Shane,
You are hiding in logic-speak because history detail totally refutes you.
You wrote: "Chattle slavery is what the Church condemns as intrinsically evil.."
Now here is God writing...not Shane...and in the Catholic NAB Bible (don't retranslate it for me...I groan at the internet trick of the amateur linguists...chattel means property and the sense is like the word...chattel)..Leviticus 25:45-46...God is speaking to the Jews...
" You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves you may own as chattels,
46
and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves.."
________________________________________________
waiter...check please....lol
_________________________________________________
Shane, your mistake is just what I noted. One Pope out of 265 Popes condemns slavery as intrinsically evil in the ordinary magisterium and you call it Church Teaching without ever using your own brain to see if he might have overstepped in his late years... and you are prepared to throw God Himself and His estimation of slavery overboard. The Prots are not 100% wrong when they fault us for Pope worship. You just did it.
Your thoughts on torture and saving Pope Leo X's reputation from an obvious cruel belief is absolutely the same syndrome.
I think you are important to the Church but you will spoil it if you think flattering Her when She really needs the opposite from you is the thing to do. Paul confronted Peter in Galatians and Peter grew....the Church now has no one with Paul's truthfulness.
The list of bulls against slavery occured over a time span that included 44 Popes but only about 7 of them denounced slavery of sorts....one was against slavery in the Canaries but only of baptized natives....the next one by Paul III was against the enslavement of the caribbean natives but not against that of blacks....another was against the trade but not against the domestic slavery of blacks boprn to slave mothers and held by religious orders into the 19th century with Bishop England who knew the Pope writing for domestic slavery after the bull and not being gainsaid by the Pope...the most complete one was finally at the end of the 19th century by a Pope...Leo XIII this time... who claimed that the Church was the great liberator from slavery and he gave a papal list which left out the six Popes from 1452 til 1511 who literally turbocharged the slavery by Spain and Portugal that involved millions and you can easily research the first words of that chain by going to Romanus Pontifex on line by Pope Nicholas V and go to the middle of the 4th paragraph. In the OT flattery was a sin. Why does no one say that anymore? Because Church speak is floating in it.

