Year-round meat abstinence on Fridays?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Big_Feet
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry, I seem to have gotten you all in a huff and that certainly was not my intent.

I specifically said there is nothing wrong with doing what is required (or bare boned minimum).

And I think it does mean more when we do things that are not required. I do NOT think abstaining form meat every Friday is somehow heroic. It’s just something extra. NOW IF it is meaningless to you then WHY do you do it anyway. IF it does not mean anything more then why bother. Obviously it does have more meaning for you because you do bother and so do and many others.

The Church could make it a requirement like it did in the past and that would not change our behavior, but since it is optional. I think it means more and so do you otherwise you would be abstaining when you don’t have to.
 
wcknight said:
Sorry, I seem to have gotten you all in a huff and that certainly was not my intent.

I specifically said there is nothing wrong with doing what is required (or bare boned minimum).

And I think it does mean more when we do things that are not required. I do NOT think abstaining form meat every Friday is somehow heroic. It’s just something extra. NOW IF it is meaningless to you then WHY do you do it anyway. IF it does not mean anything more then why bother. Obviously it does have more meaning for you because you do bother and so do and many others.

The Church could make it a requirement like it did in the past and that would not change our behavior, but since it is optional. I think it means more and so do you otherwise you would be abstaining when you don’t have to.
Click to expand...
Friday abstinence is only optional in the sense that you may make an alternate but equivalent sacrifice.🙂 I first heard about this fact on EWTN and was shocked to hear it, because I had heard nothing about it from my family nor the Church. After doing some digging I found out that the Church still required it and she was simply being ignored. :eek:
 
wcknight said:
And I think it does mean more when we do things that are not required.
Click to expand...
That’s fine, and it may feel nicer to you, but the fact remains that it isn’t any more meaningful now that the US Bishops have made it optional. We still have to give assent to the Church’s laws out of love for God and obedience to His Church even if abstinence or fasting is required.

I don’t fast for 40 days during Lent or on Ember Days because of any “meaning” to me - and in part because that phrase itself means nothing to me. But since you asked, I observe the older fast because the Church has spoken so highly of it and our Lord even highlighted fasting’s special spiritual benefit. Popes and Saints, who were far smarter than you or I could hope to be, told us to fast and stressed how important it was not to grow lax in this. That’s why I do it - because great men and women who have gone before me did it, and who am I to tell them that the wisdom of the 1960s was greater than theirs?

I don’t think I’m receiving any extra benefit above and beyond what Catholics received in the old days when fast and abstinence were in force under the 1917 Code of Canon Law. If the Church brought back all the old laws (not just Friday abstinence) tomorrow, the things I do now wouldn’t “mean” any less to me. I do it because I think the decision to abolish the Lenten fast and make abstinence optional was a terrible one and pastorally destructive. But don’t take my word for it - ask Pope Benedict XIV (14th):

“The observance of Lent is the very badge of the Christian warfare. By it we prove ourselves not to be enemies of the cross of Christ. By it we avert the scourges of divine justice. By it we gain strength against the princes of darkness, for it shields us with heavenly help. Should mankind grow remiss in their observance of Lent, it would be a detriment to God’s glory, a disgrace to the Catholic religion, and a danger to Christian souls. Neither can it be doubted that such negligence would become the source of misery to the world, of public calamity, and of private woe.”

Nothing in there about it being more meaningful if we just threw all the requirements away. Seems more like a warning against that, actually.
 
wcknight said:
And I think it does mean more when we do things that are not required. I do NOT think abstaining form meat every Friday is somehow heroic. It’s just something extra. NOW IF it is meaningless to you then WHY do you do it anyway. IF it does not mean anything more then why bother. Obviously it does have more meaning for you because you do bother and so do and many others.

The Church could make it a requirement like it did in the past and that would not change our behavior, but since it is optional. I think it means more and so do you otherwise you would be abstaining when you don’t have to.
Click to expand...
The underlying assumption in what you are saying here is that the personal and subjective is more important than the objective. What if I said it was meaningful to me to kick the dog every morning as I left the house? Would that make it a good thing to do? Being personally meaningful is not the supreme value.

Just about all of the spiritual classics talk about the importance of the objective. For example, the “dark night of the soul” is an experience in which nothing spiritual seems meaningful. But, when people persevere in doing what is required in spite of this, it is a time of spiritual growth.

The saints do not focus on what is meaningful or what feels good. The theme that comes out again and again is the importance of obedience. We live in a time when the Church makes fewer demands on us to obey. While I think this is done from compassion, I think it may deny us opportunities for spiritual growth.
 
Floresco, thanks for saying in one post what I’ve been trying to say in many. Oy.
 
The church should ask more of us. First of all: obedience to be fully. Not partial.

But that is my opinion and i am not:
  • Trendy
  • Going where the wind blows
  • “In time”
  • Modern
  • Partial
  • Or taking lightly on Lent
Often i have explained friends and such that do not understand this. It is not easy, as they do not listen either. Many times i got the feeling that it is in debates too. It seems more important to argue than actually do the sacrifices.

