Where in the Bible does it say to not eat meat on Friday's of Lent?

[dronald]

No; I agree with you – Christ certainly had us in mind, too!

First of all, it’s been a delight discussing with you. Thank you for paying close attention to my points and disagreeing with charity and logic.

Actually, He didn’t.

Take a look at it again: He tells us simply that we shouldn’t make it obvious: “when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, so that you may not appear to be fasting.” That’s the only command in this part of the passage – anoint and wash yourself. Period. Not “hide”; not “be in secret”; just “don’t put on a gloomy appearance.” Now, it’s precisely because God is concealed that He sees beyond the appearance of things. But, there’s no command from Christ here to hide our fasting – rather, we’re just supposed to make sure that we’re not exaggerating it for the benefit of others’ reactions.

Again, I must disagree based on all that Jesus had to say. Yes He said do not put on a gloomy appearance so that one would not be seen by others.

Secondly He says annoint yourselves so that others won’t see you.

And thirdly He does say, “Your Father who sees you **in secret **will reward you.”

 

[marywarfield]

First of all, it’s been a delight discussing with you. Thank you for paying close attention to my points and disagreeing with charity and logic.

Again, I must disagree based on all that Jesus had to say. Yes He said do not put on a gloomy appearance so that one would not be seen by others.

Secondly He says annoint yourselves so that others won’t see you.

And thirdly He does say, “Your Father who sees you **in secret **will reward you.”

But you said no problem with my hundred Catholic
friends knowing it is a fast day???

 

[dronald]

But you said no problem with my hundred Catholic
friends knowing it is a fast day???

None at all.

 

[JustStarting]

We should also simply assume that each other are fasting based on the fact that we are Christians, however when we do so is between us and God, no?

I’m sorry, but I can’t make heads or tails out of that sentence.

So let me ask this: Did you or did you not read the article I referenced. And since the author of that article has an opinion that is diametrically opposed to yours, I have to ask: Do you or do you not agree with him?

I’m simply defending our practice as equally reasonable.

Based on your past posts, I find that disingenuous and have a feeling it’s an outright prevarication.

So let me ask you a direct question: If I can produce over a dozen references from a variety of recognized Protestant Scholars that are diametrically opposed to your interpretation, would you be willing to say you’re wrong?

And by the way-- that’s a yes or no question. I’ll take a failure/refusal to answer as a no.

 

[dronald]

I’m sorry, but I can’t make heads or tails out of that sentence.

So let me ask this: Did you or did you not read the article I referenced. And since the author of that article has an opinion that is diametrically opposed to yours, I have to ask: Do you or do you not agree with him?

Based on your past posts, I find that disingenuous and have a feeling it’s an outright prevarication.

So let me ask you a direct question: If I can produce over a dozen references from a variety of recognized Protestant Scholars that are diametrically opposed to your interpretation, would you be willing to say you’re wrong?

And by the way-- that’s a yes or no question. I’ll take a failure/refusal to answer as a no.

Perhaps you can begin by breaking down the entirety of the passages in question and not just a couple of parts. You can also explain what it is I’m saying that you’re arguing against instead of going on a rant.

 

[JustStarting]

Perhaps you can begin by breaking down the entirety of the passages in question and not just a couple of parts.

Are you or are you not going to answer my questions?

I’ll repeat them here for your convenience:

Did you or did you not read the article I referenced?

And since the author of that article has an opinion that is diametrically opposed to yours, do you or do you not agree with him?

If I can produce over a dozen references from a variety of recognized Protestant Scholars that are diametrically opposed to your interpretation of Matthew 6:16, would you be willing to say you’re wrong?

I don’t see why you’re afraid of answering these questions.

 

[marywarfield]

None at all.

So you claim it must be a secret between God and I to be worthy of a heavenly
reward. But it’s okay if 100 Catholics know I’m fasting- I
keep my reward.
Okay what if three Catholics know? Or a thousand Catholics
know? I mean when does it stop being a secret?
The Mafia used to joke that something is not secret
if more than two know…

 

[dronald]

Are you or are you not going to answer my questions?

I’ll repeat them here for your convenience:

Did you or did you not read the article I referenced?

And since the author of that article has an opinion that is diametrically opposed to yours, do you or do you not agree with him?

If I can produce over a dozen references from a variety of recognized Protestant Scholars that are diametrically opposed to your interpretation of Matthew 6:16, would you be willing to say you’re wrong?

I don’t see why you’re afraid of answering these questions.

I’m not afraid to answer, I just am missing your point.

No I don’t disagree with what was written.

Now, I’ll ask you again; what point word for word did you disagree with that I’ve posted so far. Feel free to quote me.

