The Duration of Lent

A reader writes:

I have a question concerning the duration of Lent.  My sister, who is just coming back into the faith, just came back from picking up her son at CCD class.  She said that they were told that the first 3 days following Ash Wednesday are not officially part of the Lenton season, and that Lent does not officially start until Sunday.  She said that they were also given a book, and that it also says this in the book. 

Is this correct??

No. The current regulations for what days are in what seasons are found in a document titled the General Norms for the Liturgical Year and the Calendar, which was released in 1969. It provides:

Lent runs from Ash Wednesday until the Mass of the Lord’s Supper exclusive [General Norms 28].

The origin of the confusion may be in the fact that the First Sunday of Lent (four days after Ash Wednesday) is sometimes said to inaugurate "the first week of Lent." This manner of speech is meant to pick out the first full week of Lent and does not change the fact that the controlling legal document, the General Norms, provides that Lent begins earlier.

"Fish" Fridays

A reader writes:

I got hit by the old line that eating fish was related to boosting the fishing industry.  The sad thing was the guy said he heard if from a seminarian.  I went to EWTN and looked at some posts but wasn’t real happy with what I saw there.

Do you have (at Catholic Answers) or on some simple but documented history of eating fish?

This is one of those things that is hard to verify because of how backwards the situation is. Every year people claim that eating fish on Fridays was introduced to help the Italian fishing industry, but nobody ever comes up with primary source documents to estabish this.

It seems to me that the burden of proof is on the people making this claim. Unless they can produce an original source document saying this, it isn’t worth giving any credence to.

I say the burden of proof is on them because I don’t believe the claim (I think it’s a myth), and the burden of proof is always on the person you disagree with.

It seems to me that the following is far more likely to account for the situation:

  1. Church law is written in Latin.
  2. In Latin the thing we are forbidden to eat on (today certain) Fridays is carnis.
  3. In Latin, carnis means the flesh of warm-blooded, land-dwelling animals.
  4. Since people couldn’t eat carnis, they looked for things similar to carnis to eat on Fridays.
  5. Tofu burgers not having been introduced in the West, people started eating fish.
  6. The practice of eating fish became widespread.
  7. People who didn’t know Latin started looking for an explanation of why fish is eaten but not the flesh of land animals.
  8. The sinful streak in human nature made them want to attribute some kind of self-interested motive to the Church in allowing fish.
  9. Somebody noticed that forbidding meat on Fridays would have the effect of economically benefitting the fishing industry.
  10. Somebody attributed the allowance of fish to an attempt by the pope to economically benefit the finishing industry.
  11. The rumor spread far and wide because people still have a sinful streak whereby they want to attribute selfish motives to others and, in particular, to the pope.

If there were a requirement that people eat fish on Friday (there ain’t) then one would have a better case for the fishing-industry story, but in the absence of a requirement or any primary source document to the contrary, the above seems to me to be the more likely way to account for the matter.

“Fish” Fridays

A reader writes:

I got hit by the old line that eating fish was related to boosting the fishing industry.  The sad thing was the guy said he heard if from a seminarian.  I went to EWTN and looked at some posts but wasn’t real happy with what I saw there.

Do you have (at Catholic Answers) or on some simple but documented history of eating fish?

This is one of those things that is hard to verify because of how backwards the situation is. Every year people claim that eating fish on Fridays was introduced to help the Italian fishing industry, but nobody ever comes up with primary source documents to estabish this.

It seems to me that the burden of proof is on the people making this claim. Unless they can produce an original source document saying this, it isn’t worth giving any credence to.

I say the burden of proof is on them because I don’t believe the claim (I think it’s a myth), and the burden of proof is always on the person you disagree with.

