Disciples or Friends?

A reader writes:

Jimmy,

I am reading your book "Mass Confusion" and I need some help that I can’t find on page 118.  My question has to do with the wording of the section that reads: "When supper was ended, he took up the cup.  Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his DISCIPLES, and said".   Our priest is substituting the word "Freind" for disciples.   Is this OK?  He is a Franciscan brother…tom

The word "friends" is used in place of "disciples" in the currently-authorized translations of the First and Second Eucharistic Prayers for Masses with Children. (I don’t have access to the Latin originals, so I can’t check to see if that’s the word used in the original. It may be ICEL tomfoolery.) Curiously, "friends" is not in the Third Eucharistic Prayer for Masses with Children ("disciples" is).

So if he’s saying one of those two Eucharistic prayers, he’s fine.

If he’s injecting the word "friends" into any other Eucharistic prayer (e.g., Eucharistic Prayers I-IV) then he’s not fine.

Because of the confusion caused to the faithful by any tampering with the words of consecration, this substitution (while it does not affect the validity of the consecration), is a liturgical abuse and sinful.

"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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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!

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.

Hog Kong Killed In Florida

Hog_kongA Florida hog hunter downed a 1,140 lb. wild hog last August.

This hog, dubbed "Hog Kong," was larger than the behemoth "Hogzilla" killed in Georgia.

The hunter, Larry Earley, downed the beast with a .44 magnum.

He later said: "I didn’t realize he was that big or I would have gotten a different gun."

No, duh!

He’s lucky to have brought down a 1,140-lb. hog with a handgun of any caliber!

Hog Kong has inspired a number of tall tales on the Internet, but

IN THIS STORY EARLEY SETS THE RECORD STRAIGHT ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED.

DAILY PLANET — Just before being shot by Earley, Hog Kong was distracted by a beautiful woman resembling Faye Ray, leading one local rustic to remark, "Shazam! T’was beauty kilt the beast!"

In a related development, Toho Studios announce a porcine remake of its classic monsterbash King Kong vs. Godzilla as Hog Kong vs. Hogzilla. Plans are for the film to have two endings. The first, to be shown in Georgia, will have Hogzilla win the climactic battle, while the second, to be shown in Florida, will have Hog Kong as the victor.

The Burden of Proof

Down yonder, I wrote:

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.

Following, which a reader wrote:

Jimmy,

You wrote:

"the burden of proof is always on the person you disagree with."

Which struck me as being, well, simply wrong: if it were true, then
in every disagreement (where both sides disagree with each other), both
sides would have the burden of proof. So what did you mean?

And another reader wrote:

Jimmy, I think you might be being facetious here. But the real
reason the burden of proof is on them, of course, is that they are
making an accusation that the pope conspired with an industry and
established binding laws of multitudes of Catholics in order to
financially benefit that industry. The burden of proof is always on the
people making an assertion of fact!

If someone accuses me of conspiring, the burden of proof better be
on them! If not, I’ll have to materialize some sort of proof that I
*didn’t conspire*! In most cases that wouldn’t even be possible.

Sorry, guys.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant . . .

YOU SHOULDER THE  BURDEN, ONE HUNDRED PERCENT.

. . . if you’re trying to convince someone who disagrees with you. The nature of the claim doesn’t matter.

Kudos to the reader who took up and defended the proposition I was advancing!

Don’t Forget To VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!

. . . in the Cyber Catholics 2005 blog awards, that is.

Last chance!

Voting ends at noon  Eastern this morning!

Here are my recommends:

  • Apologetics: <blush>JimmyAkin.Org</blush>
  • Political: Southern Appeal
  • By a Man: Mark Shea.
  • By a Woman: Amy Welborn
  • Insightful: Secret Agent Man
  • Creative: Curt Jester
  • Bizarre: Saintly Salmagundi

ENTER THE VOTING BOOTH.

"My Car Has A Virus . . ."

. . . that’s what you may be saying in a few years.

Technofolks are concerned that the computer virus problem will begin spreading rapidly among computer-chip-implanted devices including cell phones and automobiles:

Watch out for viruses that spread to mobile phones, handheld computers, wireless networks and embedded computers which are increasingly used to run basic automobile functions, the 2004 year-end "Security Threats and Attack Trends Report" report warns. Then again, the readiness of individuals and companies to confront these challenges has also evolved, the study said.

IBM’s report draws on data from 500,000 electronic devices.

It details a range of challenges that computer users faced in 2004 and extrapolates from early warning signs what sort of new threats electronics users are likely to face this year.

Known computer viruses grew by 28,327 in 2004 to bring the number of old and new viruses to 112,438, the report said. In 2002, only 4,551 new viruses were discovered.

Of 147 billion e-mails scanned by IBM for customers in 2004, one in 16, or 6 percent, contained a virus. During 2002, just 0.5 percent of e-mail scanned had viruses.

The average amount of spam circulating on global networks was 75 percent, the survey found. But during peak periods, spam accounted for as much as 95 percent of e-mail traffic.

As the average new car runs 20 computer processors and about 60 megabytes of software code, the opportunity for malfunctions, wireless attacks and other security threats was multiplying, he said.

What I’d like to know is just how a virus would get into your car’s chips.

Oh, well . . .

GET THE STORY.

“My Car Has A Virus . . .”

. . . that’s what you may be saying in a few years.

Technofolks are concerned that the computer virus problem will begin spreading rapidly among computer-chip-implanted devices including cell phones and automobiles:

Watch out for viruses that spread to mobile phones, handheld computers, wireless networks and embedded computers which are increasingly used to run basic automobile functions, the 2004 year-end "Security Threats and Attack Trends Report" report warns. Then again, the readiness of individuals and companies to confront these challenges has also evolved, the study said.

IBM’s report draws on data from 500,000 electronic devices.

It details a range of challenges that computer users faced in 2004 and extrapolates from early warning signs what sort of new threats electronics users are likely to face this year.

Known computer viruses grew by 28,327 in 2004 to bring the number of old and new viruses to 112,438, the report said. In 2002, only 4,551 new viruses were discovered.

Of 147 billion e-mails scanned by IBM for customers in 2004, one in 16, or 6 percent, contained a virus. During 2002, just 0.5 percent of e-mail scanned had viruses.

The average amount of spam circulating on global networks was 75 percent, the survey found. But during peak periods, spam accounted for as much as 95 percent of e-mail traffic.

As the average new car runs 20 computer processors and about 60 megabytes of software code, the opportunity for malfunctions, wireless attacks and other security threats was multiplying, he said.

What I’d like to know is just how a virus would get into your car’s chips.

Oh, well . . .

GET THE STORY.