THE HISTORY OF LENT
by Abbot Gueranger O.S.B.
The forty days' fast, which we call Lent,[1] is the Church's
preparation for Easter, and was instituted at the very
commencement of Christianity. Our blessed Lord Himself sanctioned
it by fasting forty days and forty nights in the desert; and
though He would not impose it on the world by an express
commandment (which, in that case, could not have been open to the
power of dispensation), yet He showed plainly enough, by His own
example, that fasting, which God had so frequently ordered in the
old Law, was to be also practiced by the children of the new.
The disciples of St. John the Baptist came, one day, to Jesus, and
said to Him: 'Why do we and the pharisees fast often, but Thy
disciples do not fast?' And Jesus said to them: 'Can the children
of the Bridegroom mourn, as long as the Bridegroom is with them?
But the days will come, when the Bridegroom shall be taken away
from them, and then they shall fast.'[2]
Hence we find it mentioned, in the Acts of the Apostles, how the
disciples of our Lord, after the foundation of the Church, applied
themselves to fasting. In their Epistles, also, they recommended
it to the faithful. Nor could it be otherwise. Though the divine
mysteries whereby our Saviour wrought our redemption have been
consummated, yet are we still sinners: and where there is sin,
there must be expiation.
The apostles, therefore, legislated for our weakness, by
instituting, at the very commencement of the Christian Church,
that the solemnity of Easter should be preceded by a universal
fast; and it was only natural that they should have made this
period of penance to consist of forty days, seeing that our divine
Master had consecrated that number by His own fast. St. Jerome,[3]
St. Leo the Great,[4] St. Cyril of Alexandria,[5] St. Isidore of
Seville,[6] and others of the holy fathers, assure us that Lent
was instituted by the apostles, although, at the commencement,
there was not any uniform way of observing it.
We have already seen, in our 'Septuagesima,' that the Orientals
begin their Lent much earlier than the Latins, owing to their
custom of never fasting on Saturdays (or, in some places, even on
Thursdays). They are, consequently, obliged, in order to make up
the forty days, to begin the lenten fast on the Monday preceding
our Sexagesima Sunday. Exceptions of this kind do but prove the
rule. We have also shown how the Latin Church-which, even solate
as the sixth century, kept only thirty-six fasting days during the
six weeks of Lent (for the Church has never allowed Sundays to be
kept as days of fast)-thought proper to add, later on, the last
four days of Quinquagesima, in order that her Lent might contain
exactly forty days of fast.
The whole subject of Lent has been so often and so fully treated
that we shall abridge, as much as possible, the history we are now
giving. The nature of our work forbids us to do more than insert
what is essential for entering into the spirit of each season. God
grant that we may succeed in showing to the faithful the
importance of the holy institution of Lent! Its influence on the
spiritual life, and on the very salvation, of each one among us,
can never be over-rated.
Lent, then, is a time consecrated in an especial manner to
penance; and this penance is mainly practiced by fasting. Fasting
is an abstinence, which man voluntarily imposes upon himself as an
expiation for sin, and which, during Lent, is practiced in
obedience to the general law of the Church. According to the
actual discipline of the western Church, the fast of Lent is not
more rigorous than that prescribed for the vigils of certain
feasts, and for the Ember Days; but it is kept up for forty
successive days, with the single interruption of the intervening
Sundays.
We deem it unnecessary to show the importance and advantages of
fasting. The sacred Scriptures, both of the old and new Testament,
are filled with the praises of this holy practice. The traditions
of every nation of the world testify the universal veneration in
which it has ever been held; for there is not a people or a
religion, how much soever it may have lost the purity of primitive
traditions, which is not impressed with this conviction-that man
may appease his God by subjecting his body to penance.
