No meat Fridays during Lent?

[GEddie]

I’m not sure that is true.
Can. 13 §2. Travelers are not bound:

1/ by the particular laws of their own territory as long as they are absent from it unless either the transgression of those laws causes harm in their own territory or the laws are personal;

2/ by the laws of the territory in which they are present, with the exception of those laws which provide for public order, which determine the formalities of acts, or which regard immovable goods located in the territory.

§3. Transients are bound by both universal and particular laws which are in force in the place where they are present.

So, if you’re travelling you’re bound by universal laws: which means you can substitute abstaining for other forms of penance since that is universal law.

If you’re working for a period of time you’re bound by the laws of the territory in which you’re working.

That sounds about right.

Like I said before, it was common for Texans to go to MX on Friday and eat Fajitas; whereas even those with Catholic schooling through K-18 (ie, Catholic grad school) were never taught they had to keep the Texan penance while in Mexico.

ICXC NIKA

 

[sharmin]

Does anyone else find it silly that a Canadian can eat meat on Friday during lent and not be sinning, yet an American would be in sin for the same act? Do we really believe God is like that? I don’t understand. Does the church officially teach that eating meat on certain days is sinful? Does God really care what borders we’ve crossed before we’ve eaten that hamburger?

 

[Phemie]

Does anyone else find it silly that a Canadian can eat meat on Friday during lent and not be sinning, yet an American would be in sin for the same act? Do we really believe God is like that? I don’t understand. Does the church officially teach that eating meat on certain days is sinful? Does God really care what borders we’ve crossed before we’ve eaten that hamburger?

It’s not so much about the fasting as it is about obedience to authority. The Church has the ability to bind & loose and we have to obey.

 

[Corki]

I’m not sure that is true.
Can. 13 §2. Travelers are not bound:

1/ by the particular laws of their own territory as long as they are absent from it unless either the transgression of those laws causes harm in their own territory or the laws are personal;

2/ by the laws of the territory in which they are present, with the exception of those laws which provide for public order, which determine the formalities of acts, or which regard immovable goods located in the territory.

§3. Transients are bound by both universal and particular laws which are in force in the place where they are present.

So, if you’re travelling you’re bound by universal laws: which means you can substitute abstaining for other forms of penance since that is universal law.

If you’re working for a period of time you’re bound by the laws of the territory in which you’re working.

But the universal law is abstaining from meat so, if you are claiming you don’t have to follow your own ordinary’s rules due to travel, the default would be “no meat” unless I am missing something.

 

[Phemie]

But the universal law is abstaining from meat so, if you are claiming you don’t have to follow your own ordinary’s rules due to travel, the default would be “no meat” unless I am missing something.

You’re right. I had to reread the appropriate canon. I knew one of the canons mentioned substitution but it’s the canon giving the Conference of Bishops the authority to permit it.

 

[wjp984]

Does anyone else find it silly that a Canadian can eat meat on Friday during lent and not be sinning, yet an American would be in sin for the same act? Do we really believe God is like that? I don’t understand. Does the church officially teach that eating meat on certain days is sinful? Does God really care what borders we’ve crossed before we’ve eaten that hamburger?

Oh it’s definitely silly. The whole point is that the focus should be on you wanting to do something for God, not because the Church says you have to.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Does anyone else find it silly that a Canadian can eat meat on Friday during lent and not be sinning, yet an American would be in sin for the same act? Do we really believe God is like that? I don’t understand. Does the church officially teach that eating meat on certain days is sinful? Does God really care what borders we’ve crossed before we’ve eaten that hamburger?

No, I don’t find it silly. The issue is not about ‘eating meat’ or ‘not eating meat’. . .the issue is about the value of penitence/penance and the VIRTUE of obedience to lawful authority.

God cares about whether you have the humility and grace to listen to the Church He established under the direction of whomever that Church has given you as your shepherd. If John in Canada has a bishop who for pastoral reasons has determined John needs to do X as a Catholic, but Roger in the U.S. has a bishop who has decided Roger needs to do Y as a Catholic, then John should do X and Roger should do Y, and neither one should be bleating, “I don’t wanna do it because so-and-so in some other place doesn’t have to!”

It’s sad that people have lost sight of this truth and instead have been confused into thinking Lent and Lenten obligations are about ‘silly changing rules’ and not about eternal obedience. . .

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Oh it’s definitely silly. The whole point is that the focus should be on you wanting to do something for God, not because the Church says you have to.

