It’s not your mother’s Catholic Church

Catholic Chronicle ^ | July 4, 2003 | PAT TODAK

[Sneer]

You are right. The new code in 1983 did not remove the prior code proclaiming it a mortal sin to knowingly and willingly disobey the church teaching on abstaining from eating meat on Friday. It did however include some new substitutes mentioned in the "binding" canon law 1249 thru 1253. Having not removed the binding law as a mortal sin leaves it in effect doesn't it?

[sinkspur]

Having not removed the binding law as a mortal sin leaves it in effect doesn't it?

No. It would have to restate the stricture, which it did not do.

Creating penances and tying eternal fire to their observance isn't exactly what "seperation from God" means to me.

[narses]

I believe most of us here are "fighting on the side of Christ". There are many ways to Serve Our Lord.

[narses]

So eating meat during Lent is not a sin?

[sinkspur]

So eating meat during Lent is not a sin?

Maybe, but not one worthy of the fires of hell.

Wouldn't you agree?

[narses]

I don't know, that's why I asked. I will also ask my confessor, no disrespect intended. For me, when I fail to abstain when I should have, I confess.

[sinkspur]

For me, when I fail to abstain when I should have, I confess.

If you forget, it's not sinful, at all.

And even if you didn't forget, pick another day to fast on.

Is Friday more special to God than Tuesday?

[Maximilian]

Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays

The Episcopal Conference can determine more particular ways in which fasting and abstinence are to be observed.

The code of canon law left it up to the bishops' conference of each country. The US bishops decided to require NO fasting or abstinence on any days of the year except Ash Wednesday and Fridays of Lent. In the United States, as determined by the USCCB, in accord with the leeway in the canon law, there is no penance that is REQUIRED on any Friday not in Lent.

[ultima ratio]

A true Catholic would be someone who practices the true Catholic faith.

[Land of the Irish]

Is Friday more special to God than Tuesday?

Absolutely; it's the day Christ died for our salvation.

[sinkspur]

Absolutely; it's the day Christ died for our salvation.

Which gives Friday symbolic significance.

If someone forgets fast or abstain on Friday, do it on Tuesday or Monday. It's not a sin.

Besides, the fish markets need business EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK to stay open.

Abstaining from meat is no chore to me; I much prefer an ahi Tuna to Angus Beef any day of the week.

[B Knotts]

I wish this were true

...but it is! From the Canon Law of 1983:

Can. 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

In the United States, the Episcopal Conference (the NCCB/USCCB) has allowed (per Can. 1253) the substitution of some other form of penance. Nevertheless, the requirement of some penance remains.

[Sneer]

Thanks for the correction. I went to a USCCB site and read their entire definition including the last paragraphs which states:

"Finally, if a Catholic's decision against Friday abstinence is defiant in nature, a rebellion against divine law, it may well meet the criteria for sin, possibly even the criteria for mortal sin. By contrast, a Catholic who would willingly do penance if the Church required it, and declines only because his national bishops' conference says is not required, does not incur sin."

"All that said, Holy Mother Church strongly recommends the practice of abstinence from meat on all Fridays of the year."

I will continue to follow Holy Mother Church's strong recommendation as stated by the USCCB in abstaining from meat on all Fridays of the year.

[Maximilian]

I will continue to follow Holy Mother Church's strong recommendation as stated by the USCCB in abstaining from meat on all Fridays of the year.

Sure I agree with you. Our family doesn't eat meat on Friday. The point is that we're not doing it because of any requirement of the American bishops. They have copped out of requiring ANYTHING of American Catholics.

[Maximilian]

the Episcopal Conference (the NCCB/USCCB) has allowed (per Can. 1253) the substitution of some other form of penance. Nevertheless, the requirement of some penance remains.

There is no requirement. See Sneer's post #53. Sneer if you have a link to the USCCB webpage where you found the info, it would be appreciated.

[Sneer]

The link I found is http://www.secondexodus.com/html/catholicdefinitions/fridayabstinence.html

I sent this privately as I am new to this and don't know how to include your request in italics as all of you are doing. If you could give me an explanation on how to do that it would be appreciated. I am still having problems with the "authority" of the USCCB in completely removing the discipline of our Holy Church as to the requirement of penance on Friday. The explanation as to it being purely ecclestical law and therefore allowing for the dispensation seems to open a Pandora's box for me. Is priestly celbacy for instance a purely ecclestical law? How many others have never been tested?

[NYer]

The problem is not with me and my not fighting alongside the Novus Ordo Church, the problem is with the Novus Ordo Church itself. Most of us can't do anything but run away from its putrefaction in order to protect our kids from the contagion.

Novus Ordo .... Church???

There is but one Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church!! or has the SSPX eliminated the Nicene Creed from its chapel services?

"run away from its putrefaction" .... in so saying, you slander the faith of millions of catholics worldwide and deny the very church established by Christ. When Christ said:

"Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.", he set no time limits.

The Catholic Church is the community of believers founded by Jesus to enable his Work of Salvation to continue for all people in every age. Jesus gave the care of his Teaching, his Sacraments and his Authority to St Peter and the Apostles who would pass these to their successors, the Pope and the Bishops of the Church in every age.

