Meat on Catholic Friday, JW equivalent?

by Fatfreek 18 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  poppers

  "Was meat on Fridays really a mortal sin? I'd have it pegged as one of the lesser sins."
  If memory serves me correctly it wasn't considered a mortal sin, but it sure put the fear into you if you did eat meat (so, maybe it WAS). There was a lot of guilt intilled into us catholics, but we pretty much took it as part of how things are, that guilt is "normal" somehow and so not to be questioned. Other things I remember feeling guilty about: not fasting for the prescribed time before communion, not going to confession regularly, not receiving communion, receiving communion without going to confession within a fairly recent time, leaving mass a bit early (a little guilt), leaving mass before communion (huge guilt), entering another church which wasn't catholic (this was especially so when a kid), not crossing yourself with holy water while entering/leaving the church. I am sure I could come up with more if I think about it.
• 

  Fatfreek

  Katie and Jwexelder, no sex or booze just before? Have never heard of such. Hmmm ... was that a Great Britain thing or what?
  Serendipity -- Also, alternative service became acceptable in the 90's.
  Yes, a great flip-flop. Terry spent some 3 years behind bars for that in the 60's. We should ask him if he ever got a letter of apology from the elders or the GB. I suspect we all know the answer to that one.

  Stephanus, whether mortal or venial is a good question. Worldly Andre sounds as if he has first hand knowledge of that. Here's what a Catholic Wiki entry says, "...As a consequence, the law of abstinence embodies a serious obligation whose transgression, objectively considered, ordinarily involves a mortal sin."

  Fats
• 

  Bonnie_Clyde

  Awake 1970 4/22 pp 8-10 - I pulled this off the WT CD Rom. Found the actual Awake volume - Please read the last paragraph. A woman on page 9 is in deep thought and asking the question, "What will happen to those sent to hell for eating meat on Friday?" I remember laughing about this when I read the article back in 1970. Now we are being laughed at

  Should Meat Be Eaten on Friday?

  FOR centuries Catholics abstained from eating meat on Fridays. It was a Church law. Many sincerely believed it was a law of Almighty God. But now this has changed.

  The fact is that the meatless-Friday rule was made an obligation only some 1,100 years ago. Pope Nicholas I (858-867) was the one who put it into effect. And how vital was it considered that Catholics abide by this rule?

  A publication that bears the Catholic imprimatur, indicating approval, states: “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.” It adds: The “Church says that if a man dies in unrepented mortal sin, he will go to hell.”—Radio Replies, Rumble and Carty (1938).

  Thus the devout carefully avoided eating meat on Fridays. They sincerely believed that failure to obey could lead to their eternal punishment in a fiery hell.

  But then, early in 1966, Pope Paul VI authorized local Church officials to modify this abstinence requirement in their countries as they saw fit. The pope was acting in line with recommendations made at the recently completed Second Vatican Council. Thus, in one country after another, meatless Fridays were virtually abolished—in France, Canada, Italy, Mexico, the United States, and so on.

  The Effect

  The effect upon many devout Catholics has been devastating. “All these years I thought it was a sin to eat meat,” explained a housewife in the midwestern United States. “Now I suddenly find out it isn’t a sin. That’s hard to understand.”

  If you are a Catholic, can you understand how a practice that was considered by the Church a “mortal sin” can suddenly be approved? if it was a sin five years ago, why is it not today? Many Catholics cannot understand.

  When a woman in Canada was asked how she felt about the changes in her church, she replied: “I don’t know. Maybe you can tell me. What are they going to do with all those people sent to hell for eating meat on Friday?”

  Not just a few Catholics have asked such questions. The change in teaching has shaken their confidence in the Church. Would you not feel the same way if what you had always been taught to be vital for salvation was suddenly considered unnecessary? Would you not be inclined to question other teachings of your church also?

  The Catholic Church, however, has not completely changed its position on Friday meat abstinence. Even now Catholics are still required to abstain from eating meat on “Good Friday.” Also, in some places they must not eat meat on Fridays during the Lenten season.

