Category: Liturgical Year

Happy St. Justin Martyr Day!

Today–June 1–is St. Justin Martyr’s day on the liturgical calendar.

This is special to me for several reasons:

  • St. Justin Martyr is a main patron saint of apologists (myself being an apologist).
  • He also was a philosopher (myself being a philosopher by training).
  • St. Justin was a very early apologist, living in the second century.
  • He also was native to the Middle East, being born in what is modern Nablus.
  • Justin was, in his way, the greatest apologist of "the Age of the Apologists," when Christianity was struggling (not for the last time) with gaining intellectual respectability in an age hostile to it.
  • He also gave his life for his faith, as the sobriquet "Martyr" tells you.
  • He’s just a really cool guy, okay!

So I hope you’ll join me in celebrating his day.

LEARN MORE ABOUT ST. JUSTIN MARTYR.

AND MORE.

Or read his writings:

THE FIRST APOLOGY.

THE SECOND APOLOGY.

DIALOGUE WITH TRYPHO THE JEW.

Happy Ascension ThursdaySunday???

A reader writes:

It is my understanding (correct me if I am wrong) that the Ascension is celebrated today (Thursday) only in Pennsylvania, Nebraska, and the New England states. Everywhere else in the U.S., the feast has been moved to this Sunday. How is a diocese able to move a holy day from Thursday to Sunday? And why the lack of uniformity across the entire church?

I can’t vouch for the geographical information you list. I know that here in California we have Ascension Thursday transferred to Sunday, but I don’t know about the practice in other provinces. I suggest checking your diocesan web site to see what the status is in your area.

Here’s the deal: The U.S. bishops got permission from the Vatican to move Ascension Thursday to a Sunday on a province by province basis.

Here’s the relevant complementary norm:

In accord with the provisions of canon 1246§2 of the Code of Canon Law, which states: "… the conference of bishops can abolish certain holy days of obligation or transfer them to a Sunday with prior approval of the Apostolic See," the National Conference of Catholic Bishops of the United States decrees that the Ecclesiastical Provinces of the United States may transfer the Solemnity of the Ascension of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ from Thursday of the Sixth Week of Easter to the Seventh Sunday of Easter according to the following procedure.

The decision of each Ecclesiastical Province to transfer the Solemnity of the Ascension is to be made by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the bishops of the respective Ecclesiastical Province. The decision of the Ecclesiastical Province should be communicated to the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and to the President of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops [SOURCE, keep scrolling].

Happy Ascension ThursdaySunday???

A reader writes:

It is my understanding (correct me if I am wrong) that the Ascension is celebrated today (Thursday) only in Pennsylvania, Nebraska, and the New England states. Everywhere else in the U.S., the feast has been moved to this Sunday. How is a diocese able to move a holy day from Thursday to Sunday? And why the lack of uniformity across the entire church?

I can’t vouch for the geographical information you list. I know that here in California we have Ascension Thursday transferred to Sunday, but I don’t know about the practice in other provinces. I suggest checking your diocesan web site to see what the status is in your area.

Here’s the deal: The U.S. bishops got permission from the Vatican to move Ascension Thursday to a Sunday on a province by province basis.

Here’s the relevant complementary norm:

In accord with the provisions of canon 1246§2 of the Code of Canon Law, which states: "… the conference of bishops can abolish certain holy days of obligation or transfer them to a Sunday with prior approval of the Apostolic See," the National Conference of Catholic Bishops of the United States decrees that the Ecclesiastical Provinces of the United States may transfer the Solemnity of the Ascension of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ from Thursday of the Sixth Week of Easter to the Seventh Sunday of Easter according to the following procedure.

The decision of each Ecclesiastical Province to transfer the Solemnity of the Ascension is to be made by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the bishops of the respective Ecclesiastical Province. The decision of the Ecclesiastical Province should be communicated to the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and to the President of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops [SOURCE, keep scrolling].

Good Friday Bread

I’m not a baker so I can’t vouch for the recipe, but the accompanying picture of hot cross buns made the buns look yummy.  I couldn’t help but wince at this tidbit included with the article:

"Babka isn’t the only Easter bread.

"The season for hot cross buns usually begins the first day of Lent and lasts until Easter.

"The sweet yeast rolls, which often are flavored with dried fruits, originated in medieval England and commemorate Good Friday. A cross is slashed in the top of the bun, which is decorated with confectioners’ sugar icing after baking. In pagan times, the cross was said to ward off evil spirits, writes Sister Schubert in her cookbook ‘Secret Bread Recipes’ (Oxmoor House, 1996)."

The cross was said to ward off evil" in pagan times? Sigh. Written in such a sloppy manner, this gives the impression that Christ’s own cross was just the ultimate good-luck charm.  Perhaps this could have been re-written: "The cross, especially meaningful to Christians because Christ was put to death by crucifixion, is a shape used since pagan times in attempts to ward off evil."

Revised that way, the cross-shape that was perhaps used by ancient pagans in a superstitious manner becomes a prefigure of the Cross through which God’s work of salvation would definitively triumph over evil.