St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. Jerome, and St. Gregory the
Great, make the remark, that the commandment put upon our first
parents in the earthly paradise was one of abstinence; and that it
was by their not exercising this virtue, that they brought every
kind of evil upon themselves and upon us their children. The life
of privation, which the king of creation had thenceforward to lead
on the earth (for the earth was to yield him nothing of its own
natural growth, save thorns and thistles), was the clearest
possible exemplification of the law of penance imposed by the
anger of God on rebellious man.During the two thousand and more
years, which preceded the deluge, men had no other food than the
fruits of the earth, and these were obtained only by the toil of
hard labour. But when God, as we have already observed, mercifully
shortened man's life that so he might have less time and power for
sin, He permitted him to eat the flesh of animals, as an
additional nourishment in that state of deteriorated strength. It
was then, also, that Noe, guided by a divine inspiration,
extracted the juice of the grape, which thus formed a second stay
for human debility.Fasting, then, is abstinence from such
nourishments as these, which were permitted for the support of
bodily strength. And firstly, it consists in abstinence from
flesh-meat, because this food was given to man by God out of
condescension to his weakness, and not as one absolutely essential
for the maintenance of life. Its privation, greater or less
according to the regulations of the Church, is essential to the
very notion of fasting. For many centuries eggs and milk-meats
were not allowed, because they come under the class of animal
food; even to this day they are forbidden in the eastern
Churches.In the early ages of Christianity, fasting included also
abstinence from wine, as we learn from St. Cyril of Jerusalem,[7]
St. Basil,[8] St. John Chrysostom,[9] Theophilus of
Alexandria,[10] and others. In the west, this custom soon fell
into disuse. The eastern Christians kept it up much longer, but
even with them it has ceased to be considered as
obligatory.Lastly, fasting includes the depriving ourselves of
some portion of our ordinary food, inasmuch as it allows only one
meal during the day. Though the modifications introduced from age
to age in the discipline of Lent are very numerous, yet the points
we have here mentioned belong to the very essence of fasting, as
is evident from the universal practice of the Church.It was the
custom with the Jews, in the old Law, not to take the one meal,
allowed on fasting days, till sunset. The Christian Church adopted
the same custom. It was scrupulously practiced, for many
centuries, even in our western countries. But about the ninth
century some relaxation began to be introduced in the Latin
Church. Thus we have a capitularium of Theodulph, bishop of
Orleans, who lived at that period, protesting against the
practice, which some had, of taking their repast at the hour of
None, that is to say, about three o'clock in the afternoon.[11]
The relaxation, however, gradually spread; for, in the tenth
century, we find the celebrated Ratherius, bishop of Verona,
acknowledging that the faithful had permission to break their fast
at the hour of None.[12] We meet with a sort of reclamation made
as late as the eleventh century, by a Council held at Rouen, which
forbids the faithful to take their repast before Vespers shall
have been begun in the church, at the end of None;[13] but this
shows us that the custom had already begun of anticipating the
hour of Vespers, in order that the faithful might take their meal
earlier in the day.Up to within a short period before this time,
it had been the custom not to celebrate Mass, on days of fasting,
until the Office of None had been sung, which was about three
o'clock in the afternoon; and, also, not to sing Vespers till
sunset. When the discipline regarding fasting began to relax, the
Church still retained the order of her Offices, which had been
handed down from the earliest times. The only change she made was
to anticipate the hour for Vespers; and this entailed the
celebration of Mass and None much earlier in the day; so early,
indeed, that, when custom had so prevailed as to authorize the
faithful taking their repast at midday, all the Offices, even the
Vespers, were over before that hour.
In the twelfth century, the custom of breaking one's fast at the
hour of None everywhere prevailed, as we learn from Hugh of Saint-
Victor;[14] and in the thirteenth-century, it was sanctioned by
the teaching of the Schoolmen. Alexander Hales declares most
expressly that such a custom was lawful;[15] and St. Thomas of
Aquin is equally decided in the same opinion.[16]
But even the fast till None i.e., three o'clock- was found too
severe; and a still further relaxation was considered to be
necessary. At the close of the thirteenth century, we have the
celebrated Franciscan, Richard of Middleton, teaching that those
who break their fast at the hour of Sext--i.e., midday-are not to
be considered as transgressing the precept of the Church; and the
reason he gives is this: that the custom of doing so had already
prevailed in many places, and that fasting does not consist so
much in the lateness of the hour at which the faithful take their
refreshment, as in their taking but one meal during the twenty-
four hours.[17]
The fourteenth century gave weight, both by universal custom and
theological authority, to the opinion held by Richard of
Middleton. It will, perhaps; suffice if we quote the learned
Dominican, Durandus, bishop of Meaux, who says that there can be
no doubt as to the lawfulness of taking one's repast at midday;
and he adds that such was then the custom observed by the Pope,
and Cardinals, and even the religious Orders.[18] We cannot,
therefore, be surprised at finding this opinion maintained, in the
fifteenth century, by such grave authors as St. Antoninus,
Cardinal Cajetan, and others. Alexander Hales and St. Thomas
sought to prevent the relaxation going beyond the hour of None;
but their zeal was disappointed, and the present discipline was
established, we might almost say, during their lifetime.
