Mortal Sin no longer

[Gareth]

Hi,

A an older guy I know late 60s a catholic mentioned the following issue to me.

In New Zealand not eating fish on a friday was taken out and is no longer in force.

Eating fish on a friday was up until this time considered a mortal sin.
Dieing in a state of mortal sin would condemn one to hell.

What of someone who died in this way, was condemned to hell, then the Church changed its mind, what would happen to this person?

It is one of the things that stops me from crossing over…

Catholic answers only please.

Sincerly
Gareth

 

[LilyM]

Hi,

A an older guy I know late 60s a catholic mentioned the following issue to me.

In New Zealand not eating fish on a friday was taken out and is no longer in force.

Eating fish on a friday was up until this time considered a mortal sin.
Dieing in a state of mortal sin would condemn one to hell.

What of someone who died in this way, was condemned to hell, then the Church changed its mind, what would happen to this person?

It is one of the things that stops me from crossing over…

Catholic answers only please.

Sincerly
Gareth

What about those Jews who lived before the time of Christ and were in every way as devout as any of the Christian saints BUT neglected some grave duty that applied under Jewish law only.

As St Paul says ‘those under the law will be judged by the law’ - meaning we all have to act according to our knowledge and understanding and the divine law which is given to us.

Then again I could cut to the chase - Jesus said to the apostles ‘what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven’. He left not only the power to the Apostles, but also the guidance of the Holy Spirit, so that they and their successors wouldn’t misuse it.

Of course it can seem unfair, but then again if I was born about 125 years ago I wouldn’t have been able to vote, and if I’d been born 75 years ago it would have been almost literally unthinkable for me to enter most of the higher professions.

Life changes, times change, social customs and standards change, and some law (human and Church) changes as well. A lot of it can be luck of the draw - some things are a lot more difficult for us now as well.

Socially, for example - education and housing costs proportionally way more than it ever did. And churchwise - we have internet so no excuse for ignorance of Church requirements and law!!!

It’s called lawmaking, and Christ certainly gave the Apostles power to make law.

Then again if you stay non-Catholic things tend to be a lot easier - you want gay marriage? Female clergy? Prayers to a mother-father God? Denial of Christ’s divinity? You can find a denomination that will pander to you. Many have flipflopped on such integral issues even within the last 10 or 15 years. We’ve very much been the same for at least 40.

Remember as well that someone only goes to hell with UNREPENTED mortal sin on their soul (ie when someone sins but is too proud to even privately acknowledge and express sorrow to God for it). If you PRIVATELY repent and make an Act of Perfect Contrition to God but die without an opportunity to confess to a priest then we don’t believe you will go to hell.

 

[Vision]

The Church, throughout the years, has changed the obligatory fasts and other practices that its members must observe. These changes are usually due to cultural shifts in certain regions of the world. The Church scripturally has the authority to bind and loose (Matt 18:18), which was given to the apostles by Jesus.

Now if someone were to fall into mortal sin because he or she failed to observe one of the obligatory practices given by the Church, and had knowledge that it would result in a such a sin that it would separate them from God, and a year later the obligation was removed by the Church, then the person would still be in mortal sin and would go to hell.

Why? Because Jesus said to his apostles, “Those who hear you, hear me (Luke 10:16).” If one were to ignore the Church’s binding obligation, they would be rejecting Christ’s authority, because they would be rejecting the successors to the Apostles, who received their authority from Christ. Ultimately, it boils down to disobedience during the time at which one is bound to observe the fast on Friday.

An analogous example would be a Father who tells his young son to wear a something warm during a cold winter day, yet the son goes out in swim trunks and catches pneumonia (or dies of cold, in the case of mortal sin). However, if it were summer, the Father would not have his son wear heavy clothing in order to go outside, so he would loose the obligation to wear heavy clothing.

It’s not what the Church binds or looses, it’s how we react to them at the time that determines a mortal sin.

The Church’s obligatory fasts, mass attendance, and so on, are the the bare minimum of Christian spirituality and communion with God. They are very easy to observe, and there is really no other reason other than defiance why any healthy person could not observe them.

Hope that makes sense.

---

feeds.feedburner.com/Fanatholic.gif

 

[raikou]

It is not that it is a mortal sin not to eat fish on a Friday per se, but that it is a sin to rebelliously disobey the Church in full knowledge of this certain rule which she can rightfully and authoritatively implement. If it is recognized that this certain parish should eat fish on a Friday, and one deliberately disobeys it, you know that an offense has been made.

