Catholic Metanarrative

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Wednesday Liturgy: Translating "Pro Multis"

ROME, MAY 24, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


Readers from several parts of the world have requested commentaries on the new English translation of the Roman Missal. While I have never been directly involved in the project and can boast no technical studies in the art of translation, I hope to offer occasional theological reflections on the new texts.

We have already broached the question of translation in several articles. On June 15, 2004, and then last Sept. 14 and Sept. 28, we dealt with the reasons to prefer translating "Et cum spiritu tuo" as "And with your spirit" rather than "And also with you."

On Sept. 7 and 21, 2004, we explained the reasonableness of translating the "pro multis" in the words of consecration as "for all" in spite of its literally meaning "for many." Although the reasons offered for this translation are valid, from the theological point of view it was still an inaccurate translation. Having consulted widely, Benedict XVI decided that henceforth all new versions of the missal must translate this text literally as "for many." The reasons behind this decision were laid out by the Congregation for the Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in a letter to the presidents of all the national bishops' conferences on Oct. 17, 2006 (Prot. N. 467/05/L):

"In July 2005 this Congregation for the Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, by agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote to all Presidents of Conferences of Bishops to ask their considered opinion regarding the translation into the various vernaculars of the expression pro multis in the formula for the consecration of the Precious Blood during the celebration of Holy Mass (ref. Prot. N. 467/05/L of 9 July 2005).

"The replies received from the Bishops' Conferences were studied by the two Congregations and a report was made to the Holy Father. At his direction, this Congregation now writes to Your Eminence / Your Excellency in the following terms:

"1. A text corresponding to the words pro multis, handed down by the Church, constitutes the formula that has been in use in the Roman Rite in Latin from the earliest centuries. In the past 30 years or so, some approved vernacular texts have carried the interpretive translation 'for all,' 'per tutti,' or equivalents.

"2. There is no doubt whatsoever regarding the validity of Masses celebrated with the use of a duly approved formula containing a formula equivalent to 'for all,' as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already declared (cf. Sacra Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Declaratio de sensu tribuendo adprobationi versionum formularum sacramentalium, 25 Ianuarii 1974, AAS 66 [1974], 661). Indeed, the formula 'for all' would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord's intention expressed in the text. It is a dogma of faith that Christ died on the Cross for all men and women (cf. John 11:52; 2 Corinthians 5:14-15; Titus 2:11; 1 John 2:2).

"3. There are, however, many arguments in favor of a more precise rendering of the traditional formula pro multis:

"a. The Synoptic Gospels (Mt 26:28; Mk 14:24) make specific reference to 'many' (πολλων = pollôn) for whom the Lord is offering the Sacrifice, and this wording has been emphasized by some biblical scholars in connection with the words of the prophet Isaiah (53:11-12). It would have been entirely possible in the Gospel texts to have said 'for all' (for example, cf. Luke 12:41); instead, the formula given in the institution narrative is 'for many,' and the words have been faithfully translated thus in most modern biblical versions.

"b. The Roman Rite in Latin has always said pro multis and never pro omnibus in the consecration of the chalice.

"c. The anaphoras of the various Oriental Rites, whether in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, the Slavic languages, etc., contain the verbal equivalent of the Latin pro multis in their respective languages.

"d. 'For many' is a faithful translation of pro multis, whereas 'for all' is rather an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis.

"e. The expression 'for many,' while remaining open to the inclusion of each human person, is reflective also of the fact that this salvation is not brought about in some mechanistic way, without one's willing or participation; rather, the believer is invited to accept in faith the gift that is being offered and to receive the supernatural life that is given to those who participate in this mystery, living it out in their lives as well so as to be numbered among the 'many' to whom the text refers.

"f. In line with the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam, effort should be made to be more faithful to the Latin texts in the typical editions.

"The Bishops' Conferences of those countries where the formula 'for all' or its equivalent is currently in use are therefore requested to undertake the necessary catechesis for the faithful on this matter in the next one or two years to prepare them for the introduction of a precise vernacular translation of the formula pro multis (e.g, 'for many,' 'per molti,' etc.) in the next translation of the Roman Missal that the Bishops and the Holy See will approve for use in their country."

Some countries, such as France, have always translated this text literally (in this case as "for the multitude"). Some Spanish-speaking countries have already changed the words of consecration even though the full retranslation of the missal is not completed. Most English speakers will be hearing "for many" by the end of this year and eventually all countries will use this formula.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Exposition of the Precious Blood

ROME, MAY 24, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


With respect to our May 10 article on exposition on Holy Thursday, a reader from Texas commented that although I correctly stated that the bishop should be informed of the abuse, this should be done only after having first taken up the issue with the parish priest himself. I agree with this point, since the error might be the fruit of honest ignorance of the law and might be resolved immediately without recourse to possible disciplinary actions.

Meanwhile, an Irish reader offered some informative observations:

"1. As you are aware, the equating of adoration of the Eucharistic species outside of Mass (especially organized periods of adoration) and exposition of the Blessed Sacrament in the monstrance is becoming more and more the norm. The terminology is being confused repeatedly and this is being shown up in discussions around exposition during the Paschal Triduum.

"2. Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament is permitted in Poland -- by indult of the Holy See -- during the Paschal Triduum. I understand that a semi-transparent veil is used to veil the monstrance from the end of the Holy Thursday Mass and right through to the Easter Vigil. Secondly, on Easter Sunday morning the early Mass remains quite popular in that country -- the night vigil has had great difficulty in becoming popular due to restrictions placed upon people in socialist times (the night vigil becoming obligatory from 1956) -- and the early morning Easter procession outside the church with the Blessed Sacrament is also quite popular. The current Roman Missal for Poland contains the details of the indult and the details of the ceremonies they follow there."

Similar indults may also exist in some other countries, allowing for exceptions to the universal laws. I am grateful to our correspondent for this helpful information which furthers our own and our readers' knowledge of the liturgy.

