Meat On Lenten Fridays: A Mortal Sin?

by Jimmy Akin on April 2, 2004

in Liturgical Year, Moral Theology

A common question at this time of year is whether or not deliberately violating the law of abstinence is a mortal sin. It is. The relevant law is found in Paul VI’s 1966 apostolic constitution Paenitemini, which provides that:

The time of Lent preserves its penitential character. The days of penitence to be observed under obligation through-out the Church are all Fridays and Ash Wednesday, that is to say the first days of "Grande Quaresima" (Great Lent), according to the diversity of the rite. Their substantial observance binds gravely [Norm II §1, emphasis added].

That the keeping of abstinence (and fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday) is part of the substantial observance of these days is evident from the fact that the second half of Norm II names this as the chief requirement of observing these days:

Apart from the faculties referred to in VI and VIII regarding the manner of fulfilling the precept of penitence on such days, abstinence is to be observed on every Friday which does not fall on a day of obligation, while abstinence and fast are to be observed on Ash Wednesday or, according to local practice, on the first day of ‘Great Lent’ and on Good Friday [Norm II §2, emphasis added].

The faculties mentioned "regarding the manner of fulfilling the precept of penitence on such days" have to do with the ability of pastors to dispense the faithful from the obligation of abstinence and fast or commuting it to something else. If such dispensation or commutation is not obtained then "the manner of fulfilling the precept" is abstinence.

Thus one must substantially observe the law of abstinence on such days, and the obligation to do so is a grave one, meaning that it satisfies the condition of grave matter required for mortal sin. If one knowingly and deliberately fails in this obligation then one has committed mortal sin.

As to the reason for this, the Code of Canon Law notes that:

The divine law binds all the Christian faithful to do penance each in his or her own way. In order for all to be united among themselves by some common observance of penance, however, penitential days are prescribed on which the Christian faithful devote themselves in a special way to prayer, perform works of piety and charity, and deny themselves by fulfilling their own obligations more faithfully and especially by observing fast and abstinence, according to the norm of the following canons [Can.  1249, emphasis added].

It is thus a matter of divine law that the faithful are to do penance (a fact we could have determined from Scripture), and the regulations regarding fast and abstinence are simply the Church’s specification of this divine requirement, made in keeping with Jesus giving the church the power to bind and loose (Matt. 16:18, 18:18).

Comments have been disabled for this post.
Sort: Newest | Oldest

"It also indicates that you really have no knowledge of the true extent of the Pharisaical laws of Jesus' time. They were simply unbelievably numerous, intrusive and difficult. Church law is VERY small potatoes by comparison."
Exactly. (I usually keep some sort of additional devotion on all Fridays, and through Lent specifically so I can be making some sort of observance that I actually *notice*.)
Orthodox Jewish Law: 613 mitzvot that require extraordinary study and devotion to observe, and which impact all areas of life. (And, just try finding a Kosher butcher in Northern California... Most of the Orthodox Jews in town own freezers because they have to buy meat from out-of-town.)
Catholic "Fasting": "Thou shalt eat 'only' one full meal a day and two smaller meals (unless you live in war-torn and/or drought-impacted areas of the undeveloped world, in which case, you'll be lucky to be eating *anything*, kids), to be taken whilst sitting in the comfy chair wearing your fuzzy slippers and watching your favorite TV show. On the day following the "fast", the Archdiocese will distribute free mallomars. Oh, the suffering...

MJG hello. Mary's comments above regarding Petra and Petros are right on the money. When the NT was written in Koine Greek, "Petros" was a masculine play-on-words, referring to the word "Petra", which means rock and is feminine (same in latin-based romance languages: pietra in Italian is "rock" while "Pietro" is a man's name = Peter). But Greek and Latin speakers knew exactly what was being referred to here.

bill192,
The books recognized as inspired Scripture were just that...recognized. In general they were already in use by the church community and were recognized as such.
MJG,
You seem to be unaware of the fact that there was no such uniform recognition of the books of Scripture, particularly those of the New Testament that we acknowledge today.
For example, Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1,2,3 John, Jude and Revelation were not considered canonical (i.e., "recognized").
It wasn't until the 4th century in the meeting of the councils that disputes were resolved and the matter decided which books exactly were to be "recognized" as inspired Scripture.