Not to be disrespectful, but CAF is like a huge cultureshock to me. I do not understand the culture around here at all. I have been here two years and not getting it. At all. 🤷
 
Never had a problem with Year-round meat abstinence on Fridays for three years now as of Lent 2009. Unless one contemplates why and who your doing it for, sacrifice of this kind of personal mortification often becomes meaningless to some Faithful. I"ll go the extra mile stretch and even say the concept of mortification of the flesh and soul in itself in foreign to some.

I don’t even consider giving myself a pat on the back over this. With the practice of humility some sacrifices become easier over time to accept if you keep your focus on the Love of God who is worthy of all praise, devotion, adoration and love.

Matthew Chapter 11: Verse 30 30 *For my yoke is sweet and my burden light.

Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.
haydock1859.tripod.com/id25.html
Ver. 30. For my yoke is sweet, &c. For though, in regard of our weak nature, it be a very heavy yoke, yet the grace of God renders it easy and light, because our Lord himself helps us to bear it, according to that of the prophet Osee, (Chap. xi, ver. 4) I will be unto them as he that takes the yoke from off their heads. St. Bernard says, that our Saviour sweetens by the spiritual unction of his grace, all the crosses, penances, and mortifications of religious souls. St. Augustine owns, that before he knew the power of grace, he could never comprehend what chastity was, nor believe that any one was able to practice it; but the grace of God renders all things easy. (Rodriguez, On Mortification. Chap. xix.)
Click to expand...
 
The Bishops of England and Wales have also been talking about bringing this back. I do it anyway, as most “traditionalists” do, but I think it would be great to see it extended across the entire Latin rite Church again. The problem is, when generations have grew up without out it (I get strange looks from fellow catholics for wanting to say grace before meals or abstain from meat on Fridays) it may be hard to implement.
 
Iotaunum said:
The Bishops of England and Wales have also been talking about bringing this back. I do it anyway, as most “traditionalists” do, but I think it would be great to see it extended across the entire Latin rite Church again. The problem is, when generations have grew up without out it (I get strange looks from fellow catholics for wanting to say grace before meals or abstain from meat on Fridays) it may be hard to implement.
Click to expand...
Uh… I hate to inform you of the practice in your own land, but they already have brought it back…
 
Mike_Searson said:
I have always abstained from meat on Fridays throughout the year. It is difficult at times, because I am a strength athelete (Bodybuilder and MMA) but I make it work.
Click to expand...
Well, you’re allowed fish, which is an equally good source of protein.

I’m not a traditionalist, but I’ve always tried to follow the teaching year round voluntarily. I can’t eat a meal without meat, though. Yuck. So unless I’m in the mood for fish, I just don’t eat at all on Friday.
 
floresco said:
The underlying assumption in what you are saying here is that the personal and subjective is more important than the objective. What if I said it was meaningful to me to kick the dog every morning as I left the house? Would that make it a good thing to do? Being personally meaningful is not the supreme value.

Just about all of the spiritual classics talk about the importance of the objective. For example, the “dark night of the soul” is an experience in which nothing spiritual seems meaningful. But, when people persevere in doing what is required in spite of this, it is a time of spiritual growth.

The saints do not focus on what is meaningful or what feels good. The theme that comes out again and again is the importance of obedience. We live in a time when the Church makes fewer demands on us to obey. While I think this is done from compassion, I think it may deny us opportunities for spiritual growth.
Click to expand...
Rather than clarifying anything, your absurd example is a complete non-sequitur and totally irrelevant Maybe you get some perverse pleasure from kicking your dog but I doubt anyone else here does.

I’m sure all of the saints followed strict obedience to what was required, but what made them stand out were the extras that they did above and beyond the required.

For us to ask the Church to put more requirements on others, just to satisfy your egos or sense of superiority or to match your sense of competitives is as perverse as your wishing to kick your dog every day.

Why would you want to do that ??? so more folks will commit more mortal sins so you and your ilk will be the only ones in Heaven ??? does not seem like a very charitable suggestion to me.
 
mattkubes said:
I think we have our answer…

Still, it was a helpful post for those without an axe to grind.
Click to expand...
You’re right. Let me recover my axe, I don’t have enough of those to go around !

Really though, what is the point of making more requirements on folks above and beyond what the Church already requires ??

I don’t have any problem with anything that the Chruch wants to impose. But, I see folks already having trouble just making it to mass every Sunday.

Seems to me Jesus says something about folks putting barriers in front of others before they remove the beam for their eyes.
 
wcknight said:
Really though, what is the point of making more requirements on folks above and beyond what the Church already requires ??
Click to expand...
It would be a restoration of the practices that were gutted and nearly destroyed in the 60s. Did you get a chance to read what Pope Benedict XIV said in my other post?
 
wcknight said:
Rather than clarifying anything, your absurd example is a complete non-sequitur and totally irrelevant Maybe you get some perverse pleasure from kicking your dog but I doubt anyone else here does.