But whilst this relaxation of taking the repast so early in the
day as twelve o'clock rendered fasting less difficult in one way,
it made it more severe in another. The body grew exhausted by the
labours of the long second half of the twenty-four hours; and the
meal, that formerly closed the day, and satisfied the cravings of
fatigue, had been already taken. It was found necessary to grant
some refreshment for the evening, and it was called a <collation.>
The word was taken from the Benedictine rule, which, for long
centuries before this change in the lenten observance, had allowed
a monastic collation. St. Benedict's rule prescribed a great many
fasts, over and above the ecclesiastical fast of Lent; but it made
this great distinction between the two: that whilst Lent obliged
the monks, as well as the rest of the faithful, to abstain from
food till sunset, these monastic fasts allowed the repast to be
taken at the hour of None. But, as the monks had heavy manual
labour during the summer and autumn months (which was the very
time when these fasts till None occurred several days of each
week, and, indeed, every day from September 14), the abbot was
allowed by the rule to grant his religious permission to take a
small measure of wine before Compline, as a refreshment after the
fatigues of the afternoon. It was taken by all at the same time,
during the evening reading, which was called conference (in Latin,
<collatio>) because it was mostly taken from the celebrated
'Conferences' (<Collationes>) of Cassian. Hence this evening
monastic refreshment took the name of collation.
We find the Assembly, or Chapter of Aix-la-Chapelle, held in 817,
extending this indulgence even to the lenten fast, on account of
the great fatigue entailed by the offices, which the monks had to
celebrate during this holy season. But experience showed that,
unless something solid were allowed to be taken together with the
wine, the evening collation would be an injury to the health of
many of the religious; accordingly, towards the close of the
fourteenth or the beginning of the fifteenth century, the usage
was introduced of taking a morsel of bread with the collation-
beverage.
As a matter of course, these mitigations of the ancient severity
of fasting soon found their way from the cloister into the world.
The custom of taking something to drink on fasting days, out of
the time of the repast, was gradually established; and even so
early as the thirteenth century, we have St. Thomas of Aquin
discussing the question, whether or not drink is to be considered
as a breaking of the precept of fasting.[19] He answers in the
negative; and yet he does not allow that anything solid may be
taken with the drink. But when it had become the universal
practice (as it did in the latter part of the thirteenth century,
and still more fixedly during the whole of the fourteenth) that
the one meal on fasting days was taken at midday, a mere beverage
was found insufficient to give support, and bread, herbs, fruits,
etc., were added. Such wee the practice, both in the world and in
the cloister. It was, however, clearly understood by all, that
these eatables were not to be taken in such quantity as to turn
the collation into a second meal.
Thus did the decay of piety, and the general deterioration of
bodily strength among the people of the western nations,, infringe
on the primitive observance of fasting. To make our history of
these humiliating changes anything like complete, we must mention
one more relaxation. For several centuries, abstinence from flesh-
meat included likewise the prohibition of all animal food, with
the single exception of fish, which, on account of Its cold
nature, as also for several mystical reasons, founded on the
sacred Scriptures, was always permitted to be taken by those who
fasted. Every sort of milk-meat was forbidden.
Dating from the ninth century, the custom of eating milk-meats
during Lent began to be prevalent in western Europe, more
especially in Germany and the northern countries. The Council of
Kedlimberg, held in the eleventh century, made an effort to put a
atop to the practice as an abuse; but without effect.[20] These
Churches maintained that they were in the right, and defended
their custom by the dispensations (though, in reality, only
temporary ones) granted them by several sovereign Pontiffs: the
dispute ended by their being left peaceably to enjoy what they
claimed. The Churches of France restated this innovation up to the
sixteenth century; but in the seventeenth they too yielded, and
milk-meats were taken during Lent, throughout the whole kingdom.