You should not also be confused because the Church changes certain rules. It is not that truth has been violated because it is supposed to be immutable. It can be that:

1. For every specific circumstance, a corresponding truth is more appropriate. If a new circumstance arises, another truth is more applicable to it. It could be that the Church ‘revised’ a rule to adapt to the new one.
2. It is a case of a superficial truth that can be changed, but is intimately connected with a deeper truth. For example, not to eat fish during Friday is not a sin by itself. If the observance of eating fish is connected to the commemoration of the passion of our Lord, the truth gains greater weight. More still, if the Church assigned that it be observed. But since by itself, not eating fish on a Friday is not a sin, if after some time the Church allows it, she violates no moral code. However, if it has been a Church order, a person who violates it is guilty of disobedience.

But throughout these different circumstances, you can observe that a deeper rule stating that it is a sin to disobey the Church has remained constant.

Therefore, in that case, that person will remain in hell because the reason for it actually still stands - that he disobeyed the Church.

PS. The body of truth is actually complex and has several dimensions that it should not be oversimplified. Often, it is useful to classify, qualify, and clarify things first before passing judgment.

 

[The_Catholic]

Many see this as just silly. I mean come on, eating a piece of meat? I think it is because so many people are ignorant of what the Papacy really is. They just don’t understand.

Anyways, I heard the Church changed it’s no meat on Fridays because in other countries where Catholicism was becoming popular meat isn’t so popular, therefore the sacrifice we are to give up is to be our own choice, something that’s important to us.

 

[thistle]

Apart from Lent you are allowed to eat meat on Fridays. Fridays are days of penance and you can choose which penance you wish to do, of which not eating meat is a choice. Not eating meat is the one I choose. It is not obligatory.

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)

 

[JoeyWarren]

It is not that it is a mortal sin not to eat fish on a Friday per se, but that it is a sin to rebelliously disobey the Church in full knowledge of this certain rule which she can rightfully and authoritatively implement. If it is recognized that this certain parish should eat fish on a Friday, and one deliberately disobeys it, you know that an offense has been made.

I will add to this. We are told to obey those placed over us. Is failure to obey those placed over us a mortal sin? If it is, then only 1% of 1% of 1% of us christians are actually going to make it to heaven. Point in case I use everytime. Our government has been placed in charge of us by the will of God. That same government has issued laws to protect us and others. Point in case? Speeding laws. If you conscientiously go over the speed limit, then you are conscientiously disobeying the government, and if you are disobeying the government, then you are disobeying the will of God with full intent, full knowledge, and full grave matter.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Actually the universal norm is still to abstain from meat on all Fridays.

I don’t know that I would say that it was changed for “countries where Catholicism was becoming popular and who didn’t think that abstaining from meat was that special”. Certainly the U.S. (which is one country which had an indult from the universal norm) was not in the 1960s of a majority opinion that abstention from meat was not 'that special–it was a very vocal minority which ‘co-opted’ this then–and now. I don’t think also that New Zealand was a country where meat eating is not so popular (not with all their sheep!) Rather, in the U.S. it was the bishops who thought that the focus for penance should be shifted from mandatory to voluntary–a good idea in theory but so abysmally explained, far less followed up, that two generations so far have a huge minority who don’t even think of penance (having nearly lost a sense of sin) let alone practice it, voluntarily or otherwise. . .

 

[fix]

I will add to this. We are told to obey those placed over us. Is failure to obey those placed over us a mortal sin? If it is, then only 1% of 1% of 1% of us christians are actually going to make it to heaven. Point in case I use everytime. Our government has been placed in charge of us by the will of God. That same government has issued laws to protect us and others. Point in case? Speeding laws. If you conscientiously go over the speed limit, then you are conscientiously disobeying the government, and if you are disobeying the government, then you are disobeying the will of God with full intent, full knowledge, and full grave matter.

Yes, intentionally disobeying legitimate authority is a sin. That does make every circumstance mortal. The eating meat issue would be grave matter as that is what the Church has told us.

The speeding issue may be grave matter depending on circumstances.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Hi,

A an older guy I know late 60s a catholic mentioned the following issue to me.

In New Zealand not eating fish on a friday was taken out and is no longer in force.

Eating fish on a friday was up until this time considered a mortal sin.
Dieing in a state of mortal sin would condemn one to hell.

What of someone who died in this way, was condemned to hell, then the Church changed its mind, what would happen to this person?

It is one of the things that stops me from crossing over…

Catholic answers only please.