Mr. Bannon,
Thanks for your reply. I appreciate the dialogue. As far as your actual comments are concerned, I can't but disagree with the assertion that the sorts of arguments I put forth (whether put forth by myself, modern Catholic apologetics, or any person, group, or movement) stretch the truth, twist words, or in any other way do anything at all other than make the necessary distinctions to properly understand historical events or statements, or Church teaching.
Words and phrases have a wide range different meanings, and when one uses them, he intends to convey a particular concept. Now if in reading his words, one understands from them a different concept from that which he intended, then that understanding is mistaken, has nothing whatever to do with the statement itself, and it is a demand of justice and of knowledge that the error be corrected.
And so for example when Jesus in one citation from the Gospel condemns judgment and in another commands it, it is necessary to properly distinguish his meaning. In the case of this example, it can in some cases be understood properly by returning to the original Greek (in which modern translations render any of 5 different words as "judge" when in fact each had a distinct meaning) and in others by examining the context, and ultimately seeking the authority of the Church.
In the same way, when the Third Lateran Council uses the term "slave," it is critical to understand what is meant by this when there are a number of social constructs denoted by the term. There is nothing casuistic about this. Chattle slavery and penal slavery are two entirely different things, and it would be at best intellectually ignorant and at worst intellectually dishonest for one to deny that the usage in Lateran III, or in any other source up until the past few centuries, can intend to convey one of these without the other.
In fact, your statement that "so slavery like drinking can be evil due to context and this is not the area of intrinsic evil as in the case of beastiality and sodomy which God never permits to the Jews" is by the very definition casuistic. This is an assertion that slavery's morality must be judged in individual cases, not being intrinsically evil but depending upon the context. In fact, this directly contradicts the teaching of Church which declares slavery to be intrinsically evil. There is, of course, no contradiction when the disparate natures of chattle slavery and penal slavery are considered. Chattle slavery is what the Church condemns as intrinsically evil; penal slavery (and other forms such as serfdom) has been permitted by the Church.
The casuistry in this argument is even more apparent in the comparison to over-drinking, wherein it is explicitly asserted that over-drinking is not intrinsically evil, but is only so by context (which is the very definition of casiusm). Proverbs is of the literary style of wisdom literature; it contains a series of maxims often expressed by means of exageration or framing concepts between two extremes. The greater importance of this statement is that to interpret the quotation given as permitting drinking to excess in times of great sadness exhibits a rigid reading of Scripture which would be the sort of thing expected to be defended by or employed in the use of "Jesuitical casuistry".
Returning to Leo's condemnation, is it not undeniable that one may use the phrase "against the will of God" in either of two ways? Does not one man say, "It is against the will of God" to indicate that an act is against the Divine law, and another man utters the same phrase to express that an otherwise moral act is against God's will in this case? Cannot the same man do as much, as if the Holy Father were to both say "It is against the will of God to murder," and also "it is against the will of God that I travel to France this summer?" In the former case, he declares that murder violates the Commandment, and in the latter, that God does not wish that an otherwise acceptable pilgrimmage be made.
Clearly, this distinction is real and absolutely necessary for the proper understanding of Leo's condemnation. He either declared that God willed heretics be burned just as He wills particular acts of men at particular times, or he declared that the burning of heretics is not against the Divine law. If the former, then Leo's statement is questionable as to its veracity, but clearly would not be capable of infallible protection even were that under discussion, for what God actively willed 1520 is not a part of the deposit of faith. If the latter, than what argument can be made that executing heretics is instrinsically evil and so against God's will in that sense of the term?
As regards burning amounting to torture, I apologize for having made my point less than clear. The point was simply that the infliction of pain in a method of execution does not consign that method to the realm of torture. Were it that it did, it would seem that the Catechism would have included execution in its list of reasons one might torture. The fact is that it did not. It did, interestingly enough, include "to punish the guilty," while failing to mention execution, which may suggest a distinction being drawn between execution, which is of course involves death, and lesser forms of punishment which do not. The point is that the claim that burning as a means of execution constitutes torture is at best unsubstantiated and debatable, and so makes a weak argument against Leo's bull.
The overriding issue here of course is the statement that attempts to defend historical teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium is casuistic. While of course the Ordinary Magisterium does not possess the character of infallibility, it nevertheless is an agent of the teaching authority of God, and ought to be given the respect and benefit of the doubt worthy of that. It also ought to be defended when unjustly besmirched. Finally, apparent contradictions ought to be examined closely, if not for these first two reasons, than to ensure a complete understanding and to thereby learn from the richness that can be in such an agent of the Lord's. Indeed, error may quite possibly be found, but far more often than not, greater understanding will be instead.
While your concern pertains to seeking to too readily absolve the Church of error (and so, among other things, appear to modern-minds sophistic), my concern in your posts is over the tendency to too readily assign error to the Church. Whatever organ of the Magisterium speaks, it is closely associated with the teaching authority of the Lord, and indeed apart from that it is owed the sacred respect it is due, and so accusations of error must come with great trepidation, examination, and caution. While I do not deny that error can exist in the Ordinary Magisterium, I assert that its suspicion must be the last resort when all studies of a given issue have been exhausted. Again, I do not deny that possibility of error, but I do reject the notion that the particular issues you have raise are examples of it. In fact, I believe that they are some of the issues most easily found to be consistent when studied. This is what inspired my response: the concern over too readily attributing error to the Church, coupled with error being attributed over issues which I regard as very easy to see not to be in error.
God bless

And this Shane will address the question of to what extent the Holy Spirit protects and it is from Fr. Brian Harrison's essay on Torture available on line:
“For approved theologians ever since Bellarmine, Melchior Cano, and Suarez in the 17th century have argued that Christ’s promise of the Holy Spirit’s unfailing assistance to his Church will guarantee that at least some categories of ecclesiastical legislation can never be contrary to faith or morals, or otherwise inflict serious harm on the Church and souls. ......... However, the consensus of approved theologians interpreting such magisterial interventions seems to be that by no means all ecclesiastical legislation enjoys such a guarantee, but only that which is "universal", not just in the geographical sense of applying throughout the Catholic world, but in the anthropological sense of applying to the faithful as a whole. In other words, we can be sure the Holy Spirit is never going to allow Peter’s Successor to command, or even authorize, the Church as a whole – the great bulk of the faithful round the world – to commit sin, or to do something that will cause grave harm. For that would be contrary to the ’note’ of sanctity ("One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic") which is a revealed attribute of the Church…..TORTURE AND CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AS A PROBLEM IN CATHOLIC THEOLOGY
by Brian W. Harrison