As some reparation for this breach of ancient discipline, the city
of Paris instituted a solemn rite, whereby she wished to signify
her regret at being obliged to such a relaxation. On Quinquagesima
Sunday, all the different parishes went in procession to the
church of Notre Dame. The Dominicans, Franciscans, Carmelites, and
Augustinians, took part in the procession. The metropolitan
Chapter, and the four parishes that were subject to it, held, on
the same day, a Station in the courtyard of the palace, and sang
an anthem before the relic of the true cross, which was exposed in
the <Sainte Chapelle.> These pious usages, which were intended to
remind the people of the difference between the past and the
present observance of Lent, continued to be practiced till the
revolution.
But this grant for the eating of milk-meats during Lent did not
include eggs. Here the ancient discipline was maintained, at least
this far, that eggs were not allowed, save by an Indult, which had
to be renewed each year. Invariably do we find the Church seeking,
out of anxiety for the spiritual advantage of her children, to
maintain all she can of those penitential observances, whereby
they may satisfy divine justice. It was with this intention that
Pope Benedict XIV., alarmed at the excessive facility wherewith
dispensations were then obtained, renewed, by a solemn
<Constitution> dated June 10, 1745, the prohibition of eating fish
and meat, at the same meal, on fasting days.
The same Pope, whose spirit of moderation has never been called in
question, had no sooner ascended the papal throne, than he
addressed an encyclical letter to the bishops of the Catholic
world, expressing his heartfelt grief at seeing the great
relaxation that was introduced among the faithful by indiscreet
and unnecessary dispensations. The letter is dated May 30, 1741.
We extract from it the following passage: 'The observance of Lent
is the very badge of the Christian warfare. By it we prove
ourselves not to be enemies of the cross of Christ. By it we avert
the scourges of divine justice. By it we gain strength against the
princes of darkness, for it shields us with heavenly help. Should
mankind grow remiss in their observance of Lent, it would be a
detriment to God's glory, a disgrace to the Catholic religion, and
a danger to Christian souls. Neither can it be doubted that such
negligence would become the source of misery to the world, of
public calamity, and of private woe.'[21]
More than a hundred years have elapsed since this solemn warning
of the Vicar of (Christ was given to the world; and during that
time, the re laxation he inveighed against has gone on gradually
increasing. How few Christians do we meet who are strict observers
of Lent, even in its present mild form![22]
And must there not result from this ever-growing spirit of
immortification, a general effeminacy of character, which will
lead, at last, to frightful social disorders? The sad predictions
of Pope Benedict XIV. are but too truly verified. Those nations,
among whose people the spirit and practice of penance are extinct,
are heaping against themselves the wrath of God, and provoking His
justice to destroy them by one or other of these scourges-civil
discord, or conquest. In our own country there is an
inconsistency, which must strike every thinking mind: the
observance of the Lord's day, on the one side; the national
inobservance of days of penance and fasting, on the other. The
first is admirable, and, if we except puritanical extravagances,
bespeaks a deep-rooted sense of religion; but the second is one of
the worst presages for the future. The word of God is
unmistakable: unless we do penance, we shall perish.[23] But if
our ease-loving and sensual generation were to return, like the
Ninivites, to the long-neglected way of penance and expiation, who
knows but that the arm of God, which is already raised to strike
us, may give us blessing and not chastisement?
Let us resume our history, and seek our edification in studying
the fervour wherewith the Christians of former times wed to
observe Lent. We will first offer to our readers a few instances
of the manner in which dispensations were given.
In the thirteenth century, the archbishop of Braga applied to the
reigning Pontiff, Innocent III., asking him what compensation he
ought to require of his people, who, in consequence of a dearth of
the ordinary articles of food, had been necessitated to eat meat
during the Lent. He at the same time consulted the Pontiff as to
how he was to act in the case of the sick, who asked for a
dispensation from abstinence. The answer given by Innocent, which
was inserted in the Canon Law,[24] is, as we might expect, full of
considerateness and charity; but we learn from this fact that such
was then the respect for the law of Lent, that it was considered
necessary to apply to the sovereign Pontiff when dispensations
were sought for. We find many such instances in the history of the
Church.
Wenceslaus, king of Bohemia, being seized with a malady which
rendered it dangerous to his health to take Lenten diet, applied,
in the year 1297, to Pope Boniface VIII., for leave to eat meat.