 

[dronald]

So you claim it must be a secret between God and I to be worthy of a heavenly
reward. But it’s okay if 100 Catholics know I’m fasting- I
keep my reward.
Okay what if three Catholics know? Or a thousand Catholics
know? I mean when does it stop being a secret?
The Mafia used to joke that something is not secret
if more than two know…

I am only quoting Jesus; but I don’t see what Catholics practice as “wrong” or damning.

I’ll reference Romans 14 again.

 

[JustStarting]

I’m not afraid to answer.

Then answer them. All of them.

 

[Sirach2]

I say respectfully, I’m not trying to get Catholics to NOT perform acts of penance. I understand your theology/religion tells you that you have to. I merely have stated that Jesus never said you have to do penance. Also, there are reasons that Bible translations get updated. forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

How interesting…
You have picked at the word “penance” throughout this thread, stating that it is not in scripture, alleging the correct word is “repent.” You ignored this very excellent post recently that gave you the explanation of why your interpretation is incorrect. However, you still come here to pick away at our faith, using disingenuous arguments.

Change? The official Bible of the Vatican currently is the Nova Vulgata, which retains the usage of "do penance

."
“Petrus vero ad illos: Paenitentiam, inquit, agite, et baptizetur unusquisque vestrum in nomine Iesu Christi in remissionem peccatorum vestrorum, et accipietis donum Sancti Spiritus”
vatican.va/archive/bible/…orum_lt.html#2

Verily Peter said unto them: Do penance, and be baptized everyone of you for the remission of your sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
-Acts 2:38
If you are referring to the contemporary English translations, that it is a different matter. They are translated out of the Greek rather than the Latin so the more Latinate expression doesn’t have any priority. Remember that that it is not the Catholic Church that claimed their is only one acceptable translation, but certain Protestants who assert that μετανοέω can only mean “to change one’s mind” to the exclusion of anything else. I already gave an example which showed the same word used with a penitential meaning. Never mind the fact that the expression “do penance” is the Latin equivalent of the English verb “repent.” If “repent” is a more accurate rendering of the Greek in modern English, that is no fault of the Latin.

 

[Sirach2]

One more refutation of your error, cguerber . . .

But this original meaning as seen in the Classical Greek began to see change. In the Old Latin and Latin Vulgate metanoia was translated as paenitentia which came to mean penance or acts of penance that had to be done if one hoped to obtain grace.

This new idea of penance can be traced from the post-Apostolic Fathers like Hermas and Justin Martyr, through to Augustine, who unlike Hermas and Martyr believed that repentance was not the work of man, but a gift like grace. The post apostolic fathers looked for some sort of contrition for sin and the announcement of the same at the point of water baptism. But by the time of Augustine, infant baptism had become the norm. Post-baptismal repentance became the focus and themes like justification, regeneration and sanctification became popular. Repentance became almost synonymous with contrition, confession and penance.

 

[GreenWhiteBlue]

Speaking of translations, the KJV/AV translation of 1 Timothy 4:3 (which speaks of abstaining from “meats”) has popped up in this conversation. It should be remembered that in 1611, the word “meat” in English meant “food” in general, and not “flesh” in particular. As a result, when the translators sought an English word with which to render the Greek bromaton (which is what Paul actually wrote), they chose “meats”. However, the meaning of the English word “meat” has changed over time, and so it is no longer appropriate as a translation-- because bromaton simply means “that which is eaten”, or “foods”, and can include anything that is solid and eaten by people, including bread, fish, potato salad, macaroni and cheese, Twinkies, and tofu. A person who embarrasses himself by trying to use this verse to criticize Catholic Lenten observances merely shows that he is ignorant about not only Greek, but older meanings of English words as well.

 

[cguerber]

These quotes are perfect examples of why I left Protestantism. Flippant, smug, “I’m superior to you” and the horrific exegesis of people who think that because they can quote scripture, they know scripture.

So I thought it important to let the authors quoted below that they exemplify why I left.

Smoking Crystal-Meth is a sin. Sorry I can’t prove it by the Bible.

All righty then. Your superiority as a human being has been noted.

Of course, the writer was referring to a very specific heresy; namely the Colossian Heresy which had elements of Paganism and also embraced aspects of Jewish legalism. I pulled that little fact from *John MacArthur’s Bible Commentary *(pages 1729-1739) because I thought you might trust the source. There are many other references I can provide that demonstrate this as poor exegesis if you have the time for me to pull them out of the garage. Which leads to another question: if I found multiple references from well known Protestant Scholars that contradicted your use of this passage, why didn’t you?

At the very least, it would be a stretch to apply this verse to anything other than what it was specifically referencing. To do so would be adding to scripture-- something you’re against, right? And for the sake of dignity, please don’t tell us you weren’t applying the passage to the Catholic Church. It was painfully obvious.

