Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => The Sacred: Catholic Liturgy, Chant, Prayers => Topic started by: Geremia on August 14, 2018, 08:48:05 AM
-
Is the vigil of the Assumption (today) traditionally a day of fast and abstinence?
It's not mentioned here: http://sspx.org/en/rules-fast-and-abstinence
-
Is the vigil of the Assumption (today) traditionally a day of fast and abstinence?
It's not mentioned here: http://sspx.org/en/rules-fast-and-abstinence
Vigil of the Assumption = meat only once today.
-
Vigil of the Assumption = meat only once today.
Who says?
-
It was my understanding that this is true across the world except in the United States, where it's the Vigil of the Immaculate Conception instead, since Our Lady under that Title is the Patroness of the U.S.
-
According to this, however, the Vigil of the Immaculate Conception was dropped in 1962.
http://sspx.org/en/rules-fast-and-abstinence
Fasting and complete abstinence were obligatory on the following days:
Ash Wednesday
Fridays and Saturdays in Lent
Good Friday
Holy Saturday (until midnight)
Ember Days (Wednesday, Friday and Saturday)
Vigil of Pentecost
Vigil of Christmas
[NB: both the Vigils of the Immaculate Conception and All Saints were omitted from the 1962 calendar]
-
There's a half-fish for today on my Angelus calendar.
-
Confusing:
The liturgical calendar on TRADITIO says neither fast nor abstinence today.
-
The US fast/abstinence rules are very confusing and full of change due to 1) the indults granted during WWII which halted/minimized many penances, 2) the post-WWII re-introduction of fast/abstience by Pius XII, and then 3) the 1962 and 1969 changes which re-halted/deleted the vigils/penances all over again. To say that the US (and Europe's) fast/abstinence laws were "inconsistant" during the 40s-70s is an epic understatement.
Lastly, I read where the fast/abstinence rules were switched from the Assumption to the Immaculate Conception, for the US only (due to our specific consecration to the Immaculate Conception).
Traditionally, (i.e. in normal catholic times, pre-1900s), I read where there were over 70 vigil days kept by Christianity (not including the 40 days of Lent). I've heard a Byzantine priest say that they still fast/abstain "almost 1/3 of the year", which is consistant with the above numbers.
https://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2014/08/vigil-of-assumption-of-blessed-virgin.html (https://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2014/08/vigil-of-assumption-of-blessed-virgin.html)
The Catholic Encyclopedia around the time of St. Pius X in the early 1900s mentions: "In the United States only four of theses vigils are fast days: the vigils of Christmas, Pentecost, the Assumption, and All Saints." The Vigil of the Assumption however ceased being a fast day by the early 1950s. **This is probably due to the switch to the Immaculate Conception**
However, its observance as a fast day is ancient as the Catholic Encyclopedia states, "Pope Nicholas I (d. 867), in his answer to the Bulgarians, speaks of the fast on the eves of Christmas and of the Assumption...The Synod of Seligenstadt (1022) mentions vigils on the eves of Christmas, Epiphany, the feast of the Apostles, the Assumption of Mary, St. Laurence, and All Saints, besides the fast of two weeks before the Nativity of St. John."
-
Confusing:
The liturgical calendar on TRADITIO says neither fast nor abstinence today.
It's not confusing at all.
In the United States, the Vigil of the Assumption has not been fast/abstinence since the 1950s. In the U.S. that was moved to the Vigil of the Immaculate Conception. But in 1962, they dropped that also.
-
There's a half-fish for today on my Angelus calendar.
That could be because SSPX always has a European bias and a disdain for the United States, so whoever compiled that calendar likely failed to take into account the move in the U.S. to the Immaculate Conception.
-
Yes it is my understanding that there is no fast nor abstinence.
-
I just texted an SSPX priest this question:
“Is today a day of fast and partial abstinence?”
His answer:
“Traditionally.”
-
I just texted an SSPX priest this question:
“Is today a day of fast and partial abstinence?”