"it is the commands of any group saying you have to follow their exact law to the t or you'll go to Hell that is in error"
Any group?
What about "He who hears you hears me, and he who hears me hears Him that sent me"?.
Or,
"What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven. What you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven"?
Or,
"...stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
Not to mention 1 Thessalonians 4
"Finally, brothers, we instructed you how to live in order to please God, as in fact you are living. Now we ask you and urge you in the Lord Jesus to do this more and more. For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus... Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit."
The Apostles taught with the authority of Jesus Christ, because He passed this authority on to them (an authority that NO man can merit or claim on his own). They, in turn passed this authority on to those they prepared to receive it;
"Command and teach these things. Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity. Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching. Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you."
Paul also said, "...I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands."
The laying on of hands was the way in which apostolic succession was accomplished. Timothy had authority - Christ's authority - over those he taught because Paul and others passed this authority on to him through the laying on of hands - what we Catholics now call Ordination, or Holy Orders.
Jesus didn't write a book, He founded a Church... a living, visible, universal Church. I obey their instruction for the same reason that I would obey the instruction of Timothy... because I love Jesus Christ and this is what Christ commanded.
Do you maintain that Timothy - because he was not one of the Apostles - did not have this authority?

bill192,
The books recognized as inspired Scripture were just that...recognized. In general they were already in use by the church community and were recognized as such. The procolomation of church councils, particularly the council of Hippo, was just a formal acknowledgement. Because they "chose" them didn't make them inspired. They were recognized because they were inspired.
And the link that was posted above supposedly giving evidence that petra and petros mean the same thing is extremely weak at its very best. Look up a concordance and the dialects they use then take a gander at the various words.
To the other subject,
Abstaining from meats, or whatever a person feels led to give up, or if not particularly led then willing to give up something they find particularly enjoyable, is great. Giving things up to show your dependance on the Lord and acknowledging that He is the center of your life and not some object/food can never be spoken against, atleast not rationally. However, it is the commands of any group saying you have to follow their exact law to the t or you'll go to Hell that is in error. The Lord Jesus Christ fulfilled the law. "Those who worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth."

But don't lead your brother astray!
Actually, Paul said the same thing, but he was telling Jewish Christians to avoid eating 'unclean' meats, in order to avoid scandalizing their fellows. I think you're turning the line on its head.

To eccho Karen's post, I think Catholic Answers definitely needs new blood...and orthdox Catholicism.
To reiterate what Karen says, BASED ENTIRELY ON CANON LAW: Canon 1251
Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.
Why do people here calling themselves Catholic overlook this? Why hasn't Catholic Answers made more of a big deal about this? Is it because of Karl's particular...er....tendencies?
When asked what the church feels about vegetarianism, Karl laughingly dismissed it as new-age nonesense. He simply did not have either the knowledge or the understanding to realize vegetarianism has been part of Christianity since the time of the earliest monastic communities. And fasting practices went beyond simply abstaining from meat, but from ALL dairy and egg as well.

Look to your consciences...

By all means, look to your consciences, and you will not sin in following your conscience. But, at the same time, you do have an obligation to properly inform your conscience, and you may sin in failing to do that.
In other words if you are a Catholic and your conscience tells you to disregard the Church and eat meat on Fridays during Lent, then you will not sin by eating meat on Fridays. But if you are at all culpable for having formed a conscience that tells you to disregard the Church (and note, the real sin is disregarding the Church, not eating meat), then you will have sinned in that regard.
And for what it is worth, obedience is not a scruple.

But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
It's no wonder that people of the Old Testament and the New practiced such things as fasting --
And to think even Our Lord & Saviour did as well!

1 Corinthians 8:
Food Sacrificed to Idols:
"So then, about food sacrificed to idols, We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and there is no God but one…But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
“Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, won’t he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against your brothers in this way…you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.”
Come on guys! Look to your consciences! That's what God gave them for! If you are queasy about eating meat on fridays during Lent, Then DON'T! But if you know that God does not send us to Hell because of what we eat, but if we love each other as Christ would, then go ahead! But don't lead your brother astray! Don't scoff at his scruples just because you think they are silly! "Knowledge puffs up, but Love builds up"

The relevancy was to the oft heard claim that Jesus built his church not on Peter but on Faith.

In case it's not clear, I think that the reason that it was pointed out that 'petra' is a feminine word was to show that it would be inappropriate to call Peter, a man, by a feminine name. So, the fact that faith or destiny can be used as names for women seems irrelevant unless I'm mistaken.

So who did the picking?
1 Peter 2:8 says it was Destiny, another female name.

"I would enjoy some backup for the assertion that petros and petra mean the same thing..."
Mary Kay provided it above, on 12/31/07, at 12:51 PM.