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Wednesday Liturgy: When to Extinguish the Easter Candle

ROME, MAY 17, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


Q: Some years back, in the calendar of the diocesan yearbook, apparently for all three Welsh dioceses, a quaint enthusiast instructed that the paschal candle should be extinguished at the Ascension but left in the sanctuary unlit for the novena of Pentecost. This directive was never repeated but has permanently confused people. Is it correct, is it optional, or is it a piece of ill-devised symbolism for the absence of the Lord, who is always present? We would be so grateful for your advice. -- S.M., Hawarden, Wales

A: It is quite probable that this suggestion was inspired in part by the custom of the extraordinary form in which the Easter candle is extinguished after the Gospel during the principal Mass of Ascension Thursday.

In this ritual context the candle symbolizes the presence of the glorified risen Christ. It is therefore logical, in the extraordinary form, to extinguish the candle at the Ascension.

The rubrics of the extraordinary form, unlike the indication of the aforementioned calendar, foresee the removal of the candle from the sanctuary after this Mass. The indication of leaving it unlit until Pentecost would appear to be an attempt to reconcile the earlier custom with the clear indication in the present rubrics that the candle remain until Pentecost Sunday.

In fact, the present rubrics foresee a much wider use of the paschal candle during the year than the extraordinary form. In the latter the use of the candle is limited to the more solemn celebrations during the 40 days between Easter and Ascension. Even during this period it is not used for Masses for the dead and other Masses requiring violet vestments such as rogation Masses.

With respect to the ordinary form the Circular Letter on the Easter Feasts states the following: "99. The paschal candle has its proper place either by the ambo or by the altar and should be lit at least in all the more solemn liturgical celebrations of the season until Pentecost Sunday, whether at Mass or at Morning and Evening Prayer. After the Easter season, the candle should be kept with honor in the baptistry, so that in the celebration of baptism, the candles of the baptized may be lit from them. In the celebration of funerals the paschal candle should be placed near the coffin to indicate that the death of a Christian is his own passover. The paschal candle should not otherwise be lit nor placed in the sanctuary outside the Easter season."

This expanded use also explains why, in most parishes, the norm that the Easter candle be renewed each year is also a practical necessity. The extraordinary form is less demanding on this point.

The indication that the candle should be lit "at least in all the more solemn liturgical celebrations" of Eastertide means that it is not required to light it at all Masses and community celebrations of the Divine Office. This possibility is not excluded, however, especially in communities such as seminaries and religious houses that regularly celebrate the liturgy with some solemnity but where baptisms and funerals are rarely celebrated.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Limited Veneration of the Cross

ROME, MAY 17, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


A reader recently posed the following question: "I was watching on TV the Good Friday ceremony and to my surprise I noticed that the celebrant was using just a wooden cross without the effigy of Christ on it for the veneration of the cross. We do sing, 'This is the wood of the cross on which our Savior died.' So is this in keeping with the liturgy?"

The May 3 article touched upon this theme: "[W]hile I personally hold that it is preferable to use a cross with a corpus, the possibility of using a simple cross is contemplated in several documents published by the U.S. bishops' conference. I have not found anything in universal law that could decide the question one way or the other, although my own interpretation is that when the liturgical documents mention a cross they almost invariably mean a crucifix."

We had originally touched upon this theme in articles of March 23, 2004, and April 6, 2004. Both should be read, since I had to modify some of the assertions in the first article in the wake of feedback from readers.

Article: Teenagers and Truth

DENNIS BUONAFEDE

If teenagers do not enter their adult years already convinced of the reality of Objective Truth, knowable by human reason, they will be increasingly enslaved by the idea that there is no common universal truth.

What is truth?

This is not an idle question, especially for teenagers. They may not ask it this way but there is a hunger, a need, an intense yearning to grab onto something that makes sense of their existence. The young man's question to Jesus "Master, what must I do?" (Mk 10:17ff) is not merely a pragmatic question. It is a heart-felt plea for meaning and direction. Jesus' answer leaves the young man sad and he walks away. He is not willing to give everything up to follow Jesus, he does not recognize THE TRUTH about himself – namely that he is meant for union with God – even when He stands before him.

This is not an idle question for humanity either. "The pragmatist's question, tossed off with a degree of skepticism, is a very serious question, bound up with the fate of mankind. What then, is truth? … Can it serve as a criterion for our intellect and will, both in individual choices and in the life of the community?"[1] Let's not kid ourselves: as go our young people so goes the future of mankind. You get a real sense of this when you're supervising 500 fourteen year olds who are all in a cafeteria during lunch in the middle of a Canadian winter!!

For teenagers, then, this is perhaps THE most important intellectual question for this simple reason:

If teenagers do not enter their adult years already convinced of the reality of Objective Truth, knowable by human reason, they will be increasingly enslaved by the idea that there is no common universal truth – a philosophical position known as Subjectivism.

I know my statement sounds bold and generalized but personal experience and common sense has taught me that this is the case. Teenage years are vitally important. I tell my students that they are determining what virtues and vices may well define the rest of their lives. Soon they will find themselves unable to change without great difficulty so they better set the course now while they're more flexible and are not subject to increasingly difficult demands in life. From discussions I've had with former students who are now in secular university those who did not leave high school convinced of an objective truth are even more entrenched in their subjectivism and skepticism, while those who left on a firm foundation have managed to at least keep their bearings.


A working definition is needed...

In the true Socratic Method I don't 'give' a definition but have the students work towards one based on examining their answers. The most common response provided when asked 'what is truth?' is...

"That depends, what is true for you may not be true for me."

"So, you're saying that the only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth."

Heads nod.

"Isn't that a contradiction?"

Shocked looks …… contradiction?! …..

"How can you negate absolute truth with a statement of absolute truth? The statement 'there are NO absolutes" is itself an absolute.

This is where I take my students back to the Universals I spoke of two articles ago. Since the intellect grasps universals that have an objective reality, then there must be Universal Truths.

How do we know what these Universal Truths are? By examining the First Principle of Being and Essence, which we examined briefly in the last article. We know there are some absolute principles that apply to all 'being'.

This leads us to a working definition of "truth." Permit me a few long quotes from Pope Benedict where he reflects on Pilate's question "What is Truth?"

The classic definition from scholastic philosophy designates truth as adequatio intellectus et rei (conformity between the intellect and reality; Thomas Aquinas,Summa Theologiae I, q.21, a.2c). If a man's intellect reflects a thing as it is in itself, then he has found truth: but only a small fragment of reality – not truth in its grandeur and integrity.

We come closer to what Jesus meant with another of Saint Thomas' teachings: Truth is in God's intellect properly and firstly (proprie et primo); in human intellect it is present properly and derivatively (proprie quidem et secundario)" (De Verit,. Q. 1, a. 4c). And in conclusion we arrive at the succinct formula: God is ipsa summa et prima veritas (truth itself, the sovereign and first truth; Summa Theologia I, q. 16, a. 5 c). [2]

TRUTH, therefore, is intrinsically linked to REALITY. Not reality as we wish it to be, or as we construct or manipulate it, but as it truly is, independent of man's intellect and will. Truth then requires from the human person attitudes of humility and courage. Humility, so as to accept what is true and conform ourselves to it; courage to give witness, by our lives and choices, to what is true, for the good of others and ourselves.

"Let us say plainly: the unredeemed state of the world consists precisely in the failure to understand the meaning of creation, in the failure to recognize truth; as a result, the rule of pragmatism is imposed, by which the strong arm of the powerful becomes the god of this world." [3]

"That is why we must have the courage to dare to say: Yes, man must seek the truth; he is capable of truth. … truth also points out to us those constant values which have made mankind great. That is why the humility to recognize the truth and to accept it as a standard has to be relearned and practiced again.

"The truth comes to rule, not through violence, but rather through its own power; this is the central theme of John's Gospel: When brought before Pilate, Jesus professes that he himself is The Truth and the witness to the truth. He does not defend the truth with legions but rather makes it visible through his Passion and thereby also implements it." [4]


Ideas Have Consequences

We come now full circle back to where we started above. Young people, if they have not become overly jaded due to a loss of innocence, intuitively want their lives to have meaning, to have purpose … they want to be SOMEBODY of value. Yet at the same time they are surrounded by a culture that in many ways, direct or subtle, keeps telling them that life has no meaning, no purpose except what they themselves give it, and they feel inadequate to the task. They want SOMETHING or SOMEONE they can trust, that they can stake their future lives on. If we don't help them find this ultimate meaning in their lives they will have to settle for hedonistic materialism, something that is eventually unsatisfying. Only in Jesus will they find the fulfillment of all their longings; intellectual and spiritual.

Young people, if they have not become overly jaded due to a loss of innocence, intuitively want their lives to have meaning, to have purpose … they want to be SOMEBODY of value.

Here we can link FAITH and REASON for our students. As was just mentioned above one of the most memorable exchanges in the Passion Narrative comes between Pilate and Jesus. Jesus, asked to explain his actions, states that "The reason I was born, the reason why I came into the world, is to testify to the truth. Anyone committed to the truth hears my voice." Pilate then asks that age old question "What is Truth?" (Jn 18:37-38)

Only John the Evangelist recounts this dialogue. John, then living in Ephesus, was writing to a predominantly Greek audience and as such he wanted to speak to them on levels they could understand; namely reason and philosophy. In Greek the word LOGOS means "Word" or "Reason" (where we get the word LOGIC), hence John begins his Gospel:

"In the beginning was the Word (Logos) and the Word (Logos) was with God, and the Word (Logos) was God!" (Jn 1:1)

This use of the word LOGOS is particularly deliberate because Heraclitus, a philosopher who lived in Ephesus in the 5th Century BC, was the first to use the word LOGOS to designate the ordering pattern that is discernable in the changing nature of the world. Though he failed to explain this ordering pattern correctly the concept of an ordering pattern, a fundamental logic in the cosmos, was the basis of reflection for generations of philosophers after him.

Pilate's question, therefore, would have resonated deeply with the people of Ephesus, the first to hear John's Gospel. The Ephesians would have recognized immediately the connection John was trying to make between the LOGOS of Heraclitus and the LOGOS that is Jesus. To understand LOGOS was to understand the TRUTH of things. The "logic" of the cosmos, of reality, is Jesus himself, God Incarnate!

Indeed, TRUTH is a recurring theme in John's Gospel: the "testimony" of John the Baptist (1:8ff), the dialogue in the Temple (8:43ff), the declaration in the Upper Room that "I am the way, the truth and the life" (14:6) and finally the Evangelists own testimony that what he recorded was "true" (21:24) are among a few of the instances where John uses the word "truth".

In fact, John records Jesus going so far as to say that REALITY is the final judge. If we reject Jesus we reject the Truth, and in the end the Truth Spoken (Reality) will have the final say.[5] In John 12:48 Jesus proclaims:

"Whoever rejects me and does not accept my words already has his judge, namely, the word I have spoken – it is that which will condemn him on the last day."

By leading our students through this progression of ideas we can help them see that the rational acceptance of Universal Truth goes hand in hand with acceptance of Truth Incarnate, Jesus Christ. They will have found something, SOMEONE, they can trust their lives with. Lessened will be the temptation to see belief in Christ as a flight into fantasy or a leap of faith, but rather the opposite, namely that to accept Christ is to accept reality and that to deny Christ is to deny Ultimate Reality; a denial that defines irrationality.


Endnotes:

  1. Pope Benedict XVI; Jesus of Nazareth, Holy Week: From the entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection; Ignatius, 2011; p.191

  2. ibid. p.192.

  3. Ibid. p.193

  4. Pope Benedict XVI & Peter Seewald; Light of the World: The Pope, the Church, and the Signs of the Times; Ignatius, 2010, p51

  5. It is good to recall that in the act of creating God "spoke" the Universe, Reality, into being. "God said, let there be …"



ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Dennis Buonafede. "Teenagers and Truth." The Integrated Catholic Life (April 9, 2011).

Reprinted with permission of the author and The Integrated Catholic Life.

The goal of The Integrated Catholic Life is to provide original content to help visitors integrate faith, family and work.

THE AUTHOR

Dennis Buonafede has been teaching High School Religion and Philosophy in Ontario, Canada for the past 10 years. Dennis completed his B.A. in Philosophy at St. Peter's Seminary at the University of Western Ontario, his M.Div. as a lay student at St. Augustine’s Seminary at the University of Toronto and his Bachelor of Education degree at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Prior to transferring to St. Augustine's, he studied at Holy Apostles Seminary in Connecticut from 1990-1992. Dennis has been married to Teresa for 15 years and they have two children aged 12 and 14. Dennis co-developed a leadership program for the K of C sponsored Ontario Catholic Youth Leadership Camp and was the camp director for 3 years. He is currently a Civilian Instructor with Air Cadet 242 Squadron where his son is a Sergeant.