It seems to me that the following is far more likely to account for the situation:

  1. Church law is written in Latin.
  2. In Latin the thing we are forbidden to eat on (today certain) Fridays is carnis.
  3. In Latin, carnis means the flesh of warm-blooded, land-dwelling animals.
  4. Since people couldn’t eat carnis, they looked for things similar to carnis to eat on Fridays.
  5. Tofu burgers not having been introduced in the West, people started eating fish.
  6. The practice of eating fish became widespread.
  7. People who didn’t know Latin started looking for an explanation of why fish is eaten but not the flesh of land animals.
  8. The sinful streak in human nature made them want to attribute some kind of self-interested motive to the Church in allowing fish.
  9. Somebody noticed that forbidding meat on Fridays would have the effect of economically benefitting the fishing industry.
  10. Somebody attributed the allowance of fish to an attempt by the pope to economically benefit the finishing industry.
  11. The rumor spread far and wide because people still have a sinful streak whereby they want to attribute selfish motives to others and, in particular, to the pope.

If there were a requirement that people eat fish on Friday (there ain’t) then one would have a better case for the fishing-industry story, but in the absence of a requirement or any primary source document to the contrary, the above seems to me to be the more likely way to account for the matter.

Seven Churches Visitation

A reader writes:

As a child I remember going to seven churches on Holy Thursday evening to
visit the Blessed Sacrament.  Can you explain the origin and significance
of this practice to me.  Is is still being done today?

I don’t have a lot of detail on this, but it apparently is a custom has been practiced in different places. I have evidence that it is a Polish Catholic custom, though it is also shared by other ethnicities, such as Italians.

Common sense would suggest that it may also be an urban custom (cities having the abundances of churches needed for folks to do this) compared to a rural custom (where churches are fewer & farther between).

There’s info on it and other Polish customs ON THIS PAGE.

It also appears to have been mentioned on a Knights of Columbus Page that has moved or is no longer on the web. That page stated:

The Altar of Repose

When the Eucharist is processed to the altar of repose after the Mass of Lord’s Supper, we should remain in quiet prayer and adoration, keeping Christ company. There is a tradition, particularly in big cities with many parishes, to try and visit seven churches and their altar of repose during this evening.

As to whether it is still practiced, according to the Denver Catholic Register, it is:

To this day, Italians customarily visit seven churches for Eucharistic adoration on Holy Thursday night, a reflection of the ancient pilgrimage practice of visiting seven Roman basilicas to obtain the plenary indulgence. Austrians light bonfires on Holy Saturday night to welcome the light of the risen Lord [LINK].

Perhaps others can comment with their knowledge of the custom.

Ashes, Ashes, All Fall Down

A correspondent writes:

How long does one leave the ashes from the Ash Wednesday service on ones forehead?

Is it wrong to wipe them off?

It is not wrong to wipe them off.

As far as how long one leaves them on, there is no standard answer. It is a matter of your choice.

As a matter of public witness, I would recommend that you leave them on until you are done going out in public on Ash Wednesday.

I would defintely wipe them off by the morning of the Thursday following Ash Wednesday.

Lenten Reader Roundup

As I ‘spected, yesterday’s post on Lent Resources put the cat among the pigeons.

I can’t respond to everyone without writing a monster post, but here are a few thoughts:

First, I appreciate the sentiment folks have of wanting to go beyond the law in terms of what is required for Lent. That’s good and meritorious. My job here, though, is to explain what the law currently requires, not what it used to say or what it ought to say.

Second, I also appreciate folks’ attachment to the 40 day idea. As I acknowledged, Lent at one time may have been forty days long. It also may have once excluded Sundays. That’s just not what the current regs say.

READER A writes:

Without getting too technical, what part of the mammal counts as
"meat" – flesh/muscle only? Would liver count (talk about penance)?

I haven’t gone to look this up, but I’m sure that the standard moralists would say that organs (liver, heart, tongue) do count as meat.

READER B writes:

Does the details regarding the Ash Weds/Good Friday fast differ
around the world? In other words do Nationial Conferences of Bishops
change anything regarding this? In particular: what is the law in
Poland?

Yes, the national conference does have a role in setting local requrements. Unfortunately, I don’t have any info on the regs in Poland.

READER C writes:

I think you are mistaken about gravies and sauces (and broths, etc.)
made with meat, at least according to traditional moral theology. These
do fall under the rules of abstinence.

