Skip to comments.
Radio Replies First Volume - Fasting
Celledoor.com ^
| 1938
| Fathers Rumble & Carty
Posted on 11/09/2009 9:03:16 PM PST by GonzoII
Fasting
1184. You claim to legislate in purely spiritual things, yet order fast and abstinence on certain days. There is nothing spiritual in forbidding people to eat meat.
I have never said that the Church legislates only in spiritual matters. Men are not purely spiritual beings, and in our composite nature, spiritual legislation must in some way affect our material being. The laws of the Church cover material things in so far as they affect our spiritual welfare. There is nothing spiritual about meat in itself. But spiritual virtue is exercised when we abstain from meat from a motive of self-denial, gratitude, and obedience to God.
1185. Is there any Scripture warrant for fasting?
Yes. When the Pharisees complained to Christ that His disciples did not fast, He replied that they did not while He was with them, but that they would when He had gone from them. Mk 2:18. Now the Catholic Church, ordered by Christ to teach all nations whatsoever Christ had said to her, tells us that at certain times we must fast in expiation of our sins. St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "Let us exhibit ourselves as servants of God, in patience, in fastings." A Christian spirit of reparation says, "I indulged my senses at the expense of God's law; I will therefore now mortify them at the expense of my own comfort." However it is part of Christian law, and those who say that the Catholic Church obliges fasting while other Churches do not, complain as usual that the Catholic Church is fulfilling the Christian law while others are not. And the Catholic Church appoints special days, for if it were left to individuals they would fast very irregularly, or not at all. It is much better to make it definite.
1186. Why forbid meat on Fridays? Christ said that nothing from without defiles a man, but that it is disposition of soul that counts. Mk 7:15.
It follows that meat is not evil in itself, and that the Church does not forbid meat on Fridays because she thinks that meat will defile men. That should be evident from the fact that the Church permits meat on other days, as she could not do if she believed meat to be evil. Therefore it must be a question of the day, and not of the meat. Why then does the Church forbid meat on Fridays? Because on that day Christ gave His life for us in misery and suffering. If a Catholic eats meat on that day, the meat does not defile him, but his interior disposition of ingratitude and disobedience certainly does. If a man is not prepared to give up a little meat on the day Christ gave up His life, he is not worthy to be ranked as a Christian. The Friday abstinence has kept Our Lord's sacrifice and death before the minds of millions of Catholics for centuries. To the vast majority of the Protestant Churches which abolished this beautiful practice merely because the Catholic Church had the grace to fulfill it, Friday is just like Tuesday, or Wednesday, or Thursday, and their members do not think week by week of the greatest event that ever occurred in history for love of us. I have never yet received a convert into the Church who has not seen the beauty of this devotedness to Christ, and of the loyalty with which the Church recalls Friday as the day of the greatest event in our redemption. That non-Catholics should be silent about this Catholic custom I could understand. But that they should still profess to be Christians and then blame the Catholic Church for such a generous and loving act in honor of Christ merely because they do not do it themselves is astonishing.
1187. The Bible says that Anti-Christ will bid men abstain from meats. 1 Tim 4:3.
The reference is to men who teach that meat is evil in itself and who declare that it is wicked to eat it under any circumstances. But Catholics do not believe or teach this. Almost any butcher will tell you that he supplies many Catholic customers regularly with meat.
1188. When did the practice of Friday abstinence from meat begin?
In the very earliest ages of the Church. The practice is mentioned in the Didache or Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles, a booklet written by one of the immediate followers of the Apostles in the year 90.
1189. Who said that every man will go to hell if he eats meat on Friday?
No one. The Catholic Church says that it is a mortal sin for a Catholic to eat meat on Friday knowingly and wilfully, without a sufficiently grave and excusing reason. Then that Church says that if a man dies in unrepented mortal sin, he will go to hell.
1190. I don't blame Catholics for voluntarily abstaining from meat on Fridays, but to do so because ordered to do so is making a virtue of necessity.
That is not true. No Catholic is physically compelled to abstain from meat on Fridays. It is a moral obligation, adding the virtue of obedience to that of Christian mortification. On your method of reasoning you should say that a man should voluntarily abstain from stealing, and that it is wrong to do so because God has said, "Thou shalt not steal." And do the laws of the land destroy the virtue of citizens because there is a moral obligation to observe them?