  But why is it considered wrong to eat meat on “Good Friday,” but permissible to do so on other Fridays of the year? It has caused thinking persons to wonder.

  Many persons have begun to ask questions regarding the basis for this teaching, as well as about other Church teachings. And what especially disturbs them is that they have not received satisfying answers.

  What Becomes Evident

  The inability of the Church to explain its position Scripturally makes evident an important fact: The Catholic Church has not based its teachings upon what God’s Word says. Rather, it has founded many of its beliefs and practices on the unstable traditions of men.

  This is obviously true with regard to Friday meat abstinence. For, look as you may, nowhere in the Bible will you find that Christians were ever instructed to refrain from eating meat on any Friday of the year, or on any other day. It is not a requirement of God. In fact, the Catholic edition of the Revised Standard Version Bible says that enjoining or commanding “abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving” is an evidence of a departure from the faith.—1 Tim. 4:1-4.

  Thus, many truth-seekers are having their eyes opened to see that the Catholic Church has not been holding strictly to God’s Word. And they are wondering whether any religion that does not do so is worthy of their confidence and support.

  But there are other changes that are also disturbing people today.

  [Picture on page 9]

  What will happen to those sent to hell for eating meat on Friday?
• 

  HappyDad

  I particularly like these three paragraphs from that 1970 Awake.

  The inability of the Church WT Society to explain its position Scripturally makes evident an important fact: The Catholic Church WT Society has not based its teachings upon what God’s Word says. Rather, it has founded many of its beliefs and practices on the unstable traditions of men. Rutherford, Franz, and others of their GB.

  Thus, many truth-seekers are having their eyes opened to see that the Catholic Church WT Society has not been holding strictly to God’s Word. And they are wondering whether any religion that does not do so is worthy of their confidence and support.

  But there are other changes that are also disturbing people today.

  I'm sure we could come up with a few teachings of the WT Society to take the place of the Catholic tradition of not eating meat.

  HappyDad
• 

  parakeet

  ***These things, and more, used to bother me when I'd go to the door, fearing that someone would rub my nose in our flip-flops***
  One of the few advantages of being a JW (though they don't see it as an advantage) is that the world-at-large couldn't care less about the unstable doctrines of a small, unpopular religion. JWs always feel far more important than they really are, but there actual insignificance is sometimes a protection to them; otherwise, their current troubles with pedophiles, blood transfusion court cases, and shunning practices would be much more visible in the media.
• 

  Fatfreek

  Great find, Bonnie_C.

  Appropriate spin, there, HappyDad.

  Fats
• 

  BluesBrother

  Awake 1970 April 22nd

  Not just a few Catholics have asked such questions. The change in teaching has shaken their confidence in the Church. Would you not feel the same way if what you had always been taught to be vital for salvation was suddenly considered unnecessary? Would you not be inclined to question other teachings of your church also?

  Watchtower 2006 July 15th

  The Creator progressively reveals the truth to his people . Hence our understanding of the Scriptures is bound to be refined fron time to time. The vast majority of Jehovah's people rejoice over such refinements . A few become "righteous overmuch" and resent the changes.Pride may play a role and some fall into the trap of independant thinking.

  Spot the difference??
• 

  Fatfreek

  Spot the difference?? -- BluesBrother

  Sure do. In 36 years they've now got both bases covered.

  Fats
• 

  heathen

  It's unbelievable that catholics can be so blind . Worried about meat on friday , jeezus that amounts to nothing after looking at all the insane crap that church has done in their long history of fraud . They even used to make it illegal for people to have their own bible , it was against church law to question any teaching whatsoever and people were imprisoned over it during the time the church ruled in europe . They legalized torture of homosexuals . Anybody that reads the bible knows there is no immaculate conception , Mary is not a diety of any kind and not to be prayed to . This list could go on ....................................... That is a good catch tho , the WTBTS critique of changing dogma but then does it all the time themselves stating they alone have the right to do it under terms of "new light" but then even if the "new light" is not shining brightly enough will dig up the old light ............ ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH