Category: Liturgical Year

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.

(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.)

LEARN MORE ABOUT ST. PATRICK’S DAY CELEBRATIONS.

LEARN WHY THE ANNUAL "ST. PATRICK WASN’T CATHOLIC" NONSENSE IS A CROCK OF BLARNEY.

READ ST. PATRICK’S CONVERSION STORY.

(Oh, great. Now that I’ve recovered from having "BadgersBadgersBadgers" and Oklahoma! running through my head, now there’s Creedence Clearwater Revival doing "Green River.")

LEARN MORE ABOUT ST. PATRICK’S DAY CELEBRATIONS.

LEARN WHY THE ANNUAL "ST. PATRICK WASN’T CATHOLIC" NONSENSE IS A CROCK OF BLARNEY.

READ ST. PATRICK’S CONVERSION STORY.

(Oh, great. Now that I’ve recovered from having "BadgersBadgersBadgers" and Oklahoma! running through my head, now there’s Creedence Clearwater Revival doing "Green River.")

A reader writes:

I am leading a church mom’s group and one of our projects this week will be to weave palms (like we get on Palm Sunday) into different shapes (crosses, birds, fish, etc.). In the weaving process, little scraps off the palms are sometimes cut off. May we use blessed palms in such a project, and if so, should we dispose of the scraps in a certain way?

There is no set law on this.

One could argue that the scraps lose their blessing by the act of being cut off, but if you want to be safe it is a pious non-binding custom (not a law) to disposed of blessed items either by reverently burning them or buying them, whichever the object’s nature is most suited for.

A reader writes:

Yesterday, I attended my sister’s parish.  For the Gospel reading (Jacob’s Well), a "play" format was used with the priest saying the words of Jesus and parishoners reading other parts.  Is this in accord with the rubrics of the mass?

It wasn’t terribly distracting, but I’m not sure of the reason for it. I have seen this done at Good Friday, but not with this reading.

A reader writes:

Do the rubrics for Holy Thursday allow the priest the was the feet of 6 men and 6 women? Can you point out where I might find a definitive answer? I am told that Rome says, "no" but that the U.S. Bishops have given permission for this as a "cultural adaptation".

A STATEMENT ON THIS SUBJECT FROM THE USCCB’S WEB SITE CAN BE FOUND HERE.

There are two things to note about this statement:

First, it correctly states:

The rubric for Holy Thursday, under the title WASHING OF FEET, reads:

"Depending on pastoral circumstance, the washing of feet follows the homily. The men who have been chosen (viri selecti) are led by the ministers to chairs prepared at a suitable place. Then the priest (removing his chasuble if necessary) goes to each man. With the help of the ministers he pours water over each one’s feet and dries them."

The term viri selecti does indeed mean "chosen men"–that is, adult males who have been selected for participation in the rite. The term vir always designates an adult male in Latin. This rubric requires twelve males because they are representing the Twelve Apostles whose feet Jesus washed.

Second, the statement goes on to say:

[T]he element of humble service has accentuated the celebration of the foot washing rite in the United States over the last decade or more. In this regard, it has become customary in many places to invite both men and women to be participants in this rite in recognition of the service that should be given by all the faithful to the Church and to the world. Thus, in the United States, a variation in the rite developed in which not only charity is signified but also humble service.

Taken simply as a factural description, this is true. It has become customary in many places in the U.S. to invite women to participate in the rite, and for the reasons stated.

Unfortuantely, that doesn’t make it legally permitted to do so. The Code of Canon Law requires:

Can.  846 §1. In celebrating the sacraments the liturgical books approved by competent authority are to be observed faithfully; accordingly, no one is to add, omit, or alter anything in them on one’s own authority [SOURCE].

Since no legislative action has been taken allowing local variation in regard to this matter, it appears that the use of women and children in the rite of footwashing is at variance with Church law.

What the statement on the USCCB’s web site appears to do is treat the matter ambiguously such that it states the law in a way that is accurate while describing a practice prevalent in the U.S. witout noting that it is at variance with the law.

A reader writes:

A question — what’s being done about the Feast of the Annunciation this year?  The usual date is March 25, but this year Good Friday falls on that date.

Believe it or not, the Annunciation is being transferred to April 4th this year, more than a week after its usual date of March 25 (nine months before Christmas).

PROOF. (WARNING: Evil file format [.pdf]!)

The reason has to do with which days take priority over which other days in the calendar. There are elaborate rules for this. Basically, you check the Table of Liturgical Days from the General Norms for the Liturgical Year and the Calendar, you’ll see that the Annunciation, as a feast daysolemnity, is a rank #53 day, which thus takes a back seat to days of rank #1-#42.

Good Friday, Holy Saturday, and Easter Sunday are rank #1 days, so you can’t celebrate the Annunciation then.

Holy Thursday (like the other weekdays of Holy Week) are rank #2, so you can’t celebrate it then.

Days within the Octave of Easter are also rank #2, so same thing.

The Second Sunday of Easter (Divine Mercy Sunday) is also rank #2.

So long story short: It gets bumped to April 4th, because that’s the first opening where another day wouldn’t take precedence over it.

Yee-haw!!! Another round in the annual Lent Fight!

In this corner, the Masked Reader writes:

Mr. Akin,

On your blog you stated that the laws of abstinence regarding soups et cetera changed when Paenitemini was promulgated in 1966. I think I have to take issue with your interpretation. It doesn’t seem that Paenitemini changes the laws then in force; all it says on the subject of abstinence is that "[t]he law of abstinence forbids the use of meat, but not of eggs, the products of milk or condiments made of animal fat." Is it not customary to interpret the law in accordance with earlier laws on the same subject? There is certainly no explicit permission in Paenitemini to partake of soups (and gravies and whatnot) made of meat on days of abstinence. Is there an authentic interpretation of Paenitemini or the 1983 Code that permits such?

You are correct that laws are generally to be interpreted in accord with earlier laws on the same subject. But this does not mean reading into the new law whatever the provisions of the old law were. In fact, it can involve the opposite: Looking at the new law to see what parts of the old law have been dropped.

Canon 20 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law provides that:

A later law abrogates, or derogates from, an earlier law if it states so expressly, is directly contrary to it, or completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law [SOURCE].

Paenitemini expressly derogates from prior law when it says:

The prescriptions of ecclesiastical law regarding penitence are totally reorganized [i.e., completely reordered; this is a translation difference but it’s the same phrase] according to the following norms [Norm I:2].

The norm on abstinence says:

The law of abstinence forbids the use of meat, but not of eggs, the products of milk or condiments made of animal fat [Norm III:1].

This is very similar to but nevertheless different from Canon 1250 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law which said:

The law of abstinence prohibits meat and soups made from meat but not of eggs, milks, and also whatever condiments are derived from animal fat [CIC(1917) 1250].

The "and soups made from meat" phrase is missing and thus Norm III:1 of Paenitemini derogates from Canon 1250 of the 1917 Code. As the Green CLSA commentary notes on canon 20 of the 1983 Code:

Divine laws do not change, but ecclesiastical laws, being of human origin, can be revoked partially (derogation) or entirely (abrogation) [p. 80].

[If a] new law changes part of an old law or norm but leaves the rest intact: this is a derogation, not abrogation [p. 82].

Since Paenitemini drops part of what the 1917 Code said about the law of abstinence but leaves the rest intact, it derogates from (partially revokes) what the 1917 Code said on that point.

Thus "soups made from meat" are now kosher on days of abstinence.

If anyone is of a mind to be cantankerous about this point, I would then note that the above line of reasoning at least creates a doubt as to the legal status of soups made from meat (in fact, it seems to do much more than create a doubt, but let’s suppose that’s all it does), in which case we have a doubt of law situation.

As Canon 14 of the 1983 Code provides:

Laws, even invalidating and disqualifying ones, do not oblige when there is a doubt about the law.

So one can still eat chicken noodle soup until Rome says otherwise.

I don’t favor that myself, but my job here is to explain what the law says, not what I’d prefer it to say.

Yee-haw!!! Another round in the annual Lent Fight!

In this corner, the Masked Reader writes:

Mr. Akin,

On your blog you stated that the laws of abstinence regarding soups et cetera changed when Paenitemini was promulgated in 1966. I think I have to take issue with your interpretation. It doesn’t seem that Paenitemini changes the laws then in force; all it says on the subject of abstinence is that "[t]he law of abstinence forbids the use of meat, but not of eggs, the products of milk or condiments made of animal fat." Is it not customary to interpret the law in accordance with earlier laws on the same subject? There is certainly no explicit permission in Paenitemini to partake of soups (and gravies and whatnot) made of meat on days of abstinence. Is there an authentic interpretation of Paenitemini or the 1983 Code that permits such?

You are correct that laws are generally to be interpreted in accord with earlier laws on the same subject. But this does not mean reading into the new law whatever the provisions of the old law were. In fact, it can involve the opposite: Looking at the new law to see what parts of the old law have been dropped.

Canon 20 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law provides that:

A later law abrogates, or derogates from, an earlier law if it states so expressly, is directly contrary to it, or completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law [SOURCE].

Paenitemini expressly derogates from prior law when it says:

The prescriptions of ecclesiastical law regarding penitence are totally reorganized [i.e., completely reordered; this is a translation difference but it’s the same phrase] according to the following norms [Norm I:2].

The norm on abstinence says:

The law of abstinence forbids the use of meat, but not of eggs, the products of milk or condiments made of animal fat [Norm III:1].

This is very similar to but nevertheless different from Canon 1250 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law which said:

The law of abstinence prohibits meat and soups made from meat but not of eggs, milks, and also whatever condiments are derived from animal fat [CIC(1917) 1250].

The "and soups made from meat" phrase is missing and thus Norm III:1 of Paenitemini derogates from Canon 1250 of the 1917 Code. As the Green CLSA commentary notes on canon 20 of the 1983 Code:

Divine laws do not change, but ecclesiastical laws, being of human origin, can be revoked partially (derogation) or entirely (abrogation) [p. 80].

[If a] new law changes part of an old law or norm but leaves the rest intact: this is a derogation, not abrogation [p. 82].

Since Paenitemini drops part of what the 1917 Code said about the law of abstinence but leaves the rest intact, it derogates from (partially revokes) what the 1917 Code said on that point.

Thus "soups made from meat" are now kosher on days of abstinence.

If anyone is of a mind to be cantankerous about this point, I would then note that the above line of reasoning at least creates a doubt as to the legal status of soups made from meat (in fact, it seems to do much more than create a doubt, but let’s suppose that’s all it does), in which case we have a doubt of law situation.

As Canon 14 of the 1983 Code provides:

Laws, even invalidating and disqualifying ones, do not oblige when there is a doubt about the law.

So one can still eat chicken noodle soup until Rome says otherwise.

I don’t favor that myself, but my job here is to explain what the law says, not what I’d prefer it to say.