cyberCatholics.com » Joshua LeBlanc

Lenten Calculations and Misconceptions

Joshua LeBlanc | April 11, 2007 | print this post | email this post

Misconception #1: Sundays in Lent are part of the Lenten Season
Misconception #2: Lent is forty days long

Sundays are neither considered part of the Lenten season nor is Lent forty days in length. To explain this requires a little history of Lent.

In the first stage we see that as far back as the year 384 that Lent comprised six weeks and was officially called Quadragesima — literally 40 days. Quadragesima consisted of the forty consecutive days immediately before the start of the Triduum¹. This put Lent beginning on the First Sunday of Lent and lasting through Holy Thursday. Holy Thursday was not part of the Triduum and the Triduum was not part of Lent. We know all of this to be true because of the writings of St. Leo². Even though the preceding forty days were all days of Lent, not all of them were fast days so much as they were days of spiritual combat. Sundays have never been considered days of fast and we can see in the Early Church an Apostolic Constitution³ tell us that a man who fasts on the Sabbath is guilty of sin.

The second stage of Lent happens around the time of the fifth century and lasts until Pope Paul VI’s reform of Holy Week in 1969. In the fifth century we see the development of the Triduum into Holy Thursday - Easter Sunday. In doing this the character of the forty days was changed and, in an effort to maintain the forty fast days, Lent was reformed to begin on Ash Wednesday, which had previously been not part of Lent but rather a day of preparation, and last through Holy Saturday, essentially overlappting with the Triduum. We can look to the Gelasian Sacramentary of this time as it was the first official text to refer to Lent as beginning on Ash Wednesday. It is important to note that at this time in History the forty days of fast overlap with the Lenten season, but this has not always been the case and isn’t the case currently.

The third stage of the reform happened by Pope Paul VI in the year 1969. At this time the season of the Sacred Triddum was restored. Doing this shortended the Lenten season from 40 days to 38 days, if you count all of Holy Thursday. The reform of Paul VI stated that the Triduum would begin with the Mass of the Lord’s Supper on Holy Thursday and Last through Evening Prayer on Easter Sunday. It was also at this time that Paul VI removed the obligation to fast from all days except for Good Friday and Ash Wednesday. Here we have the nature of the fast removed from the Lenten season. This revision returns us back to the original calculation and meaning of the Triduum and Lent. The norms of the Tridduum note that on Good Friday and (if possible) and Holy Saturday the Easter fast is to be observed⁴. So how to we get 40 possible fast days? You add the 38 days of Lent and Good Friday and Holy Saturday and you end up with 40 possible fast days, though there is no obligation to fast on those days except for Good Friday.

In Concusion, Lent is not forty days long but rather 38. Sundays are not and never have been calcuated as part of Lent. Even the current regulation notes that Lent runs from Ash Wednesday - Holy Thursday, exclusive⁵ (meaning some days in between are not part of Lent, namely the Sundays.) We also see that from the history that the penitential season of Lent and the 40 days of fast are two separate entities that have not always been one in the same. This is evident from our current practice where the possible 40 days of fast include the 38 days of Lent and two days of the Triduum.

Misconception #3: Beginning at 4pm on Saturdays we being observing the Sabbath and therefore can endulge on what we have given up as a penance.

Not true. There is a great difference between an anticipated Mass and the beginning of the Sabbath observance. An anticipated Mass (which typically begins at 4pm) is a Mass in which the obligation for attendance at Sunday’s Mass is fulfilled. The Code of Canon Law Can. 202 §1, specifically notes that for time calculation purposes begins at midnight. However, the Church has had a long standing custom of observing the Sabbath beginning at evening of the previous day. This is noted in the General Guidelines of the Liturgical Year. Even if we followed this thinking, the Sabbath observance does not begin until true evening, not a set time. This is the same guidelines that are used to calculate when an Easter Vigil mass can be celebrated (which is usually never before 7pm). The point to make is that there is a distinction between the sabbath observance and an anticipated Mass and at the very earliest the sabbath observance cannot begin before evening⁶. I however, tend to favor the Code of Canon law because it is a newer document and most likely supercedes the 1969 Liturgical Guidelines.

1. It is important to note also that in the General Norms for the Liturgical Year that the Sundays of Lent and Advent are clearly noted as "Sundays of Lent and Avent" respectively whereas Sunday during ordinary time are referred to "Sundays in Ordinary Time." This is even denoted in the Sacramentary which clearly say "Second Sunday of Lent" and "Second Sunday in Ordinary Time" noting that Sundays of Lent are not in Lent.

2. See St. Leo the Great’s Sermon #39

3. 250-300 AD Apostolic Constitutions Do you therefore fast, and ask your petitions of God. We enjoin you to fast every fourth day of the week, and every day of the preparation, and the surplusage of your fast bestow upon the needy; every Sabbath-day excepting one, and every Lord’s day, hold your solemn assemblies, and rejoice: for he will be guilty of sin who fasts on the Lord’s day, being the day of the resurrection, or during the time of Pentecost, or, in general, who is sad on a festival day to the Lord For on them we ought to rejoice, and not to mourn. (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, book 5)

4,5. General Norms of the Liturgical Year and the Calendar

6. http://www.blessedsacrament.com/theology/emmanuel/huels.html

For More information, see Abbot Patrick Regan, O.S.B’s article "The Three Days and the Forty Days" in Worship #54 (1980). Most of the Information for this article was taken from Abbot Patrick’s article.

