Adoremus Bulletin - November 2021 Issue

Adoremus Bulletin

NOVEMBER 2021

Catholics Disapprove of Limits on Traditional Latin Mass, but Pope Francis Still Popular

By Kevin J. Jones

Adoremus PO Box 385 La Crosse, WI 54602-0385

Non- Profit Organization U.S. Postage PAID Madelia, MN Permit No. 4

CNA—Pope Francis’ restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass appear to be unpopular among regularly practicing Catholics, but most American Catholics have not even heard of the changes, a survey reports.

“Catholics who attend Mass weekly are both more likely to be aware of the new restrictions and more inclined to oppose them than Catholics who attend less frequently,” the Pew Research Center, which conducted the survey, said October 7.

About 58% of Catholics who attended Mass weekly had heard about the restrictions. Regular Mass attendees were the most sceptical of the Pope’s move. Of these, 29% disapproved of the new restrictions, 11% approved, while 17% had no opinion.

However, 42% had not heard of the changes.

On July 16, in Traditionis custodes, Pope Francis issued rules giving a bishop “exclusive competence” to authorize the Traditional Latin Mass in his diocese. Bishops with groups celebrating this form of the liturgy in their dioceses are to ensure that the groups do not deny the validity of the Second Vatican Council. The council, held in the 1960s, preceded major changes in the Roman Catholic liturgy. These changes were codified in 1970 with St. Paul VI’s Roman Missal, the missal used in most Catholic parishes in vernacular languages.

The restrictions on the traditional Latin Mass are a break from the practice established in a 2007 apostolic letter from Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificum, which had acknowledged Please see LATIN MASS on next page

XXVII, No.3

The Many Senses of the Liturgical Haptic

By Father Eusebius Martis, OSB

W

e are living here now as aliens and only for a time.”1 Saint Cyprian’s insight is included in the Office of Readings for the last Friday of the liturgical year. It is a good reminder that in the world we are exiles, living as pilgrims.

That doesn’t mean, however, that Christians pass through the world as if they were immune to it, nor as frenzied tourists, snapping pictures at every monument they come across.

Pilgrims pass through the land—on their way to the heavenly homeland, feeling the road beneath their feet, taking in its sights and sounds, its scents and flavors. A peregrinatus (pilgrim) is a grignoteur—a grazer, a nibbler, a gleaner. Christians engage the world, creation, and its culture through the gifts given by the Creator. Thus, the sacramental approach to the religious life—where we encounter divine realities through earthly things—is significant and, so, necessary. In virtue of the mystery of the Incarnation, the love of God is available to us: we recognize in Christ, “God made visible,” and so are “caught up through him in love of things invisible.”2

“

Deep Dig into Mystery The significance of the senses became evident to me in the summer of 2017, when I had occasion to visit the Villa Romana del Casale in Sicily. It is an amazing archeological site that has its origin as early as the third century BC, though most of the visible construction is from the early fourth century AD. It undoubtedly predates the Edict of Milan (313), which signaled the end of the systematic persecution of Christians in the early Church.

Of particular note is the great meeting hall, the basilica, in which the master of the domus would receive guests, make official pronouncements, and entertain dignitaries. Standing on the main floor of the partially reconstructed building, I had the immediate sense of why Christians of the patristic period chose this majestic style of architecture as appropriate for the worship of Christ, the great King. This insight, it occurred to me, came to me through my senses, and it launched me into a continuing reflection on the impact of sensory feedback in Catholic ritual life.

The height and breadth of the building itself, especially in contrast with

AB

Adoremus Bulletin NOVEMBER 2021

AB/WIKIMEDIA

News & Views

For the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy

The Catholic religion is founded on the mystery of the eternal God taking on human flesh; we call this the dogma of the Incarnation. It follows that the in-fleshed-ness of prayer is inseparable from faith. We are able to pray more fruitfully when we are aware of the way in which our bodies, our senses engage with prayer to the Divine (Descartes’s theory of vision notwithstanding!).

“ The sacramental approach to the religious life—where we encounter divine realities through earthly things— is significant and, so, necessary.” the dark, heavy, and squat nature of the surrounding structures, gave a sense of openness and grandeur. The natural sunlight streaming through the clerestory windows suggested heavenly illumination. The marble floor and the woodwork offered a sense of dignity and nobility. The situation of the master’s seat under the dome of the apse created a sonorously sweet spot from which every pronouncement would be clearly heard. The visual perspective, the spatial sense, and even the acoustics seemed to collaborate in an expresA Sensible Approach Man does not live by bread alone, but our senses rely on the physical world to grasp through “haptic” experience the invisible realities of the liturgy, says Father Eusebius Martis. ................................................................. 1 All Things Being Equinox Amid these dying days of autumn, Lynne Boughton sheds some light on the cosmic implications for how the Church establishes the date(s) for Easter—and why it matters in season and out. .................................................. 6 In Other Words, Welcome!

Michael Brummond takes a deep dive into the new version of the Order of Baptism for

sion of the dignity and grandeur of the place.

About the same time, I was researching the earliest-known house-church at Dura-Europos, located on the Euphrates River in present-day Syria. I imagined myself accompanying the group of Easter Vigil electi, bowing down, physically humbling themselves, to enter the frescoed baptistery. What did they experience in their bodies, what did they see, smell, touch, as they passed painted vignettes of scripture stories on their way to the font— the healing of the paralytic, Jesus and Peter walking on the water, David defeating Goliath? I asked myself, “To what are people attuned in religious ritual today?”

A Sense of Archetypes Sensory feedback, of course, is not limited to the realm of religion. In the Please see HAPTIC on page 4

Children, which excises the word “welcome” but is itself far from being an unwelcoming translation. .........................................................9 The Anatomy of Matrimony In The Mystery of Marriage, reviewed

by Richard Budd, author Perry Cahall incorporates John Paul II’s Theology of the Body into the Church’s traditional body of teaching on marriage. .....................................12 News & Views ....................................................1 Quiz......................................................................3 The Rite Questions...........................................10

2 Continued from LATIN MASS, page 1 the rights of all priests to offer the Mass according to the Roman Missal of 1962, promulgated by St. John XXIII. Overall, some two-thirds of Catholics told Pew that they had heard “nothing at all” about the changes from Pope Francis, 28% had heard “only a little,” while 7% had heard “a lot.” Overall, 9% approved, 12% disapproved, and 14% declined to answer.

Catholics who attend Mass monthly or yearly slightly favored the new restrictions rather than opposed them.

Respondents’ opinions appeared not to differ significantly by age.

Pope Francis said he had issued the restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass “in defense of the unity of the Body of Christ,” saying, “I am constrained to revoke the faculty granted by my predecessors.” He said permission to celebrate this form of the liturgy had led to “distorted use” that was contrary to the intentions that had allowed it.

In response to the papal action, some bishops have said that priests may continue to offer the Traditional Latin Mass in their dioceses, while others have banned it. Still others have said they need more time to consider their response.

It is unclear how many Traditional Latin Mass parishes will be affected by the pope’s new limits and how the limits will affect diocesan clergy and laity who seek to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass going forward.

Catholic parishes that celebrate this Mass are a small minority. As of October 8, the Latin Mass Directory website lists 662 venues in the U.S. By comparison, there are over 16,700 parishes in the U.S., according to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate.

Pew’s survey also asked respondents whether they had a favorable or unfavorable view of Pope Francis.

American Catholics’ favorability of the pope hovered at about 83%, with Catholics who attend Mass monthly or yearly slightly more favorable towards Pope Francis.

Strong majorities of Catholic respondents tended to agree that Pope Francis should be described as compassionate, humble, and open-minded, and tended to reject describing him as out of touch or naïve. However, only 52% said he is in good physical health.

American Catholics tend to be more favorable towards Pope Francis than Americans overall. Only 60% of all U.S. respondents had a favorable view of the pontiff, with 28% voicing an unfavorable view.