It depends on what you mean by "traditional." (It’s also not moral theology but canon law.) If you mean matters as they were under the 1917 Code of Canon Law, you’d be right, as Canon 1250 prohibited the eating of "soups made from meat." However, in 1966 when this norm was revised in the apostolic constitution Paenitemini, the reference to soups was dropped. The way the law reads now, not only broths but regular soup with meat is allowed. (NOTE: I am not saying that I approve of this. As always, my explaining the law means that I’m explaining the law, not that I’m giving my opinion about what the law should be.)

As far as gravies and sauces, these are condiments and are expressly permitted by Paenitemini. They are made principally from animal fat but may have some blood or meat elements mixed in in small quantities. Thus Henry Davis, SJ, notes in his Moral & Pastoral Theology (1938):

By condiment is meant that which is taken–whether liquid or solid–in a small quantity with food to make it more palatable. Butter made from animal fats, and margarine from palm kernel are allowed. Jellies also which are made from fish or animal bones are not meat. Lard, the rendered fat of hog, and dripping, the grease that has dripped from roasted meat [i.e., the principal ingredient of gravy, together with flour], may be taken, as condiments [II:435-436].

The change allowing soups made with meat also has collateral impact on how many meat tracings can be present in gravies and other sauces.

READER C continues:

Also, it’s worthwhile to point out that while fasting, meat can only be taken at the main meal and not at the collations.

This is not a requirement of the law. It may be a practice that some follow, but it is not in the law. (Also, as the two mandatory days of fasting are also days of abstinence, it wouldn’t apply then anyway.)

I’d like to see a citation for the claim about dolphin, too. My
understanding is that the "dividing line" (so to speak) is between
warm-blooded and cold-blooded animals, so that mammals and birds are
off-limits but alligators, turtles, and frogs (etc.) are fine.

Some people do use the warm-blooded/cold-blooded distinction, but this is seen as applicable to land animals. Aquatic mammals are commonly lumped under "fish"–even if they aren’t very fish-like.

The dolphin remark was thrown in as a semi-jest since dolphin meat is unavailable in the U.S. (to most folks). But it is permitted under the understanding of older moralists, who mention other water-dwelling mammals (even ones much less fish-like!) as permitted.  More from Davis:

What precisely is an animal, within the meaning of the law, cannot be completely determined. We need not take scientific definitions, but may have recourse to the common usage of the term. In case of doubt, the rule laid down by S. Thomas may well be taken, namely, that by the term are meant animals that are born on land and breathe [ST II-II:147:8]. S. Thomas meant, we believe, animals that are born, live, and mature on land. In the case of amphibians, their similarity to land animals must decide. In case of doubt the law does not bind.

Under fish are included frogs, snails, tortises, oysters, lobsters, otters, beavers, crabs [II:436].

READER D writes:

When did we stop including the Triduum, thus reducing Lent to 37?!?
Who’s brilliant idea was that? If the answer is Vatican II, I might
scream.

Don’t scream. It wasn’t Vatican II. Folks have a tendency to blame the Council for things that actually happened afterward. I don’t have the prior norms for the liturgical year, so I can’t verify that Triduum was part of Lent, but assuming it was, the change would have been made with the release for the new general norms for the calendar in 1969.

READER E writes:

I find it very hard to believe that it’s okay to eat a veggie-burger
during a Lenten Friday. Sure, it may not be technically meat, but it’s
a good enough approximation to it, and the whole point of this Lenten
abstinence is to deny ourselves the very taste of meat, not necessarily
to keep meat-substances out of our body.

As a matter of praxis, I agree with you: It violates the spirit of the day to eat faux meats (though the law permits it). On the other hand . . . you haven’t eaten many veggie-burgers, have you? (The ones I’ve had are only patty-shaped blobs of non-meat-approximating stuff.)

READER F writes:

Ya see, I am planning a very self-denying lent. I am going on a
juice/liquid fast. So I was kinda glad to hear about the boullion/broth
just in case the carrot and spinach juice doesn’t sit right with me.

