org/images/email_print_btn.gif

                    Fasting, in our days, has become one of the most neglected spiritual values. Because of misunderstandings regarding the nature of fasting, because of confused and reversed priorities in its use, many of today's Orthodox Christians fast very little, or disregard fasting altogether.

goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8124.asp

---

The value of fasting, to many of today’s Catholic’s, has been lost too. But you will find numerous writings of the Fathers and Saints up to today extolling its virtue’s.

 

[RonWI]

JGC:

http://www.goarch.org/images/v_line.gif

The value of fasting, to many of today’s Catholic’s, has been lost too. But you will find numerous writings of the Fathers and Saints up to today extolling its virtue’s.

I will let you decide if the following falls under the category of Father or Saint.

Martin Luther preached about fasting in a sermon based on Matthew 4:1ff, saying “Of fasting I say this: it is right to fast frequently in order to subdue and control the body. For when the stomach is full, the body does not serve for preaching, for praying, for studying, or for doing anything else that is good. Under such circumstances God’s Word cannot remain. But one should not fast with a view to meriting something by it as by a good work” (What Luther Says, St. Louis: Concordia Publ. House, Vol.1, 1959, p. 506).

Luther writes: "Scripture places before us two kinds of fasting that are good. The first kind one accepts willingly for the purpose of checking the flesh by the spirit. Concerning this Saint Paul says: “in labors, watchings, in fastings.” (2Cor.6:5). The second is the kind one must endure and yet accept willingly. Concerning this St. Paul says: “Even unto this
present hour we both hunger and thirst” (1 Cor. 4:11). And Christ says of it: “when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, then they shall fast.” (Matt. 9:15). (What Luther Says Vol. I page 508)

Luther’s Small Catechism:
THE BENEFICIAL USE OF THE LORD’S SUPPER
Who, then, receives such Sacrament worthily?
Fasting and bodily preparation are indeed a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words, “Given and shed for you for the remission of sins.” But he that does not believe these words, or doubts, is unworthy and unprepared; for the words “for you” require all hearts to believe.

 

[InstaurareSacra]

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?

Amen.

 

[JGC]

RonWI:

I will let you decide if the following falls under the category of Father or Saint.

Martin Luther preached about fasting in a sermon based on Matthew 4:1ff, saying “Of fasting I say this: it is right to fast frequently in order to subdue and control the body. For when the stomach is full, the body does not serve for preaching, for praying, for studying, or for doing anything else that is good. Under such circumstances God’s Word cannot remain. But one should not fast with a view to meriting something by it as by a good work” (What Luther Says, St. Louis: Concordia Publ. House, Vol.1, 1959, p. 506).

Luther writes: "Scripture places before us two kinds of fasting that are good. The first kind one accepts willingly for the purpose of checking the flesh by the spirit. Concerning this Saint Paul says: “in labors, watchings, in fastings.” (2Cor.6:5). The second is the kind one must endure and yet accept willingly. Concerning this St. Paul says: “Even unto this
present hour we both hunger and thirst” (1 Cor. 4:11). And Christ says of it: “when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, then they shall fast.” (Matt. 9:15). (What Luther Says Vol. I page 508)

Luther’s Small Catechism:
THE BENEFICIAL USE OF THE LORD’S SUPPER
Who, then, receives such Sacrament worthily?
Fasting and bodily preparation are indeed a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words, “Given and shed for you for the remission of sins.” But he that does not believe these words, or doubts, is unworthy and unprepared; for the words “for you” require all hearts to believe.

As an ex protestant and now Catholic, I think tragic misguided individual very heavily responsible for the disaster that was the reformation about covers it.

 

[RonWI]

I do not use out of context passages to condemn fasting. I do not condemn fasting. See my last post.

There is a difference between fasting and distinguishing between foods. The Bible is so filled with passages about fasting that I will not bother getting one now. The passages that I cite do not relate to fasting. They address what kinds of food we can eat *when we eat. *

Furthermore, while fasting is good, not fasting is not a mortal sin, just as praying five times a day is good, but praying only four times a day is not a mortal sin. Even if the pope tomorrow said everyone must pray five times a day, it still would not be a mortal sin to pray only four.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You see, Ron, there is a difference between “fasting” and “abstinence”. Abstinence was always perceived of as a penitential thing. Since we Catholics do not “fast from” meat, that renders your other Scriptural quotes from Paul moot, as we are not “fasting” from meat or otherwise indulging in Manichean or gnostic practices.

