Radio Replies First Volume - Fasting

Celledoor.com ^ | 1938 | Fathers Rumble & Carty

[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/

[annalex]

Yes. That is the spiritual value of it, at public meals. Same with blessing oneself in a restaurant.

[T Minus Four]

I don’t think God is imposing that burden on me.

[annalex]

The requirement to mortify flesh on Friday, as we've already seen, varies with the bishops' conference and does not apply to non-Catholics.

The requirement to know and understand the Catholic faith is not binding on non-Catholics, but, of course, lack of interest in the Catechism is, on some level, a lack of interest in Christianity.

The relevant document regarding the fasting legalities is not the Catechism, by the way. The easiest thing is to ask your priest what to do, or if you suspect that his advice is inaccurate, research some more.

I fast on Friday because I want to express my love of Christ in that simple and direct way. If you had not asked, I would not have a reason to research it further.

I do recommend people of any religion to read the Catechism. Here it is: CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. If that is too voluminous, here is a Reader's Digest version: Compendium OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

[T Minus Four]

I don’t think so. It’s full of doctrines of man. I’ll stick with what God requires of me.

[annalex]

The authority of the Church is not from men. Sticking to your own doctrine, however, is.

[T Minus Four]

It IS from men. Jesus never told me that I would go to hell if I refused to abstain from meat on Friday and then didn’t participate in a manmade ritual of absolution.

[annalex]

Jesus never told me that I would go to hell if I refused to abstain from meat on Friday

That is true. But He gave the authority to legislate in such matters to the Church (Mt 18:17-18), and the Church legislated in a certain way. If you mean that you personally do not have the duty to obey the Church, you may be right if you are not Catholic, but if you are Catholic and do not obey the Church then you are "as the heathen and publican", not likely to be saved.

manmade ritual of absolution

The confessionary is man made, and the priest is a man, and you can perhaps say that the ritualistic part of the sacrament of confession is man-made. However, the sacrament itself is divinely decreed: "Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained" (John 20:22f). Absolution, -- forgiveness of sin -- is one possible outcome of the sacrament of confession.

[ArrogantBustard]

Or you go out to dinner with friends to a nice steakhouse and order the grilled salmon.

Perhaps not a big sacrifice ... except that the idiots in the kitchen don't know fish anywhere near as well as they know beef. And it provides a small opportunity for a small witness to Christ. Never pass up an opportunity ... even the small ones.

[T Minus Four]

Well, I'm sure you must have meant the Catholic standby, Matthew 16:19, about the keys, etc

But if you keep reading, just a few lines later Jesus calls Peter "Satan" and tells him "You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men" (Matt 16:23)

Pretty harsh words for the new pope.

Keep reading Matthew. In the 28th chapter, when Jesus has been resurrected from the dead, he has some very important things to say to Peter and company:

"And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Matthew 28:18-20

Jesus never relinquished His authority here on Earth! Why would He need to? He knows all men are sinners. He is with us always! He said so, and I know it's true.

And notice he instructed the desciples to teach what HE commanded them, not what they chose to command us.

I'll depend on His Word - it's never let anyone down.

[annalex]

No, I meant the passage that I indicated, Mt 18:17-18, where Jesus explains that the Church — not you and not your pastor — is the final rule of faith.

It is true that all popes are flawed human beings starting with St. Peter himself. The issue on hand, however, — rules of fasting — are within episcopal authority, not papal authority. If you have questions about the papacy, I’d be happy to answer, but it is somewhat unrelated to the topic.

It is also true that Jesus has the ultimate authority in all matters. The role of the Church is indeed to teach us all the He commands, and he commanded us to fast, just as He fasted Himself (see the main article).

[T Minus Four]

What in the sam hill...who told you that's what it meant? Read it, but start with verse 15 for some context:

A Brother Who Sins Against You

"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses'. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. Matthew 18:15-17

This is about resolving disputes between believers. You talk to the one who wronged you, but if that doesn't resolve it, you take it before a couple other believers. If that doesn't bring resolution, you bring it before the entire body of believers, who then can ostrasize him, if that's what it takes.

I can't understand what this has to do with fish on Friday rules and Jesus abdicating His authority..

[annalex]

Matthew 18:15f has to do with any contention between Christians, including whether or not to fast in particular manner on a particular day. The Church is given as a final arbiter.

[T Minus Four]

And please how me where God commanded us to fast.

[T Minus Four]

It says “if your brother sins against you” It doesn’t say, “if your brother demands that you fast and you don’t think you should have to”

[annalex]

where God commanded us to fast

Jesus said that we shall fast (Mk 2:20. Mt 9:15) and fasted himself (Mt 4:2). St. Paul directed us to "exhibit ourselves as the ministers of God" by a variety of mortifications, including fasting (1 Cor. 6:4f). So, Catholic Christians fast.

It doesn’t say, “if your brother demands that you fast and you don’t think you should have to”

Well, what are you doing on this thread then? Your fellow Christians fast and urge others to fast and you apparently take offense. We have a dispute. We should ask the Church, which shall "bind and loose" in all matters (Mt 18:18). I have.

[T Minus Four]

I am not the least bit offended. I just have questions, and I can’t get a clear answer.

You know that the two passages you cited in Mark and Matthew are the retelling of a parable Jesus told. It was about having and not having Jesus here on earth. Having Him here is the feasting, not having Him is the “fasting”. I know you’ve been told otherwise, but can’t you see it for yourself?

Not one place in scripture are we commanded to fast, although it can be a very good and useful practice. But it must be willingly undertaken or it is empty.

[T Minus Four]

1 Cor 6 is another passage about resolving disputes among believers. It says we are supposed to resolve them within the community, not take it to a secular court of law.

Nothing there about “mortification” or fasting.

[annalex]

What is your remaining question(s)?

Your interpretation of Mk 2 and Mt 9 is, I guess, possible, but it is not the natural interpretation that arises from the text alone. The disciples of John were not referring to a metaphorical fast, but rather to an actual fast, because such was the fast of St. John the Baptist. There is no warrant to say that Jesus all of a sudden began to talk in metaphors. In fact, I am pretty sure He did not because otherwise he would have implicitly rebuked St. John for physical fasting.

I showed you the verse, 1 Cor. 6:4f, where St. Paul commanded us to fast. It is also mentioned in the article itself.

Regarding “willingly undertaken”, the US Bishops seem to agree with you, this is why they gave to option to do some other form of mortification instead. Still, the Church is here for no other purpose but to lead us to salvation in Christ; it is therefore the Church’s duty to set up necessary obligations and not allow us to solely depend on our own whim.

[annalex]

Nothing there about “mortification” or fasting.

Indeed. I meant 2 Cor 6:4f, sorry.

4 But in all things let us exhibit ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in tribulation, in necessities, in distresses, 5 In stripes, in prisons, in seditions, in labours, in watchings, in fastings, 6 In chastity, in knowledge, in longsuffering, in sweetness, in the Holy Ghost, in charity unfeigned, 7 In the word of truth, in the power of God; by the armour of justice on the right hand and on the left; 8 By honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report; as deceivers, and yet true; as unknown, and yet known; 9 As dying, and behold we live; as chastised, and not killed; 10 As sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as needy, yet enriching many; as having nothing, and possessing all things.

[T Minus Four]

Mentioning fasting, as in 2 Cor 6:4 is not a commandment. Fasting, as I said, can be a good thing. But you still haven’t shown me anything that even hints of a commandment. Much less risking your eternal soul by not doing so.

My translation actually says “hunger” instead of fasting, but the meaning of the passage is the same I think.