|
Post by Didymus on Dec 23, 2023 10:30:28 GMT -5
Does anyone know if there is a document prior to the CVII of the Church where it is stated that in certain circumstances where one cannot avoid eating meat (due to scandal or contempt, etc. at an invitation - leaving aside the reasons such as illness etc.) on Fridays it can be replaced by some pious act? I found this pastoral letter from Chile at the time of Paul VI when he changed the laws of fasting and abstinence, this pastoral letter is addressed to all the faithful of Chile, signed by Cardinal Silva Henríquez who was made cardinal by John XXIII and is signed by all the Diocesan Bishops and Archbishops of Chile at that time in 1966, some of them were bishops created by Pius XII such as Monsignor Francisco Valdes who has also signed this pastoral letter. Will this document have any jurisdictional weight under common error? Is it possible to say that if it was accepted by all these legitimate successors of the apostles, it is because they really did not see substantial harm in this and therefore it would be legal to follow it? QUOTE: DIAS DE PENITENCIA VOLUNTARIOS (Page 6/8)
7) Every Friday of the year, although they are not liturgically called "penitential days", it is recommended to do penance in memory of the Passion of Christ and in reparation for the sins with which God is offended. In this way, the faithful throughout the year will offer the Lord special works of piety or charity that will enrich their souls. Thus the Christian will be like the good tree that produces good fruit (Matthew 7-17).
8) The voluntary practices of penance for these days are They will be able to choose between the different good works indicated at number 4'.Original : obtienearchivo.bcn.cl/obtieneimagen?id=documentos/10221.1/68791/1/273482.pdfwww.iglesia.cl/detalle_documento.php?id=974
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 23, 2023 15:53:01 GMT -5
Does anyone know if there is a document prior to the CVII of the Church where it is stated that in certain circumstances where one cannot avoid eating meat (due to scandal or contempt, etc. at an invitation - leaving aside the reasons such as illness etc.) on Fridays it can be replaced by some pious act? I found this pastoral letter from Chile at the time of Paul VI when he changed the laws of fasting and abstinence, this pastoral letter is addressed to all the faithful of Chile, signed by Cardinal Silva Henríquez who was made cardinal by John XXIII and is signed by all the Diocesan Bishops and Archbishops of Chile at that time in 1966, some of them were bishops created by Pius XII such as Monsignor Francisco Valdes who has also signed this pastoral letter. Will this document have any jurisdictional weight under common error? Is it possible to say that if it was accepted by all these legitimate successors of the apostles, it is because they really did not see substantial harm in this and therefore it would be legal to follow it? QUOTE: DIAS DE PENITENCIA VOLUNTARIOS (Page 6/8)
7) Every Friday of the year, although they are not liturgically called "penitential days", it is recommended to do penance in memory of the Passion of Christ and in reparation for the sins with which God is offended. In this way, the faithful throughout the year will offer the Lord special works of piety or charity that will enrich their souls. Thus the Christian will be like the good tree that produces good fruit (Matthew 7-17).
8) The voluntary practices of penance for these days are They will be able to choose between the different good works indicated at number 4'.Original : obtienearchivo.bcn.cl/obtieneimagen?id=documentos/10221.1/68791/1/273482.pdfwww.iglesia.cl/detalle_documento.php?id=974Do you know what the fast and abstinence laws were in Chile prior to Paul VI? Pope Pius XII gave the bishops throughout the world the power to dispense from most of the fasting and abstinence rules in 1949. This decree was not touched by John XXIII, so in my opinion, I think following the laws until the death of John XXIII are safe to follow. In the U.S., the bishops restored the pre-war rules, but in Canada and I believe England, the bishops took every liberty they could authorized by Pius XII to scale down the fast and abstinence as far as possible. You may have to go to a university library to research this to figure it out.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Dec 23, 2023 18:57:20 GMT -5
No Catholic can eat meat on Fridays except on special feast days that happen to fall on friday.To believe other wise is to assert that something that was deemed mortal sin...punished possibly by damnation if not confessed...can somehow be changed. Think about it conceivably there are souls in hell for it.
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Dec 23, 2023 20:24:11 GMT -5
No Catholic can eat meat on Fridays except on special feast days that happen to fall on friday.To believe other wise is to assert that something that was deemed mortal sin...punished possibly by damnation if not confessed...can somehow be changed. Think about it conceivably there are souls in hell for it. Yes, I am not saying that fasting should be abandoned, my question is directly addressed. Are there certain situations that may exempt meat on Fridays (disciplinary law) due to a higher law such as charity to one's neighbor? For example: if you are visiting a loved one's house and they offer you meat and you know that refusing could bring contempt or scandal to the host who has considered you a special invitation to you, isn't charity what reigns here? I read it somewhere but I don't remember where and I don't know if it was some ecclesiastical writing, maybe it was just a blog or some comment from a priest, where it was mentioned a long time ago that in certain situations It is lawful out of charity towards one's neighbor or because could cause scandal eating meat on a Friday if there is no other option or way to avoid it. I'm not sure where I read it, which is why I'm asking if there is any writing from the Church about this. On the other hand, it also makes me think that although I doubt Paul VI, there were many successors of the apostles who approved these modifications, wouldn't there be a kind of common error in all this? I know that a Pope can change the laws of fasting and abstinence, but as I do not intend to defend the legitimacy of Paul VI, but rather it was accepted by the diocesan bishops and azobishops who came from the time of John XXIII and Pius. XII, couldn't I be approached under the point of "common error" for "common good"?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Dec 23, 2023 22:08:20 GMT -5
not fasting..abstinence...fasting is much less rigid
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Dec 23, 2023 22:09:48 GMT -5
Of course there are exceptional circumstances. But that doesnt change the rule.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 24, 2023 6:27:38 GMT -5
I looked again at the 1949 decree of Pius XII. The pope restored some of the pre-.war rules, while allowing others to be dispensed by bishops for their dioceses. The Friday abstinence again became obligatory for all Catholics in 1949. The Friday abstinence was one of the those laws that were universally restored and bishops could not dispense with it. I will post the canonical commentary soon.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Dec 24, 2023 7:55:45 GMT -5
yes and the differences between fasting rules and abstinence are important to point out.
|
|