Friday Abstinence

I am heartened by the enlightenment of the obligation of Friday penitential practice.

However, I confess I am confused by the Bishop's statement. He says that he is resuming year-round abstinence, but "the practice will not be a requirement of law." So, in what way is he "resuming" it?

Moreover, he rightly points out that the practice was never really eliminated in canon law, as is commonly thought. (see canons 1250-53) Rather, the option to do some other act of penance in substitute of abstaining from meat was allowed. So, again, if meatless Fridays "will not be a requirement of law" and "failing to keep it will not constitute a sin," such that some other act of penance will suffice, how is he changing what is supposed to be the current disciplinary practice? (even if observed by few)

I am glad that the Bishop is highlighting the need for a year-round penitential practice, but it sounds like he is "restoring" what is already in place (even if no one realizes it).

I still remember with horror that grim Friday afternoon when halfway through a hamburger snack, I realizedd it was Friday and I had committed a MORTAL SIN and was HELL-BOUND. I had enough sense to finish the sandwich and confess the foul deed to Father Noey, but it has troubled me ever since.

Making church attendance and pre-communion fasts matters of MORTAL SIN has had an on-going effect. I can't tell you how many churches I've attended where there is a substantial inflow after the Creed and before the Offertory, and an equal if not greater outflow immediately after Communion. Sunday Mass is primarily a matter of not committing a MORTAL SIN - not exactly an adequate theology of worship, but nonetheless effective. (I know Protestant Pastors who ruefully and enviously think there ought to be the MORTAL SIN hammer in their churches - they believe they would have greater attendance on Sunday.)

I commend the Bishop for treating the people of his diocese as thoughtful adults. Now if we could only do something about the sacrament of reconciliation (or Penance as we knew it in the dear dim days beyond recall.)

Amy has observed in the past that the changing of discipline on Friday fasting helped to pave the way for dissent from Humanae Vitae, because people could not make the distinction between imposed disciplines that could be changed and unchangeable doctrines revealed by canon law. I wonder precisely why, though. It's my impression that laws on fasting have varied quite a bit in Church history.

For example, in my own research I once encountered the following in an 1833 article in an anti-Catholic paper:

"Dr. Brownlee states, in his last 'Letter to the Roman Catholic Church,' that Bishop England who lately returned from Rome, has 'brought a bull extraordinary from the Pope,' in which the Papists in the United States, are permitted to 'eat beef, pork, and mutton, on Saturdays.' What was before wrong will, therefore, become right; and so long as the Pope of Rome pleases, a portion of our citizens may eat meat."

From this we can infer three things I did not know before:

1. There was a time when one was supposed to abstain from meat on Saturday.

2. The Holy See seems to have given out dispensations from the ban pretty blithely (as least as of the nineteenth century).

3. Even though this anti-Catholic paper tried to make hay of the issue, and on the same grounds as 1960s liberals, no one particularly cared and the sometime law left no cultural memory whatsoever.

I know at other times (as still among the Orthodox) there was a complete ban on eating meat in Lent (hence "Carnival," "farewell to meat." Again, this vanished from canon law at some point and no one really cared, as far as I know. (I defer to experts.) Even other laws that lasted into the 1960s, such as Ember Days, seem to have caused no impact when they were abolished.

So what was it about this particular law that made people regard it as inviolable and be shocked when it was abolished? It must have been the fortress or ghetto mentality of the 1950s giving way to the radical spirit of the 1960s, but can anyone who was there elaborate?

I agree - if you look at even the broader history of the fasting discipline in the West, it changes constantly from the early Middle Ages on. Constantly.

>As an Orthodox, it isn't something that we have lost, but I am >confused as in our tradition, there are times that we are forbidden >to fast, and Bright Friday (the Friday after Pascha) is one of them ->can you speak to that, Amy?

There are certain days when it would be inappropriate to fast or abstain from meat - Sundays and Solemnities. All of the days of the Easter Octave are Solemnities so fasting and abstinence are not appropriate, even for Easter Friday. The same would apply when a holy day such as All Saints, the Assumption, or other Solemnities fall on a Friday. Penitential observances should not be practiced on these days even during Lent.

I started meatless Fridays after a friend did. Dinners at home are that way and my lunch and breakfast. The kids can have meat for lunch - I'm still thinking about that one.

But when we've been at someone else's house we eat what they serve us, which is usually meat (except that friend). If it were a Lentan Friday, and therefore a requirement, I'd mention it. But during Ordinary time, I appreciate their hospitality and go meatless for another meal because it's a private matter, like saying the rosary.

We've done this for a couple of years.

"your name,"

Yes, I think it would certainly simplify things if we made our practice "No meat on Fridays except when we are guests."