Make that two corrections....it is January 12,1966 for that audience of Paul VI and here is text:
" ….Some people have asked what authority, what theological qualification the Council intended to attribute to its teaching, since it clearly avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions that would involve the infallibility of the magisterium. The answer is clear for anyone who recalls the Council declaration issued on March 6, 1964, and repeated on November 16, 1964. (Cf. Notificationes: A.A.S. 57, 1965, 72-75) In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statement of dogmas that would be endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium. This ordinary magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful, in accordance with the mind of the Council on the nature and aims of the individual documents."

Only one correction.
The extraordinary magisterium does not "raise" something to the universal magisterium as though they make something ordinary better than it was before they raised it....but the extraordinary declares something from the ordinary magisterium (abortion's evil) to have been really in the universal magisterium by now.

Shane
You have good intentions but they are forcing you into casuistry....jesuitical casuistry at that. You are defending the ordinary magisterium as being infallible and it is not infallible...the universal ordinary magisterium is infallible....and the latter occurs definitively for sure when something in the ordinary magisterium is raised from the ordinary to the universal when the extraordinary declares it to have been raised.
But there are morals in the ordinary magisterium that are not infallible. Kissing your fiance for 10 seconds longer than friendly may be damnation in scholastic terms and for your confessor if he is so oriented...but I don't see any Pope trying to pass that one into an infallible encyclical....and you never will. The consensual premarital sex couple in the Bible had to get married (if father agreed)and never divorce....but Aquinas said the death penalties in the OT told us which sins were mortal...hence death. But he then could not explain why the premarital couple not only were given marriage but were given a more secure marriage than most Jews had since most Jews could divorce. Stay with me. I'll at least stretch your paradigm and you may need a shot of Australian Shiraz for the growing pains but that is life.
Casuistry....wordy spins that make black white and white black.... is turning off some very intelligent non Christian converts in some cases who tire of us making mistakes disappear with intellectual excuse after excuse.
To your description of Leo X's time period having nothing but painful executions....bull....Getting stoned directly on the head would have been possible in Leo's time and would have involved far less suffering...likewise beheading with a sword because it separates the pain signals from the brain would have been nicer and was the reason the French went to the guillotine as was used by the papal executioner Buggati in the 19th century. Ergo Leo willed burning at the stake to answer to the present catechism phrase referring to torture: "punish the guilty"....and make it hurt while he is dying as a warning to future rebels against the Church. Stoning or beheading with a sword also involves less pain than you or I will feel if we die of end stage renal failure at 92 in a modern hospital with dialysis.
Disciplinary measures of a Council like the slave allowance of Lateran III are not dogmatic but they imply a latent dogmatic belief in the episcopate which makes that belief part of the ordinary magisterium if it is enforced in the Church which it would be....since no one could oppose Lateran III and protest its slave allowance and remain safe themselves from punishment.
As to beliefs implicit or explicit within Councils itself, use Pope Paul VI's January 22,1966 audience definition: Councils and Vatican II (as he stressed) are often not infallible but are the supreme ordinary magisterium which has a higher rank than the ordinary magisterium of the encyclicals..... which by the way, they can change as Vat II certainly changed a number of encyclicals from the 19th century on liberty of conscience as supported by government......but such Council's statements when not formally defining are not most often the universal ordinary magisterium unless they are repeating a concept already defined....the universal ordinary is where alone infallibility dwells when the extraordinary magisterium raises an issue from the ordinary to the universal.
That is where all the fuss was and is as to birth control with some saying it is in the universal ordinary and with some saying it is not. The stalemate however makes that issue fail under canon 749-3(c)as to being admitted into a ecclesiastical court on a charge of heresy...which actually is now possible as to abortion and euthanasia because of Evangelium Vitae which formally condemned them not birth control by the extraordinary magisterium wherein the Pope polled worldwide Bishops and got agreement on those two and on killing the innocent.
At bottom what you are trying to do with good intentions is defend the ordinary magisterium as making no mistakes on morals. The apologetic literature on usury is deficient in this area also because it goes into the same intricate twisting in order to prove that the ordinary magisterium was not wrong there either.
And so we're told that the nature of money changed and the ordinary magisterium simply waited wisely. Too bad for our apologetics people that Calvin had our eventual answer in 1545....300 years ahead of us.... in a letter to his friend and well before money's nature allegedly changed from infertile to fertile. There is a reason we don't send missionaries into Harvard to debate...we are still clinging to some wrong ideas and we half know it.
But the ordinary magisterium can fail in moral matters; it is the universal ordinary magisterium that cannot fail. For something to be definitively raised from the ordinary to the universal ordinary takes the intervention of the extraordinary magisterium which then makes it qualify under canon 749-3(c). You'll see it done in section 62 of Evangelium Vitae on abortion which is infallibly condemned while that has not yet happened on birth control which the media and often clergy rank as equivalent in authority status and they are not but may one day be so.
Slavery was implicitly supported in Trent's catechism...read carefully the text on "other forms of stealing" as to the 7th commandment...it was supported in most major theologians until 1960 (Tommaso Iorio's 5th edition of Theologia Moralis 1960 and that was preceded by Merkelbach in 1936 and Vermeesch in 1904 and by St.Thomas in the Supplement to the ST in the section on marriage of a slave wherein Aquinas gives the cites for the decretals (canon law) supporting the slavery of a child born to a slave). And in every century a majority of theologians in the schools supported 4 just titles to slavery and birth to a slave was almost always included and now is banned by Vatican II's authroity. Actually in this case, it is Pope John Paul II who is somewhat incorrect in calling it intrinsically evil without defining what he means by slavery because perpetual slavery is given to the Jews over foreigners in Leviticus 25:46 or 47 which means that it cannot be intrinsically evil but is evil by context as is over drinking which is condemned yet permitted by the Bible in Proverbs when great sadness is extant: "Give wine to him who is perishing, strong drink to him who is on the edge of the abyss that he may forget...."
So slavery like drinking can be evil due to context and this is not the area of intrinsic evil as in the case of beastiality and sodomy which God never permits to the Jews. He permits divorce due to the hardness of their heart but they did not have the real sacrament of Matrimony anyway and that is why several wives were also permitted to the patriarch simultaneously.