The Pew Research Center’s survey of 6,485 U.S. adults, 1,374 of whom are Catholic, was conducted September 20-26 as part of Pew’s American Trends Panel.

Pew said the survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by sex, race, ethnicity, party affiliation, education, religious affiliation and other categories.

The survey claims a margin of error of plus or minus 1.9 percentage points for all Americans, plus or minus 4.3 percentage points for all Catholics, and plus or minus 8.4 percentage points for Catholics who attend Mass at least weekly.

This entry has been shortened by Adoremus editors.

Pope Francis Names Master Of Ceremonies for Vatican Papal Liturgies

By Hannah Brockhaus

CNA—Pope Francis on October 11 appointed Msgr.

Diego Giovanni Ravelli the Vatican’s next lead master of ceremonies for papal liturgies, replacing Msgr. Guido Marini, who held the post for 14 years. Msgr. Ravelli was also named head of the pope’s Sistine Chapel Choir.

A 56-year-old priest from northern Italy, Msgr. Ravelli is one of several papal masters of ceremonies at the Vatican. He also served in the office of papal almoner for 15 years before being promoted to manager of the office in 2013.

He replaces now-Bishop Guido Marini, who on August 29 was promoted to bishop of Tortona, a diocese in northern Italy close to Genoa. Bishop Marini had been in charge of papal liturgies since his appointment as master of ceremonies by Benedict XVI in 2007.

Bishop Marini, 56, was ordained a bishop by Pope Francis in St. Peter’s Basilica on October 17.

As the Vatican’s lead master of ceremonies for 14 years, then-Msgr. Marini worked under both Benedict XVI and Pope Francis.

He said: “I knew the popes very well and this, for me, was a great gift for my life and for my ministry, also because I worked with two great popes, who are different but complementary.”

“I always admired Benedict for the greatness of his thought and the greatness and depth of his reflections, and at the same time, his extraordinary humility,” Bish-

Adoremus Bulletin, November 2021

NEWS & VIEWS

op Marini explained. “This always made a big impression on me.”

Bishop Marini added: “Regarding Pope Francis, I admire his great strength and the great eagerness he carries in his heart. He wants to reach everyone with God’s goodness. He doesn’t want to leave anyone behind.”

Papal masters of ceremonies are responsible for organizing and overseeing all liturgical celebrations of the pope. The lead MC is usually at the side of the pope during liturgies both in Rome and abroad.

Msgr. Ravelli was ordained a priest of the Association of Priests of Jesus Crucified, part of the Opera Don Folci association, in 1991; he then served in the Diocese of Velletri-Segni, which is just south-east of Rome.

In 2010, he received a doctoral degree from the Pontifical Liturgical Institute. His dissertation, published in 2012, was a historical-liturgical study on the Solemnity of the Chair of St. Peter celebrated in the Vatican. The study includes an analysis of the Lectionarium and the Sacramentarium of the Mass.

Msgr. Ravelli was also an assistant master of ceremonies prior to his 2006 appointment as a full master of ceremonies.

Msgr. Ravelli was rumored to be a possible replacement for then-Msgr. Guido Marini in 2017, before Pope Francis confirmed then-Msgr. Marini in the position for another four years.

Also on October 11, Pope Francis named Father Cristiano Antonietti, who works in the Secretariat of State as secretary of the nuntiature, as a master of ceremonies to fill the place left by Msgr. Ravelli.

Adoremus editors have combined two Catholic News Agency stories in this entry.

Analysis: The Church in France Must Uphold the Confessional Seal

By CNA Staff/Father Gerald Murphy

CNA—The French bishops’ conference has seemingly tried to walk back the straightforward comments of the Bishop of Reims, who recently reiterated that the inviolability of the seal of confession, deriving from divine law, supersedes any law of the French Fifth Republic directing that it be broken.

The bishops’ comments came shortly after a report estimated that in France 216,000 children were abused by clerics, monks, or nuns from 1950 to 2020. The report recommended that the confessional seal be reconsidered in relation to abuse.

In comments to the National Catholic Register on October 13, the spokeswoman for France’s bishops’ conference, Karine Dalle, clarified that the country’s Catholic leaders do not intend to compromise on the Church’s teaching that the confessional seal is sacrosanct.

“One cannot change the canon law for France as it is international. A priest who today would violate the secrecy of the confession would be excommunicated,” Karine Dalle, the communications director of the French bishops’ conference (CEF), told Solène Tadié of the National Catholic Register on October 13.

“This is what Archbishop Moulins-Beaufort wanted to say last week after the publication of the Sauvé report, when he said that the seal of confession was above the laws of the Republic,” Dalle explained.

“He spoke the truth, but this truth is not audible in France for those who are not Catholic, and not understandable in France in the midst of debates on so-called ‘religious separatism.’”

Below is an analysis of the situation written by Father Gerald E. Murray, a priest of the Archdiocese of New York who is pastor of Holy Family Catholic Church and who was awarded a doctorate in canon law from the Pontifical Gregorian University: The French Bishops Conference issued a statement on October 12, 2021 following a meeting between the

Adoremus Bulletin

Society for the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy PHONE: 608.521.0385 WEBSITE: www.adoremus.org MEMBERSHIP REQUESTS & CHANGE OF ADDRESS: info@adoremus.org

President of the Conference, Bishop Eric de MoulinsBeaufort and the French Interior Minister, Gerald Darmanin.

On October 6, Bishop Moulins-Beaufort had told France Info: “The confessional secret is and will remain an imperative for us and as such it is above the laws of the Republic.” The October 12 Statement apologized for Bishop Moulins-Beaufort’s defense of the supremacy of the secrecy of the confessional to any laws of the state: “Bishop Eric de Moulins-Beaufort was able to discuss with Mr. Gerald Darmanin the clumsy phrasing of his response on France Info last Wednesday morning. The State has as its task to organize social life and regulate public order. For us Christians, faith appeals to the conscience of each person, she calls us to seek the good tirelessly, something which cannot be done without respecting the laws of his country.”

The Statement continued: “The widescale extent of sexual violence and assaults on minors revealed by the report of the CIASE demands of the Church that she restudy her practices in the light of this reality. Work is thus needed to reconcile the nature of confession and the necessity of protecting children.”

The apology is remarkable. Christians are called to respect the just laws of the State, and to resist unjust laws. The State has no right to interfere with the sacramental discipline of the Church. The relation between God and man in the administration of the sacraments of the Church is not subject to state interference. That is a plain violation of the religious liberty of French Catholics.

Even more remarkable is the claim that the Church needs to “restudy’ (in French relire) her practice of safeguarding the secrecy of the confessional. No change in this ironclad discipline is possible. The nature of this sacrament, in which the penitent reveals his conscience by telling his sins to the priest and then receives absolution, requires that the priest make no revelation of those sins which he comes to know only in consideration of his divinely granted power to forgive those sins which the penitent has owned up to and repented of knowing that his confession will remain secret. His avowal of his sins is between him and God; the priest is God’s instrument and must keep silent about what he learns. He should instruct the penitent to own up to any crimes he may have committed by surrendering to the police, but he cannot go any further than that and must uphold the seal of confession.

The October 6 remarks of Bishop Moulins-Beaufort are unremarkable, and in no way clumsy, as they reflect the constant teaching and practice of the Church. The defense of the sacrament of Penance necessarily includes the inviolability of the seal of confession. Canon 983 states: “The sacramental seal is inviolable. Accordingly, it is absolutely wrong for a confessor in any way to betray the penitent, for any reason whatsoever, whether by word or in any other fashion.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches [#1467]: “Given the delicacy and greatness of this ministry and the respect due to persons, the Church declares that every priest who hears confessions is bound under very severe penalties to keep absolute secrecy regarding the sins that his penitents have confessed to him. He can make no use of knowledge that confession gives him about penitents’ lives. This secret, which admits of no exceptions, is called the ‘sacramental seal,’ because what the penitent has made known to the priest remains ‘sealed’ by the sacrament.”

