The Catholic world of the 21st Century is vastly more individualized than the Catholic world of the past. In this inaugural post as a contributor to this Blog, I will analyze this proposition by way of reference the idea of Lenten sacrifices as they existed prior to the Second Vatican Council. Moreover, I will attempt to explain the concept of Lenten sacrifice as experienced in the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which I am just beginning to study, but which fascinate me as an apparently much older version of Catholic Christianity that remains untarnished by the Protestant Revolt of the 16th Century.
Lent, which is attested to by St. Leo as having derived during Apostolic times (at least to some extent), is the greatest and longest penitential season in the Church year. In both West and East, it is the longest period of fasting in the Church year (although the purpose of this fasting has somewhat different purposes in the respective Churches).
Historically, that is before the Second Vatican Council, every Latin Rite Catholic able to do so (by age and physical condition) was obliged to fast and partially abstain every day during Lent, except for Sundays (which do not count as Lenten fast days). So, for each day of Lent, every Latin Rite Catholic would eat one large meal, which could include meat (except on Fridays and Saturdays), and two smaller meals, which did not include meat and did not equal the larger meal. Therefore, no one would have been subjected to the endless questions about "what you gave up for Lent" as everyone gave up food (you know, because it's a fast and all). Is there a greater solidarity for Catholic people than everyone being quite hungry as a large group?
As Latin Catholics are wont to do, this fasting was handled in a juridical manner. That is, it was prescribed as the rule under penalty of sin. This is similar to modern fasting on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, as well as abstention on Fridays during Lent, where the breaking of the fast or failure to abstain is mortally sinful. Compare this juridical pronouncement to the Eastern Churches "suggested" fast and abstinence, which is much more severe, yet does not bind under penalty of sin. As is typical of the East, the goal is set and people are expected to strive toward it instead of striving to avoid a juridical pronouncement. Different incentives work for different people and neither is inherently better than the other - which is why the Church can be universal (but that is a topic for another day).
Prior to this intense period of fasting, Latin Catholic would have been prepared through the three week liturgical season called Septuagessima. This was a period of minor fasting in preparation for the much more rigorous fasting to come. There was no prescribed fast or abtsention during this period (other than the standard Friday abstention). However, it was recognized as a time of progressive denial of self so the fast of Lent wouldn't be such a shock. We shall see how this is experienced similarly in the Eastern Churches.
Let us progress to discuss Lenten fasting in the Eastern Churches (namely, the Byzantine Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox). I will attempt to distill information that can be difficult to synthesize (as I am not an Eastern Rite Catholic, I do not have a background in their practice). This is also a difficult task as the East does not feel the necessity to clearly spell out a prescription for every person as each person is to coordinate with their parish priest to determine their particular praxis.
At the outset, we much point out that Great Lent in the Eastern Churches does not begin on Ash Wednesday (as there is no Ash Wednesday in the Eastern Church). Instead, Lent begins on a Monday. During Great Lent, the faithful avoid meat, fish (with backbone), dairy products, eggs, olive oil, and wine/alcohol. Moreover, during particular days (Wednesday and Friday), the faithful do not eat from midnight to noon and then only take one meal per day. During the first week of Lent and during Holy Week, the faithful fast for longer periods of time, going up to two days without taking food. If this seems like a very difficult task, we must keep in mind that this is the most one is possibly expected to do, but not everyone is expected to do so under pain of sin. Moreover, this rule developed out of monastic habits and yet the faithful are still thought to be capable of reaching these heights!
As in the pre-Vatican II Western Church, there is a period of build-up before this great fast. In the weeks preceding Great Lent, the faithful are expected to first give up all meat products, then to give up all dairy and egg products. This leads to the great fast where the number of meals is limited.
This fasting, both Western and Eastern, may sound odd (and somewhat Pelagian) to those coming from a Protestant tradition. However, the Church has always called on the faithful to fast. Traditionally, both "lungs" of the Church have called for fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays throughout the year. Interestingly, the Latin practice of fasting on Saturdays throughout the year was one of many factors that separated the East and West and culminated in the Great Schism in the 11th Century.
In our day where self-limitation is frowned upon, the Latin Church has not called on its people to fast as she has historically done. Instead, we Latins may now substitute whatever we please as our Lenten sacrifice (just as we may substitute some other act of penance on Fridays throughout the year). The Church presumably means to eradicate some of the overly Pelagian aspects of the Lenten fast by asking the faithful to prescribe their own "fast" and have that chosen "fast" not bind under pain of sin. Of course, the Church could simply call upon her shepherds to explain to the people the purpose of the fast and self-denial and caution against the potential for boasting and self-reliance that comes with the fast. After all, we are imitating our Blessed Lord's fasting in the desert where we learn we are not to rely on ourselves or bread, but on Christ Himself, the Word of God.
My analysis then is that many clerics in Western Church continue to engage in the most pernicious sort of clericalism that has become so commonplace since the Second Vatican Council. That is, they insist that the laity are quite incapable of understanding even the most simple of theological or spiritual propositions. So, instead of being asked to raise ourselves (or more correctly cooperating with the Holy Trinity as grace raises us up) to another level of spirituality (that all encompassing notion of theosis found in the East), we are once more pandered to and asked to do very little because little is expected of us. This is the opposite of what Lumen Gentium (the greatest of the Vatican II documents) says about the call of the laity in the modern world.
No comments:
Post a Comment