In 1520 Pope Leo X in "Exsurge Domine" condemned as "against the Catholic Faith"
Luther's proposition that burning heretics at the stake was against the Holy Spirit. Pope Leo even called attention to the fact that he had consulted Cardinals and theologians. And burning at the stake is a fatal form of torture...the Bible in the OT commanded stoning not burning.
Burning at the stake is not a fatal form of torture. It is a form of execution. While there is no clear definition of just what constitutes torture in the eyes of the Church, what is clear is that torture differs in execution in that the goal of torture is to inflict suffering, whereas the goal of execution is to terminate life. The Church upholds the permissibility of execution, and while the most recent developments in Church thought indicate that it is almost never warranted, this was not the understanding that existed at the time of Leo.
There are then two points here: that torture differs from execution, and whether or not Leo's statement about heretics is true. I think the distinction between torture and execution is rather clear, but to further distinguish it, I will cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church #2297:
"Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity."
Note that execution is not listed here. This is almost certainly because execution is by its very nature distinct from torture. Of course, some methods of execution can involve suffering, and while it would seem that such methods wouldd be morally questionable in the modern era where humane options exist, the point is that merely because an act of execution entails suffering it does not cause it to be torture. In fact, in the time of Leo X, execution essentially entailed suffering of necessity.
As to the veracity of Leo's condemnation, it is important to consider the possible meanings of the phrase. Often anti-Catholics present it so as to imply that Leo meant that the Holy Spirit positively willed the burning of heretics. In other words, this statement is often brought up to suggest that Leo taught that the Holy Spirit explicitly sought the burning of heretics, as for example the Holy Spirit explicitly sought for Francis of Assisi to "rebuild the Church." (I provide that merely as an example to bring clarity to my explanation. If someone does not believe in that particular private revelation, that's fine; the concept is what's important.)
However, it seems far more likely - for a host of reasons - that Leo's condemnation pertained to the permissive will of the Spirit. In other words, it is not contrary to the Divine law to execute heretics by means of burning. When considered for a moment, that this much is true is all but indeniable. Whatever means of execution the Torah prescribed, nevertheless it did command executions for certain crimes, including what would amount to heresy. Given that, it cannot possibly be said that it is absolutely impermissible to execute a heretic, for God has in the past commanded it. At most, it could be said that, as the Church seems to indicate is the case for all executions, the penalty of death for heresy is at this time never, or almost never, warranted.
I will not address the issue that was raised regarding slavery in depth for the sake of brevity. Briefly, the Council's declaration regarding pirates was of a disciplinary nature, not doctrinal, and so would not fall under the realm of infallibility. Secondly, it is extremely important to properly differentiate between chattle slavery - the form slavery practiced in the Americas in the 19th century - and the various other sorts of slavery, including penal slavery - the slavery entailed as a punishment for crimes which encompasses everything from that mentioned by Third Lateran to modern imprisonment of those convicted of criminal acts. The Church has repeatedly condemned chattle slavery, and of course not rejected penal slavery.
God bless