The pressure to deal with the horrible revelation of widespread sexual abuse of minors by priests in France must not lead to an attempt by the French bishops to destroy the absolute inviolability of the seal of confession.

Adoremus editors have combined two Catholic News Agency stories in this entry.

EDITOR - PUBLISHER: Christopher Carstens MANAGING EDITOR: Joseph O’Brien CONTENT MANAGER: Jeremy Priest GRAPHIC DESIGNER: Danelle Bjornson OFFICE MANAGER: Elizabeth Gallagher WEBSITE AND TECHNOLOGY: Matt Korger MARKETING AND FUNDRAISING: Eugene Diamond SOCIAL MEDIA: Jesse Weiler INQUIRIES TO THE EDITOR P.O. Box 385 La Crosse, WI 54602-0385 editor@adoremus.org

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE The Rev. Jerry Pokorsky = Helen Hull Hitchcock The Rev. Joseph Fessio, SJ

Contents copyright © 2021 by ADOREMUS. All rights reserved.

3

Adoremus Bulletin, November 2021

Keep It Real

By Christopher Carstens, Editor

A

AB/LAWRENCE OP ON FLICKR

L

et me begin with a confession: I don’t pray well— often, but not well. Sure, I can manage my way through numerous Hail Mary’s each day (and quickly, too), as well as an occasional Divine Mercy Chaplet. Prayers before meals and before bedtime are regular. As an employee of the Diocese of La Crosse, I’m even blessed to work in a building where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved, so visits throughout the day to the chapel in the diocesan center are common.

But despite this “litany” of good deeds for the day, my prayer life often lacks depth and substance. At times, it even seems less than real.

The main obstacle keeping me from moving deeper into meditative prayer is the apparent silence of God. This, at least, was my complaint to Christ recently (and has been for some time): it seems like I do all of the talking! And when I am silent and listening, how do I know that the messages that I think I hear are really those of Christ—and not merely me talking to myself?

Is my prayer just a fantasy?

Gratefully, I’ve received two consolations recently, two insights that have addressed this persistent power of silence as an entrée to the reality of God. The first comes from St. Teresa of Ávila and her devotee, St. Alphonsus Liguori, in the now-classic book, Conversation With Christ: The Teaching of St. Teresa of Avila about Personal Prayer, by Father Peter Thomas Rohrbach, O.C.D. St. Teresa says, “Soon after we have begun to force ourselves to remain near the Lord, he will give us indications that he heard us.” St. Alphonsus goes on to explain: “He does not, indeed, make himself heard in any voice that reaches your ears, but in a voice that your heart can well perceive.” I can attest that the “God who speaks,” as Pope Benedict calls him, speaks in private prayer in a particular way—one that is subtle, silent, and interior.

Still, the heart-to-heart conversations of private prayer are not the only ways God speaks to us. If it were, then I would continue to wonder if these “indications,” as St. Teresa calls them, were really of my own making.

Yes, God speaks to us in the silence of the heart. But, no, God is not always so silent. Here’s where liturgical prayer is a helpful—indeed, necessary—supplement to private prayer.

The reality of all things sacramental (res sacramenti) is the otherwise invisible, inaudible God. Through the liturgy’s signs and symbols, God becomes really, truly present to us.

“In the liturgy,” the Second Vatican Council says, “the sanctification of the man is signified by signs perceptible to the senses, and is effected in a way which corresponds with each of these signs” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 7). When we celebrate the Mass, or any sacrament or sacramental, or pray the Liturgy of the Hours, the silent voice of God becomes audible, and I no longer have to wonder if the words I hear are of my own making. They are, rather, audible words of the Word itself. They are no longer simply internal but have an objective, real existence outside of me.

The same holds true for each of the liturgy’s signs and symbols. The sights of the Mass—vestments, windows, the priest—are no longer images of my mind but images of God. The smell of incense around me is an olfactory invitation to heaven above me. The music sounds like angels and saints; the holy water feels like the water that once drowned me in the water from Christ’s side. The host (victim) I receive is a sacramental sign of the true body of Christ. In these and many other ways at the liturgy, God communes and communicates with us in verifiable, tactile, “haptic” ways (as Benedictine Father Eusebius Martis explains in his cover story).

In fact, the “silent” God of private prayer not only becomes sensible in liturgical prayer but even active

and—if I can say it this way—“aggressive” at Mass. As mentioned above, receiving communion affords us the chance to have a real foretaste of heaven, but also of its banquet: the body and blood of the Lamb. But let’s go deeper. In his encyclical on the Eucharist, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, Pope John Paul II offers us another insight on receiving communion. He says, “We can say not only that each of us receives Christ, but also that Christ receives each of us”(22). Further (I can’t help but wonder), if Christ receives us, he must go on to digest and incorporate us into himself…. In a certain real sense, Christ transforms us into himself.

Prayer—Catholic prayer—is both silent and audible, interior and exterior, subjective and objective. Both dimensions are necessary. Such, at least, has been the insight and consolation that has come my way recently.

The next time you attend Mass, for example, notice how the Incarnation of Christ continues to maintain its reality in the sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile experiences of the liturgy.

In this fact I take consolation too: because God created us in such a way that we experience the world through our senses, he naturally gave us a liturgy that engages those same senses.

In this way, God truly does help us keep it real.

On the Seasons of Advent and Christmas

nother year, another Christmas. Or will it be different this year? Certainly, much has changed in the world since last Christmas. But to change ourselves for a more fruitful celebration of the birth of Christ, a fuller understanding of the seasons of Advent and Christmas can help. Test your knowledge of these privileged seasons as a way to enter into this most wonderful time of the year in 2021.

1. The principal reason that Christmas is celebrated on December 25 is: a. This date was determined by the Council of Nicaea in 325. b. Jesus was born on December 25. c. The early Church was trying to combat the pagan feast of Sol Invictus (“Unconquered Sun”) that fell on December 25. d. Jesus died nine months earlier.

2. Since Christmas is celebrated each year on December 25, when does Advent begin? a. The Thursday after Thanksgiving in the United States. b. The Sunday closest to the Feast of Andrew the Apostle. c. Four weeks and four days prior to December 25. d. It varies based upon the date of Easter and the weeks of Ordinary Time that follow Easter.

3. True or False: The Advent season is a kind of “mini-Lent.”

4. The Roman Missal, Lectionary for Mass, and Liturgy of the Hours provide texts for each weekday of Advent, all the way up to Friday of the Third Week of Advent— then they stop. Why are there no texts for Saturday of the Third Week of Advent? a. Annibale Bugnini. b. The weekdays of Advent give way to a more intense preparation for Christmas by this time, and it is then time to sing “O Come, O Come, Emmanuel.” c. Pius XII eliminated this day of Advent when he revised the Holy Week liturgies in 1955. d. From the time of Pope Gregory the Great (r.590-604), Saturday of the Third Week of Advent was set aside to mark the winter ember day.

5. True or False: Just as during the Lenten season, the playing of the organ and musical instruments is allowed only in order to support the singing.

6. According to the Book of Blessings, where should the Nativity Scene be placed? a. In a place outside the sanctuary so that all the faithful can approach it easily and pray before it. b. The Book of Blessings is silent on the placement of the Nativity Scene.

c. In front of the altar of sacrifice so that suitable attention may be drawn to the central mystery of the season. d. Outside of the church building and located in the homes of the faithful.

7. What Holy Days of Obligation occur during the Advent and Christmas Seasons?

8. How many Mass settings (proper antiphons, readings, and orations) are there for the Solemnity of the Nativity? a. One. b. Two. c. Three. d. Four.

9. At which liturgy during the Advent or Christmas seasons would one hear mention of “the one hundred and ninety-fourth Olympiad”? a. Fifth day of the Octave of Christmas. b. Matins for the Feast of the Holy Family. c. Mass for Epiphany. d. Liturgy of the Hours on December 24.

10. True or False: The Christmas season always ends on the Sunday following Epiphany, which is the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord.

