The Seeming "Feebleness" of the Roman Lent

[Antonius_Lupus]

Dear brethren,

I’ve been troubled by what I see as a disparity between what the Roman Church demands for the Lenten fast as opposed to:

1. The 1917 Code of Canon Law
   &
2. The fasting practices of our Eastern Catholic brethren during Lent.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I am a firm believer in Vatican II, especially the liturgical reforms. I see them as wonderful (and much needed and long-desired) restorations of the pre-medieval Roman Rite. I am not at all fond of the so-called “Tridentine” missal which I see as a hybrid rite which, though preserving much of the Patristic Roman form, is also heavily Gallicanized and (via the Gallican Rite) Easternized.

I’m actually kind of weird in this area. I support fervently Vatican II’s changes (I say restorations) of the Roman liturgy and practices, BUT I want to see the Mass and other sacraments celebrated with more reverence and solemnity.

Anywho…

I want to know why the Roman Church limited her fasting and abstinence during Lent with the new code of canon law. It seems quite a difference compared to the older way of doing Lent and almost unheard of compared to the East!

What theological, liturgical, and/or historical reasons were behind this change?

Furthermore, does our new way of fasting and abstinence mean that our Roman Lent, as we celebrate it now, is not as potent as it used to be or as potent as the Eastern Churches? (By “potent” I mean purifying and preparational).

Any thoughts?

 

[Phemie]

Dear brethren,

I’ve been troubled by what I see as a disparity between what the Roman Church demands for the Lenten fast as opposed to:

1. The 1917 Code of Canon Law
   &
2. The fasting practices of our Eastern Catholic brethren during Lent.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I am a firm believer in Vatican II, especially the liturgical reforms. I see them as wonderful (and much needed and long-desired) restorations of the pre-medieval Roman Rite. I am not at all fond of the so-called “Tridentine” missal which I see as a hybrid rite which, though preserving much of the Patristic Roman form, is also heavily Gallicanized and (via the Gallican Rite) Easternized.

I’m actually kind of weird in this area. I support fervently Vatican II’s changes (I say restorations) of the Roman liturgy and practices, BUT I want to see the Mass and other sacraments celebrated with more reverence and solemnity.

Anywho…

I want to know why the Roman Church limited her fasting and abstinence during Lent with the new code of canon law. It seems quite a difference compared to the older way of doing Lent and almost unheard of compared to the East!

What theological, liturgical, and/or historical reasons were behind this change?

Furthermore, does our new way of fasting and abstinence mean that our Roman Lent, as we celebrate it now, is not as potent as it used to be or as potent as the Eastern Churches? (By “potent” I mean purifying and preparational).

Any thoughts?

The changes in the fast and abstinence rules came about in 1966 with the promulgation of Paul VI’s “APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION** PAENITEMINI** ON FAST AND ABSTINENCE”

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

The changes in the fast and abstinence rules came about in 1966 with the promulgation of Paul VI’s “APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION** PAENITEMINI** ON FAST AND ABSTINENCE”

O yeah, that’s right. Sorry, lol.

 

[laszlo]

The first loosening of the fast and abstinence rules came during World War II in Europe. People fasted all year, they needed as much food as they get. (wasn’t too much, the bombing was effective).

After that people did not recaptured the previous manner, so the Church let it go.

 

[dans0622]

… I want to know why the Roman Church limited her fasting and abstinence during Lent with the new code of canon law. It seems quite a difference compared to the older way of doing Lent and almost unheard of compared to the East!

What theological, liturgical, and/or historical reasons were behind this change?

Furthermore, does our new way of fasting and abstinence mean that our Roman Lent, as we celebrate it now, is not as potent as it used to be or as potent as the Eastern Churches? (By “potent” I mean purifying and preparational).

Any thoughts?

Hello Antonius Lupus,

My impression is that the more specific requirements of the 1917 Code were eliminated with the thought that people are mature enough to know that penance is required and they will take care to see that proper penance is done freely, out of love and devotion, not out of obligation. I think the passing of the last 40 years has shown that this perspective might be a bit overly optimistic about human nature… Nevertheless, it is true that penance done out of devotion is more meritorious than that done simply out of a sense of obligation. Also, the Church (“the Vatican”) wanted to decentralize a bit and leave other specific regulations up to the local bishops. This left the universal obligations, as in the Code, to a minimum.

