Someone told me that once before the church said eating meet on a certain day (I can't remember which day only that it was a few days close to Easter) was a sin, then I heard the church changed it, why?

The person asked "what about all who ate meat before when it was allowed but now changed, are they going to hell now since they died and it got changed?"

-- William (Ducin25@aol.com), January 27, 2004

Answers

I could be wrong, but if memory serves me correctly, it would have been a venial sin, therefor I don't think the person would be hell bound for that infraction. Not every sin leads to damnation. We'll both hear differently if I'm wrong.

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), January 27, 2004.

Regulations concerning fasting are church disciplines, NOT doctrines! Doctrines - beliefs of the faith - NEVER change. Disciplines were created by the Church, and the Church has full authority to change them, create them, or abolish them as necessary, to best meet the needs of the faithful.

Your last question makes no sense at all. Suppose the speed limit on a road is reduced from 60 mph to 50 mph. Will all the people who drove 60 on the road before the rule was changed get retroactive speeding tickets after the rule is changed???

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 27, 2004.

Ya Paul that's what I told my friend, but he just could not understand it for some reason.

-- William (Ducin25@aol.com), January 28, 2004.

if memory serves me correctly, it would have been a venial sin [to fail to abstain from meat before 1965], therefor I don't think the person would be hell bound for that infraction.

Jim,
In the '50s and '60s, at least in my diocese, Catholics were told that the discipline of abstaining from meat on Fridays was binding on us in a serious way, and that a deliberate choice to ignore the law and eat meat on that day was mortally sinful. One may think that this would be a light matter and therefore only venially sinful. But I believe that the reason that Friday abstinence was grave matter was that Jesus himself imposed on us a serious duty to do penance, and failing to make this weekly gesture was a sign of serious disobedience to Jesus.

-- (Fish@Fry.com), January 31, 2004.

Hello William, et al., The Church indeed obliged its faithful to abstain from meat on Fridays (unless it was a holy day of obligation). There is a less widely known tradition that Saturdays were as well days of abstinance until the late 19th century (at least in the U.S., many observed this well into the 20th cent.). The Friday obligation was changed in 1966 by the Bishops of the U.S. (I’m assuming you are in the U.S.). However, it is not widely known that this does not mean that Fridays are not still days of penance and that all Catholics (who are required) are bound to do penance on those days. The most easy way to do this is to retain the tradition of abstaining from meat that day. Those who knowingly do not break the second commandment of the Church which is "to fast and abstain on days appointed." The changes, even though they are completely within the power of the pope and bishops, were concessions to modern man's lack of discipline. It was a way of making the Church a little less rigorous. But as penance is necessary to lead a Christian life (whether it is in mortifications or bearing patiently the sufferings that our Lord sends), it is an altogether safer road to simply retain the older disciplines of the Church which can be found in books like the Baltimore Catechism. "[T]he law of abstinence embodies a serious obligation whose transgression, objectively considered, ordinarily involves a mortal sin" (Cath. Ency. 'Anstinence'). God of course is the judge and the Church does not say whether those people you describe are in hell or in heaven. God shall judge them for the lives they lived according to what the Church (i.e., Christ) required of them at the time they lived.

Hope this clears up the issue a bit.

Sean

-- Sean Whittle (s22w22@yahoo.com), February 06, 2004.

Sean, you have presented some good facts and suggestions. However you also made a couple of mistakes.

The change in abstinence really came about through a 1966 action by Pope Paul VI, not just by the U.S. bishops (as you stated). He made it permissible for the various national/regional bishops' conferences to adopt some Friday penitential practice other than abstinence from meat on Friday.

You said, The changes, even though they are completely within the power of the pope and bishops, were concessions to modern man's lack of discipline. It was a way of making the Church a little less rigorous.

That is not correct. The change in 1966 was not a "concession" at all, because a serious ("rigorous") obligation still remained. In fact, the pope said that, wherever abstinence would become optional, people should do things that are often even more difficult and meritorious than the mere, impersonal avoidance of meat -- such as acts of charity to help someone in need.

-- (Fish@Fry.com), February 06, 2004.

Oh come on! Were the previous abstinance laws rigorous? Check them out. You were allowed to eat fish and even use milks, butter, cheese (which are derived from an abstained meat). Further the Chruch required people 14 or older and excluded those ill or weak of stregth or people who worked laborious jobs. Was it too much to ask people to put away the steak for one day a week for Christ? Look at the modern Roman calendar as opposed to say 1954 and you will see across the board a slackening of discipline. The obligations were there to obligate people to do something, to make a sacrifice for Christ. Human nature wants the easier road, and if you check out Matthew you'll see that that easy road lead to perdition. Now that people don't have to do any prescribed penances, most people don't pay any mind to penance at all (which the Bishops have decried more than once).

-- Sean (s22w22@yahoo.com), February 07, 2004.

Hi Fish,

You could be right; at that time I always followed the teaching. It was so easy, I never thought otherwise. Also my parents always packed my lunches and made my dinner. I have a bad habit of "assuming" but within the scheme of things, a bit of ham seems more venial than a bit of say... murder. (excuse my relativist slant... its a hard habit to break...working on it)

Respectfully,

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), February 07, 2004.

Fish,

Strike the "could be" from my post. Did some homework and your are correct. I'm glad I wasn't in charge of planning my meals "back in the day."

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), February 07, 2004.

Thanks, Jim. Much appreciated.

Sean, last time I wrote (among other things), The change in 1966 was not a "concession" at all, because a serious ("rigorous") obligation still remained.

This seemed to upset you, because you then wrote, Oh come on! Were the previous abstinance laws rigorous?

Your words really made me chuckle! I was amused that you didn't even realize that the only reason I used the word "rigorous" was that you had used it in a previous post. (Notice how I put it in quotation marks?) Then I chuckled even more when I saw that I had quoted your very words in my last post -- but you somehow missed them. I will repeat your words now (which were in reference to the 1966 change):

The changes, even though they are completely within the power of the pope and bishops, were concessions to modern man's lack of discipline. It was a way of making the Church a little less rigorous.

I myself did not consider the pre-1966 discipline very "rigorous" -- and I lived under that discipline for years. It was you who said that it was "rigorous" -- or at least that the new discipline was "less rigorous" (implying that both were/are at least somewhat rigorous).

-- (Fish@Fry.com), February 07, 2004.