Question: I like lent in that it is a time for reflection. (altho I do a lot of reflection all year 'round), but I do try to be a little more serious about it during Lent.

What I don't like abut lent , or I should say I don't understand about lent, and that is putting it lightly... actually, I think it is rather outdated... very much outdated in that one must abstain from meat.... Now come on... Not a lot of people eat meat anyway... And oh, those fish frys during lent.. Mmmm , so good. Now that doesn't make sense to me... I thought we were suposed to do penance.. A good fish dinner is not penance.. It is a treat...

Other than that... what is actually the purpose of not eating meat ?

Perhaps.....just to see if we can be a team.



Perhaps.....just to see how much unity can exist within our denomination even.

You mean unity at the fish frys? :-)

or maybe to practice a little self denial, to unite ourselves with those that suffer from little food at all. substitute the meat with anything that would remind you of the suffering of those that don't deserve to suffer from lack of food.

actually a fish fry for me would be a suffering, greasy .......gluten........yuk, the smell, i could go on......now lack of Chocolate..... that would be a suffering and an addiction withdrawal .

Lent needs to be a time that just draws us deeper into the Passion of Jesus. What does that mean to each of us?

maybe,? i Should go to a fish fry.......heheh

happy paczki day!!

I am still just wondering tho, why meat? To me, that is not a sacrifice.. I hardly eat any of it anyway.. I know what you are saying Carmel, about the greasy fish too. But years ago there was a parish that had the most wonderful fish frys.. delicious macaroni and cheese and real good green beans, and a nice home made dessert. lol.

I do the the rules should be updated.. maybe chocolate instead of meat, yes.

Better yet, I think send money to those who don't have anything to eat..

I do think people should do more fasting.. that should be more important than the meat thing.. Way too many people eat way too much.. Doesn't Mother Mary say fast and pray.. that has been her main message.

As for me, I am praying the psalms each evening, rather than read my other books.. Also am going to do some fasting and cleansing.


Thanks for your reply Carmel.

Katy, haven't you heard of Reverend Know-It-All? Check it out.

Of course, as you're noting, it's not such a difficult sacrifice to make, with seafood providing a marvelous alternative. You see how the Church doesn't ask the impossible of us? As Pop noted, there's a solidarity factor at work, here. Also, if one wishes to do more, well, have at it.

In the true spirit of Lent, disciplines that help foster growth in prayer and generosity of spirit are to be especially encouraged. This year I am considering doing a complete media fast on at least two days each week: no TV, radio, or newspaper, and only what's absolutely necessary for email and Internet. That's to help deepen inner silence. I am also going to abstain from eating between meals, and will have only one full meal a day, the other two being light. That's how we used to fast during Lent years ago, and I'll give it a try again. Fasting does help to deepen prayer, I've found, and, besides, I could stand to lose a few pounds.

Phil,

Well I think I like that Rev.Know-It-All.. He is a right smart man. Thanks for the link, and yes that answers my question.

Your media fast sounds good. That is something I could do too.. fast from the internet... listen for God's Wisdom within, rather than getting information overload. I google too much.

thanks for your reply..

Katy, et. al.

Let me put it to you in a different way, but in the same sense as my original response post.

(Of course, this is how I see it -- and of course, it’s a free country and you may see it as you like. And do as you like).

God, who is LOVE, solicits love from His creatures, who He has made in His own image and likeness (i.e. LOVE) and to whom He has bestowed the fullness of power in giving us free will -- a requisite capability or power that enables love.

We know from the catechism (here I speak as a Catholic to a Catholic - lest a particular cowgirl get unduly upset with me) that God made us to know Him and to love Him and to be happy with Him forever.

In the OT, scripture states that a heart contrite and humble God will not spurn. And in another OT passage, that true circumcision is circumcision of the heart (boy talk I realize, but I know you have a good imaginer up and running).