John,
I find no sacrifice in giving up meat one day a week since on average I have meat twice a week. I think the issue is a red herring. And by the way, try finding red herring even in a gourmet store in the fish department. Fasting which is more biblical excepting the symbolic foods of the old law...is far more of a sacrifice. Christ went into the desert and fasted 40 days...He did not go into the desert and skip prosciutto and bring everything else. Because He fasted, Satan appeared since as St. John of the Cross pointed out in his translation of Job: "the devil sees every high thing". Were Christ refraining only from sausage, the devil would not have noticed Him. But He fasted....and the devil sees every high thing.
On Fridays ordinarily in other parts of the year, I give up about an hour of leisure and pray to a long list of saints...or rather ask them to pray for those readers sensitive to the difference. Givng up an hour is harder than giving up animal carcass.

"Good grief! Were our Bishops smoking wacky tobaccy back in the '70s?"
I'm not touching that one with a ten-foot crozier...

So Bill, does the USCCB definition allowing for an alternative abstinence in lieu of meat mean a good Cathoic can abstain from eating fish on Fridays and fulfill the obligation?
Good grief! Were our Bishops smoking wacky tobaccy back in the '70s?

I heard you on the radio today and I think you misunderstood a caller asking about Catholics requirement to abstain on all Fridays of the year or to do another form of penance if they choose to eat meat. The U.S. Bishops made this option available to U.S. Catholics at some point around 1970 (don't remember exactly). Here is the scoop from another blog site. You probably already knew this though:)!
Meat on Fridays
Most Catholics think that Vatican II did away with the requirement of not eating meat on any Friday of the year. Most think it is now just Ash Wednesday and the Fridays of Lent that we cannot eat meat.
This is what the new Code of Canon Law brought out in 1983 says about the matter:
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.
Canon Law still requires that Catholics not eat meat on Fridays!
Of course, most Episcopal Conferences have determined that, instead of abstaining from meat, Catholics may perform an act of penance of their choosing. But, do you ever remember to abstain from a particular food or do some other penance on Fridays? And, at any rate, the main rule is still to abstain from meat on Fridays, the performance of another penance instead is an optional alternative.
It's very interesting to note that the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (the United States' Episcopal Conference) is currently debating whether to rescind the determination and require all Catholics to abstain from meat on all Fridays of the year. The Bishops are considering that a return to meatless Fridays for all Catholics would be of benefit because:
It is an expression of one's Catholicity; and
In reparation for the grave sin of abortion

There is a problem though Tim in hanging on his every word historically when he is speaking in the ordinary magisterium...encyclicals. In 1520 Pope Leo X in "Exsurge Domine" condemned as "against the Catholic Faith"
Luther's proposition that burning heretics at the stake was against the Holy Spirit. Pope Leo even called attention to the fact that he had consulted Cardinals and theologians. And burning at the stake is a fatal form of torture...the Bible in the OT commanded stoning not burning.
As it turns out in section 80 of "Splendor of the Truth", John Paul II condemns torture as intrinsically evil (Brian Harrison maintains there is wiggle room for ticking time bomb whereabouts extraction??). In any event John Paul II ended up being united with Luther in this area of torture and both were against Exsurge Domine. Third Lateran gave slavery of pirates as a reward to privateers who captured pirates or those helping Saracen pirates....and Vatican II condemned slavery as did section 80 of Splendor of the Truth.
The answer I think is in Germain Grisez (very conservative...the best known of those who saw birth control infallibly settled in the universal ordinary magisterium...Haring and Rahner did not) and other moral theology tomes. See "Christian Moral Principles" volume one of "The Way of the Lord Jesus" page 854 by Germain Grisez where he is saying that short of infallible levels and not withstanding Lumen Gentium 25 (which has several stipulations which people often skip)...there must be room for the human brain or everyone in 1520 had to agree with Exsurge Domine and then their descendants had to do a 180 on same 400+ years later.