1191. Ought not Catholics to abstain from intoxicating drink on Fridays?
There is no law obliging them to do so. Of course there is always the law of conscience forbidding drinking to excess on any day. Yet, although there is no law forbidding drink in moderation on Fridays, it would be a very good and meritorious action if a man did abstain voluntarily from alcoholic drink on that day in a spirit of mortification and self-denial. But that would not dispense him from the obligation to abstain from meat. Let a man fulfill the law, and then do more if he wishes. Obedience is better than sacrifices prompted by one's own opinions.
1192. Would it not be better for the Church to forbid intoxicants rather than harmless meat?
It would not. The Church wishes to forbid a thing wich most of her people will miss. Practically all eat meat; not all by any means drink intoxicants. All are united in a common act of mortification. There is a tendency in men to think that all laws should conform to their own pet ideas. A man likes his meat and dislikes drink. So he suggests that the Church should rather forbid drink than meat. But drink does not affect all men; meat affects practically all. Encoding copyright 2009 by Frederick Manligas Nacino. Some rights reserved.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
http://www.celledoor.com/cpdv-ebe/
TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Moral Issues; Prayer; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; radiorepliesvolone
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-66 next last
Historical Context of "Radio Replies"
By markomalley
If one recalls the time frame from which Radio Replies emerged, it can explain some of the frankness and lack of tact in the nature of the responses provided.
It was during this timeframe that a considerable amount of anti-Catholic rhetoric came to the forefront, particularly in this country. Much of this developed during the Presidential campaign of Al Smith in 1928, but had its roots in the publication of Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons, originally published in book form in 1919 and also published in pamphlet form in 1853.
While in Britain (and consequently Australia), the other fellow would surely have experienced the effects of the Popery Act, the Act of Settlement, the Disenfranchising Act, the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and many others since the reformation (that basically boiled down to saying, "We won't kill you if you just be good, quiet little Catholics"). Even the so-called Catholic Relief Acts (1778, 1791, 1829, 1851, 1871) still had huge barriers placed in the way.
And of course, they'd both remember the American Protective Association, "Guy Fawkes Days" (which included burning the Pontiff in effigy), the positions of the Whigs and Ultra-Torries, and so on.
A strong degree of "in your face" from people in the position of authoritativeness was required back in the 1930s, as there was a large contingent of the populations of both the US and the British Empire who were not at all shy about being "in your face" toward Catholics in the first place (in other words, a particularly contentious day on Free Republic would be considered a mild day in some circles back then). Sure, in polite, educated circles, contention was avoided (thus the little ditty about it not being polite to discuss religion in public, along with sex and politics), but it would be naive to assume that we all got along, or anything resembling that, back in the day.
Having said all of the above, reading the articles from the modern mindset and without the historical context that I tried to briefly summarize above, they make challenging reading, due to their bluntness.
The reader should also keep in mind that the official teaching of the Church takes a completely different tone, best summed up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276
838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324
269 UR 3 § 1.
270 Cf. CIC, can. 751.
271 Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1:PG 13,732.
272 UR 3 § 1.
273 LG 8 § 2.
274 UR 3 § 2; cf. LG 15.
275 Cf. UR 3.
276 Cf. LG 8.
322 LG 15.
323 UR 3.
324 Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18.
Rev. Dr. Leslie Rumble, M.S.C.
"I was brought up as a Protestant, probably with more inherited prejudices than most non-Catholics of these days. My parents were Anglican and taught me the Angelican faith. My 'broad-minded' protestant teachers taught me to dislike the Catholic Church intensely. I later tried Protestantism in various other forms, and it is some thirty years since, in God's providence, I became a Catholic. As for the 'open, free, sincere worship' of a Protestant Church, I tasted it, but for me it proved in the end to be not only open, but empty; it was altogether too free from God's prescriptions."
Eventually, Leslie became a priest of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart.
