Post by Pacelli on Dec 27, 2023 10:09:28 GMT -5
There is so much confusion and lack of information on the fasting laws, at least outside of the United States, that I have decided to do a post on this to present accurate information. For Catholics living in the U.S., it's not difficult, just rely on the 1956 rules set by the bishops. It's different in other countries and dioceses, and this post will get into why that is.
Before posting sources, I will explain how this all came to be.
1. In 1941, due to the hardships of the war, Pope Pius XII gave all of the world's bishops the power to dispense from all fasting and abstinence laws in their dioceses with the exceptions of Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.
2. After the war ended, in 1946, Pius XII extended this authority to the bishops due to the continuing post war hardships faced throughout the world.
3. In 1949, Pius XII partially restored the older rules, allowing bishops to only dispense some portions of the fasting and abstinence rules, but still allowing bishops to dispense from some of the rules. This 1949 decree was put in force, not for a specific timeframe, but ongoing until a pope would change it again. This was the last significant change to the fasting and abstinence laws and is the basis for the practices of all Catholics that reject Paul VI and his successors or at least refuse to obey them.
4. John XXIII did not modify the 1949 decree. He did make one small change to the law, in that he allowed Catholics to substitute the Vigil of Christmas fast and abstinence on December 23rd rather than on the 24th.
5. So, the key to understanding the fasting and abstinence laws are for the most part to look at the decisions of the bishops, rather than Rome. Since the 1949 decree authorized bishops to dispense from some of the laws, both fasting and abstinence , the rules are not uniform throughout the Church. Bishops, did however seek to set uniform standards in their respective countries, and made rules for their own countries approved by all bishops of that country.
6. The 1949 of Pius XII decree, due to the post war improvement, restored part of the laws, and mandated that the following that could no longer be dispensed by the local bishops:
1. Friday abstinence
2. Combined fast and abstinence for Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, the Vigil of the Assumption of Our Lady, and Christmas.
The bishops continued to be free to dispense from any other part of the fast and abstinence and they did do so, and differently than each other, so there are different rules spending on which country or diocese one lives in.
This 1949 decree of Pius XII remains the last law regulating the universal fast and abstinence. Even if one rejects the legitimacy of John XXIII, or at a minimum, considers it an open question, as I do, but accepts that his laws would be supplied if he wasn't pope, as they were at a minimum universally and peacefully accepted, and would have been supplied due to common error, (if he wasn't pope), then there was only one very small change anyway, which was mentioned above. John XXIII never revoked or modified the 1949 decree of Pius XII.
7. So, now that the facts have been presented, we now come to the area of opinion. In my opinion, as there was and is no case to be made against the bishops for the charge of heresy, until the later years of the Council, 1964 and 1965 when things started to spin out of control, and Lumen Gentium was approved (1964), followed by the other significant doctrinally problematic documents in 1965, there was peaceful submission of of Catholics to their ordinaries in their respective dioceses, and no reason, as of yet to resist either Rome or one's local ordinary in order to preserve one's Faith. There has never been a case made against the bishops of the world during this time period of John XXIII's reign, proving them to be public heretics, and therefore having lost their offices during this time. None had signed any document of Vatican II during this period, so even that could not be used against them yet. Therefore, in my opinion, unless the contrary can be proved, not just asserted, I believe that the local dispensations of the bishops during the John XXIII era are safe to follow and in my opinion, are the current laws.
Before posting sources, I will explain how this all came to be.
1. In 1941, due to the hardships of the war, Pope Pius XII gave all of the world's bishops the power to dispense from all fasting and abstinence laws in their dioceses with the exceptions of Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.
2. After the war ended, in 1946, Pius XII extended this authority to the bishops due to the continuing post war hardships faced throughout the world.
3. In 1949, Pius XII partially restored the older rules, allowing bishops to only dispense some portions of the fasting and abstinence rules, but still allowing bishops to dispense from some of the rules. This 1949 decree was put in force, not for a specific timeframe, but ongoing until a pope would change it again. This was the last significant change to the fasting and abstinence laws and is the basis for the practices of all Catholics that reject Paul VI and his successors or at least refuse to obey them.
4. John XXIII did not modify the 1949 decree. He did make one small change to the law, in that he allowed Catholics to substitute the Vigil of Christmas fast and abstinence on December 23rd rather than on the 24th.
5. So, the key to understanding the fasting and abstinence laws are for the most part to look at the decisions of the bishops, rather than Rome. Since the 1949 decree authorized bishops to dispense from some of the laws, both fasting and abstinence , the rules are not uniform throughout the Church. Bishops, did however seek to set uniform standards in their respective countries, and made rules for their own countries approved by all bishops of that country.
6. The 1949 of Pius XII decree, due to the post war improvement, restored part of the laws, and mandated that the following that could no longer be dispensed by the local bishops:
1. Friday abstinence
2. Combined fast and abstinence for Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, the Vigil of the Assumption of Our Lady, and Christmas.
The bishops continued to be free to dispense from any other part of the fast and abstinence and they did do so, and differently than each other, so there are different rules spending on which country or diocese one lives in.
This 1949 decree of Pius XII remains the last law regulating the universal fast and abstinence. Even if one rejects the legitimacy of John XXIII, or at a minimum, considers it an open question, as I do, but accepts that his laws would be supplied if he wasn't pope, as they were at a minimum universally and peacefully accepted, and would have been supplied due to common error, (if he wasn't pope), then there was only one very small change anyway, which was mentioned above. John XXIII never revoked or modified the 1949 decree of Pius XII.
7. So, now that the facts have been presented, we now come to the area of opinion. In my opinion, as there was and is no case to be made against the bishops for the charge of heresy, until the later years of the Council, 1964 and 1965 when things started to spin out of control, and Lumen Gentium was approved (1964), followed by the other significant doctrinally problematic documents in 1965, there was peaceful submission of of Catholics to their ordinaries in their respective dioceses, and no reason, as of yet to resist either Rome or one's local ordinary in order to preserve one's Faith. There has never been a case made against the bishops of the world during this time period of John XXIII's reign, proving them to be public heretics, and therefore having lost their offices during this time. None had signed any document of Vatican II during this period, so even that could not be used against them yet. Therefore, in my opinion, unless the contrary can be proved, not just asserted, I believe that the local dispensations of the bishops during the John XXIII era are safe to follow and in my opinion, are the current laws.