The Pontiff commissioned two Cistercian abbots to inquire into the
real state of the prince's health; they were to grant the
dispensation sought for, if they found it necessary, but on the
following conditions: that the king had not bound himself by a
vow, for life, to fast during Lent; that the Fridays, the
Saturdays, and the vigil of St. Mathias, were to be excluded from
the dispensation; and, lastly, that the king was not to take his
meal in presence of others, and was to observe moderation in what
he took.[25]
In the fourteenth century we meet with two briefs of dispensation,
granted by Clement VI., in 1351, to John, king of France, and to
his queen consort. In the first, the Pope, taking into
consideration that during the wars in which the king is engaged he
frequently finds himself in places where fish can with difficulty
be procured, grants to the confessor of the king the power of
allowing, both to his Majesty and to his suite, the use of meat on
days of abstinence, excepting, however, the whole of Lent, all
Fridays of the year, and certain vigils; provided, moreover, that
neither he, nor those who accompany him, are under a vow of
perpetual abstinence.[26] In the second brief the same Pope,
replying to the petition made him by the king for a dispensation
from fasting, again commissions his Majesty's present and future
confessors, to dispense both the king and his queen, after having
consulted with their physicians.[27]
A few years later-that is, in 1376--Pope Gregory XI. sent a brief
in favour of Charles V., king of France, and of Jane, his queen.
In this brief, he delegates to their confessor the power of
allowing them the use of eggs and milk-meats during Lent, should
their physician think they stand in need of such dispensation; but
he tells both physicians and confessor that he puts it upon their
consciences, and that they will have to answer before God for
their decision. The same permission is granted also to their
servants and cooks, but only as far as it is needed for tasting
the food to be served to their Majesties.
The fifteenth century, also, furnishes us with instances of
applications to the holy See for lenten dispensations. We will
cite the brief addressed by Xystus IV., in 1483, to James III.,
king of Scotland, in which he grants him permission to eat meat on
days of abstinence, provided his confessor considers the
dispensation needed.[28] In the following century, we have Julius
II. granting a like dispensation to John, king of Denmark, and to
his queen Christina;[29] and, a few years later, Clement VII.
giving one to the emperor Charles V.,[30] and again, to Henry II.
of Navarre, and to his queen Margaret.[31]
Thus were princes themselves treated, three centuries ago, when
they sought for a dispensation from the sacred law of Lent. What
are we to think of the present indifference wherewith it is kept?
What comparison can be made between the Christians of former
times, who, deeply impressed with the fear of God's judgments and
with the spirit of penance, cheerfully went through these forty
days of mortification, and those of our own days, when love of
pleasure and self-indulgence are for ever lessening man's horror
for sin? Where there is little or no fear of having to penance
ourselves for sin, there is so much the less restraint to keep us
from committing it.
Where is now that simple and innocent joy at Easter, which our
forefathers used to show, when, after their severe fast of Lent,
they partook of substantial and savoury food? The peace, which
long and sharp mortification ever brings to the conscience, gave
them the capability, not to say the right, of being light-hearted
as they returned to the comforts of life, which they had denied
themselves in order to spend forty days in penance, recollection,
and retirement from the world. This leads us to mention some
further details, which will assist the Catholic reader to
understand what Lent was in the ages of faith.
It was a season during which, not only all amusements and
theatrical entertainments were forbidden by the civil
authority,[32] but even the law courts were closed; and this in
order to secure that peace and calm of heart, which is so
indispensable for the soul's self-examination, and reconciliation
with her offended Maker. As early as the year 380, Gratian and
Theodosius enacted that judges should suspend all law-suits and
proceedings, during the forty days preceding Easter.[33] The
Theodosian Code contains several regulations of this nature; and
we find Councils, held in the ninth century, urging the kings of
that period to enforce the one we have mentioned, seeing that it
had been sanctioned by the canons, and approved of by the fathers
of the Church.[34] These admirable Christian traditions have long
since fallen into disuse in the countries of Europe; but they are
still kept among the Turks, who, during the days of their
<Ramadan>, forbid all law proceedings. What a humiliation for us
Christians!
Hunting, too, was for many ages considered as forbidden during
Lent: the spirit of the holy season was too sacred to admit such
exciting and noisy sport. Pope St. Nicholas I., in the ninth
century, forbade it the Bulgarians,[35] who had been recently
converted to the Christian faith. Even so late as the thirteenth
century, we find St. Raymund of Pennafort teaching that those who,
during Lent, take part in the chase, if it be accompanied by
certain circumstances which he specifies, cannot be excused from
sin.[36] This prohibition has long since been a dead letter; but
St. Charles Borromeo, in one of his Synods, reestablished it in
his province of Milan.
