Category: Liturgical Year

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.

Hokay. Every year there’s a big Lent fight about different aspects of Lent. To try to blunt the force of the Lentomachy, let me gather together relevant links that folks can read. This will now become a permapost (at least approaching and during Lent). Here goes:

• BASIC INFO ON LENT
• LENTEN READER ROUNDUP
• Q & A ON LENT (THIS ROCK)

DURATION

• THE DURATION OF LENT
• LET’S COUNT THE DAYS OF LENT
• "FORTY" DAYS
• THE INFAMOUS SUNDAYS IN LENT CONTROVERSY: I, II, III, IV, V

PENANCE IN GENERAL

• THE GRAVITY OF PENANCE
• FOLLOWUP I
• FOLLOWUP II

ABSTINENCE

• THE LAW OF ABSTINENCE
• FISHING INDUSTRY HOAX
• CAPYBARAS AND OTHER AQUATIC NON-FISH
• SOLEMNITIES THAT FALL ON FRIDAY DURING LENT
• SOUPS MADE WITH MEAT

ASH WEDNESDAY

• HOW LONG DO YOU KEEP THE ASHES ON?

HOLY THURSDAY

• SEVEN CHURCHES VISITATION

GOOD FRIDAY

• WHY IS IT CALLED "GOOD" FRIDAY?

FRIDAY PENANCE OUTSIDE OF LENT

• MORE ON FRIDAY PENANCE

A reader writes:

It turns out that in certain parts of Venezuela the Catholic populace is allowed to eat Capybara on Ash Wednesday and Lenten Fridays, due to a Vatican ruling centuries ago that the animal could be considered a fish.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capybara

Some of my friends want to know why this dispensation has not since been lifted. I recall reading that this is because of the economic situation of the country, something about how it would be placing an undue burden on these peoples to forbid the Capybara on Fridays.

To me this seems reasonable, but these friends don’t see it that way. They would like to know why the poor on Fridays can’t just forego meat for a single day of the week, and get their protein from some plant source, like beans.

Of course, they accuse the Church of just being hypocritical and wanting to justify a rediculous papal declaration.

I don’t have independent information on this, but it strikes me as plausible. We noted below that aquatic mammals such as beavers and otters have not traditionally been counted as prohibited on Fridays. Since capybaras spend a good bit of their lives in the water, like beavers and otters, the same would apply to them.

Mind you, I’m not in favor of that. I might let someone get away with counting dolphins and whales as sufficiently fish-like that they don’t count, but anything with four legs and fur, whether it lives in the water or not, I would want to count as carnis. That’s just me, though, and not how traditional moralists have regarded matters.

I don’t see any grounds for charging hypocrisy here, though, especially in regard to a papal decision. I have no proof that the pope ever involved himself in the question, and the Church’s present law doesn’t address the subject, meaning that we have to fall back on the older moralists for tough cases. If the older moralists chose to adopt a "lives in water = okay on Fridays" rule for the sake of not confusing people, we might disagree, we might even think it’s dumb, but we can’t charge them with hypocrisy. It’s not like the pope invented "capybara" Fridays for the sake of cropping up the capybara industry.

I understand that a similar situation exists with Barnacle Geese (once thought to be a fish; to be grown-up barnacles) and also a certain type of Puffin in some parts of Ireland.

Basically, what could be so dire about one’s economic situation that could not possibly, for one day of the week, substitute meat for something else?

I think that someone may have misunderstood something somewhere. It ain’t that impoverished people get to eat meat-like things on Friday because they’re poor. It’s the other way around: The discipline was that everyone refrained from the meat of land animals on Fridays because it was a sign of rejoicing as most people couldn’t (usually) afford it very often.

That has persisted until very recent times. I remember once as a boy, growing up in the impoverished South, going over to a friend’s house and my friend was all excited since, as I was company, his parents were going to serve meat that night.

The reason that things like water-dwelling animals or costal birds that spend a lot of their time over the water were not regarded as counting was not that the people eating them were poor but that they were connected with the water and moralists decided that, lest people get confused and scrupulous, any kind of water animal was okay.

I don’t like that. I think it’s dumb. But that was the consensus on the issue.

The consensus has been changing somewhat. For example, Henry Davis is quite down on villages where seabirds are exempted and says this is likely bogus (he doesn’t use the word "bogus") and that it has more to do with villagers obstinately hanging on to traditional privileges. I can look up the quote if needed.

So, while some might not approve of eating Rodents Of Unusual Size, there’s no question that you can have a pie made with . . . shrieking eels, for example.

UPDATE: Welcome Amy Welborn readers! MORE LENT RESOURCES HERE.

Down yonder, a reader writes:

Vatican documents teach that Lent has 40 days of penance.

I need to stop you for a moment. Lent is not a matter of Church teaching. It is a matter of the Church’s liturgical law. Therefore, no Church document "teaches" that Lent is forty days. I point this out partly for the sake of accuracy and to put readers on guard against thinking this is a matter of Church teaching, given the emotionally charge that the word "teach" has for faithful Catholics. It’s a matter of law, not doctrine, so the matter is a question of what the Church’s law provides, not what the Magisterium teaches.

Back over to you . . .

For example the Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 540 "By the

solemn forty days of Lent the Church unites herself each year to the

mystery of Jesus in the desert."

I would point out several things in response:

1. One must evaluate Church documents by their nature. They are not all the same, and you have to look to the question of the nature of the work, the kind of language it uses, and the kind of authority it has toward a specific matter.
2. You are quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church here. As its name suggests, it is a catechetical work, not a legal work. It does not establish the Church’s law, whether liturgical or otherwise. You have to look at the Church’s legal documents for that.
3. As a catechetical work, the Catechism uses traditional catechetical language, which (as I’ve noted) speaks of Lent in an approximative way as being forty days. Since this is traditional catechetical language regarding Lent, it is the language the Catechism uses. This language is not to be replied upon as providing the technical legal description that is to be found in the Church’s legal documents.