I’m sure all of the saints followed strict obedience to what was required, but what made them stand out were the extras that they did above and beyond the required.

For us to ask the Church to put more requirements on others, just to satisfy your egos or sense of superiority or to match your sense of competitives is as perverse as your wishing to kick your dog every day.

Why would you want to do that ??? so more folks will commit more mortal sins so you and your ilk will be the only ones in Heaven ??? does not seem like a very charitable suggestion to me.
Click to expand...
What I have noticed about saints is that they focus on doing their duty, doing it cheerfully and well, out of the love of God. Going above and beyond what is required is sometimes done out of pride and, in that case, is the opposite of sanctity. The spiritual classics often advise against it.

If I were approaching this question with a sense of superiority or competitiveness, I would like the rules to be very lax so that I could more easily outdo the people who do the minimum. 🙂

I do not want anyone to sin, not even venially. I very much want everyone to grow closer to God. My position does not come from the motives you attribute to me. It comes from observing that in the past, the rules were more demanding and this seemed spiritually beneficial, so I suspect that it would also prove beneficial now.

For the record, I am pretty sure I don’t have an ilk and I definitely don’t have a dog. 🙂
 
YoungTradCath said:
Uh… I hate to inform you of the practice in your own land, but they already have brought it back…
Click to expand...
Well if they have brought it back, then it hasn’t worked for them. Most of the people I know are Catholics, and none of them abstain from meat. Even the priests eat meat on Fridays. It’s Funny how I was always told by older Priests and apologists for the changes in the Church, that Friday abstinence was never “done away with” - but then why do they talk about “bringing it back”? Also, the Catholic Schools here serve meat on Fridays, so something isn’t right. Thats the problem with letting liberalism creep in. When people get used to less pennance etc, they never want to go back to a “harder” lifestyle. That is why it will be a lot harder to undo changes, than it was to implement them.
 
Iotaunum said:
Well if they have brought it back, then it hasn’t worked for them. Most of the people I know are Catholics, and none of them abstain from meat. Even the priests eat meat on Fridays. It’s Funny how I was always told by older Priests and apologists for the changes in the Church, that Friday abstinence was never “done away with” - but then why do they talk about “bringing it back”? Also, the Catholic Schools here serve meat on Fridays, so something isn’t right. Thats the problem with letting liberalism creep in. When people get used to less pennance etc, they never want to go back to a “harder” lifestyle. That is why it will be a lot harder to undo changes, than it was to implement them.
Click to expand...
I’m not entirely sure on this, but I don’t think Friday penance was ever done away with - we were just permitted to substitute abstinence from meat with something else. But most people substituted it with nothing at all. Though I haven’t checked up on this, so I don’t know.

My local parish church has a very liberal congregation and some liberal priests, but at least one has been reminding people about abstaining from meat. I don’t know how many have actually gone along and started practising it. Given how liberal this particular congregation is, the number of people practising Friday penance is probably outnumbered by people practising outright vegetarianism for some faddish reasons. But I am pleased that one priest is actually trying.
 
I just reread your quote of our pontiff, and no where does he say or imply that we should make the lenten observance harder or revert to more severe penances. He says we are to observe the penances of lent, but he certainly does NOT say we should return to prior levels. IF he does, it is not included in your quote.

I do agree that the lenten requirements have been much watered down from pre 60
s levels. But that does not make me want to impose more burden on other folks.

I find it stange that anyone would suggest that saints who went beyond the required levels of penance were in any way guilty of pride. Only IF they were to make a show of it before others, which most did not, would it be a source of pride. Rather it is a sign of humility and charity that they were willing add their mortifications to our savior’s suffering to use as He wishes, (usually for the salvation of souls as some suggests).

None of the saints that I’ve read about did so for any sense of pride or reward in the eyes of others, but did so in solidarity with Christ or to humble themselves before God. Take for instance ST Rose of Lima, who regualrly slept on sharp objects. She did this not to show off, since no one but her knew about it, until her parents accidently discovered it.

BTW I like my axes razor sharp, and I have a bunch more that have become quite dull.
 
wcknight said:
I do agree that the lenten requirements have been much watered down from pre 60
s levels. But that does not make me want to impose more burden on other folks.
Click to expand...
It does seem to make you want to think terrible things about the people who think that it would be good to return to those requirements.
wcknight said:
I find it stange that anyone would suggest that saints who went beyond the required levels of penance were in any way guilty of pride. Only IF they were to make a show of it before others, which most did not, would it be a source of pride. Rather it is a sign of humility and charity that they were willing add their mortifications to our savior’s suffering to use as He wishes, (usually for the salvation of souls as some suggests).
Click to expand...
Presumably this was not a problem for saints, for us normal Catholics, going beyond what is required can be a source of pride. It can even be so when it is done in private. A person can think to himself that he is holier and better than others, even if nobody knows what he is doing. This is such a danger that a good rule of thumb is that one should never go beyond what is required unless it is under the supervision of spiritual director.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top