So I will continue to abstain from meat on Fridays, but not on other days, not because meat is bad, or “forbidden” by God, but because in doing so I am trying to honor the Lord by keeping myself from a food which I particularly enjoy, on one given day. I will cheerfully eat my beef and chicken since they are NOT bad or forbidden foods on any other day. Especially since I do NOT enjoy seafood except for tuna fish (dry, no mayo). Therefore: I am not “fasting” from meat; I am particularly not “fasting” from foods or saying that one can only eat thus and so IN ORDER TO FOLLOW CHRIST.

Hopefully you will be able to understand this one day and realize that your misinterpretation of Paul’s words might be a snare of the devil keeping you from exploring the one true Church.

Have a nice weekend!

 

[RonWI]

You must have read my post backwards. I never suggested that a prohibition of meat on Fridays was fasting. To the contrary, it is not. I said " There is a difference between fasting and distinguishing between foods."

Paul’s quotes that I cite are not about fasting. They are about distinguishing among foods when we eat. I do not understand why so many of you have raised the issue of fasting. That is not what we are talking about.

Tonight at dinner, when you are eating, read them. And (if you are in a restaurant) find someone who is eating meat. And then ask yourself: should I judge that man as a sinner because he is not following the rules of the pope?

 

[Mad_Amos]

The contrast between fasting and abstinence is ultimately a distinction without a difference. In either case we are speaking of the decision to avoid food, acceptable under Christian ethical philosophy, for the sole purpose of pleasing the Lord.

Paul’s adjudication of the matter is an all-or-nothing proposition. In other words, he means to exhort the faithful that they are not to view the ingestion of particular foods in the context of moral qualification. Concupiscence does not extend to one’s dietary regimen - excepting of course the sin of gluttony, as the ancient Jews had once believed. In short, food - in and of itself, is neither good nor evil.

This understanding does not preclude, however, the conscious avoidance of something one might find pleasurable for the sake of the Kingdom, be it food or any other desirable thing. Indeed, Paul himself makes reference to the spirit of pious forbearance when he opines on the subject of marriage. Certainly conjugal union is good and God-given, as Genesis makes abundantly clear. But the apostle declares in no uncertain terms that it is an act of reverence to choose the unmarried state when one does so to align himself with Christ.

In short, exercising self-control in the abstinence of something desirable, even something that God has declared as good for us, is not evil, but very much the opposite.

 

[RonWI]

Mad Amos:

In short, exercising self-control in the abstinence of something desirable, even something that God has declared as good for us, is not evil, but very much the opposite.

Fasting is beneficial, not because a person/counucil/leader in Rome declared it to be beneficial. It is beneficial because, given the way God made us, fasting results in the exercise of discipline of the flesh and contemplation of the mind. This is true regardless of what Rome says.

The Catholic Church’s decree that it is a mortal sin to eat chicken on Fridays is subject to criticizism for the following reason. It provides no benefit whatsoever to vegetarians. And it provides unnecessary guilt to those who are weak. Why not leave to each Christian’s own conscience the decision of what benefits him or her?

It is beneficial to pray five times a day. This is true even though Rome has not declared that praying four times a day is a mortal sin. Who here thinks it would be a mortal sin to pray four times a day if Rome says you must pray five?

I know the response: it is not the act itself that is the sin. It is the disobedience to the Church that is the sin. But God already gave us the Ten Commandments. He did this for our good. There is no benefit, and only torment, for the Church to create endless sins of its own, which change over time, and add no independent benefit (i.e., fasting already is good, making it a sin not to fast does not make fasting better for you).

Telling a vegetarian to not eat meet on Fridays is not saving anyone’s soul.

 

[Mad_Amos]

I will infer from this response, then, that the central point of debate is the legitimacy of Church authority and not the morality or efficacy of abstinence itself.

The spirit of penance is what makes abstinence efficacious, not the literal observance of the discipline. A vegetarian can certainly forebear an alternative food on the days in question. We must take care to avoid the slippery slope of elevating the letter of the law above its heart, something of which Our Lord was most critical.

Self-mastery derives its merit because God has commanded it, not because men have dogmatically imposed it. The Catholic Church, however, has been specifically and explicitly empowered through Christ’s Apostolic commission to govern her faithful as the Spirit guides her. Jesus was quite emphatic in this regard. Unnecessary verse-slinging will be eschewed here, as it is an invariably fruitless exercise - recall that the Sanhedrin were also quick to quote Scripture in their attempts to discredit and undermine our Lord.