Viri Selecti

I want to thank John Lilburne RomanRite.Com for sending me the Latin text of the instructions regarding footwashing. I got this just before the recent announcement by the Archbishop of Boston, but I wanted to follow up by presenting what the text of the law says, even if now we have a doubt of law situation in the U.S.

Here goes:

From page 300 of the 2002 Roman Missal, for the Mass of
the Lord’s Supper


Lotio pedum

10. Completa homilia proceditur, ubi ratio pastoralis id suadeat, ad
lotionem pedum.

11. Viri selecti deducuntur a ministris ad sedilia loco apto parata. Tunc
sacerdos (deposita, si necesse sit, casula) accedit ad singulos, eisque
fundit aquam super pedes et abstergit, adiuvantibus ministris.

Here’s a quick, rough translation that I did on the fly (so it may contain errors I’ll fix later):

 

The Washing of Feet
 

 

10. The homily completed, he proceeds, where a pastoral reason would suggest, to the washing of feet.
 

 

11. The chosen men are led by the ministers to chairs prepared in a suitable place. Then the priest (removing, if it is necessary, the chasuble) goes to each, and
he pours water over the feet and he wipes clean, with the assisting ministers. 
 

 

The above is what the current Roman Missal says, which is somewhat different (differences highlighted) than what is said in the 1970 Roman Missal, page 244:


Lotio pedum

5. Post homiliam, in qua illustrantur potissima mysteria quae hac Missa
recoluntur, institutio scilicet sacrae Eucharistiae et ordinis sacerdotalis
necnon et mandatum Domini de caritate fraterna, proceditur, ubi ratio
pastoralis id suadeat, ad lotionem pedum.

6. Viri selecti deducuntur a ministris ad sedilia loco apto parata. Tunc
sacerdos (deposita, si necesse sit, planeta) accedit ad singulos, eisque
fundit aquam super pedes et abstergit, adiuvantibus ministris.

That is translated in the current English Missal as:

Washing of Feet

Depending on pastoral circumstances, the washing of feet follows the homily.

The men who have been chosen are led by the minsiters to chairs prepared in a suitable place. Then the priest (removing the chasuble if necessary) goes to each man. With the help of the mninisters, he pours water over each one’s feet and dries them.

What’s different is that a big huge chunk of the first paragraph has been omitted in the current English translation. That part says:

After the homily, in which the chief mysteries are illustrated which are recalled in this Mass, that is to say the institution of the holy Eucharist and the ordaining of the priests as well as the command of the Lord of fraternal charity, he proceeds, where a pastoral reason would suggest, to the washing of feet.

The directions regarding what the priest should have covered in the homily got dropped in the current translation and, now, they are gone from the Latin as well.

Quo Vadis, Viri Selecti?

(NOTE: That should be Quo vaditis, viri selecti? but then nobody would get the allusion.)

A staple part of the annual Lent fight has been the question of whether only men should be used in the footwashing ceremony on Holy Thursday. Since the rite re-enacts Jesus’ washing of the Twelve Apostles’ feet (all of whom were men) and since the text for the rite in Latin refers to it being performed on viri selecti ("selected men"), the answer seems to be yes: Only men should be used.

But things just got muddier.

Last year the Archbishop of Boston caused waves by daring to obey what the Church’s rubrics actually say. He promised, however, to consult the Congregation for Divine Worship to get their take on the matter.

He did:

O’Malley promised to consult with Rome, and yesterday his
spokeswoman said the Congregation for Divine Worship, which oversees
liturgical practices, had suggested the archbishop make whatever
decision he thought was best for Boston.

”The Congregation [for Divine Worship] affirmed the liturgical
requirement that only the feet of men be washed at the Holy Thursday
ritual." However, the Congregation did ”provide for the archbishop to
make a pastoral decision."

O’Malley then decided to include women in this year’s ceremony.

One can’t blame O’Malley for that. He did what he was supposed to do: He
tried to follow what the Church said to do last year and, when
challenged on that, he asked Rome for a clarification as to whether
there is leeway. Rome (apparently) said that there was, and at that
point it’s hard to fault him for exercizing that leeway in order to
prevent the kind of blowup that happened last year–only this time without him being able to say, "Sorry, guys, but this is what the law says, and as far as I know, there’s no leeway." Now he knows.

Assuming that the above report is accurate, we now, officially, have a mess on our hands.

Rome is reported to be saying that on the one hand the law is still in place but on the other hand the Archbishop can ignore it. If he can, who else can? In the absence of the document they sent him (if they sent him a document), it’s hard to know. Hypothetically, the document might be worded in such a way that the Archbishop himself is the only person to whom this applies, or it might apply to any bishop, or it might apply to any pastor. Without the document, we have no way of knowing.

We don’t even know if the document has any force. If it’s written by some junior liturgical guy and was not run past Arinze then it might not have any authority at all.

So what we have here is a mess.

We may also have a doubt of law situation, and as well all know, "Laws, even invalidating and incapacitating ones, do not oblige when there is a
doubt of law" (CIC 14).

I would anticipate future developments on this.There will be increased pressure for Rome to weigh in on this in a more public manner.

GET THE STORY.

(Cowboy hat tip to the reader who sent it.)