1 Peter 2:8
1 Corinthians 10:4
Romans 9:33

"Petra" is a girl's name.
So is Faith. And upon this girl's name, I will build my church.

typo correction - "I don't hesitate to think that He would .... be present." Obviously meant He would be there. Oops.

bill912 and Mary,
I would enjoy some back up for the ascertion that petros and petra mean the same thing even in the Koine Greek dialect. As of yet I've not found evidence to support your claim. Various lexicons, based on the Greek in the New Testament, consistently and clearly show a difference.
Bill912,
For all who are truly saved our Lord has promised us His Holy Spirit to guide us. For something as important as putting together the inspired works I don't hesistate to think that He would not be present. This picking was done with the "books" already generally accepted by the church, i.e. the body of Christ.(Evidence for Christianity - McDowell. Page 44).

"True, petra is feminine usage. But it also denotes something entirely different from petros."
As Mary Kay pointed out, that difference is found only in the Attic Greek dialect of about 500 BC. In the Koine Greek dialect of the first century AD, petros and petra mean the same thing.
"The exact books that are present were picked because of their authors, subject matter, and consistent portrayal of God."
The question is: Who did the picking and on what authority?

Mary, and may the Lord our God bless you this coming year.
True, petra is feminine usage. But it also denotes something entirely different from petros. If one takes the stance that what was recorded is not exactly what was said/intended, then we do in fact lead into your second post. How do we know that the Bible is actually accurate? Seeing as how omissions, additions, and/or changes to very slight degrees can change the meaning of an entire verse how do we know we got the real mccoy?
Well the people/apostles that the Lord chose to start His church, little "c", revealed to us what they were lead to by the Holy Spirit. The exact books that are present were picked because of their authors, subject matter, and consistent portrayal of God. When it comes down to it faith does admittedly come in. Can we say that God would deny His Holy Spirit in the leading of it's construction? You may think that we can just transpose that exact rational onto the Catholic Church seeing as how many people are under it. But it's the diversions that are the problem and disqualify it. Back where we started.

How can something that spirit breathed be interwoven with the traditions and direction of falable men?
So how can we possibly trust the canon of the Bible? We don't have an inspired table of contents. You accept the traditions and directions of men you call falliable when you accept the Bible.

While I do not personally speak Greek I've asked, and looked, around and the Greek syntax disallows the application of "Pope" on Peter. The words petra and petros don't refer to the same thing. The church was to be built upon Peters statement that Jesus was the Christ.
Except that Jesus did not speak Greek.
He spoke Aramiac.
That is why Peter is sometimes called "Cephas" -- the Aramiac for rock.
True, this was translated into Greek as "Petros" not "Petra" -- but that's because "Petra" is a girl's name.
The rock is Peter.

The expression that "being faithful in little" is going to be different from person to person. ... Do they still get to say that they were faithful in the matter? (if vegetarian)
Yes, it does differ from person to person, but abstaining from meat on Lenten Fridays (and Ash Wednesday) is a minimum. If is already abstaining from meat, then they'd do something in addition. They're still observing the minimum that the Church requires.
Ultimately it's not my, or anyone elses, position to determine how a person should perform penance/abstinence. That's a matter of the heart and it's between that person and God.
That's a basic difference between your understanding, that things are between the person and God, and the Catholic Church, which has the sacraments, grace through a priest or as in marriage.
Still on the law/regulation aspect, your questions sound like "how close to the line can I get before being called out of bounds?" OTOH, I think of Church law/regulations as a support in very much the same way steel girders support a building.
I'll have to come back at a later time for the rest of your post.

MJG, hope you had a blessed Christmas.
I was unable to find anything on the "Council of Elrond." Could you suggest something?
Er, um, actually it was an off-topic reference to Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, a personal favorite long before Peter Jackson thought of it as an action movie. At the Council of Elrond in the first third of the story, Elrond says that he will start the tale though others will finish it. I meant that I would start to answer your question, but since apologetics isn't my strong point - there are others here far better - that they might jump into the discussion.
They might not with the holidays, so I looked up the entry at Catholic.com, specifically
http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp
Karl Keating gives a nice explanation, even if it is mixed in with "Then he said, then I said, then..."
Bottom line, he says that the difference you mention was found only in Attic Greek but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek. Furthermore, he says that Jesus and company spoke in Aramaic and gives examples. It's definitely worth the read.
on to part 2