Please see ANSWERS on page 11

Adoremus Bulletin, November 2021

AB/JEAN-LUC ESTIENNE

4

The sophisticated design and high level of craftsmanship of the partially reconstructed apse and coffered ceiling of the Meeting Hall of the Villa Romana del Casale in Sicily show to the senses, and the mind, the importance of the building. The style of architecture, Basilica, was later adopted as the model for Christian churches, themselves highly sacramental.

Continued from HAPTIC, page 1 21st century, so-called “smart” devices talk back to us.

Receive a message, they *ding.* “Type” a word, the keys vibrate with each stroke. Such feedback in the world of technology is called a “haptic.” iOS and Android devices include settings for haptic feedback in their parameter menus.

This type of sensory feedback did not emerge only with the introduction of smartphones in the 1990s. Traditional typewriters gave feedback, too. Human digits felt the relative resistance of the keys of the Royal typewriters on 1950s desks—and that sensation was very different from the advanced touch of the IBM Selectric, preferred in most office pools. The sound of the type striking the carbon, paper, and cylinder assured us that the letter had hit its target. The bell at the end of the line reminded us it was time to swing the carriage return bar from right to left. The smudges on the paper, the grainy erasures, and irregular pattern of a corrected word, the late night tappity-tap-tap of a last-minute term paper are all haptic aspects of the editorial experience.

The term is also used in medicine. When a physician pokes and prods to determine our health, it is called a “haptic examination.” The doctor attends to feedback felt through the fingers of the hands and sounds of the lungs and heart conveyed through the diaphragm, bell, tubing, and headset of a stethoscope.

The word “haptic” has its origin in the Greek word hapto which means “to take hold of,” or “to touch.” In the world of computer technology, it refers to the audible or tactile sensations of an electronic device. When applied to the world of ritual, haptic includes all the stimuli received by our five senses: vision, olfaction (smell), audition (hearing), gustation (taste) and somatosensation, tactition (feeling).

Liturgy’s Sensitive Soul The Catholic religion is founded on the mystery of the eternal God taking on human flesh; we call this the dogma of the Incarnation. It follows that the in-fleshedness of prayer is inseparable from faith. We are able to pray more fruitfully when we are aware of the way in which our bodies, our senses engage with prayer to the Divine. Reminders of this are prevalent in the Church’s teaching: “In the liturgy the sanctification of the man is signified by signs perceptible to the senses, and is effected in a way which corresponds with each of these signs; in the liturgy the whole public worship is performed by the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head and His members.”3 In the sacramental system we use material things, perceptible things, like water and oil, bread and wine, light and fragrance. These signs work through our human senses. The application of haptic experience to Catholic ritual is, thus, a natural and even necessary one—though in my estimation, an approach that has not received the attention it deserves. The better attuned we are to the liturgical and sacramental sensations, the more likely we are to appreciate the grace that is offered in our ritual prayer. When speaking of

catechesis in Sacramentum Caritatis, Pope Benedict XVI reminds us, “More than simply conveying information, a mystagogical catechesis should be capable of making the faithful more sensitive to the language of signs and gestures which, together with the word, make up the rite” (64, emphasis added).

This is why, in the rite of ordination, the bishop says to the newly-ordained priest at the traditio, the handing over of the prepared chalice and paten, “Understand what you do, imitate what you celebrate, and conform your life to the mystery of the Lord’s Cross.”4 But the bishop does not merely mean “know what’s necessary for the valid and licit celebration of the sacraments.” A network of meaning is at play: “A sacramental celebration is woven from signs and symbols.”5

“ An appeal for the recognition of haptics in the liturgy—to the sensory feedback the ritual provides—is not a call for the creation of new sensations or innovative experiences, or even of modifying the rites.

The haptic feedback is already written into Catholic rites.”

Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, urges: “in order that the liturgy may be able to produce its full effects, it is necessary that the faithful come to it with proper dispositions, that their minds should be attuned to their voices, and that they should cooperate with divine grace lest they receive it in vain. Pastors of souls must therefore realize that, when the liturgy is celebrated, something more is required than the mere observation of the laws governing valid and licit celebration; it is their duty also to ensure that the faithful take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects.”6 In so instructing their flock, pastors are not doing so merely in order that the faithful can judge whether the sacrament was properly celebrated. A conscious, aware Christian is able to pray more deeply, fully, and fruitfully—and sensibly.

When the Roman Missal at the beginning of the Sacred Paschal Triduum instructs the people to enter in fully, it is not merely to check a box in a spiritual “ToDo List.” “Pastors should, therefore, not fail to explain to the Christian faithful, as best they can, the meaning and order of the celebrations and to prepare them for active and fruitful participation.”7 These exhortations apply to the fullness of the sacramental and liturgical expression in signs and symbols: to be aware of the scriptural foundation, perhaps to patristic allusions, and also to enter in with the whole human body. We carry around in our bodies the dying and rising of Christ.8 A Good Feel for Ritual We should also be clear. An appeal for the recognition of haptics in the liturgy—to the sensory feedback the ritual provides—is not a call for the creation of new sensations or innovative experiences, or even of modi-

fying the rites. The haptic feedback is already written into Catholic rites. Ours is a plea that they be noticed, followed, and appreciated—precisely because they communicate sacramental meaning and can make us more receptive to sacramental grace. Ritual gradually, gently forms us to worship, pray, and think with the mind of the Church.

At Marmion Abbey, the tower bells call us to prayer.

The pattern of the peal corresponds to the solemnity of each liturgical day: on ferial days only two bells ring, three bells on certain feast days, five bells for solemnities. The largest bell is heard only when announcing the death of a member of the community or Church leader.

It tolls at funerals. The haptic experience of genuine cast bronze bells is markedly different even from digitally sampled electronic bells. The click of mechanisms is heard, the tower vibrates, the sound resonates around the buildings.

A priest from the south of France comments on the way that care for the church building, its furnishings, vessels, and linens can foster our awe and reverence: “Let your church be sparkling, so that the beauty of Jesus can bathe eyes and hearts. Cleanse, polish, and shine. Grace passes through that.”9 Furthermore, he says, “Let there be beautiful chalices, just as there are beautiful cups for the Jewish Passover!”10 He insists on clean, fresh linens, purificators, corporals, and altar cloths, vestments that are beautiful and well maintained. Such attention to detail contributes to the beautiful celebration of the sacred mysteries and communicates the value of what is being celebrated.

A triple example can illustrate how the careful celebration of the sacraments and sacramental rites can carry meaning over time—over the long-haul. Let’s follow a special couple, Sarah and Brandon, on their life’s journey together, beginning in Holy Matrimony. Keeping in mind that haptics are related to the feedback that comes through our senses, let us pay attention to what they (and we) feel, see, hear, smell, and taste at three privileged moments.

The Order of Celebrating Matrimony begins at the door of the church.

The minister “goes with the servers to the door of the church, receives the bridal party, and warmly greets them, showing that the Church shares in their joy.”11 It is perhaps true that most wedding ceremonies do not begin like this. Our interest, however, in highlighting the meaning of these rites, must focus on what the Church asks us to do, rather than on what is most common or practical. In Catholic ritual, the meaning of the sacramental signs nearly always takes precedence over the pragmatic.

What do we notice as we are gathering at the door of the church? Undoubtedly, the people that have arrived are from different walks of life, different generations, perhaps even with different political persuasions. From a scattered world, they begin to gather here, at this meeting point. They even crowd in as the beginning of the ceremony nears. For St. John Chrysostom, the crowd itself was an essential part of the haptic: “Once

5

Adoremus Bulletin, November 2021

The Order of Baptism of Children begins at the door of the church.

The celebrant “goes with the ministers to the door of the church…. The celebrant greets those present, especially the parents and godparents, recalling in a few words the joy with which the parents received their children as a gift from God, who is the source of all life and who now wishes to bestow his own life on them.”14 Sarah and Brandon return, perhaps a year after marriage, infant at the breast. Having entered into the public proclamation of their love for each other in this very spot, having received the blessing and prayer of the Church, they return now with the visible sign that their love has borne fruit. The life and love they share in Christ is now passed on to their offspring.