Boullion/broth is indeed okay (as noted above), but be careful if you’re going to do a liquid fast for more than a day or so. Talk to your spiritual director and doctor about what is needed to do such things safely if you intend to do it for any appreciable time!

Lent Resources

Okay, Lent is about to begin again, and that generates questions (and quarrels) every year. We may as well get the annual Lenten controversy underway with a bang.

Here’s a basic fact sheet (with some surprising facts that I’ll probably have to follow up on–trust me, after answering Lent questions every year for the last twelve years, I’ve researched these points quite thoroughly):

  • Lent begins at midnight Ash Wednesday and ends at the beginning of the
    Mass of the Lord’s Supper on Holy Thursday, at which point Triduum
    begins.
  • We are obliged to fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.
  • The law of fast binds everybody from ages 18-59 unless they have a
    medical condition that would interfere significantly with fasting.
  • The law of fast allows the eating of one full meal plus two smaller
    meals, provided the two smaller- meals are not as large as a regular
    meal if combined. This law, of course, is hopelessly confusing as many
    people tend not to eat similarly-sized meals.
  • We are obliged to abstain from meat on Ash Wednesday, the Fridays of
    Lent, and Good Friday.
  • The law of abstinence binds everyone who is fourteen years old and up
    unless they have a medical condition that would interfere significantly
    with abstinence from meat.
  • The law of abstinence forbids the eating dishes principally or
    substantially comprised of the flesh of land-dwelling mammals and birds (trace
    amounts of meat and other parts of the body besides meat do not count).
    According to the common and contant opinion of learned persons, as found
    in the older moral and pastoral theologies, the law of abstinence does
    not affect reptiles, amphibians, insects, or anything that is a water-dwelling animal (even if it is a
    mammal, so dolphin is okay). It also does not affect gravies or other
    sauces (even if these are made with meat), and it does not affect
    anything made from parts of land-dwelling animals other their meat (so
    milk, cheese, eggs, things made with animal fat, and Jell-O, which comes
    from hooves, are okay).
  • Despite hymns to the contrary, Lent is not forty days long. It may
    have been at one time, but the way the Church’s liturgical documents are
    written today, Lent is just under 44 days long. (It would be forty-four
    if it didn’t end on the evening of Holy Thursday.) The number 40 is thus
    only an approximation.
  • The way the Church’s documents are written, Sundays are part of
    Lent, but since penances other than fast and absinence on the required
    days are voluntary, you can cut yourself a break on Sunday from whatever
    other penance you may have decided to do.
  • To fulfill our Easter duty,we are obliged to receive Communion at some
    point between Ash Wednesday and Trinity Sunday, which is the Sunday
    after Pentecost (unless for a just cause this requirement is fulfilled
    at another time of year).

More info on Lent here:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0104fea1.asp

And here:

http://jimmyakin.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?q=lent&s=SS

Why Don’t We Have To Go To Mass Tomorrow?

Down yonder, a reader asks:

"…the precept to attend Mass is abrogated."

Why ?

Because people would resist and resent it if they were forced to go to church two days in a row. (And it is more of a hassle on holy days since most parishes try to get away with a smaller number of Masses than on Sundays, meaning that the parking lots are more crowded and the people are often unsure when those Masses will be since the usual schedule isn’t being kept.)

People will put up with that for Christmas (like this year), but they’ll either resent it or won’t come other holy days.

That’s awful un-pious, of course, but then this is a fallen world, and that’s just where American society is right now.

Still, we have about 28% regular Mass attendance among Catholics here, which is not only better than a large number of developed countries but (contrary to popular impression) better than church attendance by Protestants here (they typically show up at church about 25% of the time).

Note that I’m not endorsing the abrogation of the need to go to Mass tomorrow, I’m merely explaining it.

A counterargument could be made that if the Church expected more out of people by way of piety that they’d rise to the occasion and act more pious. That’s certainly true in some ways, and one well might argue that this would be the case here.