"...hopelessly lost in guilt, condemnation, and general confusion..."
You know, a lot of atheists would probably like to describe ALL Christians that way, *especially* those who take their faith and it's obligations most seriously.
But they would be wrong, just as your Protestant friends are wrong about Catholics.
My experience as a Catholic convert from Evangelical Protestantism is that what many like to denigrate as "Catholic Guilt" is indistinguishable from Christian Guilt. In other words, it is a code-word used by irreligious ex-Catholics and other anti-Christians to refer to anyone who believes in God, holds any notion of absolute right and wrong, and who still has a functioning conscience.
The Catholics I know who take the Lenten requirements seriously are the ones least likely to suffer from "general confusion" about the gospel. The ones who blow it off and congratulate themselves for having outgrown the "Catholic Guilt" of their youth are usually the ones eager to justify some mortal sin as being a healthy part of an enlightened and tolerant worldview.
I also laugh when certain Protestants make the assertion that Catholics worship the Pope and hang on his every word. If they only knew!! The problem is that NOT NEARLY ENOUGH Catholics will even listen to the Pope. Every problem of the modern Church stems from the fact that Catholics are not Catholic enough (as always, I suppose).

I would just add (and which SDG is implying) that there is a difference between positive law (made by man or church or government or by God temporarily) and natural law on the other hand which does not change but can be misinterpreted (usury e.g.). It is this latter natural law that can never change. Positive law (like the prophetic and ritual laws of the Jews given by God) did change and all Churches no longer forbid eating "creeping things" as God's ritual and prophetic law did forbid the Jews to eat....lobster and shrimp e.g. Aquinas said that those were forbidden symbolically prior to Christ because creeping thing symbolize the man who is too close to the ground and too much involved in hugging that which is below. So its meaning still obtains but its observance is over and therefore Christ came with grace (Jn 1:17) to make us find not hugging this earth easier than it was for man without sanctifying grace. We are still supposed to not hug this world tightly and that is why Christ said that not one jot or tittle of the law would be overturned (as to their deeper meaning).
That prohibition is over and God mandated its prohibition and mandated through the Church the end of the prohibition. Pass the crab dish.

My friends argue that Catholic Lent proves two things about the paganism of Catholics.

Your friends sound seriously uninformed. Paganism = polytheism. Catholics are Trinitarian monotheists, same as traditional Evangelical Protestants ... who, in fact, are historically heirs to Catholic belief on this point.

The Jesus of Catholics is not the Jesus of the Bible, because Jesus of the Bible is unchanging. So Jesus does not change his mind that eating meat on Friday is a mortal sin pre-Vatican II and then state that it is voluntary after the reforms of Vatican II.

Jesus does not change his mind that we should always obey lawful human authority, and lawful human authority is allowed to change its policy.
If a child's parents forbid him to play video games one day, and let him play the next day, does that prove Jesus doesn't want the child to obey his parents? Or if the state changes some law, does that prove Jesus doesn't want us to obey civil authority?
Likewise, when those who have authority in the Church say "No meat on Friday," it's no meat on Friday, and when they say "Meat on Friday okay," it's okay.

The requirement of abstaining from certain foods is the mark of a cult and the work of a church created by human hands not the church of Jesus Christ.

Was it the mark of a cult in Acts 15? Not to mention the whole history of the OT.

They claim that Catholics participate in dead pious works during Lent but remain hopelessly lost in guilt, condemnation, and general confusion about the simplicity of the gospel message.

That's probably true of many Catholics, alas.
However, in many more cases I think your friends are assuming what they don't really know and projecting their own ignorance and prejudice onto the faith of others.
There is also probably a communication gap, based in different cultural milieus and religious vocabularies; Catholic-ese and Protestant-ese are somewhat different languages, and things get lost in translation, especially when the differences aren't known.