Mary Kay,
The church that the Lord founded was the body of believers, the body of Christ.
Ephesians 1:22,23 "And hath put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, Which is His body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all."
("things" and "to be" added).
While I do not personally speak Greek I've asked, and looked, around and the Greek syntax disallows the application of "Pope" on Peter. The words petra and petros don't refer to the same thing. The church was to be built upon Peters statement that Jesus was the Christ.
1 Corinthians 3:11 "For other foundation can no man lay that that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." Peter was a pebble that made the statement. The statement was a huge friggin rock/cliff.
The expression that "being faithful in little" is going to be different from person to person. Let's say a persons a vegitarian. Abstaining from meat would mean nothing to them. Do they still get to say that they were faithful in the matter? Ultimately it's not my, or anyone elses, position to determine how a person should perform penance/abstinence. That's a matter of the heart and it's between that person and God.
I was unable to find anything on the "Council of Elrond." Could you suggest something?
Second, it's incorrect to say that there was anything lacking in Christ's redemptive work. This is why He specifically said, "it is finished." John 19:30. Also Hebrews 1:3, 9:26, etc.. What the apostle seems to be stating is that he is receiving the same persecutions that Jesus had. As Paul had not yet been martyred he'd not filled up his own afflictions to par with Christ.
I fail to see how God depends on anyone. He used His foreknowledge and power to select Mary for her purpose. If Mary had said no would that have meant that all of mankind would still be under the law? God could have used someone else but Mary found favor with God. The Bible doesn't say exactly why she found favor with Him but she undoubtedly had a heart for God.
How can something that spirit breathed be interwoven with the traditions and direction of falable men? I would suggest the 2nd Chapter of Colossians. Especially versus 20-22. And we must not forget, "As it is written there is none righteous, no, not one." Romans 3:10.
Also verse 20 seems quite pertinent. "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin." ("is" added).
David B.,
We are supposed to listen to and obey those individuals who are more mature in Christ than ourselves. We have authorities for a reason. However, when those individuals direct us contrary to the Lord and His Word, even if they hold some religious title, we are not obligated to listen to them nor should we. "To err is human..." (I know, I know, that's not in the Bible.) Also, as you probably guessed, I don't ascribe to the apostolic succession in the sense used today. Claiming that anyman receives a gift of infallability when he gets a new title is tough to swallow and unbiblical. I could refer to Romans 3:10 again.

Saint Paul, et al, commanded those to whom they wrote to obey their commandments. That was not a violation of God's authority, because they taught at the command of God. The same applies to those who are the successors of the Apostles.

MJG, glad you returned.
Fasting, praying, and spiritual growth in general is commanded by God. It's the requirement of an institution that a certain tradition be followed or else you go to hell that is the problem and unbiblical.
Yes, abstaining from meat is a tradtion, little "t" that the Church requires. As stated several times above (this thread is incredibly long), the crucial thing is obedience to the authority of the Church, which is the church Jesus founded (Mt 16:18).
You said just now that "spiritual growth in general is commanded by God." If someone has difficulty with the small matter of Lenten Friday abstinence, how can God trust him with larger matters? See Luke 16:1o (and 11): "He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much."
Your response to Bill requires a longer response which I'll start but others may finish. (Council of Elrond, anyone?)
Two responses occur to me. To take your interpretation that the Word of God is unable to accomplish its work and is dependent on others, then if so, it's because God planned it that way. God does depend on us to fulfill His plan. He depended on Mary saying Yes, just as He depends on us to do our part. See Colossians 1:24: "in filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions."
The second response is that even the Trinity - Father, Son, Spirit - are a community, interdependent. You don't have one without the other two. In a similar way, Scripture, Tradition and the Magesterium are interwoven.

The Others,
1 Timothy 4:1-3
"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be recieved with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."
"and commanding" is in italics, so was added for "clarification," but it doesn't change the message.
Abstaining from certain things, even meat, as a voluntary reaction to the grace of God is good. Fasting, praying, and spiritual growth in general is commanded by God. It's the requirement of an institution that a certain tradition be followed or else you go to hell that is the problem and unbiblical.
Bill912
There are many doctrines come out of the Vatican that I take issue with. I guess I'll start with article 95, on page 29, of the Catechism of the Catholoic Church. "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magesterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others." This was a quote from a previous version, I suppose, and the footnote was: DV 10 § 3.
The Word of God, it seems to imply, is unable to accomplish it's work, is powerless, and dependent on the leaders of the Catholic Church and, specifically, the Pope???

"I sometimes get angry when reading about Catholic doctrine."
What doctrine(s) are you angry about?

MJG,
The chapter and verse escape me, but I'm sure you remember when Jesus' followers were rebuked for not fasting, when John's followers did. Jesus said that, while the 'Bride Groom' is here, there is no fasting. He then went on to say that the time for fasting would come after the Groom had gone. This is just one biblical example which supports abstinance from certain foods.
Several of the reasons Catholics fast from meat on friday are: in order to remind themselves of the shortness of life and of the importance of the spiritual life over the material, as a reminder of their dependence upon God, and as a means of removing attachment to worldly pleasures.