For the record, the questions here were rhetorical, so if you respond, please do not expect a reply.

Bah. I was hoping this place would give me a rest from such nonsense.

But it confirms my decision to leave the Protestant Church (all 20,000 of them) was a good one.

Of course Paul was referring to a specific situation! Most things/statements in scripture are referring to specific events, but that doesn’t change the meaning of the message and how we can apply it today.

In regards to my post # 50, I must say that I am surprised at how a few people have so harshly responded to me. All I did was put one verse in a post. I added nothing. No comments of my own. Just put in Colossians 2:8. If you have a problem with the verse, please take it up with the author. I didn’t write it. Sort of reminds me of

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

I pray we all can be a little more respectful. Starting with me, I apologize if I offended anyone.

 

[Sirach2]

In regards to my post # 50, I must say that I am surprised at how a few people have so harshly responded to me.

As “JustStarting” stated, “And for the sake of dignity, please don’t tell us you weren’t applying the passage to the Catholic Church. It was painfully obvious,” surely you don’t want us to pull your previous posts where you positively attempted to besmirch the Catholic Church, do you? Have you suddenly decided to abandon this pursuit, and we should all just accept your apology?
A small example. Why are you here?

 

[JustStarting]

Of course Paul was referring to a specific situation! Most things/statements in scripture are referring to specific events, but that doesn’t change the meaning of the message and how we can apply it today.

Yes, it does. If you don’t understand how historical context affects Hermeneutics & Exegesis, then I could provide some Protestant sources that will help you.

With all due respect, your interpretation reflects that you’ve been taught your interpretation by a few sources and have accepted it without seriously researching it. Isn’t that exactly what many people accuse Catholics of doing? Well guess what? We just demolished that myth by demonstrating that we do our homework. Now do yours.

 

[JustStarting]

I’m not afraid to answer…

Then why haven’t you answered the questions?

Take your chips and go home. Your bluff has been called and the game is over. :tiphat:

 

[Sirach2]

I was looking for something else on the Vatican website, and, as is providential when the Holy Spirit comes to our aid, I stumbled upon [Saint] Pope John XXIII’s teaching on penance. Indeed, the Church has solemnly defined and taught that …

PAENITENTIAM AGERE
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE JOHN XXIII
ON THE NEED FOR THE PRACTICE
OF INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR PENANCE

Doing penance for one’s sins is a first step towards obtaining forgiveness and winning eternal salvation. That is the clear and explicit teaching of Christ, and no one can fail to see how justified and how right the Catholic Church has always been in constantly insisting on this. She is the spokesman for her divine Redeemer. No individual Christian can grow in perfection, nor can Christianity gain in vigor, except it be on the basis of penance.

This paragraph is the opening wording of this excellent document. Read the teaching here. It is especially good to reflect on this while we are still in the middle of lent.

 

[dronald]

Then why haven’t you answered the questions?

Take your chips and go home. Your bluff has been called and the game is over. :tiphat:

Your arrogance is well noted.

I have answered your odd questions.

Yes I read it and no I don’t have a problem with it; feel free to post more.

 

[JustStarting]

I have answered your odd questions.

No, you’ve only answered two of them. You’re ignoring the third one, so I’ll reframe it.

You insist Matthew 6:16 means that no one should know when a Christian is fasting. Here are the quotes which absolutely demonstrate that:

Colossians 2:16 and Romans 14 destroy the idea that we as Christians must participate in observance of days or abstinence of foods in order to say we’re doing greater than our brothers.

Sure it’s easy to pull Scripture out of context, but I’ve done no such thing. The difference is that when I fast for the Lord, you’ll never know.

No, but I don’t understand why the Catholics here think that an objection to lent is an objection to Christian fasting. We fast, you just won’t know when.

Jesus’s reason given was so that others do not know that you’re fasting, my friend.

Matthew 6:16*“When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show others they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 17But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18so that it will not be obvious to others that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

I also feel as if you’re only looking at the first part of what Jesus said, and not the entire thing. Yes, Christ said, “don’t make yourself look gloomy” but He also said “let it be in secret between you and God for your reward.” Can we really ignore such a command?

We should also simply assume that each other are fasting based on the fact that we are Christians, however when we do so is between us and God, no?

And thirdly He does say, “Your Father who sees you **in secret **will reward you.”

So here is the question you did not answer, which I have reframed:

How many references from a variety of recognized Protestant Scholars that are opposed to your interpretation of Matthew 6:16, would cause you to admit you’re wrong?

Or we could just quit here-- the only reason I’m responding to you is because you’ve shown a great ability to weasel out of questions and ignore statements that demonstrate you are incorrect. This leads me to believe that you aren’t as interested in finding the truth as much as you are feeding your own ego.

So will you give me the number of reference required or are we done?