Dennis is a voracious reader, likes to ride motorcycles and enjoys fishing. He follows hockey (Toronto Maple Leafs), football (Chicago Bears) and NASCAR (Dale Jr.). His family agrees that he makes THE best home made pizza ever!

Copyright © 2011 The Integrated Catholic Life

Monday, May 16, 2011

Article: Bishop Conley on the New Translation: "We Are Praying to God in the Very Words of God"

DENVER, Colorado, MAY 14, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Here is the text of an address given April 25 by Auxiliary Bishop James Conley of Denver at the Midwest Theological Forum in Valparaiso, Indiana.

* * *

I want to begin our conversation by recounting a story a friend told me recently.

During Lent this year, my friend's parish started the worthy custom of praying the Sanctus and Agnus Dei in Latin. My friend is in his early 50s and we converted to the Catholic Church around the same time during our college years, through a classical "Great Books" program, which included the study of Latin. He and his wife taught their children Latin at an early age and they sent their children to a private Catholic school where they prayed these prayers in Latin every day at Mass.

But he and his family were by far the exception at his parish, which is a big, suburban parish made up mainly of young families. He looked around one Sunday and noticed that only his family and some of the older parishioners were praying the Latin. Everybody else looked a little confused.

This story gives us some important context for our conversation this evening.

The "new Mass" is almost a half-century old now. A generation of Catholics has grown up knowing only theNovus Ordo. I would venture to bet that many younger Catholics have no idea that the prayers we say at Mass are translated from an authoritative Latin text.

In Advent, we are going to introduce a major new English translation of the Mass with the third typical edition of the Roman Missal.

What are Catholics in the pews going to make of the changes in the words they pray and the words they hear the priest praying? Will the changes make any difference in their experience of the Mass? In the way they worship? In the way they live their faith in the world?

These are important questions. And the answers are going to depend a lot on you and me.

Those of us who are priests, and those preparing to be ordained -- we are the keys to the success of this next phase in the Church's on-going liturgical renewal.

This new edition of the Missal is the Church's gift to our generation. It restores the ancient understanding of the Eucharist as a sacred mystery. It renews the vertical dimension of the liturgy -- as a spiritual sacrifice that we offer in union with the sacrifice that our heavenly High Priest celebrates unceasingly in the eternal liturgy. (i)

In order for the Church to realize the full potential of this gift, it is vital that we understand why we need this new translation. The changes are not superficial ritualism. There is a deep liturgical and theological aesthetic at work. And we need to grasp the "spirit" and "inner logic" underlying these translations.

This is what I want to about this evening.

As a starting-point, I thought it would be useful to return to "scene of the crime" so to speak -- that is, to the introduction of the Novus Ordo.

Let me say up front: I'm joking here, sort of! I know that some people still talk about the Novus Ordo as if it was a crime. I have close and dear friends who feel this way. I can understand their frustration. And I'll talk about that more in a minute.

But I want to be clear: I was ordained a priest and a bishop in the Novus Ordo. I have spent my entire priesthood praying this Mass with deep reverence. Although I have a great love and appreciation for the Tridentine Rite and I am called upon to celebrate this form of the Mass from time to time, I believe the Novus Ordo is a result of the ongoing organic development of the Roman liturgy.

I do think it's important for us, however, to recall the "culture shock" caused by the Novus Ordo back when it was first introduced. That helps us better understand the concerns and purposes of this new edition of the Missal.

To illustrate what I mean about "culture shock," I want to recall the experience of Evelyn Waugh, the author of Brideshead Revisited and the Sword of Honor trilogy, among other memorable works.

Waugh was a brilliant novelist and essayist. He was a convert to the Catholic Church and he was not bashful about speaking his mind on what he thought was wrong in the Church. We converts can be like that!

And make no mistake: Waugh thought the Church had a made a wrong turn at the Second Vatican Council.

In his correspondence and writings in the Catholic press, Waugh was most disturbed about the Council's plans for liturgical reform. The reformers, he complained, were "a strange alliance between archeologists absorbed in their speculations on the rites of the second century, and modernists who wish to give the Church the character of our own deplorable epoch."

Waugh certainly had a way with words, didn't he? And here, as in so many cases, he was razor-keen in his insight.

His worst fears came to pass when the Mass was finally introduced in the vernacular. In early 1965, he wrote to a friend: "Every attendance at Mass leaves me without comfort or edification. Church-going is now a bitter trial."

He complained often -- as did many others -- that the Novus Ordo stripped the Mass of its ancient beauty and destroyed the liturgy's contact with heavenly realities. Waugh for one, never recovered from the shock. He would say things like: "The Vatican Council has knocked the guts out of me," and "I shall not live to see things righted."

Waugh's end reads like something out of one of his novels.

On Easter 1966, he asked a Jesuit friend to say a Latin Mass for him and a handful of his friends and family at a private chapel near his home. People later remarked that Waugh seemed at peace for the first time since the Council. About an hour after the Mass, he collapsed and died. (ii)

It was a dramatic ending to a fascinating and complicated life.

The lesson I want to draw here is this: Evelyn Waugh was on to something. He sensed that something had gone awry.

But he was wrong not to trust the Holy Spirit's guidance of the Pope, the Church and the Council fathers if, in fact, he did begin to despair with the direction the Church was headed. God in his kind providence spared him the experience of much of the post-conciliar silliness and the gross liberties taken with the liturgy.

The Novus Ordo is an organic development of the Church's ancient liturgical rites and traditions. It is a genuine sign of Christ's faithfulness to his promise -- that his Spirit would guide the Church into all the truth and would glorify him in all things.iii

But the new does not replace the old in the Church. There is always continuity and not rupture when it comes to the authentic development of doctrine -- and also when it comes to the authentic development of the liturgy.

I believe our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, like Pope John Paul II before him, has given us a healthy way to think about the relationship between the Novus Ordo and what Benedict calls the forma extraordinaria. They are not two distinct liturgical rites. They are two expressions of the one Roman rite.