In 1928, Fr. Rumble began a one-hour 'Question Box' program on 2SM Sydney, N.S.W. radio on Sunday evenings that was heard all over Australia and New Zealand. For five years he answered questions on every subject imaginable that had been written to him from all over that part of the globe. His first show began with a classic introduction:
"Good evening, listeners all. For some time I have been promising to give a session dealing with questions of religion and morality, in which the listeners themselves should decide what is of interest to them. Such a session will commence next Sunday evening, and I invite you to send in any questions you wish on these subjects . . . So now I invite you, non-Catholics above all, to send in any questions you wish on religion, or morality, or the Catholic Church, and I shall explain exactly the Catholic position, and give the reasons for it. In fact I almost demand those questions. Many hard things have been said, and are still being said, about the Catholic Church, though no criminal, has been so abused, that she has a right to be heard. I do not ask that you give your name and address. A nom de plume will do. Call yourself Voltaire, Confucius, X.Y.Z., what you like, so long as you give indication enough to recognize your answer."
"By the summer of 1937, the first edition of Radio Replies was already in print in Australia, financed by Rt. Rev. Monsignor James Meany, P.P. - the director of Station 2SM of whom I am greatly indebted."
"I have often been mistaken, as most men at times. And it is precisely to make sure that I will not be mistaken in the supremely important matter of religion that I cling to a Church which cannot be mistaken, but must be right where I might be wrong. God knew that so many sincere men would make mistakes that He deliberately established an infallible Church to preserve them from error where it was most important that they should not go wrong."
Rev. Charles Mortimer Carty
I broadcast my radio program, the Catholic Radio Hour, from St. Paul, Minnesota.
I was also carrying on as a Catholic Campaigner for Christ, the Apostolate to the man in the street through the medium of my trailer and loud-speaking system. In the distribution of pamphlets and books on the Catholic Faith, Radio Replies proved the most talked of book carried in my trailer display of Catholic literature. As many of us street preachers have learned, it is not so much what you say over the microphone in answer to questions from open air listeners, but what you get into their hands to read. The questions Fr. Rumble had to answer on the other side of the planet are same the questions I had to answer before friendly and hostile audiences throughout my summer campaign."
I realized that this priest in Australia was doing exactly the same work I was doing here in St. Paul. Because of the success of his book, plus the delay in getting copies from Sydney and the prohibitive cost of the book on this side of the universe, I got in contact with him to publish a cheap American edition.
It doesn't take long for the imagination to start thinking about how much we could actually do. We began the Radio Replies Press Society Publishing Company, finished the American edition of what was to be the first volume of Radio Replies, recieved the necessary imprimatur, and Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen agreed to write a preface. About a year after the publication of the first edition in Australia, we had the American edition out and in people's hands.
The book turned into a phenomena. Letters began pouring into my office from every corner of the United States; Protestant Publishing Houses are requesting copies for distribution to Protestant Seminaries; a few Catholic Seminaries have adopted it as an official textbook - and I had still never met Dr. Rumble in person.
To keep a long story short, we finally got a chance to meet, published volumes two and three of Radio Replies, printed a set of ten booklets on subjects people most often asked about, and a few other pamphlets on subjects of interest to us.
Fr. Carty died on May 22, 1964 in Connecticut.
"Firstly, since God is the Author of all truth, nothing that is definitely true can every really contradict anything else that is definitely true. Secondly, the Catholic Church is definitely true. It therefore follows that no objection or difficulty, whether drawn from history, Scripture, science, or philosophy, can provide a valid argument against the truth of the Catholic religion."
Biographies compiled from the introductions to Radio Replies, volumes 1, 2 and 3.
Source: www.catholicauthors.com
1
posted on
11/09/2009 9:03:16 PM PST
by
GonzoII
To: fidelis; Atomic Vomit; MI; Sir_Humphrey; dsc; annalex; Citizen Soldier; bdeaner; CatQuilt; ...
Radio Replies Ping
FReep-mail me to get on or off
“The Radio Replies Ping-List”
ON / OFF
2
posted on
11/09/2009 9:03:58 PM PST
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: All
3
posted on
11/09/2009 9:05:34 PM PST
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: GonzoII
The Catholic Church says that it is a mortal sin for a Catholic to eat meat on Friday knowingly and wilfully, without a sufficiently grave and excusing reason. Then that Church says that if a man dies in unrepented mortal sin, he will go to hell.Is this still true?