Is Ordination a Right?

Joshua LeBlanc | January 2, 2007 | print this post | email this post

There has been increasingly more and more debate concerning the new document from the Vatican on the ordination of homosexual men to the priesthood. Since I am writing this before the release of the Vatican’s document on the subject, it not proper to assume what the Vatican will or will not do.

This has not stopped many men, self-identified as homosexuals, from chastising the pope and church authorities over the document while its contents were mere speculation. It is particularly distressing to hear the claim made that single, celibate men have the right to ordination if they “feel” they have a calling to the priesthood. Such statements confuse hearers regarding the Church’s understanding of ordination.

What is worse, some who disagree with what the Church teaches have taken to declaring the Church and the pope to be “bigots.” To make such statements is not only unwarranted — since the document has not even been issued yet — but also stretches beyond the boundaries of Christian charity. Some homosexual men have made their complaint against the Church and the proposed document from the Vatican because they believe that Christ is “calling” them to the priesthood. But this argument doesn’t hold water if we look at the Church’s teaching concerning sacred ordination.

Let’s get some facts straight about the Church and the calling to the priesthood. As individuals we don’t call ourselves to the priesthood, we discern a possible call to the priesthood. It is the responsibility of the Church that Jesus Christ founded to discern if an individual is indeed being called by Christ to the priesthood. This call is never one that is definitively decided by the individual, but by Jesus Christ Himself through the ministry of the Church. Therefore, those who would claim “I am called to the priesthood but the Church won’t ordain me” are advocating a fallacy and ignorance. A call to the priesthood consists of three steps: a vocation to the priesthood by being called to it by Jesus Christ; having that call authenticated by the Church; and either the acceptance or rejection by a man to that calling. (It is true that a man can be called to the priesthood and reject that call.)

We can look to the actual ordination rite as evidence of this threefold calling. The Rite of Ordination to the Diaconate states: "Most Reverend Father, holy Mother Church asks you to ordain this man, our brother, to the responsibility of the diaconate." It is to be noted that it is holy Mother Church who calls the man forward to be ordained. The rite does not propose that it is the man who asks to be ordained deacon, but the Church that asks and the man accepts. The bishop goes on to say: "Relying on the help of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ, we choose this man, our brother, for the Order of the diaconate." Again, it is the bishop, as chief shepherd of the diocese, who is choosing this man for ordination because the local Church has verified this man’s calling to the priesthood.

As a former seminarian who spent four years discerning a call to the priesthood, experience has shown me the difficulties of including homosexuals among the ordained. In my early years, I advocated that homosexual men should be allowed to be priests as long as they were celibate. My position has since changed.

Through talking with other seminarians who are homosexual, I have learned that for many homosexual men seminary has become somewhat of a haven, a place to “hide out” so to speak, from the problems of the world. I would presume that many homosexual men enter seminary with honest intentions — to presume otherwise is simply arrogance. They truly want to live a celibate life. They think “the problem” will go away, but often leave because it doesn’t. Some of my own seminary brothers were homosexual men and even to this day I consider them friends. I have learned that three different things happen to homosexuals when they enter the seminary. They may leave because they learn being celibate is too difficult when constantly around other men. They may be expelled because they have failed to remain celibate. Or they slip under the radar, become ordained priests who are not very integrated individuals, and cause problems in the Church somewhere down the line — whether that be in inappropriate relationships or by failing to uphold Church teaching.

The statistics regarding abuse by priests show that most of the victims of the sexual abuse crisis were young males who were victimized by homosexual priests. Then there is the problem of two homosexual men living in a rectory together. Would we turn a blind eye to a heterosexual priest sharing his rectory with a nun or two?

As a heterosexual former seminarian, I will tell you it is also very difficult to discern a vocation in the company of homosexual men who aren’t committed to celibacy and are indeed fornicating with each other as though no one else knows about it. I do not fault the administration of the particular seminary I attended. They did not know about it and when it did come to light, those individuals were expelled. But enough of this, especially where discipline is lax, and you create a culture where men who are heterosexual and faithfully celibate are the minority and feel like odd men out. Is this the way we promote vocations to the priesthood?

This is the same kind of phenomenon you find in parishes these days where boys no longer want to be altar servers because they have to serve alongside of girls. The fastest way to discourage boys from something is to make it a girl’s thing. And the fastest way to discourage normal men from pursuing something is to associate it with homosexuals. From this standpoint alone limiting the priesthood to heterosexuals may be practical and actually vocation-promoting.

Aw, but what about what “I want?” How does personal desire fit into the picture?

When did we ever get the idea that when it comes to the commandments of Christ and His Church that God needs our permission? Paul says in his first letter to Timothy that the “Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth.” Let’s get something straight: the Church is our mother and is here to be our safeguard. The pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals. As individuals, we have no infallibility. Our desires are not infallible. Our consciences are not infallible.

Christ promised us He would be with us always, even until the end of time. Not with us as scattered individuals, but through the Church. With regards to church teaching we need more often to heed the words of St. John: “He must increase, I must decrease” (Jn 3:30). We have placed our ideas, our thoughts and our desires up on the same plane as the commands of God.

Is the Church homophobic? No, but those who are making the accusation are demonstrating fear of the truth.