As I said, I have great love and appreciation for the Tridentine, or "extraordinary form" of the Mass. But I also see how the ordinary form, the Novus Ordo, has nourished and sanctified the spiritual lives of countless souls over the past 40 plus years. It has helped the Church to rediscover the Eucharist as the source and summit of our lives. And we cannot forget that this Mass nourished the spiritual lives of two great figures of our generation -- Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta and the soon-to-be Blessed John Paul II.

And yet.

And yet I think many of us would agree with Waugh on this point: Something has been lost. Something of the beauty and grandeur of the liturgy. Something of the reverence, the mystery, the sense of the transcendent. This has been a persistent criticism since the Council -- and not only from so-called traditionalists.

But I can't agree with those who blame the Novus Ordo or the vernacular. This answer is too facile.

The problem has been with the way the New Mass has sometimes been understood and implemented.

I, along with not a few friends, have had the unfortunate experience that Pope Benedict has described in his 2007 Letter to the Bishops of world when he issued his Apostolic Letter, Summorum Pontificum, on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the Reforms of 1970:

"In many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church." (iv)

Again, the problem is not the Novus Ordo -- but the license that people sometimes take in celebrating it.

I would add that another big part of the problem has been the translations we've been using.

There is a banal, pedestrian quality to much of the language in our current liturgy. The weakness in the language gets in the way and prevents us from experiencing the sublime spiritual and doctrinal ideas woven into the fabric of the liturgy.

The translators had well-meaning pastoral intentions. They wanted to make the liturgy intelligible and relevant to modern Catholics. To that end, they employed a translation principle they called "dynamic equivalence."

In practice, this led them to produce an English translation that in many places is essentially a didactic paraphrase of the Latin. In the process, the language of our Eucharistic worship -- so rich in scriptural allusion, poetic metaphor and rhythmic repetition -- came to be flattened out and dumbed down.

Archbishop Mark Coleridge of Canberra, Australia has observed that our current translation "consistently bleaches out metaphor, which does scant justice to the highly metaphoric discourse" of the liturgy. (v)

This describes the problem well.

Archbishop Coleridge, by the way, is a translator by training. He headed the committee of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) that produced the new translation we will begin using in Advent.

He has pointed out serious theological difficulties with our current translations, including problems related to ecclesiology and the theology of grace.

The key point here is that the words we pray matter. What we pray makes a difference in what we believe. Our prayer has implications for how we grasp the saving truths that are communicated to us through the liturgy.

For instance, our current translation almost always favors abstract nouns to translate physical metaphors for God. If the Latin prayer refers to the "face" of God, "face" will be translated in abstract conceptual terms, such as "presence." References to God's "right hand" will be translated as God's "power."

This word choice has deep theological implications.

The point of the Son of God becoming flesh is that God now has a human face -- the face of Jesus. Jesus is the image of the invisible God. Whoever sees him sees the Father. (vi)

Yet if in our worship we speak of God only in abstract terms, then effectively we are undermining our faith in the Incarnation.

As Archbishop Coleridge says: "The cumulative effect [of abandoning human metaphors for God] is that the sense of the Incarnation is diminished. God himself seems more abstract and less immediate than ever he does in Scripture or the Church Fathers."

I want to say this again: I don't believe there were bad motives involved in the translations we have now.

I think the root problem with the translations we have now is that the translators seriously misunderstood the nature of the divine liturgy.

Our current translations treat the liturgy basically as a tool for doing catechesis. That's why our prayers so often sound utilitarian and didactic; often they have a kind of lowest-common-denominator type of feel. That's because the translators were trying to make the "message" of the Mass accessible to the widest possible audience.

But Christ did not give us the liturgy to be a message-delivery system. Of course, we pray what we believe, and what we pray shapes what we believe. Lex orandi, lex credendi. But the liturgy is not meant to "teach" in the same way that a catechism teaches, or even in the same way that a homily teaches.

On this point, the words of the great liturgical pioneer, Father Romano Guardini, are worth hearing again:

The liturgy wishes to teach, but not by means of an artificial system of aim-conscious educational influences. It simply creates an entire spiritual world in which the soul can live according to the requirements of its nature.

The liturgy creates a universe brimming with fruitful spiritual life, and allows the soul to wander about in it at will and to develop itself there.

The liturgy has no purpose, or at least, it cannot be considered from the standpoint of purpose. It is not a means which is adapted to attain a certain end -- it is an end in itself. (vii)

This is the authentic spirit of the liturgy.

As Guardini says, the liturgy aims to create a new world for believers to dwell in. A sanctified world where the dividing lines between the human and the divine are erased. Guardini's vision is beautiful: "The liturgy creates a universe brimming with fruitful spiritual life."

The new translation of the Mass restores this sense of the liturgy as transcendent and transformative. It restores the sacramentality to our liturgical language. The new translation reflects the reality that our worship here joins in the worship of heaven.

The new edition of the Missal seeks to restore the ancient sense of our participation in the cosmic liturgy.

The Letter to the Hebrews speaks of the Eucharist bringing us into the heavenly Jerusalem to worship in the company of angels and saints. (viii) The Book of Revelation starts with St. John celebrating the Eucharist on a Sunday. In the midst of this, the Spirit lifts him up to show him the eternal liturgy going on in heaven. (ix)

The message is clear: The Church's liturgy is caught up in the liturgy of the cosmos. And our Eucharistic rites have always retained this vision of the cosmic liturgy.

The Gloria and the Sanctus are two obvious points of contact. In the first, we sing the song that the angels sang at the Nativity. In the latter, we sing in unison with the angelic choirs in heaven; we sing the song that both St. John and the prophet Isaiah heard being sung in the heavenly liturgy.

The oldest of our Eucharistic Prayers, the Roman Canon, lists the names of the 12 apostles along with 12 early saints. This is meant to correspond to the 24 elders who John saw worshipping around the heavenly altar. (x)

The Roman Canon also includes a prayer for the holy angels to bring the sacrifices from our altar up to God's altar in heaven.

And of course the Communion Rite includes the Vulgate's translation of the invitation that St. John heard in the heavenly liturgy: Blessed are those who are called to the Supper of the Lamb. (xi)

Yet we need to recognize that this experience of the heavenly liturgy has been lost since Vatican II.