The Church cannot err on matters of Faith or Morals because she is constantly guided by the Holy Spirit. This is called ‘infallibility’. Likewise the Bishops of the Church, when gathered with the Pope in an ecumenical council, teach infallibly on matters of Faith or Morals. The Pope himself, as Vicar of Christ, may also make infallible pronouncements on matters of Faith or Morals.

Our response to these teachings should be one of obedience. Even when a teaching is not defined ‘infallibly’, we should still obey that teaching.

Better to retreat to a remnant of true Catholics practicing the true faith.

Your insults never stop.

"The Lord's Supper, because of its connection with the supper which the Lord took with his disciples on the eve of his Passion and because it anticipates the wedding feast of the Lamb in the heavenly Jerusalem. [Cf. 1 Cor 11:20; Rev 19:9.]  The Breaking of Bread, because Jesus used this rite, part of a Jewish meal when as master of the table he blessed and distributed the bread, [Gal 3:27 .] above all at the Last Supper. [Cf. Mt 26:26 ; 1 Cor 11:24 .] It is by this action that his disciples will recognize him after his Resurrection, [Cf. Lk 24:13-35.] and it is this expression that the first Christians will use to designate their Eucharistic assemblies; [Cf. Acts 2:42, 46 ; Acts 20:7, 11.] by doing so they signified that all who eat the one broken bread, Christ, enter into communion with him and form but one body in him. [Cf. 1 Cor 10:16-17.]  The Eucharistic assembly (synaxis), because the Eucharist is celebrated amid the assembly of the faithful, the visible expression of the Church. [Cf. 1 Cor 11:17-34 .]" Catechism of the Catholic Church #1329

"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it], and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup [is] the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." - Luke 22:19-20

When He broke the bread, did He have his back to His disciples? The organic growth of the ritual of the Mass had achieved its ultimate development in the fifteenth century, up until that time, and thus was frozen (i.e. preserved), by Pope St. Pius V in 1570 with the Missal he published preserving the definitive form of the Roman Rite Mass for all ages.

The essence of the Mass is the sacrifice of Jesus to His Father being made present by the power of the Holy Spirit through the priesthood of Jesus Christ in the consecration of the Mass. The essence of the Mass as the sacrifice of Jesus to His Father is expressed by the various rituals that surround this essential fact. The Eucharist, that is, the presence of Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is the reality of the Mass.

As much as we can find fault with the origin, implementation, and the interpretation of the Novus Ordo Mass, we may never call into question its validity.

Why should anybody want to defend such a debacle?

Catholics may not question the power of the Holy Father to implement another Rite. And, as a catholic, I have the right, according to Canon law, to a "valid liturgy". That is what separates me from the sheeples who are ignorant of the GIRM. As a Confirmed catholic, I have the obligation to address any and all abuses wherever I find them ... and there are many. Nothing is accomplished by those who separate themselves from the church.

[ultima ratio]

You need not attend an SSPX chapel to be a true Catholic since it represents only about 20% of the traditionalist movement. Modernism, however, which preaches a new gospel and which aggressively militates against the authentic faith is a false Catholicism. Nothing even a pope might say can make it other than what it actually is--a rebellion against Catholic Tradition. And the Novus Ordo is an essential part of this revolution, contravening even Trent itself.

As St. Paul told the Galatians: "If anyone, if we ourselves or an angel come down from Heaven should preach a gospel at variance with the gospel we have preached to you, let him be anathema. I now repeat what I have said before: if anyone preaches a gospel at variance with the gospel which you received, let him be anathema." This new thing is not Catholicism, it is a falsehood that first suppresses the faith and then destroys it.

[ultima ratio]

First, I am not the one who is making the distinction between what is going on now and all that went before. Rome itself does this, calling itself "the conciliar" Church--a thing unknown before, a Holy See cutting itself off from its own past and its own preconciliar Catholic tradition. It does this deliberately, almost never at all referring to preconciliar documents or papal pronouncements, but acting as if it were starting completely from scratch. This is why it attempted to destroy the old traditions and the old Mass--it wishes to invent and impose something altogether new, a quasi-Protestant faith which is unCatholic.

Second, I do not slander Catholics, nor do I tell lies when I speak of the current putrefaction. There is only one word for what is going on today from the Vatican on down: that word is CORRUPTION. It is absurd to believe I slander fellow Catholics by saying this. They are not the agents of the present putrefaction--this is the role Novus Ordo church leaders themselves play. These men resemble the Pharisees Christ himself had castigated as hypocrites who are whited sepulchres, outwardly impressive, but inwardly full of dead men's bones. So you are wrong to think I demean fellow Catholics. I do not. They are only the victims of the present corruption, not the causes of it.

Finally, if you mean by the Church the popes and bishops who run the show, then OF COURSE the Church can make mistakes. It is as subject to abuse and corruption as any other human institution and to believe otherwise is sheer superstition. Yes, under very constrained circumstances, the Holy Spirit guarantees His protection from error. But the First Vatican Council made it very clear this is a narrowly circumscribed guarantee. NOVEL DOCTRINES are NOT granted such divine protection. It spelled it out very specifically: the Holy Spirit protects only the revelation HANDED-DOWN BY SACRED TRADITION. Yet it is this very tradition which the Novus Ordo Church is doing all it can to suppress and undermine.