• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Meat on Friday

Discussion in 'One Bread, One Body - Catholic' started by Pitching Coach, Nov 26, 2001.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Pitching Coach

    Pitching Coach Guest

    +0
    Is it not true that Catholics were forbidden to eat meat on Friday b4 Vatican II and since then it is a "personal" decision?

    The question to be asked here is this:

    What has happened to the souls of the departed who ate meat on Friday before V II? Are they still in purgatory? Who knows for sure?

    Romans 14v6, "He who eats, eats to the Lord for he gives God thanx."

    1 Timothy 4v3, "commanding to abstain from foods which God has created."
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Wolseley

    Wolseley Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

    +1,615
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Here we go again.

    The injunction against meat on Friday was a discipline; disobeying it did not constitute mortal sin, and as a venial sin, it would have been wiped out at the Penitential Prayer of the next Mass attended, provided that repentance was sincere.

    Judging what happens to souls, before, during, or after Vatican II is God's job; I leave it to Him, and suggest you do, too. You will be judged with the judgement you judge---so be careful!

    1 Timothy 4:3 must not be taken out of its overall theological and historical context; it was written in reference to the Judaizers and the Gnostics, not to the Catholics.

    Try again.

    Blessings,
    ---Wols.
     
  3. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    mm...wols I might have to disagree with you on that. The letter was not just talking to that audience here as indicated in verse 6 don't you think? if that is so then in verse 8 spiritual fitness wins out over spiritual fitness ONLY when confronted with "the Judaizers and the Gnostics, " Umm..I don't think so anyway..I think it is a universal thing and so are the proceeding verses...that's my option anyway.
     
  4. Pitching Coach

    Pitching Coach Guest

    +0
    You miss the point.

    Wolesley - The injunction against meat on Friday was a discipline; disobeying it did not constitute mortal sin, and as a venial sin, it would have been wiped out at the Penitential Prayer of the next Mass attended, provided that repentance was sincere.

    When catholic adherents passed away before the change in "sin" are they now released from your purgatory?

    Wolesley - 1 Timothy 4:3 must not be taken out of its overall theological and historical context; it was written in reference to the Judaizers and the Gnostics, not to the Catholics.

    That is a nice spin to avoid Scripture but to no avail for Paul says "in latter times" and makes no reference to any sect only to doctrines that would be taught as the RCC adheres to.
     
  5. KC Catholic

    KC Catholic Everybody's gone surfin'...Surfin' U.S.A

    +76
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Welcome to our forum.

    I must ask that you read my thread at the top of this forum entitled "Please Read".

    We are not here to defend the Catholic faith. This is a "No Spin Zone" - we will answer your questions with answers that are supported by the Bible and Sacred Tradition.

    If you are here to learn and have legitimate questions, we welcome you, but if you are here to argue against the Catholic Church, you might want to seek out other forums.

    If you have questions or concerns, please PM or email me privately.

    Peace,
     
  6. Kotton

    Kotton Senior Member

    +105
    Catholic
    Coach said:
    Since purgatory has no time, this is irrelavant. Any 'sin' is judged on our understanding and action. Those who disobeyed ANY disapline are subject to God's judgment.
    There is no avoiding Scripture in Wols statement. It applied to those he named at that time and any who would do the same today. The verse says,'wrong to marry and eat certain foods'. This refers to a 'ban' on such matters. The Church says NO BAN on eating meat at regular times, but to 'abstain' from meat on Friday as a remembrance of Christ dying for our salvation. The same with not marrying, NO BAN on the general Christian population, but for those taking vows, live accoring to them for the good of furthering the Christian faith.

    Kotton :)
     
  7. Wolseley

    Wolseley Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

    +1,615
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others

    No. Provided, that is, that they are in Purgatory for deliberately disobeying the injunction of not eating meat on a Friday. Vatican II allowed for the substitution of another penitential practice on Fridays in place of abstinence from meat, so while the form of the discipline has changed, the content has not. Ergo, if someone were in Purgatory for this particular issue, changing the form of the injunction does not alter the purgation incurred, since the issue itself deals with the deliberate disobeying of an injunction established by valid ecclesiastical authority, and not whether they ate an Oscar Meyer weiner at the ball park on Friday afternoon.