This loss is reflected -- I'm tempted to say abetted -- by our current translation. For the last 40 years we have erased this heavenly reference in the Communion Rite with our bland translation: Happy are those who are called to his Supper.

Again: the words we pray matter. What we pray makes a difference in what we believe.

The Mass is truly a partaking in the worship that St. John saw around the throne and the altar of God. This is not a beautiful idea, but a sacred reality.

This is the teaching of the New Testament, the Church Fathers, the Second Vatican Council, and the Catechism, which contains numerous references to the heavenly liturgy. (xii)

And for years now, Pope Benedict XVI has been urging the Church to reclaim this appreciation of the cosmic liturgy, to reclaim our great liturgical patrimony.

I want to underline these words of the Holy Father: "The essential matter of all Eucharistic liturgy is its participation in the heavenly liturgy. It is from thence that it necessarily derives its unity, its catholicity, and its universality." (xiii)

The essential matter of our Eucharist is its participation in the liturgy of heaven. In other words: that's what the Eucharist is all about. The Eucharist we celebrate on earth has its source in the heavenly liturgy. And the heavenly liturgy is the summit to which our Eucharistic celebration looks.

Yet how many of our people in the pews -- how many of our priests at the altar -- feel that they are being lifted up to partake in the heavenly liturgy?

This is why this new translation is so important.

I want to look briefly now at some of the changes in this new translation. I want to meditate on these changes and suggest some ways in which these changes might enhance our appreciation of the essential transcendent dimension of the liturgy.

Many of the changes are small and subtle -- but even in these we can sense a shift.

For instance: in one of the forms introducing the Penitential Rite, the priest will now pray: "You are seated at the right hand of the Father to intercede for us." Currently, of course, we pray: "You plead for us at the right hand of the Father."

What's the big difference?

The new translation lifts our gaze to heaven and asks us to contemplate Christ seated at the right hand of the Father and there interceding for us.

By contrast, the translation we have now aims to be didactic and efficient. It scrubs the metaphor and hence the vision of our Lord in heaven. It opts instead to give us information about what Jesus is doing for us.

The original Latin -- ad déxteram Patris sedes, ad interpellándum pro nobis -- combines two quotations from the Letter to the Hebrews. And it's not just a random allusion to the Vulgate. It was chosen quite deliberately from Hebrews' meditation on Christ's heavenly high priesthood.

In the New Testament, to be "seated at the right hand" describes Christ's divine power and authority.xiv By removing the metaphorical reference to his being seated, our current translation weakens our prayer. This sense of weakness is reinforced by the decision to translate interpellándum by the word "plead" -- which in common English usage suggests an inferior or powerless position.

In restoring a faithful translation of the Latin, the new Missal redirects our worship toward heaven. We pray, confident in our Father's mercy, knowing we are in contact with our High Priest -- who "is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven," and "always lives to make intercession" for us. (xv)

Another example is the epiclesis in Eucharistic Prayer II.

Currently we pray:

Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy,

so that they may become for us the Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

The new translation restores the repetitive language and the biblical metaphor found in the Latin text:

Make holy, therefore, these gifts, we pray,

by sending down your Spirit upon them like the dewfall,

so that they may become for us the Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Restoring the Latin here gives us a much richer prayer. It also stresses that the liturgy is not our work, but the work of God, who sends down his Spirit from heaven.

The key word is "dewfall," rore in the Latin. It is a poetic metaphor that is filled with Scriptural significance. Of course, the allusion here is to how God fed his chosen people with manna that he sent down from heaven with the morning dew. We are also meant to associate this with Christ calling the Eucharist the true manna, the true "bread which comes down from heaven." (xvi)

Again and again, this new translation reminds us how steeped our liturgical language is in the vocabulary and thought-world of sacred Scripture.

In just this epiclesis, for instance, we have not only the reference to the heavens that drop down manna with the dewfall. We also have an allusion to the sending down of the Spirit -- upon the earth at creation, upon Mary at the Annunciation, Christ at his Baptism, the Church at Pentecost, and each one of our hearts at our Baptism.

Considered prayerfully, we can see that Spirit's action on the altar in the liturgy continues the Spirit's work of creation and redemption in history.

We also must not forget that 80% of the prayers in the Roman Missal date before the 9th century. We have a duty to hand these treasures on faithfully and accurately.

Vatican II taught that every petition, prayer, hymn, liturgical sign and action draws its inspiration, substance and meaning from sacred Scripture.

This is reflected in our new translations.

And this is deliberate. This is what the Vatican intended in Liturgiam Authenticam, the important statement of translation principles that it issued back in 2001.

I think what I like about this Vatican statement is its realism. No matter what the fads in liturgy or catechesis, the Vatican is determined to keep us "real." (xvii)

Liturgiam Authenticam says: "The words of the Sacred Scriptures, as well as the other words spoken in liturgical celebrations are not intended primarily to be a sort of mirror of the interior dispositions of the faithful; rather, they express truths that transcend the limits of time and space." (xviii)

And when it comes to translating the Latin texts of the liturgy, Liturgiam Authenticam also invokes the same principles of realism.

We will be blessed, as a Church, that in this new edition of the Missal, the translators took these principles to heart.

This is important. Because the liturgy is not only an aesthetic event. It is not only about praying beautiful words. The Scriptures are the inspired Word of God. They are the Word of God in the words of human language.

In the liturgy, we are praying to God in the very words of God. And God's Word is power. God's Word is living and active. That means that the words we pray in the liturgy are "performative." They are not words alone, but words that have the power to do great deeds. They are words that can accomplish what they speak of.

As priests, when we speak Christ's words in the Eucharist -- or in any of the sacraments -- these words possess divine power to change and transfigure. "This is my Body This is the chalice of my Blood." When we speak these words by the power of the Spirit, bread and wine are marvelously changed.

The words of the liturgy are able to create "a universe brimming with spiritual life." By these words we are summoned into the stream of salvation history. By these words we are able to offer ourselves in sacrifice to the Father, in union with Christ's own offering of his Body and Blood. By these words we are being transformed, along with the bread and the wine on the altar. We are becoming more and more changed into Christ, more and more assimilated to his life.

That's why it is so important that we implement this new translation with a profound Eucharistic catechesis and mystagogy.

