The forty days of Lent are exclusive of the Sundays which are IN, but not OF, Lent.

No, for the 99.99% of Latin rite Catholics who follow the 1969 reformed Roman Calendar the Sundays in the Lenten season are days of Lent. And the "forty days of Lent" actually number 44.

The Universal Norms on the Liturgical Year and the Calendar, no. 28, states:

The forty days of Lent run from Ash Wednesday up to but excluding the Mass of the Lord's Supper exclusive.

I think cutting off printed verses of any hymn is goofy. How about no recessional music at all?

@MJO: our patrimony's 40 days of Lent was dashed more than a millennium ago when the four days before the First Sunday of Lent were added to the Lenten season. So one of our ancestors in the faith came up with the idea to count the days differently. Drop the 6 Lenten Sundays from the count and add Good Friday and Holy Saturday. Presto! Back to 40 days. Only problem with that creative approach was what it did to the understanding of the Paschal Triduum.

After V2 there were suggestions that the original Lent (Sunday through Thursday) be restored. Pope Paul VI said "no" to that suggestion, but moved Good Friday and Holy Saturday out of Lent. And we're back to 44 days.

I agree with Earl... I think it is a fine idea.

That's always how I've interpreted it. They're called Sundays of Lent after all.

Some Easterns begin their fasting on the Monday before Sexagesima to make up a whole 40 days before Easter, since many of them do not fast on Saturdays (or Thursdays).

And some Easterns eat cheese for a whole week leading up to Lent, which is a tradition I could really get into.

The Sundays of Lent are part of the Season of Lent... Dom Gueranger writes that Sunday should not be days of fasting... The 40 days of Lent are the days of fasting, A good description can be found in the Lenten Hymn, Ex more docti Mystico. Translation below,

1. Let us observe this most solemn fast of forty days, which has been handed down to us by sacred tradition.

2. The Law and the Prophets first introduced it; and afterwards, Christ, the Master and Maker of all seasons, consecrated it by himself observing it.

3. Let us, therfore, be more sparing in our words; let us retrench somewhat of our food, and drink, and sleep, and merriment, and redouble our watchfullness.

4. Let us shun those noxious things, which play such havoc with unguarded souls: and let us avoid whatsoever could strengthen the tyranny of our crafty enemy.

5. Let us appease the anger of our Judge, and pour out our tears before him; let us prostrate ourselves, and thus cry to him in suppliant prayer:

6. We have offended thy goodness, O God, by our sins: forgive us, and pour out thy mercy upon us.

7. Remember that we are the work of thy hands, frail though we be: we beseech thee, suffer not another to usurp the honour of thy name.

8. Pardon us the evil we have done, and grant us good things, even beyond our prayer: that thus we may be well pleasing to thee, now and for ever.

9. O blessed Trinity, O undivided Unity, grant us, thy servants, to reap fruit from the fast thou hast given us. Amen.

N.B. There are various differences in the text used for this Hymn (Roman version, Ambrosian, Augsberg Antiphonal, etc.)

True, CharlesW. If you read Dom Gueranger's history of Lenten practices, one gets the impression that Catholics were far more hardcore in the early days of Lent. I'm much softer than them, that's for sure.

This is assuming, CharlesW, that everyone observes the "strict" abstinence throughout the whole of the Great Fast (Lent). Not everyone does. For the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Archeparchy of Pittsburgh, the strict abstinence is only mandated on Clean Monday and Good Friday. The simple abstinence is mandated on Wednesdays and Fridays of the Great Fast. (Our Byzantine community administrator, a layman, emailed us the official regulations, though I cannot access it right now as I am on an Android.)

For those of you unfamiliar with the difference between the Latin and Byzantine fasting traditions, the Byzantine tradition stipulates the ideal, while freely allowing for pastoral discretion with the aid of a spiritual director.

The Latin tradition is to legislate the minimum, while encouraging the faithful to make sacrifices of thheir own accord. Unfortunately, in modern Western secular society, which encourages people to do as little as they can get away with, this can easily be interpreted as a sign for Latin Catholics to likewise do little in their Lenten observance, and sometimes it can be seen as merely legalistic. Consequently, you will have many Latins wondering if on Good Friday such-and-such is a small enough portion of food to be acceptable for the fast. I repeat, the Latin tradition is not bad in itself, if people accept not only the letter but also the spirit of the law, which is for the people to discern graciously their own Lenten observance.

My apologies to the OP for contributing to the derailment of your thread.

Blaise, I know that. Orthodox groups sneer at what remains of fasting in the Pittsburgh Metropolia. They view it as another Latinization. The Ukrainian Greek Catholics adhere more closely to traditional Orthodox practice. The key difference, it seems to me, is that fasting regulations are legislated in the west with penalties attached. They are recommended in the east without the penalties. Responsibility is placed on the individual, and clergy can advise and adapt practice to individual circumstances.