    That having been said, it must be re-iterated that a person in Purgatory will be released when God sees fit to release them, not before. Clever questions and issues of semantics will not change that. You may not agree with the doctrine of Purgatory, and if so, that's fine, but coming up with cute scenarios like this one does not negate the reality of it. It's easy to mock something you don't understand or disagree with, and you might even feel justified by being able to tangle up a lay Catholic who doesn't boast a Ph.D in moral theology with this kind of a question, when he can't come up with an answer to it. Taking it upon yourself to study the doctrine, its origin, history, development, theology, application in exegetical hermaneutics, and relation to both Tradition and Scripture, so that you actually understand the subject at hand instead of what somebody else may have erroneously told you about it---well, that part isn't quite so easy.


    You may think I have "spun" the issue, Coach, but in fact, I have not. I have merely placed the passage in question within the contemporary historical and theological milieu in which it was orginally written. Once more, we're getting into the issue of authority and the whole sola scriptura thing again. Do you interpret the verse by means of just the Bible, or do you interpret the verse within a larger framework which may have bearing upon its application?

    Catholics take a passage of Scripture and look at it within the overall application of Scripture, Tradition, theology, history, exegesis, and so on; i.e., who was this passage written to? What sort of situation were those original addresses living in? What sort of people was the author talking about, and what groups were extant at that period of history which fit the description the author is putting forth? What kind of literature is this---didactic, historical, prophetic, apocalyptic? How does it compare with other passages in Scripture? With Tradition? With other contemporary writings of the period, both secular and religious? How have various scholars interpreted this verse throughout the ages? How do their interpretations compare with each other? Do these interpretations adhere to, or reject, the Apostolic Deposit of the Faith? With patristic literature? With Scripture?

    Protestants, on the other hand, tend to take the same passage and read it at face value, divorced of any kind of context, and apply it to contemporary situations which they see around them. "Paul says some people will forbid the eating of certain foods, and I see that Catholics don't eat meat of Fridays. Therefore, Catholics must be the people Paul was talking about." That's a quick and easy interpretation, but also relatively shallow. It would be very similar to taking the list of offenses attributed to King George III in the American Declaration of Independance, and applying it to contemporary situations right now: "Hmmm. The Declaration says that the King has set himself up as the sole judge, has cut off our trade with parts of the world, has plundered our seas, burned our towns, and killed our people, has employed foreign mercenaries, and has endeavored to induce barbarians on our frontiers to destroy us. I see that Osama bin Laden has done all these things; therefore, that must be who this document is talking about."

    Any legitimate historian, of course, would collapse with laughter at such an interpretation----but that type of reasoning is not at all inconsistant with the way some Protestants try to interpret Holy Scripture. When you set yourself up as the sole authority for translating Holy Writ (even if you think you're led by the Spirit of God Himself), divorced from all other contexts, you're creating a recipe for rather novel interpretations. It's no wonder that there are 20,000 Protestant denominations, all of them with different ideas.

    You are, of course, under no compulsion to agree.

    Blessings,
    ---Wols.
     
  8. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "Protestants, on the other hand, tend to take the same passage and read it at face value, divorced of any kind of context, and apply it to contemporary situations which they see around them."

    Come on now..you should know better then that..no we don't. Why do you think in every seminary student has to take classes in hermafidics, history, etc...this is just a plain false statement that I had to point out. Sorry for the busting in. My question would be is what happens when 'fathers' don't agree theologically on a subject (never having to do with tradition because those have all been accounted for by excomminucating the people they don't agree with, so there will be no disagreement in that catagory). I think you're really misrepresenting the prod faith, but it is your proagavite to do so, even if you're wrong. Have you even talked to anyone like me before that HAS taken courses in jewish culture, history, etc..to better understand the faith? You just can't say you're a preach and be a preacher...I just find it very saddening you doing the things that you harp on us for, making FALSE assumptions about the "other" side.
     
  9. Kirkland1244

    Kirkland1244 Regular Member

    195
    +3
    Anglican
    Come on now..you should know better then that..no we don't.

    You may not. Great overwhelming scores of Protestants do. Most Protestants have no understanding of the historical setting of the Bible, no understanding of how the Early Church understood Scriptures, but still buy into the false idea that they will magically be led to the proper interpretation of what they read.

    I've had the misfortune to meet many "Christians" on the Internet who drone on and on how they moved into Fundamentalism because their earlier "church" wasn't "preaching the Gospel." How do they know? Because the "read" the Bible, and gee, what they read into the Scriptures wasn't what they heard from the pulpit... so obviously the minister was wrong. Thank God Pastor Billy Joe Bob Smith at Good Book Baptist was there to help save their soul from the evils of Catholicism/Presbyterianism/Methodism/Anglicanism/Whatever.