Really, sugar? Here in the U.S. in the 46 years since the Indult, exactly how many Catholics are lining up wanting to do something for God? Supposedly they were wanting to do so much more in their Catholicity than give up meat on a non-Lent Friday, and were panting to do, yet they do nowhere near ‘as much AS’ they used to! How many Catholics don’t even go to church anymore on Sunday because they think they don’t HAVE to, because, “If I don’t WANT to do it for God I shouldn’t be a hypocrite and force myself to go.”

Bad thinking. . .

 

[wjp984]

It still is silly that a person living near the border can cross to go eat meat. That is probably something I would do because I love tecnicalities. But it’s silly.

Do you not agree that it is better to give up something for love of God rather than to do it because you have to?

Personally, I believe the Church offers very good guidelines of how to live a life for Christ and have an easier time preparing for Heaven. Therefore I try to follow them. However, I do not think they are rules in the sense that you are going to Hell if you don’t follow them or that you have committed some sort of mortal sin. It just means that you are making it harder on yourself by not following these rules.

What if the Vatican were to all of sudden say that Church attendance was only required twice a month instead of every Sunday, but strongly encuoraged on all Sundays? Would this change your church habits?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It still is silly that a person living near the border can cross to go eat meat. That is probably something I would do because I love tecnicalities. But it’s silly. It may be that the person who lives near the border does a silly action by crossing over and thinking he gets away with something. . .but that doesn’t make the decisions by the bishops of either border silly, does it?

Suppose you live in a country like Malta where abortion is still illegal, and you fly over to Spain for an abortion, because you’re ‘able’ to. Does that make the teaching that abortion is wrong ‘silly?’

Do you not agree that it is better to give up something for love of God rather than to do it because you have to? **false dichotomy. ** It is better to obey than not to obey. There is your answer. It is better to not sin than sin. Plenty of people start out (think little children) totally unable to see the point of view of others, and ‘HAVE TO’ get along because mom and dad MAKE them. Some children, sadly, never grow up enough to see the point of view of others. . .one reason we have LAWS. . .to protect the vast majority of us who obey from the few who don’t. . . Why should the Church–and God–be different and say, “No need for laws, do your own thing!”

Personally, I believe the Church offers very good guidelines of how to live a life for Christ and have an easier time preparing for Heaven. Therefore I try to follow them. However, I do not think they are rules in the sense that you are going to Hell if you don’t follow them or that you have committed some sort of mortal sin. It just means that you are making it harder on yourself by not following these rules. What you think is what you think,. What the Church teaches is truth. I hope you understand I mean you no disrespect, but I will follow what the Church teaches and not what you–and I think you’re a perfectly nice person–‘think’’–if what you think goes against what the Church teaches.

What if the Vatican were to all of sudden say that Church attendance was only required twice a month instead of every Sunday, but strongly encuoraged on all Sundays? Would this change your church habits?

If the Vatican were to say this, either they would be able to demonstrate that this was a teaching ‘from the start’ and make it an ‘infallible teaching’. . .or we would be entering the end-of-days because the Church CANNOT teach error as truth, and before any kind of error became written down and ‘church law’,SOMETHING would happen to keep the error from occuring.

So I would be waiting to see whether this would indeed be a correct teaching --and since I trust the Holy Spirit to protect the Church, I know that what the Church teaches will be correct.

As for how it affects ‘me’. . .um, that isn’t the point. I am one of ‘many’ so the question would be how it affects ‘all’.

And we have had more than enough evidence that when rules have been ‘lightened’ supposedly to HELP, with the idea that people could choose to do MORE. . .people don’t, by and large. A tiny portion do more–and they would have done more under the ‘harder rules’ as well. And a LARGE portion do LESS, and MUCH less than they would have done under the harder rules.

 

[wjp984]

Actually, the Church, or really the individual dioceses do have the power to change what days a person is obligated to go to Church. So there would be no need to investigate here.

Second of all, if the Roman Catholic Church teaches that not following a provision of the Catechism or code of the Canon Law of 1983 is a mortal sin, then it is a mortal sin for all Roman Catholics. But then you have to go into the whole requirements of mortal sin.

My disagreement is on whether someone is going to Hell for eating meat on a Friday in Lent in California but not if they hop over to Tiajuana to have a fajita. That seems silly to me as another poster first stated.

My intent is not to state anything against Church teaching. However, I do believe the Church gives guidelines and if you would like to call them rules, which they very well may be, although guidelines just sounds so much more friendly, and it is up to God’s mercy regarding Heaven.

Therefore I still think it is best to say: Here are the guidlines that can help you and if you choose not to follow them you are playing with fire and taking your chances but it’s not like you are for sure damned as I’ve seen several people here claim.