You also write:

Forty days is also prominent in the 17 December 2001 document from

the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the

Sacraments entitled Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy:

"Lent

"124. Lent precedes and prepares for Easter. It is a time to hear

the Word of God, to convert, to prepare for and remember Baptism, to be

reconciled with God and one’s neighbour, and of more frequent recourse

to the "arms of Christian penance"(134): prayer, fasting and good works

(cf. Mt 6, 1-6. 16-18).

"Popular piety does not easily perceive the mystical aspect of Lent

and does not emphasize any of its great themes or values, such a

relationship between "the sacrament of forty days" and "the sacraments

of Christian initiation", nor the mystery of the "exodus" which is

always present in the lenten journey. Popular piety concentrates on the

mysteries of Christ’s humanity, and during Lent the faithful pay close

attention to the Passion and Death of Our Lord.

"125. In the Roman Rite, the beginning of the forty days of penance

is marked with the austere symbol of ashes which are used in the

Liturgy of Ash Wednesday. …"

While the Directory for Popular Piety and the Liturgy is a document published by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, which is the competent dicastery to revise the calendar, this document is still not the controlling legal document for the calendar. That document is the General Norms for the Liturgical Year and the Calendar, which was quoted earlier and which provides a definition of Lent that is not forty days long.

The Directory for Popular Piety is a pastoral document rather than a legal document. It contains language of a pastoral nature that draws upon the traditional and approximative mode of speech regarding Lent being forty days long. It does not re-define the length of Lent in supercession of the General Norms.

In order for it to do so, it would not only have to indicate that it was revising the calendar (it does not), it would also have to be approved by the pope in forma specifica (it is not; it has only general papal approval).

The presence of the traditional, approximative language in this or other documents thus does not override the fact that the controlling legal document for the calendar–the General Norms–specifies a Lenten period of more than forty days.

It’s understandable that folks would be confused on this point, because the traditional mode of speech, if taken literally, is at variance with the length specified in the controlling legal document–which is why this question comes up every year.

My compliments on your throughness in investigating this!

Down yonder, a reader writes:

Vatican documents teach that Lent has 40 days of penance.

I need to stop you for a moment. Lent is not a matter of Church teaching. It is a matter of the Church’s liturgical law. Therefore, no Church document "teaches" that Lent is forty days. I point this out partly for the sake of accuracy and to put readers on guard against thinking this is a matter of Church teaching, given the emotionally charge that the word "teach" has for faithful Catholics. It’s a matter of law, not doctrine, so the matter is a question of what the Church’s law provides, not what the Magisterium teaches.

Back over to you . . .

For example the Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 540 "By the
solemn forty days of Lent the Church unites herself each year to the
mystery of Jesus in the desert."

I would point out several things in response:

1. One must evaluate Church documents by their nature. They are not all the same, and you have to look to the question of the nature of the work, the kind of language it uses, and the kind of authority it has toward a specific matter.
2. You are quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church here. As its name suggests, it is a catechetical work, not a legal work. It does not establish the Church’s law, whether liturgical or otherwise. You have to look at the Church’s legal documents for that.
3. As a catechetical work, the Catechism uses traditional catechetical language, which (as I’ve noted) speaks of Lent in an approximative way as being forty days. Since this is traditional catechetical language regarding Lent, it is the language the Catechism uses. This language is not to be replied upon as providing the technical legal description that is to be found in the Church’s legal documents.

You also write:

Forty days is also prominent in the 17 December 2001 document from
the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the
Sacraments entitled Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy:

"Lent

"124. Lent precedes and prepares for Easter. It is a time to hear
the Word of God, to convert, to prepare for and remember Baptism, to be
reconciled with God and one’s neighbour, and of more frequent recourse
to the "arms of Christian penance"(134): prayer, fasting and good works
(cf. Mt 6, 1-6. 16-18).

"Popular piety does not easily perceive the mystical aspect of Lent
and does not emphasize any of its great themes or values, such a
relationship between "the sacrament of forty days" and "the sacraments
of Christian initiation", nor the mystery of the "exodus" which is
always present in the lenten journey. Popular piety concentrates on the
mysteries of Christ’s humanity, and during Lent the faithful pay close
attention to the Passion and Death of Our Lord.

"125. In the Roman Rite, the beginning of the forty days of penance
is marked with the austere symbol of ashes which are used in the
Liturgy of Ash Wednesday. …"

While the Directory for Popular Piety and the Liturgy is a document published by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, which is the competent dicastery to revise the calendar, this document is still not the controlling legal document for the calendar. That document is the General Norms for the Liturgical Year and the Calendar, which was quoted earlier and which provides a definition of Lent that is not forty days long.

The Directory for Popular Piety is a pastoral document rather than a legal document. It contains language of a pastoral nature that draws upon the traditional and approximative mode of speech regarding Lent being forty days long. It does not re-define the length of Lent in supercession of the General Norms.

In order for it to do so, it would not only have to indicate that it was revising the calendar (it does not), it would also have to be approved by the pope in forma specifica (it is not; it has only general papal approval).

The presence of the traditional, approximative language in this or other documents thus does not override the fact that the controlling legal document for the calendar–the General Norms–specifies a Lenten period of more than forty days.

It’s understandable that folks would be confused on this point, because the traditional mode of speech, if taken literally, is at variance with the length specified in the controlling legal document–which is why this question comes up every year.

My compliments on your throughness in investigating this!