Comments from my Protestant friends summarized by this Wikipedia(Lent) link:
Many modern Protestants consider the observation of Lent to be a choice, rather than an obligation. They may decide to give up a favorite food or drink (e.g. chocolate, alcohol) or activity (e.g., going to the movies, playing video games, etc.) for Lent, or they may instead take on a Lenten discipline such as devotions, volunteering for charity work, and so on. Roman Catholics may also observe Lent in this way in addition to the dietary restrictions outlined above, though observation is no longer mandatory under the threat of mortal sin. Many Christians who choose not to follow the dietary restrictions cite 1 Timothy 4:1-5 which warns of doctrines that "forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth." - Wikipedia(Lent)
My friends argue that Catholic Lent proves two things about the paganism of Catholics.
1. The Jesus of Catholics is not the Jesus of the Bible, because Jesus of the Bible is unchanging. So Jesus does not change his mind that eating meat on Friday is a mortal sin pre-Vatican II and then state that it is voluntary after the reforms of Vatican II.
2. The requirement of abstaining from certain foods is the mark of a cult and the work of a church created by human hands not the church of Jesus Christ.
3. They claim that Catholics participate in dead pious works during Lent but remain hopelessly lost in guilt, condemnation, and general confusion about the simplicity of the gospel message.

QUESTION FOR JIMMY QUESTION FOR JIMMY QUESTION FOR JIMMY QUESTION FOR JIMMY QUESTION FOR JIMMY QUESTION FOR JIMMY
JIMMY
Here is a question for you for the LENT FIGHT...in the past you have noted NOT FINDING THE "TWO SMALLER MEALS NOT = A FULL MEAL" in the law etc. But what I wonder if since this has become THE COMMON explanation in the USA for the Ash Wed./Good Friday fast --that it is not now REQUIRED DUE TO CUSTOM???
I see you do include it as required in your basic Lent info -- but wondering if this is why??
Kevin

The trouble with abstinence is that it leads to reverse epikeia if one follows the letter of the law and not the spirit. Heck. You can skip meat and then proceed to have lobster crepes with a pinot egregious (just kidding...don't correct me) ...after an appetizer of Saffron Mussel soup. As Aquinas said when writing about epikeia.... "the lawgiver cannot foresee every situation"...ie...he cannot foresee that you would replace steak with Lobster Newburg.
So to some extent, it would seem that the spirit of the law is also to be observed...but then scrupulosity can enter....when is a fish just a fish and not a better feast than a chuck steak. Is skipping a massive hamburger in a bar with Killian's ale really a sacrifice if one is replacing it with stuffed trout...almondine no less and with s Sauvignon Blanc.
Indeed....one's soul is safer on Fridays heretofore in Lent....with a kale sandwich on whole grain bread...yea...the very name is penitential. The fast food fish sandwich is perhaps ...the middle way as the Buddhists say...and as a poster has suggested.

Why I bring up pilaf is that the chicken broth certainly makes it more "enjoyable"(for me anyway)If enjoyment is the issue, and chicken broth contributes to it, then it would seem worthy of abstinence.
BTW, Wendy's has a real descent fish sandwich if you've a hankerin' for some lenten "fast food."

So can we be too scrupulous during Lent? I'll just stick to my pasta or tuna fish sandwich.

OK what I want to know is, what about rice pilaf made with chicken broth?? Is that legal?
See, that's what I think the canon is talking about when it eliminates "soups made from meat" from the prohibited items. I think that it's legalizing those kinds of things - broths, etc. - rather than, as seems to be Jimmy's interpretation in the original post (apologies if I am mistaken) that soups with meat in them - as in, pieces of meat - which I would say are not by any means permitted. To me that would fall under the "feeding on meat."

OK what I want to know is, what about rice pilaf made with chicken broth?? Is that legal?

"By adding "use of" they included both meat chunks on a plate, in a soup, soup that "used" a meat bone,"
Hmm. Gelatin, qouting Wiki, is "derived from the collagen inside animals' skin and mostly bones." Does that mean gelatin is forbidden on days of abstinence?

Lent fight! Lent fight!

Pesky translators...totally ruining my feeling of triumph :P