AB/SAN MARCOS DAILY RECORD NEGATIVES ON FLICKR

again a feast! Once again a solemnity! Once again the Church adorns herself with a throng of children, the Church is filled with her children, the Church who loves her children!”12 And soon they will join in the act of worship of God which the sacrament of Matrimony entails.

As these friends and family gather, their bodily bearing, their faces and voices, express excitement and joy, and perhaps some, too, in a more discreet manner manifest regret. They are dressed for the occasion, wearing cosmetics and fragrance. There are hugs, kisses, handshakes, and slaps on the back. Common news is spoken; secrets whispered. Laughter is heard: perhaps the characteristic cackle of Aunt So-and-So, not to be outdone by the humorous howl of Uncle Untel. No one outdoes the beauty, however, of bride and groom, with their special clothes, polished appearance, radiance, and mix of emotion.

The voice of the minister breaks through all of this commotion and calls the people together to enter in, to join hearts and voices. He puts this “local” joy into a universal context: “The Church shares your joy…in the presence of God…. May the Lord fulfill every one of your prayers.”13 As they enter into the church, the door itself is a sign of the liminal experience, the event that changes forever the lives of Sarah and Brandon, about to be united in Holy Matrimony: it is the crossing of a threshold. At the end of the ceremony, the couple passes this threshold again as witnesses to the world of what God has done for them.

Technological sensory feedback did not emerge only with the introduction of smartphones in the 1990s. Traditional typewriters gave feedback, too. Human digits felt the relative resistance of the keys of the Royal typewriters on 1950s desks— and that sensation was very different from the advanced touch of the IBM Selectric, preferred in most office pools. The sound of the type striking the carbon, paper, and cylinder assured us that the letter had hit its target. The bell at the end of the line reminded us it was time to swing the carriage return bar from right to left. These are all haptic aspects of the editorial experience.

Family and friends gather again from all corners. New memories crowd into the vestibule or press around the doors of the church. We hope this experience includes the memory of the first time the couple paused at these doors, committing themselves to each other, witnessing love to the Church, hopeful of the future. They took their first steps into a new life which now bears life in turn. This family is different now, the circle of friends has expanded. The focus of prayer shifts from bride and groom to the future generations represented by their infant. This group is more familiar, more tactile, more knowing.

The baby is passed from arm to arm and embrace to embrace, uniting the group as never before. The newborn carries his own fragrance, and softness of skin, and unique sounds—gurgling and cooing and crying, too.

In this spot, the child receives the Sign of the Cross for the first time, traced on the forehead by priest and parents as a pledge of eternal life. When he passes the door again, back into the world, he will carry the chrism-ed odor of Christ as a witness to the world.

The Order of Christian Funerals makes one final stop at the door of the church.

“The priest, with assisting ministers, goes to the door of the church” and greets those present with words of consolation.15 It is many years later, we hope, that Sarah and Brandon mark a final moment at the door of the church.

A life of regular sacramental participation has seen them pass this threshold many times, pausing briefly to scoop water from the font and tracing the Sign of the Cross over their bodies, as they enter to be nourished by the Word of God and the Bread of Life. Carried by loved ones for Baptism in the beginning of life, the beloved is carried to church a final time and entrusted to the merciful arms of God. The heaviness of the casket borne by pallbearers reflects the heaviness of heart.

The grieving family carries a different spirit on this day: a mixture of sorrow and gratitude. The hushed tones are subdued and reflective, the voices gentle and dignified. Memories wash over them: they are carried

AB/TIM EVANSON ON FLICKR

“ The better attuned we are to the liturgical and sacramental sensations, the more likely we will be able to appreciate the grace that is offered in our ritual prayer.”

Catholic baptisms, weddings, and funerals all begin at the doors of the church building. From this church’s door, Catholics enter an especially haptic world, one in which natural sense and sensations will communicate supernatural grace.

back in time. They ruminate over other days. They cling to one another in gestures of support and comfort. This family huddles together, not setting out alone, pursuing their own paths. Death, too, brings a unity of heart and shared experience.

Holy water is sprinkled on the coffin, reminiscent of that first baptismal bath, reminiscent of each blessing with holy water, each Eastertide renewal of Christian promises. Some droplets go astray, mingling with the tears of the family. Does God grieve, too? The white pall is spread over the body, recalling the purity of the baptismal garment. It is the original security blanket, a Christian security blanket—reminding those who see it that salvation, comfort, and protection have been promised by the Savior. These doorway rites are crowned with a final, dignified procession, through the nave to the altar: the meeting place of the human and divine.

Divinity Detailed Every moment of liturgical prayer should be approached in this way; the effects of it are limitless precisely because the sacramental approach begins with what is genuinely human and weds it to the divine. The rituals of the Church are not contrived, fabricated, or invented.

They are natural, lasting, and indelible.

Careful attention to details already written into our sacramental celebrations can help foster a richer, more meaningful experience. It can help us to be more atten-

tive, more present, and more receptive. Engaging the senses of wonder and awe can lead to a greater response of thanksgiving for the marvels God has done, and a greater share in the grace the sacramental life offers.

Father Eusebius Martis, OSB, a monk of Marmion Abbey, has been a priest for more than three decades. He is former director of the Liturgical Institute at the University of Saint Mary of the Lake, where he was also a professor at Mundelein Seminary from 1996 to 2015. He is a former director of liturgy at the Pontifical College Josephinum. He is a member of the Advisory Board of the Pontifical Liturgical Institute at Sant’Anselmo, Rome.

1. Cyprian of Carthage, On Man’s Mortality.

2. Roman Missal (RM), Preface I of the Nativity of the Lord.

3. Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC), 7.

4. Roman Pontifical.

5. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1145.

6. SC, 11.

7. RM, Sacred Paschal Triduum, 2.

8. 2 Corinthians 4:10.

9. “Que ton église soit rutilante pour que Jésus de sa beauté lave les yeux et les cœurs. Nettoie, frotte, et fais briller, par là s’immisce la grâce.”

Michel-Marie Zanotti-Sorkine, Au diable la tièdeur, Paris: Editions Robert Laffont, 2012, 70.

10. “De beaux calices et de belles coupes comme pour la Pâque juive!”

Zanotti-Sorkine, 71.

11. O rder of Christian Marriage (OCM), 45.

12. H omily 1 on Pentecost. PG 50, 453.

13. O CM, 53.

14. O rder of the Baptism of Children, 35-36.

15. Order of Christian Funerals, 159; see also 82.

6

Adoremus Bulletin, November 2021

Scripture and Celestial Mechanics

The Enduring Value of Calculating a Variable Date for Celebrating the Resurrection

By Lynne C. Boughton, Ph.D.

Support for an Assigned Easter Two main arguments have been offered for abolishing calculation of variable Easter dates. One is that a variable Easter Sunday can occur as early as the third week in March and as late as the second week of May.13 This long span of possible dates causes not only Easter and Holy Week, but also the course of Lent and Pentecost, to come at times that seem out of season and to conflict in some years but not others with civic practices,

AB/WIKIMEDIA

I

n 1963, in an appendix to its document on liturgy, the Second Vatican Council advised that hierarchies could, by agreeing to celebrate the Resurrection on an “assigned Sunday” each year, introduce a new way of determining the annual date of Easter.1 Because Easter, in order to always occur on Sunday, cannot have a “fixed date” like Christmas or Annunciation,2 some propose that it be assigned to the second Sunday in April much as Mother’s Day is on the second Sunday of May. Another option would be the usage of a Patristic-era Montanist sect that set a fixed date in April as the point from which the next Sunday would be Easter.3 Since 2014, revered prelates such as Pope Francis,4 Tawadros II (Coptic Orthodox Pope),5 Aphrem II (Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch),6 and Justin Welby (Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury)7 have urged Catholic and Orthodox Churches, as well as other Christian communities, to hasten an agreement to celebrate Easter on a Sunday that would be the same (“common”) for all believers.8 Proponents of an assigned Easter intend that this common date replace the ancient but continuing practice of determining for each year a “variable” (“moveable”) Easter Sunday date based on calculations that integrate biblical descriptions and laws with the current course of celestial movements. The rule underlying these calculations was operative as early as c.160 in the Sees of Rome and Alexandria and made obligatory for the entire Church by the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325.9 The rule requires that the Resurrection be celebrated each year on the first Sunday that follows the first full moon that follows the day in the earth’s annual revolution of the sun at which the Vernal (Spring) Equinox occurs.

