Noooo…in the 1950s that was a Sin. If you knew it was wrong and did it anyway.
As for those poor bastards frying in Hell before the rule was changed… I guess the joke’s on them.
One thing that always made me wonder about the “no meat” rule. I mean, it’s not really fasting just to go without meat. Technically, wouldn’t it be better to stay home and have leftover meatloaf (and I HATE meatloaf) than go out and have a big fancy lobster dinner? I would think that’s more of a fast.
I had some of those, too. But they were kind of scratchy.
“I was disobedient” was pretty reliable.
“I touched myself in an impure manner.”
Avoiding meat isn’t fasting, in the Catholic tradition; it’s abstinence. Fasting is reducing your overall food intake, regardless of what kind of food it is. On a day of fast and abstinence, you are supposed to both fast and abstain.
Having leftover meatloaf rather than lobster is neither fasting nor abstinence. The Catholic tradition has never focussed on the quality of the food you eat; you can be both fasting and abstaining, and still eat good quality, well prepared, fresh food.
Or if you’re traveling. The rules are actually quite reasonable, but between the permanently scared and the holier than thou, they manage to transmit them in ways that tighten them into absurdity.
Of course, even an actual Catholic fast (like Ash Wednesday or Good Friday) is still far less severe than the more usual concept of “fast”.
:smack:
Dang! Where were you when I needed that line?
Like the Yom Kippur fast, which is NO food OR water from sundown of the day before until the end of services (usually around sundown also) on Yom Kippur, a total of about 25 hours. Now THAT’S a fast.
These sound like something straight out of Harry Potter. 
I can’t take credit for it.
And heavy on the covet, Father!
No more or less than the joke is on a person who drove 65 on an interstate and got a ticket for it 20 years ago, but can now legally drive 65 on that stretch of road.
In order for a sin to be mortal, it must have been done with full advertance of the will–that is, deliberately.
There is nothing inherently holy, or unholy, about eating certain kinds of food on certain days. The Church’s rule about abstaining from meat on all Fridays was not, therefore, ever a statement that meat on Fridays was unholy. It was, rather, an exercise of the Church’s authority to unify the faithful by imposing rules of conduct. A priest could celebrate Mass wearing his vestments, or he could celebrate Mass wearing a tuxedo, top hat, tails, and a cane. Or a Speedo. All of those except the vestments are not permitted, but none of those options are either forbidden or mandated by dogma. By the same token, someone who knew of the Church’s discipline concerning meat and deliberately disobeyed it commits a mortal sin – not because meat on Friday is inherently sinful, but because deliberately flouting the Church’s authority to make such a binding discipline is sinful.
Something I know my ancestors practiced in our branch of the Orthodox Catholic Church and I have heard of some people of Spanish/Spanish Colonial ancestry Roman Catholic following ------- if you know you are dieing and no priest is handy, you could give your confession to someone else to relay to a priest. Usually this was a worst case situation for someone on the frontier away from civilization or someone on a military campaign. Since there was no chance for Extreme Unction and no promise of a Christian burial, it was sort of a last ditch effort to copper your bets.
When this practice ended, or even if it has, I can’t say - Google let me down. But I know some people followed it up to the early 1900s.
(And relatives wonder why I became a Lutheran 
)
Several of the sacraments, although they should properly be administered by a priest, can in extreme need be administered by others (baptism, for instance, can be administered by anyone at all, even a non-Christian). I’m not certain, but reconciliation might be one of them. If that’s the case, then passing the message on to a priest might not even be necessary.
The command to eat fish on Friday started some time in the late 14th or early 15th c. when the Vatican owned fishing fleet was not bringing in enough money to suit the Pope so he got a message from God etc.
Something I’m wondering about : is the absolution valid if you’re repentant (or afraid of hell) but intend to avoid the penance?
For instance, if you commit a major crime, the priest is likely to tell you to turn yourself in as part of the penance. Let’s assume that you deliberatly pick a priest who doesn’t speak your language to confess a murder. Not understanding what your sins actually are, he absolves you. Is the absolution valid?
Whoa, I found a reference(sadly in Spanish and itself not saying where it got the quote) with this:
“The interpreter, if any, and anybody else who by any means had knowledge of sins from confession, are also required to keep secrecy”.
So it’s acceptable (although definitely not ideal) to use an interpreter.
Re. confession being received by someone not ordained, canon says it’s a no-no, and then some more nos. It isn’t even any priest who can; some positions get it automatically such as the head of a parish or a monastery, but in general they need to pass a special exam and be authorized in writing. Someone who hasn’t been specifically trained on it isn’t supposed to do it, period; we can forgive each other and we can always provide a shoulder, but we’re simply no more trained on the “doctor and lawyer” part than say… than I am in behavioral therapy. You wouldn’t want to get behavioral therapy from someone who’s not trained in it, would you?
clairobscur, that confession shouldn’t take place unless the person is dying. But dying, dying… like both feet and one hand already on the other side. The priest is supposed to question the sinner, indicate appropriate reparations and advise on how to avoid reincidence: he can’t do that if there is no communication.
As for a case where there is communication and the sinner purposefuly leaves something out, that something is not included in the absolution. Leaving something out because you didn’t remember yes, on purpose because you don’t fulfill the other conditions for forgiveness (such as, you don’t intend to make repairs - which would also indicate you don’t actually repent) no.
It’s still kind of messed up, though.
Shrug, the symbolism is what it is. Why would getting yourself filled to the gills with meatloaf be acceptable as fast or abstinence, while eating the lobster you fished out of the water yourself is not? Having enough lobster to get full is abstinence, but it wouldn’t count as fasting.
No.
It’s true that in cases of necessity, baptism can be administered by anyone with the requisite intention. No other sacrament has such latitude:
Confirmation: the ordinary minister is a bishop, and in extraordinary cases a priest may be deputed.
The Eucharist must be consecrated by a priest or bishop, but may be distributed by a properly deputed lay person.
Matrimony is conferred by the spouses upon each other.
Anointing of the Sick must be administered by a priest or bishop.
Holy Orders must be administered by a bishop.
Penance must be administered by a priest or bishop.