    Why do you think in every seminary student has to take classes in hermafidics, history, etc...

    You know for a fact that every Protestant seminary student takes all the classes you might have taken? You may be particularly well educated in historical Christianity for a Protestant.

    My question would be is what happens when 'fathers' don't agree theologically on a subject

    The Fathers are not infallible. There are always dissenters, and always have been. However, even with a few bad apples here and there, the Fathers speak with a great deal of uniformity. Far more than any group of Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc could must today, were you to pull writings of their leaders over the course of the last few centuries (or decades, for some Fundie churches which have been around for less time than television) and compare them.

    You just can't say you're a preach and be a preacher...I

    Baptist "ministers" do that all the time.

    Kirk
     
  10. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "You may not. Great overwhelming scores of Protestants do. "

    This is what is called a generalization. Another one (just to show you how unfair they are) is that catholics are mary worshipers. You don't but some do (usually the ones that don't understand the faith..same for us prods.)

    "You know for a fact that every Protestant seminary student takes all the classes you might have taken? You may be particularly well educated in historical Christianity for a Protestant."

    In most every reputable seminary I have talked to yes. Not all catholic schools are of good teaching either, not all catholics know what the are talking about either. Bad apples are on both sides of the fences, that's my point. Dont make bad generalizations.

    "The Fathers are not infallible. "

    Umm..yeah they are. Catholics have cannonized some people, didn't ya know that?

    "However, even with a few bad apples here and there, the Fathers speak with a great deal of uniformity. Far more than any group of Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc could must today, were you to pull writings of their leaders over the course of the last few centuries ("

    So you're saying its the lesser of 2 evils? Just because you have less bad apples its better? I would disagree, the reason catholic teachings are standardized historically is because they excommunicated everyone or "purified them" until they claimed catholism, something the catholic church has even appoligized for from what I understand (the inquision).

    "Baptist "ministers" do that all the time."

    :lol: no they dont, that's my point.

    This is getting off topic, lets just try to stick to the topic now okay?
     
  11. Kirkland1244

    Kirkland1244 Regular Member

    195
    +3
    Anglican
    "The Fathers are not infallible. "

    Umm..yeah they are. Catholics have cannonized some people, didn't ya know that?


    That does not make them infallible. They're going to canonize Padre Pio shortly... that will not suddenly raise his writings to the level of Infallible Scripture. You really don't know what you're talking about here.

    ALL CANONIZATION MEANS IS THAT THE CHURCH IS STATING THAT THIS PERSON IS IN HEAVEN, AND THEREFORE WORTHY OF VENERATION. Not that they were infallible during their Earthly lifetime.

    Augustine is easily among the greatest of Saints, and his writings are a treasure to the modern day Church. But they are not suddenly infallible simply because he is now in Heaven.

    When you get to Heaven, what you have written here will not become infallible, nor what I have written. Even if the Catholic Church recognizes your divine zip code.

    Kirk
     
  12. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "that will not suddenly raise his writings to the level of Infallible Scripture. "

    :lol: That's exactly what it means kirk. Why don't you just ask your priest so you can agree with me.

    "Not that they were infallible during their Earthly lifetime."

    No, but it does mean that their teachings are like the bible, ie infaultable.
     
  13. Kirkland1244

    Kirkland1244 Regular Member

    195
    +3
    Anglican
    That's exactly what it means kirk. Why don't you just ask your priest so you can agree with me.

    Prove it. Show me, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Documents of Vatican II or any previous Council, that all the writings of all the Saints are considered Inspired to the Level of Scripture. Go ahead. I dare you.

    Kirk
     
  14. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "Prove it. Show me, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Documents of Vatican II or any previous Council, that all the writings of all the Saints are considered Inspired to the Level of Scripture. Go ahead. I dare you."

    Even if I did (which I could) you wouldn't believe me, go ask your priest.
     
  15. Kirkland1244

    Kirkland1244 Regular Member

    195
    +3
    Anglican
    In general, I respect you. You're usually rather well informed. But you are simply wrong on this. While you were typing out your two sentence reply, I did a little search on one of the major Catholic web portals, and searched through documents from the old Catholic Encyclopedia, Councilar documents, and other catechismal-type documents... how strange, nothing about the writings of the Saints being infallible...

    So I ask again, show me where you "learned" this belief. If you claim Catholics believe this, show us.