Sincerly
Gareth

It’s not that eating fish, pork or carrots is wrong. It’s intentionally choosing to ignore a precept of the Church and doing as you chose. Putting yourself above the authority of the Church in Spiritual matters.

If a Catholic intentionally violated a law of the Church, then they would be judged based on the law at that time. If the Church changed the law at a later time. It still does not change the fact that the law was violated when the law was in force.

 

[thistle]

Actually the universal norm is still to abstain from meat on all Fridays.

I don’t know that I would say that it was changed for “countries where Catholicism was becoming popular and who didn’t think that abstaining from meat was that special”. Certainly the U.S. (which is one country which had an indult from the universal norm) was not in the 1960s of a majority opinion that abstention from meat was not 'that special–it was a very vocal minority which ‘co-opted’ this then–and now. I don’t think also that New Zealand was a country where meat eating is not so popular (not with all their sheep!) Rather, in the U.S. it was the bishops who thought that the focus for penance should be shifted from mandatory to voluntary–a good idea in theory but so abysmally explained, far less followed up, that two generations so far have a huge minority who don’t even think of penance (having nearly lost a sense of sin) let alone practice it, voluntarily or otherwise. . .

I would be interested to have a list of countries where not eating meat on Fridays is obligatory. I’m not aware of any countries where that is still the case.

 

[rr1213]

It is not what goes into a man that makes him unclean.

So, if the Church in its wisdom decides that from now on that all Catholics are prohibited from eating chocolate, to knowingly eat chocolate would be a mortal sin which unrepented sends you to hell?

 

[fix]

It is not what goes into a man that makes him unclean.

So, if the Church in its wisdom decides that from now on that all Catholics are prohibited from eating chocolate, to knowingly eat chocolate would be a mortal sin which unrepented sends you to hell?

If it is a matter of Church discipline and the Pope has bound our consciences, then yes. It is not about the type of food. It is about obedience and submission to Christ through His Church.

 

[JoeyWarren]

If it is a matter of Church discipline and the Pope has bound our consciences, then yes. It is not about the type of food. It is about obedience and submission to Christ through His Church.

And our Church has bound us to obey those entrusted to govern us.

 

[fix]

And our Church has bound us to obey those entrusted to govern us.

Right, as long as the law is just and those in power act within their authority.

The duties of citizens
2238 Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts:43 "Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution. . . . Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God."44 …

 

[corvidae]

Think of it this way.

Your parents tell you not to eat candy before dinner. You eat candy before dinner. Your parents are upset.

Was it really the candy that was wrong? Of course not.
Does that make candy bad? No.
Can your parents change their mind and make it ok to eat candy before dinner? Of course they can.
Does that change the fact that you disobeyed. No

It is a sin of disobediance, not a sin of eating meat. It is a sin of ignoring Church authority and saying I know better than you do, I do not have to listen to what you say.

I find that analogy to be useful, you may not.

A lone Raven

 

[rr1213]

If it is a matter of Church discipline and the Pope has bound our consciences, then yes. It is not about the type of food. It is about obedience and submission to Christ through His Church.

…except that it is not a proper subject for the binding of the conscience of a faithful Catholic. Instead, it is within the realm of Christian liberty as established by Scripture.

 

[fix]

…except that it is not a proper subject for the binding of the conscience of a faithful Catholic. Instead, it is within the realm of Christian liberty as established by Scripture.

No, it is within the scope of authority Christ gave to Peter.

 

[rr1213]

No, it is within the scope of authority Christ gave to Peter.

I’m not the one to think that the Pope has the authority declare binding doctrine, but at least I understand the concept. He is the spiritual leader of the Church and when you are speaking about spiritual or theological matters, you would naturally hear what he has to say.

Dietary laws and other things which are specifically within the realm of Christian liberty, however, are another thing altogether. Recent Popes have been very godly men, as well as being astute in a political way. No problem with that. We are to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Still, what happens if in some future you get a bad pope, a bad apple (you have had some of them in the past, it could happen again). And, let’s say that this bad pope, just for the malevolent pure joy of it, wants to see what absurd, ridiculous hoops he can force faithful Catholics to run through? Use your imagination. Pick whatever absurd requirement you want. You pick. You make it up. Are you saying that if the Pope was so inclined to impose such a requirement, you’d be obligated under penalty of hell to obey?

(I am not talking theological heresy because you hold that the Holy Spirit would prevent that from happening).

 

[fix]

Church disciplines have their basis in infallibility. Meaning that while they may be changed as circumstances warrant the disciplines can never contradict the faith.