Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Chuck C's avatar

I would like to toss into consideration an idea here:

In the spirit of restoring the Christmas Octave, can we elevate the Feast of the Annunciation to an Octave level solemnity? I think that should be recognized as more important than the Nativity, since that is when Christ really took on flesh...

Expand full comment
Tarb's avatar
2dEdited

There is much here that makes sense, but in regards to this:

"In recent years, I have learned that my view is controversial. Some learned commenters argue that there is a distinction between a Catholic liturgical day and a Catholic legal day. The liturgical day, they agree, runs sunset-to-following-midnight, but penances and fasting (they argue) are tied to the legal day and therefore run midnight-to-midnight. This strikes me as unnecessarily complicated and spiritually baseless. It seems absurd that I could celebrate the Feast of St. Joseph in the evening because it is liturgically his solemnity, but then be barred from actually feasting St. Joseph because it is legally not his solemnity for six more hours."

I don't think it's unnecessarily complicated, spiritually baseless, or absurd at all... I see vigil masses more as a convenience that is allowed to the faithful, allowing them to satisfy the mass requirement at what might be a more convenient time for them, such as if they're someone who prefers to sleep in.

But there is a new problem and new inconvenience that is added here. On holy days (every Sunday plus several others), Catholics are supposed to avoid unnecessary servile works (servile works defined as material works that involve the body more than the mind), and for that matter doing things that would require other people to engage in servile works themselves on those days. This is why a lot of Catholics--probably correctly--advise against shopping on Sunday. Now, the 1983 Code of Canon Law did adjust it somewhat, changing it to "works and affairs which hinder the worship to be rendered to God, the joy proper to the Lord’s day, or the suitable relaxation of mind and body" (this was probably because they realized due to technology changes, substantially lower number of jobs actually did involve servile works). But in any event, such work is to be avoided if possible on holy days. If you need to do it, then do it on a different day, such as possibly the day before. If we change the legal day to include the prior day, though, that means that any Catholic who attempts to follow this rule would suddenly be required to abstain from such works the evening before also--which could very easily be a much greater inconvenience. Suddenly, every Saturday evening is considered off limits, which was never the case before.

One can't say that while leniencies of a holy day apply the evening before, the restrictions do not, because that would be dividing the "legal day" into two separate things, the restrictions and the leniencies, which seems far less coherent than the situation you are trying to change.

So this seems to me to be a reason to stick with the legal day being midnight to midnight, even if the liturgical day extends to the prior evening. Adding the evening in before might mean you can stop fasting earlier, but it also would mean works you previously could do Saturday evening for the sake of convenience now have to be done earlier in the day or in the week.

Expand full comment
9 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?