    And then explain why we don't add the Saint's writings to Scripture, or wrap them up in leather and read them at Mass...

    Or why the requirement for being a "Doctor of the Church" (one of the major Saint theologians) is to have a "highly Orthodox personal theology," not an infallibly orthodox personal theology.

    Thanks.

    Kirk
     
  16. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "In general, I respect you. You're usually rather well informed. "

    Who are you and what did you do with Kirk?

    "So I ask again, show me where you "learned" this belief. If you claim Catholics believe this, show us."

    Krik, you wont' believe me even if I do, you've clearly shown me that in other issues. If you really wanna know e-mail me and I'll send ya my notes when I can.

    "And then explain why we don't add the Saint's writings to Scripture, or wrap them up in leather and read them at Mass..."

    hmm...who should I quote...just go back and look at some of the threads on here. That is why I am not a catholic. The bible and the Saint's writings on the bible (thomas A for example) are put on equal footing. Ask wols if you don't believe me. Ask yourself why the church fathers are so important..answer because their writings are taken as infaultable on scriptural matters...ie, I'm right ;)
     
  17. Kirkland1244

    Kirkland1244 Regular Member

    195
    +3
    Anglican
    "In general, I respect you. You're usually rather well informed. "

    Who are you and what did you do with Kirk?


    Rule of Acquisition # 78: "Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies." :)

    And I'm still right: The Saints are not referenced in discussion of Tradition because their writings are infallible, but because their writings witness to the continuity of the Catholic Faith. Tradition is NOT written down. If it were written down, it would be Scripture. Scripture and Tradition are both part of Revelation, which comes in two forms, written (Scripture), and oral (Tradition).

    The oral Tradition may be written ABOUT but that does not make the writings about it inspired, any more than a Biblical commentary by Pope John Paul II would be inspired, even after his death.

    Kirk
     
  18. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    I'm not a polsci major and never will be, I dont like to lie ;)

    "Scripture and Tradition are both part of Revelation, which comes in two forms, written (Scripture), and oral (Tradition). "

    yes, but the saints interpration of tradition is INFAULTABLE. That is why it is on the same level as the bible, I'm right kirk, as your priest.

    "The oral Tradition may be written ABOUT but that does not make the writings about it inspired, any more than a Biblical commentary by Pope John Paul II would be inspired, even after his death."

    umm..if he was using his "ex com...something ;) " powers he would be. so umm..you're wrong here too.
     
  19. Kirkland1244

    Kirkland1244 Regular Member

    195
    +3
    Anglican
    I'm not a polsci major and never will be, I dont like to lie

    That wasn't a political reference. Don't you recognize the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition? :) Your comment made me think of them.

    yes, but the saints interpration of tradition is INFAULTABLE.

    No it is not. The Canon of the Bible is Traditional, for example, and a much debated topic in the Early Church. However, in the Early Church, there were many different canons of the Bible, all of them wrong when compared to our current canon, and many of them supported by men who are canonized Saints. Now, if all these Saints were supposed to be infallible, this would be a major problem, since they all contradicted each other, and in the end, none of the early canons made it, in tact, into the modern Bible.

    Likewise, Joan of Arc is a Saint, but the Church has never taken a position on her "visions" as being what she felt them to be.

    And I believe that two of the girls who witnessed Fatima have now been canonized, and they wrote down the teachings they supposedly recieved from Mary... but the Fatima message is NOT infallible and in fact you don't have to believe in ANY APPARITIONS if you don't want to... yet many Saints witnessed them, and wrote about them. If we accepted all writings by Saints as infallible, we would be REQUIRED to believe in the apparitions at Fatima, at Guadalupe, to St. Dominic, etc.

    Your position would be untenable, and would reduce Catholicism to a schizophrenic morass of totally contradictary "infallible" positions, which it is not.

    The only times mortal people are infallible, aside from the writers of Holy Scripture (along with Apostolic Tradition the ONLY source of Public Revelation... and Public Revelation has been closed since the 90s AD), are when the Church in Council issues a definition closing off a dispute about Tradition or Scripture, and the Pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra to the same end.

    Kirk
     
  20. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "Now, if all these Saints were supposed to be infallible, this would be a major problem, since they all contradicted each other, and in the end, none of the early canons made it, in tact, into the modern Bible. "

    Exactly why they aren't cannonized. Only certain people where like thomas A.

    So what do you think Cannonized means then Kirk, umm..to make close to right, but not right?


     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...