Hello again. I would like to apologize for my previous post. I sometimes get angry when reading about the Catholic doctrine. It was quite an ungodly way to begin and I'm sorry.
I do however reassert the only sentence worth keeping, the last one. How can the Vatican advocate abstaining from meat as MANDATORY in light of 1 Timothy 4:3? We know from Peters trip to Cornelius that meat is not "unclean" or "common." And if it's mandatory it would seem to lose any significance.

Airy generalities don't require thinking, either, which is awfully strenuous.

Care to argue an actual example, MJG?
Tim, of course he can't. He's a drive-by and besides, airy generalities are much more fun because he can't be pinned down.

MJG: Me Jerky (anti-Catholic) Guy.
I couldn't resist.

The general interpretation is quite comical seeing as how I've never seen a gate try to attack someone as they're walking their dog. (Yes, I see the intended meaning).
First you say that we Catholics misinterpret the scriptures, then you say that you see the intended meaning. Freudian slip?
Jesus said the Gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church (not his fellowship, or community). You're calling Him a liar.

"Judging from history and the teachings found in the catechism I feel it's safe to say that the gates of hell have not overcome the catholic church. The organization has walked right through on their own."
Care to argue an actual example, MJG? Are you a serious anti-Catholic bigot or are you just a drive-by anti-Catholic bigot? Stand and deliver, man!

Judging from history and the teachings found in the catechism I feel it's safe to say that the gates of hell have not overcome the catholic church. The organization has walked right through on their own. The general interpretation is quite comical seeing as how I've never seen a gate try to attack someone as they're walking their dog. (Yes, I see the intended meaning). That however is not my point.
1 Timothy 4:3 seems very interesting in light of the doctrines presented.

For DLK:
Way back when (Feb 25, 2007 7:09:43 PM), you posted:
"As a Catholic, I find it disturbing that not observing Friday abstinence is considered a mortal sin because it shows disobedience to Church authority. The Pope is only infallible in matters of dogma, and lenten fasting is not a dogmatic teaching. It is a tradition which has evolved over hundreds of years."
You have just confused the difference between MORTAL SIN and HERESY. (ALternatively, you belive the only mortal sin IS heresy. . . )
Opposing DOGMA (i.e., those beliefs that separate "Catholics" from "Everyone else") is HERESY. Heresy is a mortal sin -- but far from the ONLY mortal sin. Heresy is also an automatic schism. ("If you don't believe what the rest of us believe is CORE to our faith, you ain't one of us."
Refusing to believe in Lenten fasting, abstinence, and the permutations thereof ARE NOT "heresy" -- this is NOT a rejection of "dogma".
Obstinate temporal rebellion against the DISCIPLINE of the Church is ALSO a mortal sin. Taken far enough, it is SCHISM. (It is possible to be schismatic and NOT heretical. Witness the Orthodox/Catholic divide.) Choosing to be schismatic is ALSO a mortal sin -- just a different one.
Blowing off your Lenten fasting, abstinence, etc., AS REQUIRED BY CANON AUTHORITY, is a temporal rebellion againt Church authority. It is a (albeit MARGINALLY) schismatic act, in that you don't want to play by the same rules (i.e., obey the Church) the rest of us do. (And the nature of the act, in an of itself, may be a mortal sin -- but is still a far cry from a full break with teh Church that most people identify as a schism. "Schimatic act" does not automatically equal "schism" -- but you're on the first step of the path to schism.)

You're welcome to disagree all you want.

I disagree that you don't have to read the above texts.
If you serve meat substitutes, good for you!

I don't need to read any of that. When I serve dinners on Friday, everyone eats what's served. No one abstains from anything. Unless they don't like my meat substitutes.

Martha,
Go and read the Apostolic Constitutions.
Also read the Desert Fathers.

Sure you abstain. As you substitute meat with something else.

Like I said, it's not fasting.
It's substitution. They're still eating, just not meat. Instead of meat, some might eat fish, some eat junk food.

"With no meat on Fridays, a good thing has been replaced with junk food in many people's diet. "
But abstaining from meat doesn't force anyone to eat junk food.
"It's not fasting. It's substitution."
It isn't fasting. It's abstaining.

Was it the free choice of the people to forbid eating meat?
It may very well have been. People were much more pious after Ephesus.

Meat was a good thing. With no meat on Fridays, a good thing has been replaced with junk food in many people's diet. It's not fasting. It's substitution.

We abstain from meat because (among other reasons) we rely mainly on meat for sustainance
Junk food has replaced meat. You must keep up.

Previous post:

Next post: