Posted on 04/14/2015 1:44:57 PM PDT by NYer
Yeah it was one of British queens way back I know Katherine of Aragon introduce salad to Henry VIII court
Nothing has changed! Most Catholics think that Vatican II did away with the requirement of not eating meat on any Friday of the year. Most think it is now just Ash Wednesday and the Fridays of Lent that we cannot eat meat.
This is what the new Code of Canon Law brought out in 1983 says about the matter:
Canon 1251
Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.
Canon Law still requires that Catholics not eat meat on Fridays!
Of course, most Episcopal Conferences have determined that, instead of abstaining from meat, Catholics may perform an act of penance of their choosing. But, do you ever remember to abstain from a particular food or do some other penance on Fridays? And, at any rate, the main rule is still to abstain from meat on Fridays, the performance of another penance instead is an optional alternative.
IMHO, with the expansion of travel, be it for personal or business, more and more Catholics found themselves in situations where the only menu choice was meat. The Church, acknowledging that her children were now adults, lovingly provided them with alternative choices, without abandoning the principle reason for the discipline. Unfortunately, most Catholics learned about this via the msm which did not handle it properly. They were quick to report that "Catholics can now eat meat on Fridays!" but failed to communicate the purpose for the discipline or the fact that it had not been abandoned. I was quite young at the time and still recall hearing the news on tv. I don't recall any attempt by the Church to clarify this but then, I was a child and did not read the diocesan newspaper or pay much attention to announcements at mass.
Exactly. It is not.
Just like eating meat on Friday is not a sin, nor is eating meat that has been sacrificed to an idol. Same holds true with Pharisaical laws. I am not trying to be offensive; so yes,
I am just sayin'.
Many thanks.
There are many reasons I thank God for having delivered me from the legalistic Catholic Church. This “mortal sin” issue is one of them. As if God is keeping a calculator and “sin ledger” on each person! We create our own eternal judgment, according to how we care for others and love God. Our Heavenly Father isn’t the one to decide where our heart and spirit ends up. We do. Sorry to offend staunch Catholics, but I’m so grateful God delivered me from what was a mental prison for me. Our entire family is delivered, and it’s a blessing.
Discussing medieval salads is out of bounds?
I agree
Huh? What queen? What era? There are dozens of cookbooks on the medieval era that explain the culinary expertise of the English. After all, they were very close to France at that time and the Crusaders brought back many wonderful spices. Check out the coronation of Edward IV which is available on the net.
No, no, no. I’m not surprised if Henry VII was dumb enough not to like salad and pass it on to his silly son but Richard the Third certainly knew salad and enjoyed it. We have his coronation program that lays it all out. It’s ridiculous to think that the medieval kings did not know salad. I guess I’m going to have to put up recipes from the time to disabuse people of this silly stuff.
P.S.: I don’t believe that Katherine introduced Henry to “salad.” It was widely used in England at the time.
I think one of ancient Queens maybe go way back on England part France I really don’t know
“Exactly. It is not.”
No, it is. Unless you’re using only your hands, are in your neighbor’s fields, and are only picking the grain for your own hunger’s sake. (Deut. 23:25)
So it is, and it isn’t.
What you term "legalistic" is actually based on scripture. Regardless of which church you attend, all christians acknowledge the Ten Commandments. In Mt 5, Jesus confirms His mission: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill".
What is Mortal and Venial Sin?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church provides:
[1855] Mortal Sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God… by preferring an inferior good to him. Venial sin allows charity to subsist, though it offends and wounds it.
[1861] Mortal sin… results in… the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell…
[1862] One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or complete consent.
[1863] Venial sin weakens charity… and… merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However, venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God’s grace, it is humanly reparable. “Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently, eternal happiness.”
What Does the Bible Have to Say?
Matt. 5:19:
Whoever then relaxes (breaks) one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Our Lord here teaches that there are “least commandments” a person can break and even teach others to do so yet still remain “in the kingdom of heaven.” That is both a good definition of venial sin and perfectly in line with paragraph 1863 of the Catechism. Then, Jesus goes on to warn us in no uncertain terms that there are other sins that will take us to hell—if we do not repent, of course. For example, in Matt. 5: 22, Jesus says, “… whoever says ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire.” In verses 28-29, he says:
But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.
Clearly Jesus teaches there are some sins that will separate us from God for all eternity and some that will not–mortal and venial sin.
Matt. 12:32:
And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come (Matthew 12:32, emphasis added).
This statement of our Lord implies there are at least some sins that can be forgiven in the next life and some that cannot to a people who already believed it to be so. That sounds awful Catholic, doesn’t it?
II Maccabees 12:39-46, which was written ca. 125 BC, gives us an excellent historical backdrop that can shed light on the importance of our Lord’s words in Matt. 12:32. As the story goes, Judas Maccabeus and his army collected the bodies of some fallen comrades killed in battle. When they discovered these men were carrying “sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear” (vs. 40), Judas and his companions discerned they had died as a punishment for sin.
Therefore, Judas and his men turned to prayer beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out… He also took up a collection… and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably… Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.
Whether one accepts the canonicity of I and II Maccabees really doesn’t matter. Whether a person accepts the inspiration of these books or not does not change the fact that they give us crucial information about the faith and practice of the Jews shortly before the time of Christ from a purely historical perspective. The Jews believed there were some sins that could be forgiven in the next life (analogous to what Catholics call venial sins), and that there were some sins that could not be so forgiven (analogous to what Catholics call mortal sins). That’s the historical record.
Some may argue at this point that this text only mentions some sins can be forgiven in the next life, it never says anything about any sins being unforgiveable. And that is true. However, we also know that at least some Jews of the more orthodox bent believed in a state of separation from God, or hell, where sins cannot be forgiven as well. Jesus himself speaks of this in multiple texts of the New Testament, for example, in Mark 9:47-48:
And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.
In the latter portion of that text Jesus actually quotes Isaiah 66:24 from the Old Testament as alluding to the existence of hell. And he was not saying anything novel or revolutionary here. According to the Talmud, and many Jewish writings before the time of Christ, as well as Orthodox Jewish teaching today, the Jewish faith has included a belief in a place of eternal punishment for the damned for well over 2,000 years. Moreover, among the Old Testament passages used historically by Jewish scholars to this end, Isaiah 66:24 is one of the most common.
Most importantly, we have to acknowledge that this is the faith in which Jesus and the apostles were raised. They would have been raised to believe there were some sins that can be forgiven in the next life and some sins that cannot be. And it is in this context Jesus declares this to be so in the New Testament, as we saw from Matt. 12:32 above.
I John 5:16-18:
If anyone sees his brother committing a sin that is not a deadly sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not deadly. There is sin which is deadly; I do not say one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not deadly. We know that anyone born of God does not sin, but He who is born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him. Ref
Sorry to offend staunch Catholics, but I’m so grateful God delivered me from what was a mental prison for me. Our entire family is delivered, and it’s a blessing.
No offense taken. Perhaps you believe that by fleeing the Catholic Church, you can assuage your conscience. Rather, in His great Mercy, our Lord provided a means to wipe away all sin through the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
Bean and cheese burritos, cheese enchiladas, tostadas, quesadillas, spaghetti with marinara or Alfredo sauce, spaghetti squash with marina, eggs with hash browns, cheese omelets, pancakes and eggs, potato pancakes, French toast, falafels, ratatouille, tomato soup with garlic toast, French onion soup, peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, Morning Star meatless hamburgers, cheese and mushroom quiche, crepes, souffles, etc.
I, however, love seafood and therefore avoiding meat on Friday is not a sacrifice.
OK, so things did change then, didn't it? Now Catholics have a choice. In the 1917 Code of Canon Law they did not have a choice. Catholics were not permitted to eat meat on Fridays. In fact, a Catholic wasn't allowed to have soup made with meat broth.
To say that "the Church acknowledges her children are now adults and lovingly provides them with alternative choices" insinuates a couple of things: (1) that before the Church treated them like children and (2)that the Church did not act "lovingly" because it didn't give us a choice.
Compared to the other changes that do come directly from Vatican II, this abstinence change is not high on my list of concerns, but your comments about what the Church did in the past compared to the present are interesting.
These remarks I agree with 100%. I think another thing that is important to relay is that our abstinence from meat can be used as a form of evangelization for the Faith. When we abstain from meat and choose something other than meat (when everyone else is doing the opposite) we have an opportunity to evangelize/speak to our Catholic Faith.
Thank you for this thread...I needed to be reminded why...
To say that "the Church acknowledges her children are now adults and lovingly provides them with alternative choices" insinuates a couple of things: (1) that before the Church treated them like children and (2)that the Church did not act "lovingly" because it didn't give us a choice.
From a latter 20th / early 21st century perspective, it does look that way but you need to step back to that period in time, to better grasp the reasoning. Take, for example, my great great grandparents. She was from Ireland and he was from France. They arrived in the US around 1885. It took a long time to find their 1900 census record because the family name was totally misspelled. When I finally located the document, I laughed because the name was phonetically spelled based on her Irish brogue. IOW, she was illiterate. Her husband, born in Paris, had been orphaned as a child during the Franco/Prussian War; his education was acquired through life on board a French naval vessel. They lived in NYC's Hell's kitchen, a ghetto for Irish immigrants. Because they were Catholic, they were doubly discriminated against but made sure their children were all baptized in the faith. Those children achieved a higher level of education than the parents but not much beyond elementary school.
These immigrants had it better than those in 3rd world countries. Hence, they turned to the Church for guidance and direction. I doubt either of my great great grandparents would have been intellectually able to grasp the notion of choice when their entire life was spent in poverty and self sacrifice raising 5 children in a ghetto where discrimination and crime abounded. Hence, the Church approach of telling them what to do.
As literacy rates increased, Catholics began to study more theology and questioned the rationale behind these directives. With the introduction of electricity, air travel and the growth of industry, Catholics soon found themselves in situations where eating meat on a Friday posed a challenge (ex: a baseball game). To address the changing dynamics of society, the Church proffered an alternative such as making some other form of sacrifice in lieu of abstinence.
To sum up, the Church acted lovingly in both the past and the present. If anything, my great great grandparents "lived" a life of self sacrifice in poverty and taught their children to "offer up" their discomforts instead of complaining. This was an act of love acquired through Church teachings. Unfortunately, with the expansion of intellectualism, the desire to follow Church teachings has been superseded by self aggrandizement. This has resulted in a loss of the sense of personal sin. This challenges the Church to find a new way to communicate its loving care and concern to those who believe they know better. Pope Benedict recognized this in 2005.
We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate standard consists solely of one's own ego and desires."
You and I understand and appreciate the beauty of Catholic Church teachings. Pray daily for the Church.
Excellent poing! My daughter works p/t as a waitress at Macaroni Grill. She was called in on Good Friday. She overheard some customers discussing possible menu choices and guided their selection to fish and vegetarian plates because it was "Good Friday". They thanked her and doubled their tip.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.