Liturgical Year – Page 38

"40 Days"

Down yonder, a reader writes:

Vatican documents teach that Lent has 40 days of penance.

I need to stop you for a moment. Lent is not a matter of Church teaching. It is a matter of the Church’s liturgical law. Therefore, no Church document "teaches" that Lent is forty days. I point this out partly for the sake of accuracy and to put readers on guard against thinking this is a matter of Church teaching, given the emotionally charge that the word "teach" has for faithful Catholics. It’s a matter of law, not doctrine, so the matter is a question of what the Church’s law provides, not what the Magisterium teaches.

Back over to you . . .

For example the Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 540 "By the

solemn forty days of Lent the Church unites herself each year to the

mystery of Jesus in the desert."

I would point out several things in response:

One must evaluate Church documents by their nature. They are not all the same, and you have to look to the question of the nature of the work, the kind of language it uses, and the kind of authority it has toward a specific matter.
You are quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church here. As its name suggests, it is a catechetical work, not a legal work. It does not establish the Church’s law, whether liturgical or otherwise. You have to look at the Church’s legal documents for that.
As a catechetical work, the Catechism uses traditional catechetical language, which (as I’ve noted) speaks of Lent in an approximative way as being forty days. Since this is traditional catechetical language regarding Lent, it is the language the Catechism uses. This language is not to be replied upon as providing the technical legal description that is to be found in the Church’s legal documents.

You also write:

Forty days is also prominent in the 17 December 2001 document from

the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the

Sacraments entitled Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy:

"Lent

"124. Lent precedes and prepares for Easter. It is a time to hear

the Word of God, to convert, to prepare for and remember Baptism, to be

reconciled with God and one’s neighbour, and of more frequent recourse

to the "arms of Christian penance"(134): prayer, fasting and good works

(cf. Mt 6, 1-6. 16-18).

"Popular piety does not easily perceive the mystical aspect of Lent

and does not emphasize any of its great themes or values, such a

relationship between "the sacrament of forty days" and "the sacraments

of Christian initiation", nor the mystery of the "exodus" which is

always present in the lenten journey. Popular piety concentrates on the

mysteries of Christ’s humanity, and during Lent the faithful pay close

attention to the Passion and Death of Our Lord.

"125. In the Roman Rite, the beginning of the forty days of penance

is marked with the austere symbol of ashes which are used in the

Liturgy of Ash Wednesday. …"

While the Directory for Popular Piety and the Liturgy is a document published by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, which is the competent dicastery to revise the calendar, this document is still not the controlling legal document for the calendar. That document is the General Norms for the Liturgical Year and the Calendar, which was quoted earlier and which provides a definition of Lent that is not forty days long.

The Directory for Popular Piety is a pastoral document rather than a legal document. It contains language of a pastoral nature that draws upon the traditional and approximative mode of speech regarding Lent being forty days long. It does not re-define the length of Lent in supercession of the General Norms.

In order for it to do so, it would not only have to indicate that it was revising the calendar (it does not), it would also have to be approved by the pope in forma specifica (it is not; it has only general papal approval).

The presence of the traditional, approximative language in this or other documents thus does not override the fact that the controlling legal document for the calendar–the General Norms–specifies a Lenten period of more than forty days.

It’s understandable that folks would be confused on this point, because the traditional mode of speech, if taken literally, is at variance with the length specified in the controlling legal document–which is why this question comes up every year.

My compliments on your throughness in investigating this!

“40 Days”

Down yonder, a reader writes:

Vatican documents teach that Lent has 40 days of penance.

Back over to you . . .

For example the Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 540 "By the
solemn forty days of Lent the Church unites herself each year to the
mystery of Jesus in the desert."

I would point out several things in response:

One must evaluate Church documents by their nature. They are not all the same, and you have to look to the question of the nature of the work, the kind of language it uses, and the kind of authority it has toward a specific matter.
You are quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church here. As its name suggests, it is a catechetical work, not a legal work. It does not establish the Church’s law, whether liturgical or otherwise. You have to look at the Church’s legal documents for that.
As a catechetical work, the Catechism uses traditional catechetical language, which (as I’ve noted) speaks of Lent in an approximative way as being forty days. Since this is traditional catechetical language regarding Lent, it is the language the Catechism uses. This language is not to be replied upon as providing the technical legal description that is to be found in the Church’s legal documents.

You also write:

Forty days is also prominent in the 17 December 2001 document from
the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the
Sacraments entitled Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy:

"Lent

"124. Lent precedes and prepares for Easter. It is a time to hear
the Word of God, to convert, to prepare for and remember Baptism, to be
reconciled with God and one’s neighbour, and of more frequent recourse
to the "arms of Christian penance"(134): prayer, fasting and good works
(cf. Mt 6, 1-6. 16-18).

"Popular piety does not easily perceive the mystical aspect of Lent
and does not emphasize any of its great themes or values, such a
relationship between "the sacrament of forty days" and "the sacraments
of Christian initiation", nor the mystery of the "exodus" which is
always present in the lenten journey. Popular piety concentrates on the
mysteries of Christ’s humanity, and during Lent the faithful pay close
attention to the Passion and Death of Our Lord.

"125. In the Roman Rite, the beginning of the forty days of penance
is marked with the austere symbol of ashes which are used in the
Liturgy of Ash Wednesday. …"

My compliments on your throughness in investigating this!

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:

Church law is written in Latin.
In Latin the thing we are forbidden to eat on (today certain) Fridays is carnis.
In Latin, carnis means the flesh of warm-blooded, land-dwelling animals.
Since people couldn’t eat carnis, they looked for things similar to carnis to eat on Fridays.
Tofu burgers not having been introduced in the West, people started eating fish.
The practice of eating fish became widespread.
People who didn’t know Latin started looking for an explanation of why fish is eaten but not the flesh of land animals.
The sinful streak in human nature made them want to attribute some kind of self-interested motive to the Church in allowing fish.
Somebody noticed that forbidding meat on Fridays would have the effect of economically benefitting the fishing industry.
Somebody attributed the allowance of fish to an attempt by the pope to economically benefit the finishing industry.
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?

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:

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

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

Happy 2005 & Mary The Mother Of God!