To: T Minus Four
5
posted on
11/10/2009 2:58:24 PM PST
by
Pyro7480
("If you know how not to pray, take Joseph as your master, and you will not go astray." - St. Teresa)
To: Pyro7480; T Minus Four
The requirement now is to either abstain from meat on Friday, or do an act of charitable giving; to disobey that without a good reason is still a mortal sin.
I wish the Church returned to the plain and simple discipline of before Vatican II, but not that much has changed.
6
posted on
11/10/2009 5:23:07 PM PST
by
annalex
(http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
To: annalex
So people can go to hell for this?
To: T Minus Four
Any unconfessed mortal sin is by definition damning to hell. However, given the confused state of the Church after Vatican II it is possible that Catholics who disobey the Friday discipline do it out of ignorance, rather than out of wilful disobedience. If that is the case, there is no mortal sin.
8
posted on
11/10/2009 5:37:50 PM PST
by
annalex
(http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
To: annalex
if I were trying to prove this was so to a Catholic, what would I reference?
Or maybe I’d better not - if they are violating this out of ignorance, and then I tell them, and then they scoff and don’t obey, well......
To: T Minus Four
It varies by country -- or, rather, by the Episcopal conference. In the US, the obligation is to do an act of penance, but the faithful are free to choose the nature of the act. The decree is a bit vague, but leaves no doubt that the obligation is still there throughout the year:
Pastoral Statement on Penance and Abstinence
It is all unpacked very effectively in this article:
Are Catholics Supposed to Abstain from Meat Every Friday?.
The article, by the way, convinced me in the wisdom of going away from the blanket insistence on abstinence from meat. In a country like ours, it is no great sacrifice to give up meat, readily available the other 6 days of the week.
10
posted on
11/10/2009 7:05:58 PM PST
by
annalex
(http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
To: annalex
So theoretically, one can avoid mortal sin (and the possibility of hell) by driving through McDonald’s and picking up fish sandwiches for dinner, or going out and indulging in sushi.
Why does it have to be so complicated?
To: T Minus Four
12
posted on
11/10/2009 9:18:01 PM PST
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: GonzoII
Actually, in that article Jimmy Akin shows that in fact, the US bishops (who, as the national conference, were given the task of legislating on this matter) actually did not require an act of penance on non-Lenten Fridays. They strongly encouraged it, but did not require it.
I think the older way made more sense, frankly, so I abstain from meat every Friday.
13
posted on
11/10/2009 9:28:38 PM PST
by
B Knotts
(Calvin Coolidge Republican)
To: T Minus Four
If you casually pick up a fish sandwich, you do nothing for your greater conforming to the image of Christ, Who chose to give up his life for you. However, you do not defy the Church that asks for some token self-denial. You do not do anything heroic even is the slightest degree, but you do not commit a mortal sin either.
Where is the complication?
14
posted on
11/10/2009 11:27:38 PM PST
by
annalex
(http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
To: annalex
There are just so many rules. Who can keep them all straight?
To: T Minus Four
There is just one rule: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind ( Matthew 22:37).
If you do, to follow His commandments becomes easy: My yoke is sweet and my burden light (Matthew 11:30).
16
posted on
11/11/2009 11:10:28 AM PST
by
annalex
(http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
To: annalex
And carry around the entire text of the catechism too.
To: B Knotts
I abstain from meat every Friday.I do too...
18
posted on
11/11/2009 3:57:26 PM PST
by
CatQuilt
(Lover of cats =^..^= and quilts)
To: annalex
In a country like ours, it is no great sacrifice to give up meat, readily available the other 6 days of the week. That's true but it seems like it's Friday when a good steak is most tempting... Or you go out to dinner with friends to a nice steakhouse or you and some friends decide to get a pizza and everyone else wants pepperoni...
So...you mortify yourself by looking different in front of your friends.
19
posted on
11/11/2009 4:06:11 PM PST
by
CatQuilt
(Lover of cats =^..^= and quilts)
To: T Minus Four
That is the burden that is light.
20
posted on
11/11/2009 5:29:04 PM PST
by
annalex
(http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-66 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