Through this new translation, we need to invite our brothers and sisters to know the liturgy as a mystery to be lived. As Pope Benedict has said, our Eucharistic mystagogy must inspire "an awareness that one's life is being progressively transformed by the holy mysteries being celebrated." (xix)

That is the great promise of this new translation and new edition of the Missal. The promise of a people nourished and transformed by the sacred mysteries they celebrate. The promise of a people who are able to offer themselves as living sacrifices, holy and acceptable to God. A people who experience Christ living in them, as they are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another. (xx)

I want to leave you with one last image. I hope it will inspire you to always celebrate the sacred liturgy with passionate intensity and a keen awareness of the liturgy of heaven.

One of his altar servers left us this description of how St. Josemaría Escrivá used to pray the Mass.

For [St. Josemaría], the liturgy was not a formal act but a transcendent one. Each word held a profound meaning and was uttered in a heartfelt tone of voice. He savored the concepts. Josemaría seemed detached from his human surrounding and, as it were, tied by invisible cords to the divine. This phenomenon peaked at the moment of consecration. Josemaría seemed to be disconnected from the physical things around him and to be catching sight of mysterious and remote heavenly horizons. (xxi)

Thank you for your attention this evening. I look forward to our conversation.

Footnotes:

i. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1187.

ii. The story of Waugh and the new Mass is told in Joseph Pearce, Literary Converts: Spiritual Inspiration in an Age of Unbelief (Ignatius, 1999), 333343. See also, Scott M. P. Reid, ed., A Bitter Trial: Evelyn Waugh and John Carmel Cardinal Heenan on the Liturgical Changes, 2nd rev. ed (St. Austin Press, 2000).

iii. John 16:1214.

iv. Letter to the Bishops of the World to Present the "Motu Proprio" on the Use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the Reforms of 1970.

v. "'The Norm of the Holy Fathers': Liturgical Renewal Past, Present, and to Come," Address to National Liturgical Conference, February 5, 2010. Available at: http://www.cg.catholic.org.au/_uploads/rsfil/02179.pdf.

vi. Col. 1:15; John 14:8.

vii. The Spirit of the Liturgy (Herder, 1998 [1930]), 6667.

viii. Heb. 12:2229.

xiv. Rev. 1:10.

x. Rev. 4:4, 10; 19:4, etc.

xi. Rev. 19:9.

xii. Catechism, nos. 1090, 1111, 1136, 1187, 1326, 2642 ("heavenly liturgy"); 1139 ("eternal liturgy"); 1195, 2855 ("liturgy of heaven").

xiii. Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith: The Church as Communion (Ignatius, 2005), 110111; compare A New Song for the Lord (Crossroad, 1996), 175.

xiv. Matt. 26:64; Col. 3:1.

xv. Heb. 7:25; 8:1; compare Rom. 8:34 (ad dexteram Dei qui etiam interpellat pro nobis).

xvi. See Exod. 16:13, 14; Num. 11:9; compare John 6:50.

xvii. Sacroscanctum Concilium, 24.

xviii. Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Liturgiam authenticam, Instruction on the Use of Vernacular Languages? in the Publication of ?the Books of the Roman Liturgy (March 28, 2001), 1920.

xix. Sacramentum Caritatis, 64.

xx. Rom. 12:1; Gal. 2:20; 2 Cor. 3:18.

xxi. Quote in Andrés Vázquez de Prada, The Founder of Opus Dei, vol. 1 (Scepter 1997), 206.

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Wednesday Liturgy: Exposition of the Precious Blood

ROME, MAY 10, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


Q: During the evening Mass on Maundy Thursday, my parish priest consecrates in addition to the wine used for the Mass, wine placed in a transparent glass container, which afterward is transported to the altar of repose. There he places a monstrance with the consecrated host, along with this transparent glass container with consecrated Precious Blood. He places these high above the altar (about 3 meters high) so that everyone can see and adore. Do you think that this is liturgically correct to put the Precious Blood in a glass container? He goes in procession from the main altar, where the Mass has been celebrated, to the altar of repose, moving very slowly so as not to spill on the floor from this glass container filled with the Blood. I personally find this whole thing more like a show than respect for the Eucharist. I wish to have your comments. -- J.B., Malta

A: Today's follow-up is also related to this theme in which we quote a Vatican document expressly forbidding exposition in a monstrance on Holy Thursday. To wit: "The Blessed Sacrament should be reserved in a closed tabernacle or pyx. Under no circumstances may it be exposed in a monstrance."

It logically follows that the "exposition" of the Precious Blood is simply not contemplated, on Holy Thursday or on any other day of the year. In specific cases it is permitted to briefly reserve a small quantity of Our Lord's Blood to bring to those whose illness prevents their consuming solid food. Otherwise, reservation of the Sanguis is never allowed and it must be consumed entirely during each Mass.

Therefore, both of these expositions on Holy Thursday are abuses and the bishop should be duly informed.

Finally, there are also some other violations contained in this practice in relationship with the style, quality and material of the sacred vessels used for this purpose. The instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum clarifies the law in this respect:

"106. However, the pouring of the Blood of Christ after the consecration from one vessel to another is completely to be avoided, lest anything should happen that would be to the detriment of so great a mystery. Never to be used for containing the Blood of the Lord are flagons, bowls, or other vessels that are not fully in accord with the established norms.

"117. Sacred vessels for containing the Body and Blood of the Lord must be made in strict conformity with the norms of tradition and of the liturgical books The Bishops' Conferences have the faculty to decide whether it is appropriate, once their decisions have been given the recognitio by the Apostolic See, for sacred vessels to be made of other solid materials as well. It is strictly required, however, that such materials be truly noble in the common estimation within a given region, so that honor will be given to the Lord by their use, and all risk of diminishing the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharistic species in the eyes of the faithful will be avoided. Reprobated, therefore, is any practice of using for the celebration of Mass common vessels, or others lacking in quality, or devoid of all artistic merit or which are mere containers, as also other vessels made from glass, earthenware, clay, or other materials that break easily. This norm is to be applied even as regards metals and other materials that easily rust or deteriorate."