For over a millennium before the birth of Jesus, and therefore influencing the Sinai Covenant, Egyptian and Hebrew astronomers measured the earth’s relationship to the sun and to the more distant stars (helical and sidereal measurements) during the course of a year to chart vernal and autumnal equinoxes as well as winter and summer solstices. By the fourth century BC, Greek astronomers computed the earth’s axial tilt to predict more accurately these four markers of the seasons.10 The term “equinox” was devised by Latin-speaking Christian mathematicians of the second/third century who calculated not only each year’s Easter date but also sought to ascertain the year and date of the first Easter.11 In various times and places, churches applying the “Nicaean rule” have differed slightly in defining and measuring these astronomical events. Moreover, celestial movements and relationships undergo natural perturbations. Nevertheless, for nearly 2,000 years, hierarchies have used this rule to assure that the four days corresponding to Jesus’ Last Supper, Crucifixion, Entombment, and Resurrection correspond to two sets of circumstances referenced in the Gospels: 1) the day of the week on which each event occurred; 2) the annual occurrence of relationships involving the earth, sun, and moon that the Hebrew scriptures prescribe as the basis for the Sinai Covenant’s calendar(s) and for celebrating the double festival of Passover and Unleavened Bread. With regard to this second point, the Nicaean rule involves conforming to astronomical conditions prescribed in the Hebrew scriptures for Passover and Unleavened Bread. It does not require acceptance of the “fixed” starting date of these two festivals: specified in the Hebrew scriptures as the 14th day of a month known as Nisan (Exodus 12:6), or by its older name Abib (Exodus 13:4-7; 23:15; 34:18; Deuteronomy 16:18), or simply as “first month” of the year (Numbers 9:5; 33:3; 2 Chronicles 35:1).12 Christian conformity to what Hebrew scriptures indicate of occurring celestial phenomena marking these festivals (rather than the day and month specified in those same scriptures) stems from awareness that the Hebrew calendar is not solar but lunisolar and calibrates the new moon that begins 1 Nisan/Abib, not the full moon of Passover, to proximate occurrence of the equinox.

Proponents of an assigned Easter intend that this common date replace the ancient but continuing practice of determining for each year a “variable” Easter Sunday date based on calculations that integrate biblical descriptions and laws with the current course of celestial movements. The rule underlying these calculations was operative as early as c.160 in the Sees of Rome and Alexandria and made obligatory for the entire Church by the Council of Nicaea in 325, depicted above.

academic schedules, and even sanctoral and temporal feasts that have fixed dates on a church’s liturgical calendar.

Another concern is that differences in applying the Nicaean rule result, in most years, in churches diverging over which of two dates for Easter should be observed. The calculation of two different dates is commonly, though somewhat misleadingly, attributed to a church’s preference for either the Julian or Gregorian solar calendar. Those using the Julian include most Eastern Orthodox churches, Oriental Orthodox churches,14 and “independent” ecclesial bodies within Eastern rite-families.15 Those using the Gregorian include the Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic churches, as well as Protestant and Evangelical communities.

“ If Christians ceased to observe a variable Paschal season based on celestial criteria comparable to those used by Judaism for determining Passover, they would lose a tangible reminder that both faiths are grounded in cosmic relationships created by God.” This is not, as some have stated, a difference between “East” and “West.” Eastern Catholic churches celebrate Easter according to the same Gregorian-based calculations as Rome. Moreover, the Roman Rite is itself as deeply embraced by Catholics in East Asia and the Pacific Rim as among those of Western Europe, Western Africa, and the Americas. But although there is no “East-West” divide, differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy in the choice of a solar calendar and, often, in the variable Easter date are perceived by some as highlighting deeper differences in Christology, ecclesiology, and essential disciplines of sacraments. It has been suggested that eliminating the possibility of two different Easter dates will encourage reconciliation on more substantial issues.

Support for Variable Easter Calculation Counterarguments for continuing to calculate variable Easter and Paschal dates, though less well known, may more elegantly cohere with the physical nature of the Paschal mystery and show a deeper respect for the systematic and liturgical theologies of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches that sometimes celebrate Easter on different Sundays.

For example, Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox scholars meeting at Aleppo Syria in 1997 warned that if Christians ceased to observe a variable Paschal season based on celestial criteria comparable to those

used by Judaism for determining Passover, they would lose a tangible reminder that both faiths are grounded in cosmic relationships created by God and incorporated into his liturgical and moral directives in the Hebrew scriptures. Eliminating variable dates for the Paschal season would result in losing sight (literally) of the astronomical dimension of Easter that is shown in its coinciding not simply with a Sunday in springtime but with the fundamental structure of the universe.16 Addressing the concern that variable Easter dates conflict with fixed dates on liturgical and civic calendars, the Aleppo meeting advised that interference in life’s more predictable courses by the occurrence of the Paschal season illustrates the “dramatic way in which the Resurrection breaks into the comfortable routines of the world.”17 Moreover, a remarkably early or late Easter counters a tendency to reduce it to a Christianized springtime festival in which the Resurrection is equated with new life in nature or spiritual rebirth rather than the creation of a new cosmic order. Accordingly, consensus at Aleppo held that the Nicaean rule for calculating Easter’s variable date be retained.

Along with this consensus, however, Aleppo also proposed a way of reducing the frequency of Catholicism and Orthodoxy arriving at a different variable dates. This would involve calculating celestial events directly from astronomical measurements, rather than mediated through the Julian and Gregorian calendars in which mathematical “averages” identified equinoxes and lunar phases. Though this proposal has merit, critics have cautioned that it would yield a span of possible Easter Sundays even broader than those posited by Julian and Gregorian calculations.18 Attention to this weakness in the counterproposal has undermined consideration of the Aleppo conference’s more fundamental point: that an assigned Easter date overturns a decision by the most important ecumenical council and conforms Easter to time rather than time to Easter.

There are also other reasons to continue calculating variable Paschal dates: 1. New Testament Revelation Not only Jesus’ Resurrection but the four days that began with his Last Supper and extend into his Crucifixion and Entombment cannot be fully understood apart from their connection to the beginning of the seven/ eight-day long19 Sinai Covenant observance of Passover and Unleavened Bread.

Much recent scholarship emphasizes, in contrast to an early 20th-century academic consensus, that all four gospels were composed by either members of the Twelve Apostles and therefore direct first-person witnesses to all of Jesus’ adult life (Matthew, John) or by those in direct contact with such witnesses (Mark, Luke). The gospels were circulated while members of the original Twelve governed the Church and many more witnesses capable of verifying the texts were still alive.20 In accord with their early composition, all three Synoptic gospels situate Jesus’ Last Supper on the annually observed “first day of Unleavened Bread” (14

Nisan) and in anticipation of the “Passover” sacrifices (Matthew 26:17; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7; cf. 1 Colossians 5:7-8).

The common assumption that the Last Supper was a “Passover Seder” that followed these sacrifices is much mistaken. Not only were Seder rituals (e.g., the four cups, the child’s question) established about two hundred years after the lifetime of Jesus,21 but common interpretation of the Synoptics as placing the Last Supper after the sacrifices of Passover lambs is easily corrected

by John’s assertion that the Last Supper was before the observance of Passover (John 13:1). Just as ordained priests of the Jerusalem Temple disagreed over whether a calendar “date” began at sunset or midnight, so too did the Synoptics and John.22 For the Synoptics the date of Passover (14 Nisan) started as Jesus gathered with the Twelve after sunset and continued through to sunset on the next day. For John, Passover (14 Nisan) did not start until midnight, hours after the Last Supper, though also continuing into the following daylight hours.