If we believe that the Church possesses such a mandate, however, and that her decisions are ratified in Heaven, then it is a logical supposition that such doctrinal assertions are morally binding upon her faithful. Christ’s Own Words were spoken to this effect. We accept, on faith, that the Church guides with Divine jurisprudence; hence we do not question the particular reasoning or precedence behind individual ordinances in the interest of submission to Divine Will. In essence, we believe that we are enjoined by God through the men He Himself has chosen. Just as Scripture was inspired through infallible Divinity and delivered through man’s fallible hand, so too is it with the dogma of the Church.

In short, I would agree that if we were simply regarding transgression of the dictates of mortals - inasmuch as they did not share a Divine parallel - then we would have no need to talk about eternal ramifications. But when one speaks of offenses against the edicts of the Church, then one is no longer referring to the designs of mere men, but ultimately of God Himself.

 

[DavidFilmer]

You know, the REALLY funny thing is - if the Catholic Church required a TOTAL FAST on Lenten Fridays, few could object. After all, a TOTAL FAST is widely proscribed in the Bible. Our Lord fasted for FOURTY DAYS in the desert.

The Church does not require a TOTAL fast, or even a partial fast on Lenten Fridays (except for Good Friday - not technically a “Lenten Friday”) - only a “fast” from one particular food group. And people scream!

Amazing!

 

[slinky1882]

Is there a Canon Law that deals with abstinance and fasting for the sick and infirmed??? Thanks and God Bless.

 

[DavidFilmer]

slinky1882:

Is there a Canon Law that deals with abstinance and fasting for the sick and infirmed??? Thanks and God Bless.

I’m not sure if it’s a Canon Law (though it probably is), but I do know that the sick and infirmed (and healthy children and elderly) are not bound by these dicplines.

 

[adstrinity]

RonWI, know this, the Pope can not say that one must pray five times a day, that is out of his jurisdiction. A Pope would not say such a thing because he cannot. The Pope did not just make up the abstinence (btw, everybody, abstinence is binding on ALL Fridays throughout the year, I think, though, it’s just not supposed to be substituted during Lent, like it can be the rest of the year) rule. This is Biblical & with reason he did this. I also must disagree with it wont bring us closer to God if we do and wont be condemned if we don’t. Ever since I began (just this after Lent as I didn’t recognise it before this year), it’s made me remember the day & I had to thus accomodate my diet. Why? Because I kept thinking about God & what He wants us to do. It really DOES make a difference, it really does. One then, when the abstinance rule is in play, also thinks about all the food one takes for granted and how thankful one is to have that food. See, the abstinence rule is just eeversoslightly annoying enough to be an inconvience w/o actually having to alter our ways, but, make us focus on God more so because of it. Look, a tree shall be known by its fruits. One shall pray to God to ask for something, a conversion of a loved one, perhaps. Wouldn’t it make more sense to show God that you have faith in Him by obeying Him? You want to focus on God as much as possible at this point. Anything that will remind you of Him… believe me, abstinence works AND, the Pope cannot change us to Muslims.

 

[slinky1882]

DavidFilmer:

I’m not sure if it’s a Canon Law (though it probably is), but I do know that the sick and infirmed (and healthy children and elderly) are not bound by these dicplines.

Thanks David,
One other quick question. I have heard that those caring for the sick or the infirmed are not bound by the abstinance or fasting. Is this also true??? Thanks and God Bless.

 

[Todd_Easton]

The idea that Church leaders can’t make up rules of disciple and good order for the faithful, including rules about food, and that their decisions can be ignored for no good reason without incurring judgment is contrary to Scripture. The apostles and elders at the Council of Jerusalem (with the Holy Spirit) made some rules about food and expected their decisions to be observed. We owe our leaders obedience and submission because they are over us in the Lord. To wilfully disobey our leaders is to disobey the Lord since their authority is from God.

28For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us [apostles and elders] to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. (Acts 15:28-29)

4As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem. (Acts 16:4)

17Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Hebrews 13:17)

16"He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." (Luke 10:16)

1Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. (Romans 13:1-2)

P.S.: Obedience and submission to their divinely instituted leaders in the Church was lacking in Luther and the other Protestant Reformers.