Friday Abstinence Today?

[Bookcat]

Originally Posted by Vico

I read that an intention to do no penance during the penitential periods is sinful, but in an individual instance, it is not necessarily sinful.

The thread with the source is on this forum if you search for it.

Pope Paul VI document PAENITEMINI :

"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... Their substantial observance binds gravely."

So their "substantial observance" binds gravely. Such though does not mean that is not sinful otherwise (venially) to omit to a lesser degree than "substantial observance".... (of course in the case of a Bishops Conference removing the obligation ...such would be different in terms of when such is removed.. or say a Bishop giving a dispensation....)

See Jimmy Akins commentary (I linked some above..but he has more..one would have to search under "substantial observance") for his reading. And I imagine one can search too for other commentaries.

[Sirach2]

Originally Posted by Cristiano

Again I am not arguing the knowledge of the person but the authority given to make that such a statement as a fact instead of a mere opinion. A personal opinion is a personal opinion and it does not have legal weight.

This is your error, that you believe he was simply issuing commentary for its own sake, similar to what many do here in our posting.

The question was presented in EWTN's Question and Answer section, where viewers are invited to "question the Experts." With the global stature and prominence of EWTN and its staff of experts, I can come up with no valid reason for you to issue a blanket statement demeaning this Canon Lawyer/priest's answer as a casual opinion. It was most assuredly based on fact and research before the priest answered publicly for the spiritual guidance of the questioner.

[Cristiano]

Originally Posted by Sirach2

This is your error, that you believe he was simply issuing commentary for its own sake, similar to what many do here in our posting.

The question was presented in EWTN's Question and Answer section, where viewers are invited to "question the Experts." With the global stature and prominence of EWTN and its staff of experts, I can come up with no valid reason for you to issue a blanket statement demeaning this Canon Lawyer/priest's answer as a casual opinion. It was most assuredly based on fact and research before the priest answered publicly for the spiritual guidance of the questioner.

Please then show to me that that statement on EWTN is anything more than his opinion. You can do that by showing the chain of authority from the Vatican or the Bishops through EWTN to the individual. A personal opinion does not imply that it is casual or uneducated, it simply does not show proof of being legal binding because based on authority.

[Sirach2]

Ok, Christiano, Doubting Thomas,

I will not do your homework for you. YOU contact EWTN and ask him yourself. Until you know for certain that he is just guestimating, then you owe it to justice to refrain from insinuating it to others here.

[Matthew Holford]

Originally Posted by Sirach2

This is your error, that you believe he was simply issuing commentary for its own sake, similar to what many do here in our posting.

The question was presented in EWTN's Question and Answer section, where viewers are invited to "question the Experts." With the global stature and prominence of EWTN and its staff of experts, I can come up with no valid reason for you to issue a blanket statement demeaning this Canon Lawyer/priest's answer as a casual opinion. It was most assuredly based on fact and research before the priest answered publicly for the spiritual guidance of the questioner.

Cristiano is correct. It does not matter what qualifications the priest in question has. He may have the best qualifications with the highest honours from the world's best universities for canon law. He may be an eminent professor of canon law in a renowned university. It matters not one jot which television programme he appears on. What he says is personal opinion; nothing more, nothing less.

I am not saying his opinion is not well-founded based on his knowledge and experience. It is still his opinion. I have no doubt the good priest would agree with me.

It is his opinion, not the ordinary, or extraordinary, magisterium of the Church. That's what Cristiano was saying. The good cited priest, with all his qualifications and learning, would be one of the first to say that his opinion is not the Church's magisterium.

Yes, the good father can express opinions on canon law. We non-canon lawyers should be able to rely on his opinion's as getting the law correct. Nevertheless, it has no higher status than personal opinion. Canon lawyers do not always agree, so, other equally eminent canon lawyers may well express an alternative opinion.

Happy New Year!

[Sirach2]

What he says is personal opinion; nothing more, nothing less.

Matthew, I am really sad to read this. That being the case, we should never listen to anything our priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals have to say unless they produce a document from the Vatican. That is the very source of rebellion, to disregard the teaching of our leaders as purely subjective opinion. We would never need to follow them, correct? We can be our own guides.

Brother JR often gives teachings throughout CAF and never gives a link to his sources. Yet many who read his posts are helped by his words. Simply opinion? Considering the stature of JR, I would believe him, even though occasionally his comments may inspire me to search further for sources of dogma from the Holy See to learn a bit more.

You really take the cake for leading the faithful down a blind alley with this post.

[Matthew Holford]

Originally Posted by Sirach2

Matthew, I am really sad to read this. That being the case, we should never listen to anything our priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals have to say unless they produce a document from the Vatican. That is the very source of rebellion, to disregard the teaching of our leaders as purely subjective opinion. We would never need to follow them, correct? We can be our own guides.

Brother JR often gives teachings throughout CAF and never gives a link to his sources. Yet many who read his posts are helped by his words. Simply opinion? Considering the stature of JR, I would believe him, even though occasionally his comments may inspire me to search further for sources of dogma from the Holy See to learn a bit more.

You really take the cake for leading the faithful down a blind alley with this post.

You really don't get it do you. I find your final comment to be rather insulting. I am attempting to do no such thing. It's quite clear that you failed completely to understand what Cristiano and I said. There is a difference between what our priests tell us in the pulpit on Sundays and the Magisterium of the Church. As a Catholic you ought to know this difference. I am not proposing we ignore our pastors. I never said that nor would I say it. You have no right to propose that I am doing this. If you cannot comprehend or accept the difference then I'm afraid I cannot help you further.