I probably am not the kind of reader that is helpful for such experiments, since I usually see "Oh, hey, James finally posted another blog" in my email, and then go back to the still open tab with the blog up, refresh it, and click the link to the latest post from there...
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.
This is a reasonable insight: if Saturday night is part of Sunday, then it should be Sunday all the way -- liturgies, feasts, fasts, and restrictions included. Perhaps that would be a burden to some. Perhaps that's a reason not to do it.
But I find a hard time justifying a hypothetical division between some parts of Sunday and other parts of Sunday. If Saturday night is really Sunday, then, yes, we should refrain from servile work. But, if Saturday night is *not* really Sunday, then we should refrain from celebrating Sunday Mass that night! Or so it seems to me.
Even if I'm wrong about that, though, I find I have a hard time agreeing with the people who oppose feasting on Saturday night. Let's assume for a moment that the people who are trying to draw a division between "liturgical Sunday" and "legal Sunday" are right. Saturday night can therefore be "Sunday" for Masses and evening prayer, but "Saturday" for servile work. But once we've started divvying up facets of Sunday like that, why couldn't we just declare that feasting is one of the parts of Sunday that happens on Saturday night, while servile work is one of the parts of Sunday that doesn't? It's completely arbitrary at that point either way.
While Vigil Masses may perhaps be for the convenience of the faithful, the normal cadence of the Liturgy Hours has always begun the liturgical celebration of feast days at Sunset of the evening before.
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...
I like where you're coming from here, but that feels weird given how it's often right next to Holy Week! And when it's not, it's in the middle of Lent!
I fear the clankers have you this time, James.
Believe it or not, I won this one! From my email this morning:
### Headline Test Summary from Substack
The results are in!
If They'd Made Me Pope: Fast Fast Fixes
21 Opens
84 Sent
25.0% Open Rate
If They'd Made Me Pope: Bring Back the Fasts
18 Opens
102 Sent
17.6% Open Rate
Winning variant: If They'd Made Me Pope: Fast Fast Fixes
We've set the title of your post to the winning variant and sent it out to the rest of your subscribers.
Of course, the statistical power on these is very low, because my subscriber base is small and the test only lasts an hour. But I'll take the win!
I had missed that you not only alliterated but also reiterated the word “fast”. That must’ve done it!
That WAS a last-second change, and it's not mentioned in the footnote, because that wasn't what I was planning to go with when I wrote the footnote.
So if that was the decisive factor, it was a narrow escape for human ingenuity over LLM supremacy!
I probably am not the kind of reader that is helpful for such experiments, since I usually see "Oh, hey, James finally posted another blog" in my email, and then go back to the still open tab with the blog up, refresh it, and click the link to the latest post from there...
:D
This is also how I read Silver Bulletin, so I get it!
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.
This is a reasonable insight: if Saturday night is part of Sunday, then it should be Sunday all the way -- liturgies, feasts, fasts, and restrictions included. Perhaps that would be a burden to some. Perhaps that's a reason not to do it.
But I find a hard time justifying a hypothetical division between some parts of Sunday and other parts of Sunday. If Saturday night is really Sunday, then, yes, we should refrain from servile work. But, if Saturday night is *not* really Sunday, then we should refrain from celebrating Sunday Mass that night! Or so it seems to me.
Even if I'm wrong about that, though, I find I have a hard time agreeing with the people who oppose feasting on Saturday night. Let's assume for a moment that the people who are trying to draw a division between "liturgical Sunday" and "legal Sunday" are right. Saturday night can therefore be "Sunday" for Masses and evening prayer, but "Saturday" for servile work. But once we've started divvying up facets of Sunday like that, why couldn't we just declare that feasting is one of the parts of Sunday that happens on Saturday night, while servile work is one of the parts of Sunday that doesn't? It's completely arbitrary at that point either way.
While Vigil Masses may perhaps be for the convenience of the faithful, the normal cadence of the Liturgy Hours has always begun the liturgical celebration of feast days at Sunset of the evening before.
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...
I like where you're coming from here, but that feels weird given how it's often right next to Holy Week! And when it's not, it's in the middle of Lent!