His answer:
“Traditionally.”
Not in the U.S., not since the 1950s. He's wrong.
-
Good to see people expressing a willingness/interest in complying with the Church’s laws, regardless of what the right answer is, though.
👍
-
Church Law as of 1956:
http://www.cmri.org/fasting-laws.shtml
-
Church Law as of 1956:
http://www.cmri.org/fasting-laws.shtml
So is the down thumb for this post because it states Church Law before 1962 or because the link is a CMRI link? :laugh1:
-
So is the down thumb for this post because it states Church Law before 1962 or because the link is a CMRI link? :laugh1:
Wasn’t from me; I prefer the older more rigorous laws.
-
Not in the U.S., not since the 1950s. He's wrong.
Traditionally, from ancient times, there was a fast:
Munificentissimus Deus (http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html) §19:that a holy fast had been ordered from ancient times for the day prior to the feast [of the Assumption] is made very evident by what our predecessor St. Nicholas I testifies in treating of the principal fasts which "the Holy Roman Church has observed for a long time, and still observes."
-
I would prefer to fast on any vigil, to a Holy Day.
-
[....] as the Catholic Encyclopedia states, "Pope Nicholas I (d. 867), in his answer to the Bulgarians, speaks of the fast on the eves of Christmas and of the Assumption ... The Synod of Seligenstadt (1022) mentions vigils on the eves of Christmas, Epiphany, the feast of the Apostles, the Assumption of Mary, St. Laurence, and All Saints, besides the fast of two weeks before the Nativity of St. John."
According to a reminder from TRADITIO Network [*], the Feast of the Epiphany is 1 of the oldest of feasts; in particular, a celebration whose religious observance is older than Christmas. Yet it's not even a holyday of obligation in the U.S.A., never mind any vigil on the eve of Epiphany. The latter eve, according to the logical calculation reïnforced so recently [*], is the observance-worthy "12th Day of Christmas" [#].
-------
Note *: <http://www.traditio.com/comment/com1901.htm#190105 (http://www.traditio.com/comment/com1901.htm#190105)>.
Note †: And yet the Feast of the Circuмcision (ecclesiastical Latin meaning "arena games of college football" [‡]), is a holyday of obligation. Being an octave day (of Christmas), it is neither a day of fast nor by itself, of abstinence.
Note ‡: Especially when Notre Dame plays, altho' such a focus irritates alums of Boston College, Fordham, Holy Cross, &c.
Note #: Scarce few people ever seem to notice that by Roman inclusive counting, there are actually 13 days "from Christmas to the Epiphany".
-
According to a reminder from TRADITIO Network [*], the Feast of the Epiphany is 1 of the oldest of feasts; in particular, a celebration whose religious observance is older than Christmas.
Note *: <http://www.traditio.com/comment/com1901.htm#190105>.
Not only did I fail to post the correct fragment-id for supporting the specific point that I was making, but so also did the TRADITIO Network! Their URL for accessing the text that I cited is currently the vertically-dyslexic <http://www.traditio.com/comment/com1901.htm#190109 (http://www.traditio.com/comment/com1901.htm#190109)>. It should be <http://www.traditio.com/comment/com1901.htm#190106 (http://www.traditio.com/comment/com1901.htm#190106)>. Alas, it's no secret that "The Fathers" are stubbornly resistant about responding to notifications of their own errors that ought to be corrected (but maybe they'll correct 1 of their own erroneous links.
What the browsers used by CathInfo members will do when the correct entry for "January 9, 2019" appears on that page (as the 2nd "#190109") is implementation-dependent. For the Web-page coding-language HTML, duplicate fragment-ids seem, in an example of technical timidity [×], not to be detected as technical semantic errors.
-------
Note ×: It's been widely accepted, at least since the beginning of the 1970s, as unreasonable for any computing language to meekly allow what are formally duplicate definitions (or duplicate declarations) of identifiers. For the point herein, that would mean duplicate fragment-ids (e.g.: "190109") would be errors.