Rejoice with those who rejoice - on a Friday in Lent?

[Bookcat]

Be prepared to be able to explain why one gives up things as a Christian:

Catechism

2043 The fourth precept (“You shall observe the days of fasting and abstinence established by the Church”) ensures the times of ascesis and penance which prepare us for the liturgical feasts and help us acquire mastery over our instincts and freedom of heart.

V. THE MANY FORMS OF PENANCE IN CHRISTIAN LIFE

1434 The interior penance of the Christian can be expressed in many and various ways. Scripture and the Fathers insist above all on three forms, fasting, prayer, and almsgiving,31 which express conversion in relation to oneself, to God, and to others. Alongside the radical purification brought about by Baptism or martyrdom they cite as means of obtaining forgiveness of sins: effort at reconciliation with one’s neighbor, tears of repentance, concern for the salvation of one’s neighbor, the intercession of the saints, and the practice of charity "which covers a multitude of sins."32

1435 Conversion is accomplished in daily life by gestures of reconciliation, concern for the poor, the exercise and defense of justice and right,33 by the admission of faults to one’s brethren, fraternal correction, revision of life, examination of conscience, spiritual direction, acceptance of suffering, endurance of persecution for the sake of righteousness. Taking up one’s cross each day and following Jesus is the surest way of penance.34

1436 Eucharist and Penance. Daily conversion and penance find their source and nourishment in the Eucharist, for in it is made present the sacrifice of Christ which has reconciled us with God. Through the Eucharist those who live from the life of Christ are fed and strengthened. "It is a remedy to free us from our daily faults and to preserve us from mortal sins."35

1437 Reading Sacred Scripture, praying the Liturgy of the Hours and the Our Father - every sincere act of worship or devotion revives the spirit of conversion and repentance within us and contributes to the forgiveness of our sins.

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.36 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).

And of course the various scriptures…"take up your cross…"etc

 

[Bookcat]

Paul is not discussing the same sort of thing.

You would be sinning…

and Paul would want you to be obedient to the Lenten discipline which the Successor of Peter has made binding in conscience.

Forgive my terseness…I answered rather quickly.

What Paul is speaking of there though is very different.

Also one can note that if one looks to he himself as an Apostle expected his local communities to follow the various things he gave them to follow.

 

[Stratiotes]

OK, I’ll admit to playing the devil’s advocate a bit here… I do not have any intention of being disobedient to the church. What I’m trying to determine is the line between being overly scrupulous in this matter. Someone said I was making a mountain out of a molehill - but I think that is exactly what the church is saying not to do when they say no one should be scrupulous in regard to these rules:

“But no one should be scrupulous in this regard; failure to observe individual days of penance is not considered serious. Moral theologians remind us that some people are excused from fasting and/or abstinence because of sickness or other reasons.”[1]

Who is making a mountain out of a molehill? The one insisting that the rules be adhered to without exception or the one that takes an extremely broad view of that paragraph under the “other reasons” clause?

It is rather like some of our separated brothers who quibble about whether or not you should drink alcohol because somebody might see you doing it and think you are a sinner. Using that argument, you could justify a whole host of odd rules for what to eat or not to eat and fall into the “tyranny of the weaker brother” argument. And a weaker brother tyranny was not the intent of Paul’s discourse.

[1] See: americancatholic.org/features/lent/lentrules.aspx

 

[Moore11]

Funny how we interpret something as “legalistic” when it becomes inconvenient for us. Used to be that every Friday we abstained. Now, 6 Fridays is asking too much and being legalistic. Lent is a time for retrospect on the sacrifice that God almighty gave for us. I think it odd that we see it as some hard, socially awkward, thing to follow. Jesus calls us to witness and to worship him. We should do so with absolute love, not embarrassment.

 

[Castello]

Having eaten a million business meals on Fridays when I do not eat meat, it has never been a big deal. I just don’t eat meat. Really, you are overthinking this. If someone pushes, you say “Dude, I am Catholic, no meat today - pass those taters!”

 

[Bookcat]

. I do not have any intention of being disobedient to the church.

What I’m trying to determine is the line between being overly scrupulous in this matter. Someone said I was making a mountain out of a molehill - but I think that is exactly what the church is saying not to do when they say no one should be scrupulous in regard to these rules:

“But no one should be scrupulous in this regard; failure to observe individual days of penance is not considered serious. Moral theologians remind us that some people are excused from fasting and/or abstinence because of sickness or other reasons.”[1]

It is not being scrupulous or “making a mountain out of a molehill” to follow the discipline of the Church in terms of the days of Penance.