Perhaps the aforementioned Apostolic Constitution has a section which would answer your question.

Dan

 

[nicolep]

I felt that I should point out one thing. The requirements for Latin Rite Catholic’s during Lent are the bare minimum that one should do if physically able. We are encouraged to do more. While we are required to follow the rules of the Church, no one ever claimed “this is all you can do”. If the requirements are not enough for you, there’s nothing stopping you from doing more.

I see the PP above me touched on the same point.

 

[TheMc]

I’m actually kind of weird in this area. I support fervently Vatican II’s changes (I say restorations) of the Roman liturgy and practices, BUT I want to see the Mass and other sacraments celebrated with more reverence and solemnity.

That’s not weird! The irreverent types are the weird ones!

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Hello Antonius Lupus,

My impression is that the more specific requirements of the 1917 Code were eliminated with the thought that people are mature enough to know that penance is required and they will take care to see that proper penance is done freely, out of love and devotion, not out of obligation. I think the passing of the last 40 years has shown that this perspective might be a bit overly optimistic about human nature… Nevertheless, it is true that penance done out of devotion is more meritorious than that done simply out of a sense of obligation. Also, the Church (“the Vatican”) wanted to decentralize a bit and leave other specific regulations up to the local bishops. This left the universal obligations, as in the Code, to a minimum.

Perhaps the aforementioned Apostolic Constitution has a section which would answer your question.

Dan

Yeah, that does make some sense.

I’m gonna read that Constitution, lol.

I mean one of my problems is that I have a hard time trying to explain to my Eastern Orthodox friends (or even Eastern Catholic ones) why our fasting is so minimal. I mean if I used the “responsibility” argument, they would retort that the fasting traditions which developed are a call to greater responsibility, or something like that.

They would also point out that the idea that lessening the bare minimum would lead to people doing the right thing in the first place was not very well founded. Again, human nature.

 

[TheMc]

I’m actually kind of weird in this area. I support fervently Vatican II’s changes (I say restorations) of the Roman liturgy and practices, BUT I want to see the Mass and other sacraments celebrated with more reverence and solemnity.

That’s not weird! The irreverent types are the weird ones!

 

[ConstantineTG]

Its the difference of approaches. The West likes to prescribe the minimum, and ask the people to do more. The East likes to prescribe the maximum, then “dispenses” it down to what would fit for certain people.

 

[Tepeyac]

I mean one of my problems is that I have a hard time trying to explain to my Eastern Orthodox friends (or even Eastern Catholic ones) why our fasting is so minimal. I mean if I used the “responsibility” argument, they would retort that the fasting traditions which developed are a call to greater responsibility, or something like that.

They would also point out that the idea that lessening the bare minimum would lead to people doing the right thing in the first place was not very well founded. Again, human nature.

Ask your Eastern Orthodox friends about “oikonomia” or “economy”. Ask how many Eastern Orthodox follow the full, complete Lenten discipline. Probably not as many as it would first appear. It’s as ConstantineTG says, the West sets the minimum but asks people to do more. The East sets a high bar but then lowers it for people’s different circumstances.

I would also reply that the bare minimum is the right thing, otherwise it wouldn’t be the bare minimum. Think of it as an airplane runway. You want the longest, widest runway possible so that planes can take off. In a similar way you want a discipline for the Church that helps as many people possible to grow in Christ.

I think the Church was probably being wise in its approach. After all, we describe the Church as a hospital for sinners, not a stadium for athletes.

 

[dans0622]

Its the difference of approaches. The West likes to prescribe the minimum, and ask the people to do more. The East likes to prescribe the maximum, then “dispenses” it down to what would fit for certain people.

That’s a good insight. Nevertheless, the 1917 Code mandated fasting on every day of Lent, not just Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, as it is today. That would have been a pretty high “minimum.” … I don’t know what else people might have been asked to do, in the “old days.”

Dan

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Thanks to everyone who responded. I have learned so much and my questions have been throughouly answered!! Y’all are just awesome!