[quote="Sirach2, post:12, topic:307595"]
I am sorry to see that some are not reading Jimmy Akin's article as he intended it.
The whole issue is whether or not we incur sin if there is no alternate form of penance adopted to replace abstinence from meat. I myself have confessed this, since I was not aware of there being an obligation. My confessor said there was NO SIN, but that penance is *encouraged but not legally binding under pain of sin. *Anyone who ate meat prior to the lifting of abstinence, and did so with deliberation, did commit sin.
This is the only issue that I find in Jimmy Akin's article, whether or not there is the incurring of sin if one does not do penance. He says "no."
But is there a difference between "legally binding" and "legally binding under pain of sin"?
I would assume breaking Church law would amounts to disobeying authority and hence is always a sin?
It also just seems to me like that Akin is honestly reading in his position to the evidence. Because he quotes elsewhere regarding the same article from Pope Paul VI's Paenitemini
VI. 1. In accordance with the conciliar decree “Christus Dominus” regarding the pastoral office of bishops, number 38,4, it is the task of episcopal conferences to:
A. Transfer for just cause the days of penitence, always taking into account the Lenten season;
B. Substitute abstinence and fast wholly or in part with other forms of penitence and especially works of charity and the exercises of piety.
2. By way of information, episcopal conferences should communicate to the Apostolic See what they have decided on the matter"
then he himself agrees that the particular document does not give any special authority to abolish penance on Friday. BUT, he then argues such authority may exist. He also states that Rome did not "bark" when the 1966 document was sent to them. He also agrees that one could consider the 1966 document as ambiguous.
But if that were the case, then it seems more sensible to think that Rome approved the document as pertaining to the changes it allowed in the Paenitemini. So the ambiguous document was read as application of the powers suggested in that document rather than an abolishing of penance altogether. Hence Rome agreed.
Now Akin sees this issue. He states that the Bishops might have been given implicit authority by Rome's acceptance (or lack of complaint) of the 1966 document. BUT, if the 1966 document is ambiguous, it is more likely that Rome interpreted it in light of the permission it had given.
So I honestly feel Akin has really blundered this one.