It would be scrupulous for someone to not eat “eggs” even though he knows they are not considered meat in terms of the Roman Lenten Penitential discipline --but still fear sin and thus not eat them or worry after wards that one sinned…due to them coming from “chickens” (because chickens are made of meat!..well mostly).

Or fear one has sinned cause one found out the next day-- that there was meat in what one ate thinking it was meatless.

(PS I have hand a number of occasions to advise those who suffer from scrupulosity from time to time…and what you noted is not such).

 

[Stratiotes]

It would be scrupulous for someone to not eat “eggs” even though he knows they are not considered meat in terms of the Roman Lenten Penitential discipline

And yet it is interesting that the scrupulous paragraph does not give that example - it gives the very example I’ve been advocating - “… failure to observe individual days of penance is not considered serious.”

It seems to me that insisting that everybody adhere to your (in general, not directed at you, Bookcat) conscience and questioning the faith of anyone who doesn’t is being scrupulous. :twocents:

 

[Bookcat]

And yet it is interesting that the scrupulous paragraph does not give that example - it gives the very example I’ve been advocating - “… failure to observe individual days of penance is not considered serious.”

Such was referring there to their understanding of the statement by Pope Paul V in terms of the kind of sin involved…where he refers to their “substantial” observance binds gravely --that is mortally. Thus lesser non-observance than “substantial” would be venially sinful–but still sinful.

A person who struggled with scrupulosity could take a “non-substantial” breaking of the Lenten observance and see in it mortal sin …where as it would be venial.

 

[Bookcat]

It seems to me that insisting that everybody adhere to your (in general, not directed at you, Bookcat) conscience and questioning the faith of anyone who doesn’t is being scrupulous. :twocents:

One is to follow the actual discipline of the Church. And one can inform others as to what such is. It is the obligation of all Catholics to follow such (though of course the Eastern Catholics have other things they must follow I believe that we Romans do have)

 

[NSFrame]

Having eaten a million business meals on Fridays when I do not eat meat, it has never been a big deal. I just don’t eat meat. Really, you are overthinking this. If someone pushes, you say “Dude, I am Catholic, no meat today - pass those taters!”

Yup, me too. If nothing else, I consider it a way for non-Catholics to associate a positive “face” of Catholicism when there is so much negative hysteria surrounding the Church.

 

[Stratiotes]

One is to follow the actual discipline of the Church. And one can inform others as to what such is. It is the obligation of all Catholics to follow such (though of course the Eastern Catholics have other things they must follow I believe that we Romans do have)

I do not disagree. I am just questioning the way we so often respond to this kind of question. It seems to me we can be so dogmatic in these matters that we tend to respond with an attitude of judgment rather than encouragement – our dogmatism is more important to us than our love for the person. It can be quite easy to be technically right in a response but the manner of the response lacks love and is therefore wrong. I hope I didn’t offend anybody – I enjoyed the discussion very much. Thanks for all the answers.

 

[Bookcat]

I do not disagree. I am just questioning the way we so often respond to this kind of question. It seems to me we can be so dogmatic in these matters that we tend to respond with an attitude of judgment rather than encouragement – our dogmatism is more important to us than our love for the person. It can be quite easy to be technically right in a response but the manner of the response lacks love and is therefore wrong. I hope I didn’t offend anybody – I enjoyed the discussion very much. Thanks for all the answers.

Well dogma is a good thing

But this is a matter of discipline

Sorry could not resist.

Yes it is always-- “truth with charity”.

We need to be loving and gentle…and truthful…

"I am aware of the ways in which charity has been and continues to be misconstrued and emptied of meaning, with the consequent risk of being misinterpreted, detached from ethical living and, in any event, undervalued. In the social, juridical, cultural, political and economic fields — the contexts, in other words, that are most exposed to this danger — it is easily dismissed as irrelevant for interpreting and giving direction to moral responsibility. Hence the need to link charity with truth not only in the sequence, pointed out by Saint Paul, of veritas in caritate (Eph 4:15), but also in the inverse and complementary sequence of caritas in veritate. Truth needs to be sought, found and expressed within the “economy” of charity, but charity in its turn needs to be understood, confirmed and practised in the light of truth. In this way, not only do we do a service to charity enlightened by truth, but we also help give credibility to truth, demonstrating its persuasive and authenticating power in the practical setting of social living. This is a matter of no small account today, in a social and cultural context which relativizes truth, often paying little heed to it and showing increasing reluctance to acknowledge its existence.