In the NT, in James 3:17, one of the qualities associated with wisdom is that wisdom is docile. (Not a contemporarily liked term, but a term liked and claimed as true by the inspired writer).

So the real issue is not meat or fish or falafel or pasta primavera, or how much meat or meat sauce if less than 1 ounce etc etc; the real issue is one’s will, one’s docility of will. Satan says I will not serve -- says my will -- will never be docile!

God (Jesus) said his desire was to establish a church -- and He did; and He gave it His authority to loose and to bind; and He said that the Paraclete would be with it to guide it, and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

That church, yours and mine, has asked for our compliance (docility) of will in this simple regard of abstaining from meat on Lenten Fridays. Ball is in our court. Pick a side.

In the end of course, you will pick a side. Even not to decide is to decide. The Lord said he had come to bring a sword, a sword of decision.

Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done unto me according to thy word. One of her titles -- Seat of Wisdom.

Love awaits your response.

(And in the parable of the two brothers, the one who initially said he wouldn’t -- in the end -- did. And the crowd answered that indeed it was he who had done the will of his father).

Pop-pop
p.s. Who can understand these things?

Being new to the Catholic Church, I am looking at Lent and find several online sources stating: "According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, 'the real aim of Lent is, above all else, to prepare men for the celebration of the death and Resurrection of Christ…the better the preparation the more effective the celebration will be.'"

The outward marks of the observance of Lent feel of lesser importance to me at this time of my life. They are "too easy" for me to adhere to. No elproblemo there.

Perhaps my understanding (what I am experiencing) is more what Pop-pop refers to in mentioning "circumcision of the heart." This is how I am approaching this season, my first Lent.

But I am seeing the Lord's sword as one of inner awareness, His light shining into the reaches of my heart, to prune/shear away all the hidden things that keep me from greater union with Him.

Kristi

quote:

Originally posted by pop-pop:
Katy, et. al.

Pick a side.

What, exactly, are the two sides, according to your understanding, Pop-pop?

Ariel,

Who can understand these things?

Obey vs disobey. Be docile or rebel. Abstain from meat or eat the meat. I will not serve or whatever my Lord wills.

No operant conditioning required here. Just the expression of one's free choice / free will.

Obey vs disobey. Be docile or rebel. Abstain from meat or eat the meat. I will not serve or whatever my Lord wills.

Of course, one can demand that everything make sense to one first (not act in faith that the Body of Christ might have a head). But that's still picking a side isn't it.

Who can understand these things?

In the saddle,
Pop-pop

Why do you keep saying, "Who can understand these things"? And what does "in the saddle" mean? And did you call me a "cowgirl"?

No, I am not understanding much of what you are saying, Pop Pop.

BTW... what are you doing for lent, if I may ask?

quote:

Originally posted by pop-pop:

Of course, one can demand that everything make sense to one first (not act in faith that the Body of Christ might have a head). But that's still picking a side isn't it.

Katy, Pop-pop was refering to me earlier in the thread with "cowgirl".

Pop-pop---Why the need to pick sides? Why sides? Christ is the Head of the Body of Christ, we would all agree.

I found Katy's question helpful.

Oh, O.K. AJ.. you are the cowgirl. :-) Thanks.

Yeah, Pop.. I am not "into" taking sides either.

Katy,

As Ariel has stated, ‘the cowgirl’ reference was to her. The ‘in the saddle’ comment was also directed to Ariel -- based on posts on another thread wherein Ariel had come to your defense after I had responded to your posts and those of others on being bored with mass.

Sorry if I have caused you confusion, but since I had directed that last post to Ariel I had thought that it would have been clear it was not directed to you.

Relative to not understanding my earlier posts on this thread (regarding abstaining from meat on Lenten Fridays) that the issue really is one of docility and obedience and not a ‘meat’ thing; I had thought my response was clear. And so, the ‘who can understand these things’ was satirical. Sorry again. I will endeavor below to be clearer, and will address Ariel and you.