But we cannot be surprised that hunting should be forbidden during
Lent, when we remember that, in those Christian times, war itself,
which is sometimes so necessary for the welfare of a nation, was
suspended during this holy season. In the fourth century, we have
the emperor Constantine the Great enacting that no military
exercises should be allowed on Sundays and Fridays, out of respect
to our Lord Jesus Christ, who suffered and rose again on these two
days, as also in order not to disturb the peace and repose needed
for the due celebration of such sublime mysteries.[37] The
discipline of the Latin Church, in the ninth century, enforced
everywhere the suspension of war during the whole of Lent, except
in cases of necessity.[38] The instructions of Pope St. Nicholas
I. to the Bulgarians recommend the same observance;[39] and we
learn, from a letter of St. Gregory VII. to Desiderius, abbot of
Monte Cassino, that it was kept up in the eleventh century.[40] We
have an instance of its being practiced in our own country, in the
twelfth century, when, as William of Malmesbury relates, the
empress Matilda, Countess of Anjou, and daughter of king Henry,
was contesting the right of succession to the throne against
Stephen, count of Boulogne. The two armies were in sight of each
other; but an armistice was demanded and observed, for it was the
Lent of 1143.[41]
Our readers have heard, no doubt, of the admirable institution
called 'God's truce,' whereby the Church in the eleventh century
succeeded in preventing much bloodshed. This law, which forbade
the carrying of arms from Wednesday evening till Monday morning
throughout the year, was sanctioned by the authority of Popes and
Councils, and enforced by all Christian princes. It was an
extension of the lenten discipline of the suspension of war. Our
saintly king Edward the Confessor carried its influence still
further by passing a law (which was confirmed by his successor,
William the Conqueror), that God's truce should be observed
without cessation from the beginning of Advent to the octave of
Easter; from the Ascension to the Whitsuntide octave; on all the
Ember days; on the vigils of all feasts; and lastly, every week,
from None on Wednesday till Monday morning, which had already been
prescribed.[42]
In the Council of Clermont, held in 1095, Pope Urban II., after
drawing up the regulations for the Crusades, used his authority in
extending God's truce, as it was then observed during Lent. His
decree, which was renewed in the Council held the following year
at Rouen, was to this effect: that all war proceedings should be
suspended from Ash Wednesday to the Monday after the octave of
Pentecost, and on all vigils and feasts of the blessed Virgin and
of the apostles, over and above what was already regulated for
each week, that is, from Wednesday evening to Monday morning.[43]
Thus did the world testify its respect for the holy observances of
Lent, and borrow some of its wisest institutions from the seasons
and feasts of the liturgical year. The influence of this forty
days' penance was great, too, on each individual. It renewed man's
energies, gave him fresh vigour in battling with his animal
instincts, and, by the restraint it put upon sensuality, ennobled
the soul. There was restraint everywhere; and the present
discipline of the Church, which forbids the solemnization of
marriage during Lent, reminds Christians of that holy continency,
which, for many ages, was observed during the whole forty days as
a precept, and of which the most sacred of the liturgical books,
the missal, still retains the recommendation.[44]
It is with reluctance that we close our history of Lent, and leave
untouched so many other interesting details. For instance, what
treasures we could have laid open to our readers from the lenten
usages of the eastern Churches, which have retained so much of the
primitive discipline! We cannot, however, resist devoting our last
page to the following particulars.
We mentioned, in the preceding volume, that the Sunday we call
<Septuagesima>, is called, by the Greeks, <Prophone>, because the
opening of Lent is proclaimed on that day. The Monday following it
is counted as the first day of the next week, which is <Apocreos>,
the name they give to the Sunday which closes that week, and which
is our Sexagesima Sunday. The Greek Church begins abstinence from
flesh-meat with this week. Then on the morrow, Monday, commences
the week called <Tyrophagos>, which ends with the Sunday of that
name, corresponding to our Quinquagesima. White-meats are allowed
during that week. Finally, the morrow is the first day of the
first week of Lent, and the fast begins with all its severity, on
that Monday, whilst, in the Latin Church, it is deferred to the
Wednesday.