John is unequivocal that Jesus died on the cross on the same Friday afternoon that lambs were slaughtered and offered on the Temple’s Holocaust altar by ordained priests (John 19:14). Only when darkness fell that day (introducing 15 Nisan for the Synoptics but continuing 14 Nisan for John) would these lambs be eaten by those who had donated them. The meal included unleavened bread and bitter herbs but not the foods and other protocols of centuries-later Seder celebrations.23 2. Sinai Covenant and the Julian Calendar For the Sinai Covenant and for modern Judaism the first “day” of Nisan is the first day of the liturgical year24 and is determined by two celestial phenomena monitored, in Jesus’ lifetime, by Aaronic priests. One is the Vernal (Spring) Equinox (tekufah Nisan/Abib),25 the annual date at which the tilt of the earth as it revolves around the sun causes daylight and darkness to be almost of equal length. The other phenomenon is the new moon (rosh hodesh) that, depending on which branch of Judaism one accepts, is either the first to occur after, or closest to, the Vernal Equinox.26 Since the lunar cycle is 29.5 days, the moon transitions from new to full on 14 Nisan.

It is noteworthy that 14 Nisan is a “fixed” calendar date. But both of the dominant calendars observed in the Sinai Covenant during the lifetime of Jesus, one whose year spanned about 354 days and the other whose annual course was 364 days, ran short of the physical solar year of 365.24 days. To prevent each of the standard 12 months (and the days of observance within them) from misaligning with the seasons in which they had historically originated through divine prescription or intervention, Aaronic priests added blocs of intercalary (leap) days at prescribed intervals.27 But shortly before the lifetime of Jesus, Jews and other people of Europe, Africa, and the Middle East began to also use the Julian solar calendar. Formally established

by Julius Caesar to begin on January 1, 409 AUC (i.e., ab urbe condita, the number of years since the founding of Rome), the year in which the Julian calendar began is estimated to be 45 BC. This calendar recognized that earth’s revolution around the sun took 365-and-aquarter days, with each full day containing 24 hours.

To accommodate the quarter day and to keep the yearly enumeration of days in line with the seasons, a leap day was to be added every four years. Actually, an error was made at the start when the first leap year was added after the third rather than fourth year. This error accumulated until 4 AD when Emperor Caesar Augustus ordered adjustments that reset the calendar in 8 AD.28 Intended as a civic, not religious, calendar for the entire Empire, the Julian was adopted throughout the Middle East about nine years before the birth of Jesus, just as Augustus’s correction took effect.

Efforts among Christians prior to 200 to reconcile feasts of the Sinai Covenant (as specified in the gospels as the context of Jesus’ Last Supper, Crucifixion, Entombment and Resurrection) with Julian dates led to a variety of different approaches. Some held that Christians should simply commemorate events that culminated in the Resurrection by determining when 14 Nisan coincided with a particular Julian date. There were two ways of doing this, each practiced by a branch of the group designated collectively as Quartodecimans (“Fourteeners”).29 One way was to simply ask neighboring rabbis when their own calculation of 14 Nisan occurred in conjunction with a Julian date. Another way, based on awareness that Jewish communities differed from each other in computing Sinai Covenant feasts, involved Christians observing and calculating for themselves astronomical phenomena required for 14 Nisan that coincided with a particular Julian date. Whichever method was chosen, Quartodecimans would, on the resulting “day,” celebrate the two redemptive acts of Jesus:

7

AB/JEFF NYVEEN ON FLICKR

Adoremus Bulletin, November 2021

Not only Jesus’ Resurrection but the four days that began with his Last Supper and extend into his Crucifixion and Entombment cannot be fully understood apart from their connection to the beginning of the seven/eight-day long Sinai Covenant observance of Passover and Unleavened Bread at the full moon in springtime.

“ The problem with Quartodecimans relying either on rabbinic or their own astronomers was that observance of the one day that commemorated both Jesus’ Death and Resurrection might be any day of the week.” ­­ his death by Crucifixion and his Resurrection to glorified life.

The problem with Quartodecimans relying either on rabbinic or their own astronomers was that observance of the one day that commemorated both Jesus’ Death and Resurrection might be any day of the week. This, however, was contrary to the gospels which specified that four separate days occasioned the Last Supper, Crucifixion, Entombment, and Resurrection, with the Resurrection being on Sunday—literally, the “daylight after the Sabbath” (Mark 16:1; Matthew 28:1; John 20:1).

Church leaders recognized that Jesus’ Resurrection is not a symbolic concept or a metaphor.30 Its occurrence was a physical event in historical time. By the end of the first century, bishops of Rome and of other primatial sees ruled that celebration of the Resurrection conform to specifications in the gospel accounts concerning the day of the week (Sunday) and the concurrence with the third morning of Passover and Unleavened Bread, the two seven/eight-day-observances that began after both the Vernal Equinox and a subsequent full moon.

Moreover, Jesus’ Resurrection differs from all other miracles recorded in the scriptures. It is not a resuscitation or restoration. It is the first moment of the New Creation—an intrusion into our physical course of time by someone who retained his humanity but in a way that was no longer limited by this universe’s laws of time and space. The celebration of Easter is preceded not only by the Cross but by the Last Supper. Easter is incomprehensible without the realization that Jesus’ crossing of physical universes first occurred at the moment when he told the Twelve that bread had become his body and wine had become his blood. He was standing with the Twelve that night but he was also already present, as he would be after the Resurrection in every eucharistic celebration, under the appearance of what they were to consume.

Because of this emphasis on the historical and physical reality of the Resurrection, Christian scholars contemporary with the Quartodecimans opted for mathematical calculations and astronomical observations that assured that Easter would occur on a Sunday after the full moon that determined the Julian equivalent to 14 Nisan. By the time of Pope Anicetus (pontificate, c.

157-168) there was a tradition in Rome of computing an annual Easter date to occur on a Sunday after the full moon that followed the spring equinox. Although Anicetus tolerated Quartodecimans such as Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna,31 Rome subsequently became concerned when Quartodecimans from Asia Minor tried to promote their methods of Paschal calculation in Rome.

The result was that Pope Victor (pontificate, c. 189-199), despite the urging of Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon to be lenient, excommunicated Quartodecimans in Asia Minor.

As modern researcher Thomas Talley concludes, Rome had her own clear idea by 100 of factors to be considered in determining a variable date for Easter but was originally tolerant of methods used elsewhere. Only when Quartodecimans sought influence in Rome did Pope Victor suppress a major center for their ideas. The conclusion: different methods of determining a variable date are acceptable; trying to change Rome’s method is not.32 What should also be noted is that Quartodecimans and those who held what would later be the Nicaean rule both represented, despite their differences, the early Church’s commitment to a variable date for Easter.

3. Valuing Both Julian and Gregorian Dates Despite the claims of some who seek to eliminate variable Easter dates, differences between Catholic and Orthodox churches are not entirely the result of Orthodox preservation of the Julian calendar in contrast to gradual adoption of the Gregorian calendar, between 1582 and 1752, in Catholic and Protestant areas. As early as the century after Nicaea, long before there was a difference of solar calendars in Christian regions, individual churches using the Nicaean rule calculated different variable dates in any given year.33 Pope Leo I (pontificate 440-461) admitted that Alexandrian priestastronomers were providing more suitable calculations according to Nicaea’s directive than their counterparts in Rome.34 In 664, the Synod of Whitby in the British Isles was convened in order to determine the better of two possible applications—one from Rome, the other from Irish monasticism—of Nicaea’s rule. Subsequently, a monk, Venerable Bede (673-735), supplied a mathematical treatise to support Whitby’s conclusion that Rome offered the more accurate method of calculating the variable Easter date.35 The introduction of the Gregorian calendar is often misrepresented. First of all, it was authorized in 1582 by Pope Gregory XIII because of a mathematical miscalculation of the frequency with which “leap” days needed to be added to the Julian calendar. This was not a repeat of the simple error that Augustus had corrected by 8 AD. Instead the problem stemmed from a fundamental astronomical measurement. Because earth’s revolution around the sun takes 365-and-one-quarter days, the Julian calendar added a leap day every four years. Unfortunately, the “one quarter” was not .25 of a day but actually .24. What would become a problem—though not evident until centuries passed—was that the Julian calendar added leap days too often. Because the estimated 365.25 days assumed by the Julian calendar were actually 365.24 days in the astronomical cycle, a leap day every four years had resulted in the physical reality to which certain calendar dates were originally calibrated occurring at progressively earlier calendar dates.