1. Through this close link with truth, charity can be recognized as an authentic expression of humanity and as an element of fundamental importance in human relations, including those of a public nature. Only in truth does charity shine forth, only in truth can charity be authentically lived. Truth is the light that gives meaning and value to charity. That light is both the light of reason and the light of faith, through which the intellect attains to the natural and supernatural truth of charity: it grasps its meaning as gift, acceptance, and communion. Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an arbitrary way. In a culture without truth, this is the fatal risk facing love. It falls prey to contingent subjective emotions and opinions, the word “love” is abused and distorted, to the point where it comes to mean the opposite. Truth frees charity from the constraints of an emotionalism that deprives it of relational and social content, and of a fideism that deprives it of human and universal breathing-space. In the truth, charity reflects the personal yet public dimension of faith in the God of the Bible, who is both Agápe and Lógos: Charity and Truth, Love and Word."

–Pope Benedict XVI

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html

 

[Bookcat]

I do not disagree. I am just questioning the way we so often respond to this kind of question. It seems to me we can be so dogmatic in these matters that we tend to respond with an attitude of judgment rather than encouragement – our dogmatism is more important to us than our love for the person. It can be quite easy to be technically right in a response but the manner of the response lacks love and is therefore wrong. I hope I didn’t offend anybody – I enjoyed the discussion very much. Thanks for all the answers.

Also:

““Being concerned for each other” also entails being concerned for their spiritual well-being. Here I would like to mention an aspect of the Christian life, which I believe has been quite forgotten: fraternal correction in view of eternal salvation. Today, in general, we are very sensitive to the idea of charity and caring about the physical and material well-being of others, but almost completely silent about our spiritual responsibility towards our brothers and sisters. This was not the case in the early Church or in those communities that are truly mature in faith, those which are concerned not only for the physical health of their brothers and sisters, but also for their spiritual health and ultimate destiny. The Scriptures tell us: “Rebuke the wise and he will love you for it. Be open with the wise, he grows wiser still, teach the upright, he will gain yet more” (Prov 9:8ff). Christ himself commands us to admonish a brother who is committing a sin (cf. Mt 18:15). The verb used to express fraternal correction - elenchein – is the same used to indicate the prophetic mission of Christians to speak out against a generation indulging in evil (cf. Eph 5:11). The Church’s tradition has included “admonishing sinners” among the spiritual works of mercy. It is important to recover this dimension of Christian charity. We must not remain silent before evil. I am thinking of all those Christians who, out of human regard or purely personal convenience, adapt to the prevailing mentality, rather than warning their brothers and sisters against ways of thinking and acting that are contrary to the truth and that do not follow the path of goodness. Christian admonishment, for its part, is never motivated by a spirit of accusation or recrimination. It is always moved by love and mercy, and springs from genuine concern for the good of the other. As the Apostle Paul says: “If one of you is caught doing something wrong, those of you who are spiritual should set that person right in a spirit of gentleness; and watch yourselves that you are not put to the test in the same way” (Gal 6:1). In a world pervaded by individualism, it is essential to rediscover the importance of fraternal correction, so that together we may journey towards holiness. Scripture tells us that even “the upright falls seven times” (Prov 24:16); all of us are weak and imperfect (cf. 1 Jn 1:8). It is a great service, then, to help others and allow them to help us, so that we can be open to the whole truth about ourselves, improve our lives and walk more uprightly in the Lord’s ways. There will always be a need for a gaze which loves and admonishes, which knows and understands, which discerns and forgives (cf. Lk 22:61), as God has done and continues to do with each of us.”

From: Pope Benedict XVI’s -message for this Lent 2012

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/lent/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20111103_lent-2012_en.html

 

[Stratiotes]

Well dogma is a good thing

But this is a matter of discipline

Sorry could not resist.

Being dogmatic about something is not to imply only dogma of course. I can be dogmatic in my understanding of disciplines or my view of what computer language or ice cream flavor is best. Dogma is good, blind dogmatism is not.

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

I’ve never heard of this style of restaurant. Why would you share what you ordered with someone else and vice versa?

I have, but they’re always Chinese.

 

[Bookcat]

Being dogmatic about something is not to imply only dogma of course. I can be dogmatic in my understanding of disciplines or my view of what computer language or ice cream flavor is best. Dogma is good, blind dogmatism is not.

Twas a bit of a jest