Katy & Ariel,

I have said that the real issue concerning abstaining from meat on Lenten Fridays is not really one regarding meat per se, but of being docile to church law in this area.

Ariel asks ‘what exactly are the two sides’ and later, ‘why the need to pick sides?’

I respond: Come Friday, as a Catholic cognizant of the church’s requirement for abstaining, Katy (and all cognizant Catholics) will have to choose (pick) whether or not they will eat meat or abstain. At midnight Friday, Katy and all we others will be able to look back on the day and know what we have picked as our response to conformance to this church requirement. The ‘need to pick’ is forced upon us. Jesus said He came to bring a sword , a sword of decision, and He did. God can do stuff like that. This is just another visible instance of that.

As with Eve, in Genesis, Katy knows that she must not eat of the tree of meat (during Friday’s in lent). She has stated that. It is clear to her she must abstain to be docile, to be obedient. By midnight Friday it will be clear to her what she has chosen to do -- which choice she has ‘picked’, which ‘side’ of the line she has ‘picked’ to stand on. She will not be able to evade decision -- she can only make a decision. God forces that upon her (and I and all Catholics in this particular area that pertains to abstaining) -- though in many other areas He forces upon all Christians the responsibility to choose, to exercise our free wills in docility to His commandments, to His teachings, and His desires, and His heart. Our lives are a consequence of what we do and what we undergo. We walk in the valley of decision and hopefully, we ‘walk in beauty’ as the American Indian would phrase things.

As with Eve in Genesis, a serpent might undermine Katy’s certitude ( this he might do by questions pertaining to ‘did God really say that?’ ‘Is the Catholic magisterium or the local Bishop the voice of God? Or, he might undermine her certitude and sow doubt regarding the need to have understanding first -- before she can decide whether she will or won’t, should or shouldn’t be obedient and docile. God should answer to us first, and if the answer is fitting -- then we will choose what‘s best for us according to our wisdom. ‘What’s in a meat? ’ as Shakespeare might say, ‘A fish by any other name would smell as sweet’! Or, he might bring to mind all the corrupt popes of centuries past, the deviant priests of these days, the anti-semitic statements or innuendos, the substantial number of Christian denominations that love Jesus and don’t abstain -- whatever. He’s good at all that -- even masterful -- one of the most beautiful and intelligent of God’s creatures. He did it in the garden, he can do it in the good ole USA. (Katy , I’m using your name as an example since it was your original post. Please don’t take any of this personal. Your questioning is not atypical).

Come Friday midnight -- something will be looked back on. A decision will have been made. It is coming -- kind of blazing like an oven - (albeit more like a matchstick) but as in all things we are forced to make decisions.

The OT is replete with the message that “he who misses Me harms himself”. That there is set before us fire or water, life or death, and to whichever we choose we should stretch out our hand.

Jesus is a digital kind of guy. On the cross He was all 1 and zero 0. He refused even the drug-soaked sponge. He was ALL for His Father and ALL for us. He was obedient. He responded in love TO His father and FOR us. He vomits the lukewarm out of his mouth.

In the third millenium, in the digital age (at last), He says ‘Keep your analog; give me your digital love‘.

Anyway, that’s how I see things, Katy & Ariel, and what I would respond to your ‘What’s in a meat?’ post.

As for the BTW what will I be doing for Lent -- definitely what the church asks as a minimum.

Be a wheatie; tarey not. LOL.


Ariel,

One day, down at the old Crop and Spur, you can buy me a cold IPA .(a tall one, please)
and I’ll treat you to a cup of tea.

Pop-pop

(you know, up here in the saddle with my feet off the ground, it almost seems like I’m levitating). Yet, of course, I realize if not a snowball, there will likely be a mud pie coming my way to knock me off my almost high Andalusian horse.

---it is certainly not the work of the Devil to examine those claims closely. Such large, important claims warrant hard questions, rather than partisanship or easy acceptance. Sometimes just accepting authority is due to laziness.

