Instead of partial fast, don't you mean fast with partial abstinence?

Here's the question with regard to days of fast with partial abstinence.

Is the 10 year old required to keep the "partial abstinence" even while not keeping the fast.

Answer I've come up with is no, because partial abstinence is part of the FAST and not the abstinence.

So one answer would have then youngster eating meat once a day and then anything else non-meat throughout the rest of the day.

Whereas my answer is that the youngster is not required to do EITHER, because the abstinence is part of the fast and not a separate thing (being partial).

Here's the question with regard to days of fast with partial abstinence.

Is the 10 year old required to keep the "partial abstinence" even while not keeping the fast.

Answer I've come up with is no, because partial abstinence is part of the FAST and not the abstinence.

So one answer would have then youngster eating meat once a day and then anything else non-meat throughout the rest of the day.

Whereas my answer is that the youngster is not required to do EITHER, because the abstinence is part of the fast and not a separate thing (being partial).

We have our kids eat meatless meals the rest of the day, on those partial fast days. Ditto for the pregnant or nursing. The reasoning being: going without meat isn't going to kill you or even cause the slightest malnutrition. It's just a good wholesome sacrifice. And it gets the kids ready to fast and abstain (practice the Ember Days in general) when they're older.

Instead of partial fast, don't you mean fast with partial abstinence?

No, I meant partial fast, as in "half a fish" on your Trad calendar -- because you need to eat meatless/fish at SOME of your meals.

Yes, and unfortunately St. Matthew's day falls on Friday this year. It dances all around the Fall Ember Week, being September 21.

.
You know, in America we get the dispensation of having the day off on Friday following Thanksgiving Day and on March 17th when St. Patrick's Day falls on Friday. So you could check and see if when your name is Matthew, if the Feast of St. Matthew falling on Friday might be in the same ballpark. I mean, he was an Apostle. St. Patrick wasn't an Apostle. 

.
Any Catholic who is wont to recognize (at least until things get cleared up) the legitimacy of Newchurch for making laws, would not be committing a sin by not abiding by the old Ember Days restrictions, nonetheless, it's a bit hypocritical to adhere to the rest of the pre-Vatican II rules but then ignore one or more such as these. If you're going to stick with the longstanding guidelines, then that's what you should do. Stick with them.

That was kindof my point.  If you're going to do the Ember Days, then 21 is the right age.  If you're going with the new rules of 18, then the Ember Days aren't required at all.  While not ideal, if you believe the current Popes are legitimate, there's nothing positively wrong with cancelling a fast.  If we mix and match, then we're setting ourselves up as our own authority ... not unlike cafeteria Catholics.

Of course, there's no regulation PREVENTING a 19-year-old from fasting even under the traditional rules, but we're speaking here about what we hold in our consciences to be strictly obligatory.  There can sometimes be a scrupulosity entering in where "I'm safe if I pick the strictest part of each."  But in truth a doubtful law does not oblige.  So unless you are a dogmatic sedevacantist who holds that there's NO DOUBT about the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants, the Ember Day fasting regulations do not bind under pain of sin.

I agree.  There are 2 laws - the old and the new.  Pick one or the other.  If you try to blend them, you are being your own Church.  There's a reason the Church had ember days start at age 21, so, if you want to follow the ember days (which isn't required) then follow the age of 21.  Don't overcomplicate things and don't let the devil tempt you to be "more holy" than the Church.