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Combining Stations and the Passion Liturgy

ROME, MAY 10, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


A reader from Kazakhstan asked about the following point in our April 19 article on Holy Thursday: "You have said that Eucharistic adoration in a monstrance is totally forbidden. Where is it documented that it is forbidden? Nobody believes when I say it is not allowed, but all over Europe I have seen Eucharistic adoration in the monstrance up until midnight, and then the monstrance is veiled at midnight, and adoration continues until the morning. And then I don't know exactly what to make of an article by a priest when he speaks about the Holy Father saying that Eucharistic adoration is a part of Holy Thursday. How does all of this work together?"

Apart from the rubrics, this norm is contained in several documents. For example, the 1988 "Circular Letter Concerning the Preparation and Celebration of the Easter Feasts" issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship says in No. 55: "The Blessed Sacrament should be reserved in a closed tabernacle or pyx. Under no circumstances may it be exposed in a monstrance."

Second, the aforementioned article correctly quoted the Pope's recent homily in saying that Holy Thursday "ends with Eucharistic adoration, in memory of the Lord's agony in the garden of Gethsemane."

There is absolutely no contradiction here because Eucharistic adoration is not synonymous with exposition in the monstrance. Christ is equally adored in the tabernacle and the pyx as in the monstrance. Adoration in the monstrance helps the adorers concentrate on the Eucharistic mystery but does not make the adoration essentially different from worship offered to Our Lord in the tabernacle.

Also, adoration in the monstrance usually unfolds into the joyous experience of Eucharistic Benediction whereas in the concrete case of Holy Thursday the essential theme is accompanying him during his agony and there is no Benediction.

The rule forbidding solemn adoration after midnight means that there should be no further public prayers at the altar of repose once Good Friday begins. This does not prohibit private prayer and private adoration at the altar of repose; these may continue until the beginning of the celebration of the Passion on Good Friday.

Wednesday, May 04, 2011

Wednesday Liturgy: Limited Veneration of the Cross

ROME, MAY 3, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


Q: Recently, at a service of the Passion of the Lord on Good Friday, the veneration of the cross was limited to the priests, lectors, Eucharistic ministers and catechists of the parish, the rest of the people being told that they could, if they so desired, venerate the cross after the service was over. This practice seemed to several of us to be offensive on two counts: 1) If veneration of the cross is a spiritual good for all the faithful (and there were many there), then surely it is more appropriate to expedite the veneration by having more than one cross at several places in the church, much like the distribution of Communion, rather than by having only one cross and excluding the vast majority from veneration within the liturgy -- which sends a message to the faithful that this is really just a ceremony and its value is relative; and 2) It seems that it creates a "special class" of faithful who warrant the opportunity to venerate the cross within the liturgy, while the "common folk" do not. Are there specific guidelines regarding these concerns? A third point was that the cross was without the corpus, something we had not seen before either. Thank you. -- M.B., Chicago

A: The rubrics for the veneration of the cross allow for two possibilities, depending on the number of people. Traditionally, only one cross is used for veneration, which is the one the priest has carried in or has unveiled in the sanctuary, as the case may be.

Preferably, all the faithful should venerate the cross individually, approaching it in a kind of procession, making a simple genuflection before the cross or some other customary sign of veneration, such as kissing the cross.

If the number of faithful makes individual veneration impossible, then the priest may choose the second option. The rubrics state the following: "The priests may take the cross, after some of the faithful have venerated it, and stand in the center in front of the altar. In a few words he invites the people to venerate the cross and then holds it up briefly for them to worship in silence."

One popular missal for the faithful contains a rubric saying that "In the United States, if pastoral reasons suggest that there be individual veneration of the Cross even though the number of people is very large, a second or third cross may be used." However, I have not been able to corroborate that this rubric is still valid. The website of the U.S. bishops' conference affirms the rule of using only one cross and makes no mention of this "American exception."

Therefore, far from trying to suggest two classes of Catholics, by proposing individual veneration after the celebration, the pastor was probably using the second option out of necessity while doing his best to allow the greatest number of faithful the possibility of personally venerating the cross. I think that the idea of fomenting a sense of privilege was nowhere in his thoughts, least of all on Good Friday when the idea of Christ dying for all of us sinners is brought to the fore.

It is true that the rubrics do not foresee this possibility, and indeed the private veneration after concluding the celebration has more the nature of an act of personal devotion than a liturgical act. At the same time, I do not believe that this practice offends the sense of the liturgy, and it is quite common to do this in places where priests have to celebrate two Good Friday liturgies in separate parishes.

Finally, while I personally hold that it is preferable to use a cross with a corpus, the possibility of using a simple cross is contemplated in several documents published by the U.S. bishops' conference. I have not found anything in universal law that could decide the question one way or the other, although my own interpretation is that when the liturgical documents mention a cross they almost invariably mean a crucifix.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Options for the Washing of Feet

ROME, MAY 3, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.


There were several queries regarding the Holy Thursday washing of feet when an elderly priest is impeded from bending over (see April 12).

One reader asked, "Could a solution be that the chairman of the pastoral council helps with washing the feet?"

I do not believe this would be a solution. Although a priest other than the principal celebrant could perform this duty, only a priest, as representative of Christ during the Lord's Supper, is foreseen. No matter how worthy the chair of the pastoral council might be, he (or she) cannot represent Christ in this particular ritual context that evokes his service to the apostles.

Other readers asked if the number could be more than 12. While there is nothing specified in the norms, the number 12 is the logical maximum as this corresponds to the number of the apostles. A larger number is likely to change the meaning of the rite as representative of Christ's act.

In a similar vein a reader suggested that hand washing could substitute foot washing as an alternative. Once more, this is not what Our Lord did. Also, in liturgical tradition hand washing usually symbolizes personal purification rather than service. As another reader once observed, "The only hand washing mentioned in the Scriptures around Holy Week is that done by Pontius Pilate -- hardly a positive example to be followed."

Finally, several correspondents mentioned that "Father did not address the 'hot' topic of women having their feet washed. Is this permitted?"

We have already dealt amply with this subject in earlier columns on March 23, 2004, and April 6, 2004, as well as on March 28, 2006, and April 11, 2006.

As can be seen from these columns the present legal status of this question is so confused that one can only conclude that the law is like the English language. It is written in one way and pronounced in another.