During the whole of the Lent preceding Easter, milk-meats, eggs,
and even fish, are forbidden. The only food permitted to be eaten
with bread, is vegetables, honey, and, for those who live near the
sea, shellfish. For many centuries wine might not be taken, but it
is now permitted, and on the Annunciation and Palm Sunday a
dispensation is granted for eating fish.
Besides the Lent preparatory to the feast of Easter, the Greeks
keep three others in the year: that which is called 'of the
apostles,' which lasts from the octave of Pentecost to the feast
of Saints Peter and Paul; that 'of the Virgin Mary,' which begins
on the first of August, and ends with the vigil of the Assumption,
and lastly, the Lent of preparation for Christmas, which consists
of forty days. The fasting and abstinence of these three Lents are
not quite so severe as those observed during the great Lent. The
other Christian nations of the east also observe several Lents,
and more rigidly than the Greeks, but all these details would lead
us too far. We therefore pass on to the mysteries which are
included in this holy season.
ENDNOTES
1 In most languages, the name given to this fast expresses the
number of the days, <forty.> But our word <Lent> signifies the
<Spring-fast> for <Lenten-tide>, In the ancient English Saxon
language, was the season of Spring. [Tr.]
2 St. Matt. ix. 14.15;
3 <Epist.> xxvii,. <ad Marcellam.>
4 <Serm.> ii, v, ix, <de Quadragesima>
5 <Homil. Paschal.>
6 <De Ecclesiast. Officiis, lib. vi.> cap. xix.
7 <Catech.> iv.
8 Homily i. <De Jejunio.>9 Homily iv. <Ad populum Antioch.>
10 <Litt. Pasch.> iii.
11 <Capitul. xxxix.> Labb. <Conc.> tom. viii.12 Sermon I, <De
Quadrages.> D'Achery. <Spicilegium>, tom. ii.13 Orderic. Vital.
<Histor.> lib.. iv.
14 <In regul. S. Augustini>, cap. iii.
15 <Summa>, Part iv. Quaest. 28, art. 2.
16 2a 2ae Q. 147, a. 7
17 <In> iv. <Dist.> xv., art. 3, Quaest. 8.
18 <In> iv. <Dist.> xv., Quaest. 9, art. 7.
19 <In> iv. Quaest. cxlvii. art. 6.
20 Labbe, <Concil.> tom. x.
21 Constitution: <Non ambigimus>.
22 The Regulations of the Church with regard to Fasting and
Abstinence have been revised in accordance with present
circumstances and conditions. The Indult granted each Lent in
former years is no longer necessary, and all are required to
observe the common law of the Church.
By the new code of Canon Law a distinction is made between fasting
and abstinence.
All the week days of Lent, the Ember Days and some vigils are days
of fasting, but meat is allowed at the full meal except on
Wednesdays and Fridays and the Ember Days in Lent.
23 St. Luke xiii. 3.
24 Decretal., lib. iii., cap. <Concilium; de Jejunio.> Tit. xlvi
25 Raynaldi <Ad. ann.> 1297.
26 D'Achery, <Spicilegium,> tom. iv.
27 <Ibid.>
28 Raynaldi, <Ad. ann.> 1484.
29 <Ibid. Ad. ann.> 1505.
30 <Ibid. Ad. ann.> 1524.
31 <Ibid. Ad. ann.> 1533.
32 It was the Emperor Justinian who passed this law, as we learn
from Photius, <Nomocanon.> tit. vii. cap. i.
33 <Cod. Theodos.> lib. is. tit. xxxv. leg. 4.
34 Labbe, <Concil.> tom. vii. and ix.
35 <Ad consultat. Bulgarorum>, Labbe, Concil. tom. viii.
36 <Summ. cas. Poenit.>, lib. iii. tit. xxix. <De laps. et disp.>
# 1.
37 Euseb. <Constant. vita,> lib. iv. cap. xviii. et xix.
38 Labbe. <Concil.> tom. vii.
39 <Ibid.> tom. viii.
40 <Ibid.> tom. x.
41 Wilhelm. Malmesbur. <Hist. nov.> no. 30.
42 Labbe, <Concil.> tom. ix.
43 Orderic. Vital. <Hist. Eccles.> lib. ix.
44 Missale Romanum. <Missa pro sponso et sponsa.>
(Taken from Volume V Lent of "The Liturgical Year" by Abbot
Gueranger O.S.B. published by Marian House, Powers Lake, ND
58773.)
|