Where, Pop-pop, do you see a problem with my writing this? Even for Catholics, why talk of it being the work of the Devil to examine those claims closely? And doubly so for Catholics, IMO: if Catholics are going to continue to claim that all Christians should be united in full communion with Rome, then it behooves them, I think, to really listen--undefensively, without resorting to side-taking--to the stories of non-RC Christians about why they have significant reservations towards Roman authority, and questions about Christ's intention for His body.

uh-oh, I hit edit on this post when I meant to quote from it this morning, in reply to pop-pop's post which follows it.

Anyway, here is roughly what I had in it as the claims of the RC church: That it is the one true church; that it's still RC policy that all Christians should be united under the RCC, and that it bases its authority on a claim to a valid, unbroken line of apostolic succession.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Ariel Jaffe,

Ariel,

My hot blood, my friend, my almost drinking partner….

Katy is already a baptized and professed Roman Catholic. You are not.

I don’t believe that Katy needs to challenge the authority of her church (nor do I believe that she has by her question on the significance of meat). Nor do I believe she has to ask it ‘hard questions’ or continually examine its ‘huge claims’ and whether they are ‘warranted.’

You have issues with the RC church, issues that even in PMs you do not reveal. You have not committed yourself to be in communion with the RC Church. That’s your thing. I don’t believe that it’s Katy’s.

Katy, can certainly ask questions; and indeed she did. I gave her an answer, which she may or may not accept. I am not clergy. It’s a free country. Yours, mine, Katy’s and many readers.

But to ask a question is not the same as to challenge with a rebellious spirit or a chip on the shoulder. To ask is to inquire. To inquire is not to challenge. There’s a difference between solicitous and in one’s face.

You see, in the end, the hot potato is yours, mon amie.

Perhaps, the next time you are about to present your gift to the altar and recall that you have heartburn with the RC Church (for whatever reason you believe it has wronged you), endeavor to reconcile it by talking to Christ about it. Give Him a blast of your vinegar and I’m sure that with the oil of His healing love a really great dressing will come forth. THEN perhaps one day, I can receive from you (and with a smiling countenance) not just an IPA, but perhaps Eucharist from your very hand.

(LOL. As a Eucharistic minister -- not a priest, you understand.)

Beyond that, let me quote you something I once read seems like years and years ago -- I even like you.

Pop-pop
p.s. I like touchy feely. I was by no means goofing on feelies. On that other thread all I was hinting at, was that I am an NF in the Meyers-Briggs world, and not an NT. I am a feelie myself. So, ease on down , ease on down the road . ….. after all…….. It’s a long way to Tippararee.

Pop-pop--

I didn't think you were "goofing on feelies". I tend towards ISFP and INFP-ishness myself, and I understood what you were saying about feelies on another thread.

Now, where was my "vinegar" and "issues with the RC church"? A number of times I felt you've ascribed to me attitudes and motivations that aren't coming from me. Based on my reading from post-Vatican II documents from the Vatican archives, and from reading other reliable Catholic sources, I don't believe I'm mistaking any RCC claims about itself. So in my previous post, did I make a mistake in what I said were the "huge", "important" claims of the RCC for itself?

Pop-pop--

Sorry, but I meant to post more of a reply by quoting from my post last evening, just above yours, and I inattentively hit edit rather than quote. So now a second part of my reply for today is confusingly posted in with last evening's.

Pop Pop:

First of all I am not used to your style of writing.. I hardly know you, nor know where you are coming from.

Next, you seem to be assuming that I am a baptized and practicing catholic.. how do you know that? Other things you assumed about me, also.

Also you said I didn't understand your earlier posts.. If you are referring to my comment about the fish frys being a time for unity.. well, that was sort of a joke.

Yes, I know the issue isn't about "meat", but about doing penance, etc. Rev. Know-It-All had the answers I wanted.. No big deal... I just wondered , why meat, as opposed to say, sugar.
Now I know.

You say "that church, yours and mine"... gotta do what the church says. Well, your church and my church also says that our conscious is our ultimate guide.

Thanks for all your comments.. even tho I still don't agree.

Katy

quote:

if Catholics are going to continue to claim that all Christians should be united in full communion with Rome, then it behooves them, I think, to really listen--undefensively, without resorting to side-taking--to the stories of non-RC Christians about why they have significant reservations towards Roman authority, and questions about Christ's intention for His body.

Ariel, we started to dialogue about some of these issues on another thread but I forget where. Do we need to take it up again? Sounds like you still have some questions and even strong feelings.

- - -

What's interesting re. "Lenten rules" is the number of Protestant communities that conduct Ash Weds. services and even dispense ashes. They also encourage more prayer, fasting and works of mercy. Why? Because this isn't a "Catholic" thing of recent origin, but how the early Church came to celebrate the days before Easter. Initially, it was a time of retreat for catechumens, then everyone got in on it. We all claim that early time in history, and most of the things unique to Catholic practice go back to those times -- long, long before the Reformation or even the split with the Orthodox.
- see http://www.orlutheran.com/html/lenthist.html for an example of how a Missouri Synod Lutheran Church (very conservative Protestant branch) understands Lent.

Phil--

Yes, this did come up on another thread, and you said there we could have a thread just about these things. I haven't started one yet for several reasons. First, I had no idea till a few months ago or less, that the RCC holds the position that it does (according to the unity document from Vatican II [I forget the Latin name of it]) on the meaning of Christian unity. I had thought "stay where you are but dialogue with love and try to get along" was more or less the official ecumenical position among all churches. So, I haven't started a new thread on the RCC position because I tend to do better at being teachable (open to hearing) towards new, unexpected ideas if I'm not talking, but just rather taking things in.

Also, I know you're busy, and I'm busy, too, and this isn't a crisis that needs a prompt solution.

And, yes, to be fair, Pop-pop is at times accurately picking up a bit of exasperation from me, but, Pop-pop, I'll say again in friendliness that I think you quite often "mis-hear" my tone. I was, to be specific to this thread, wondering if I was mis-hearing you about "Pick a side", so I asked for clarification. And yes, Pop-pop, I was exasperated when you wrote about doubts and questions about the RCC being the work of the Devil. To clarify that from my end-- if your wife, a friend, or son or daughter questions you on something, or expresses exasperation, even anger, do you think that's the Devil at work in them? Or, rather, do you take the time in humility to hear them out--in other words, to submit to mutual docility (teachableness) as St. Paul instructs us to do? The RCC, along with all churches, has made major mistakes throughout history, as acknowledged by Pope John Paul II and now Pope Benedict XVI in his newest book, bravo to them. It is not unreasonable for people to doubt the churches.

Ariel, yes, I'm busy now, but not "ridiculously busy" like a couple of weeks ago. Keeping up with what's going on here is a priority for me, at any rate.

Go ahead and start that thread on Christian unity, if you'd like. Fwiw, I don't think the RCC position is unreasonable, as this is the Mother Church from which the various protestant sects have split. So it's worth re-visiting whether the reasons for those splits still exist, and whether they're an obstacle to unity. No one's saying any group's history is perfect, or need be. And, besides, as I noted in another discussion, re-unification is probably not attainable; ecumenical cooperation in many areas is, however, and you'll find that resistance to such is often as much from the protestant side as the RCC.

And finally (I think), Pop-pop, I was exasperated on the other thread (Musings) when you wrote about the negative "fruit of the Reformation". You don't need me to remind you of some of "fruit" of how the RCC has handled its sex abuse cases. What's the point of "the pot calling the kettle black"? I "lament", with all Christians, at all abuses in Jesus' name. Some things peculiar to Protestant practice really suck. Likewise, the RCC needs to clean its own house.