Called “regression,” this was a particular problem for the solstices and equinoxes. For example, during Jesus’ lifetime, the Vernal Equinox was March 25 on the Julian calendar. When Nicaea was held (325) regression brought that equinox to the Julian date of March 21.36 By the 16th century, the Vernal Equinox occurred on March 11. Thus Pope Gregory’s staff of astronomers

8 dropped 10 days from the 1582 calendar (to set the date of the equinox to what it was at the time of Nicaea not the full 14 days to March 25) and decreed that in the future, though leap days would continue to be added every four years, the extra day would not be added if the year’s enumeration was evenly divisible by 100, unless it was evenly divisible by 400.

What should be noted is that the Gregorian was not a “new” calendar. It was simply a correction of the Julian that accomplished more accurately what the Julian was intended to do. Moreover, the Gregorian is not a “Western” calendar in contrast to an “Eastern” Julian. Both calendars originated in Rome.

One matter that perplexes many is that the calculation of variable dates for Easter involves the choice of a solar calendar with which to calculate and upon which to project the results of observing and measuring the appropriate celestial phenomena. The two solar calendars—Julian and Gregorian—sometimes yield a single date for Easter in a particular year. This happened most recently on April 16, 2017 and will occur again on April 20, 2025. But even in years when Julian and Gregorian calculations arrive at a single Easter date, the date can be projected on a Gregorian (New Style = NS) or Julian (Old Style = OS). Thus April 16, 2017 and April 20, 2025 are the dates that appear on a Gregorian (NS) calendar.

But on a Julian (OS) calendar they would appear as, respectively, April 3, 2017 and April 7, 2025 even though each of those OS dates occurs on the same “day” as its corresponding NS date.37 In most years, however, Julian calculations and Gregorian calculations result in two completely different Easter dates. Here the complexity of the problem referred to above, regarding which solar calendar to calculate with and which to project the results upon is further exacerbated. For example, in 2021 the Resurrection was celebrated on April 4 by those using Gregorian-based calculations and projecting the result on a Gregorian (NS) calendar. But in the same year those whose paschal calculations (Paschalion) are Julian but who project this on a Gregorian (NS) calendar celebrated Easter on May 2. For those communities whose Julian calculation was also projected on a Julian calendar, the May 2, 2021 NS date was expressed as April 19, 2021 OS, though both May 2 NS and April 19 OS occurred on the same “day” that year.

Yet over the centuries, in the years in which Christians arrive at two different Easter dates (or simply designate that date differently as has just been shown), there has been no animosity or ridicule. The appearance of different dates for Easter in some years has been a model of inter-religious graciousness. In fact the only times when there have been schisms and protests is when, as in the case of the Orthodox churches in 1924, some have attempted to change long-standing traditions of calculation and calendar use.38 4. Comparing Conciliar Decisions Although it has been recognized, notably in the ecumenical meeting at Aleppo in 1997, that the basic rule for calculation of a variable date Easter carries the theological and ecclesiastical weight of having been required authoritatively for all Christians by Nicaea, this point needs to be given greater emphasis. There is no council more important or more ecumenical than Nicaea. Its directive regarding Easter calculation that was appended to its canons represents a decision by the same council Fathers who defined the eternal divinity of the divine Son and provided terminology to explain his eternal consubstantiality with the Father. The reality of the Resurrection is most fully understood in terms of Nicaea’s Trinitarian theology: Jesus rose from the dead as the same divine Person who is consubstantial with the Father but who has permanently become man. It is he who now stands with both his divinity and humanity intact, but with his humanity having attained a different quality of physicality in the Resurrection. The gospels recount how Jesus did things after the Resurrection that he did not do before: he walks into locked rooms and appears instantaneously. The Letter to Hebrews affirms that it is this resurrected (glorified) human body of Jesus that stands before the Father as God and man to officiate as high priest in the heavenly sanctuary (Hebrews 8:1-6; 9:11-14). It is also this living, resurrected body and soul, as well as divinity, who is received in the Eucharist.

As for the Second Vatican Council’s reference to assigning a Sunday for the celebration of Easter, it is noteworthy that this provision is merely the acceptance of the possibility of doing so with the caveat that the decision needs to be universal. Unlike Nicaea which mandated the basics of a variable-date calculation (though not the conclusions that might be reached), Vatican II did not mandate use of an assigned date.

Adoremus Bulletin, November 2021 Physics and History—and Theology Instead of being the “axis” of the liturgical year, around which all other seasons are configured, an assigned Easter Sunday would become just another solemnity.

It is common to speak of the “moral of the story.”

What has been offered in this essay is a “conclusion from the physics and the history.” Assigning a “common” Easter Sunday will destroy a commitment that Christians have valued for centuries. And, again, one should not be discarding the gospel emphasis on the link between Passover/Unleavened Bread and Easter.

Nor should one depart from the true and foundational ecumenism established by Nicaea’s requirements for a variable date.

The real issue is this: eliminating the calculation of variable dates for Easter would bypass conceptual and physical realities that truly unite believers in Jesus and are essential to their common faith. The first of these realities is the gospel record specifying that Jesus’ Last Supper, Crucifixion, Entombment, and Resurrection took place in historical time in conjunction with prescribed celestial phenomena for Passover and Unleavened Bread. The occurrence on specified days of the week in the last week of Jesus’ temporal life was itself the result of observing and computing earth’s relationship to solar, sidereal (more distant stars), and lunar phenomena. The second reality is that the biblical theology of the Resurrection, and of the entire Paschal season, is not simply analogous to the naturally recurring cycle of “new life” at springtime. Nor is it a mere miracle that changes the course of nature (like walking on water or reviving Lazarus). Instead, the Resurrection is a fundamental change in the physical world that establishes new laws of time, space, and matter.39 On the other hand, arguments for a “common” Easter date are entirely practical and without theological definition. They also omit mention of biblical, historical, scientific, and ecumenical contexts. Pressure to abandon a system that has served Christians, though in different ways, for many centuries and which is based on a careful understanding of the meaning of the Resurrection principles, may cause more turmoil in the future than humble recognition that some divisions among Catholics and Orthodox are not resolvable. This conclusion regarding a different controversy was reached in 1999 after intense discussions by Lutheran and Catholic theologians concerning the concept of “Justification.” Although the discussions resolved some misunderstandings on each side concerning what the other side’s teaching involved, the conclusion that both sides ultimately accepted was that Catholic and Lutheran methods of biblical exegesis and theological analysis had drawn conclusions about Justification that could not be reconciled. Coming up with unifying terminology would merely obscure a genuine and sincere disagreement. As the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” stated: “The understanding of the doctrine of justification set forth in this Declaration shows that a consensus in basic truths of the doctrine...exists between Lutherans and Catholics. In light of this consensus the remaining differences of language, theological elaboration, and emphasis in the understanding of justification…are acceptable. Therefore the Lutheran and the Catholic explications of justification are in their difference open to one another and do not destroy the consensus regarding the basic truths.”40 In other words, humbly accepting that another’s position is irreconcilable with one’s own can show greater mutual respect than artificial signals of a unity that does not exist. Proposals to change the determination of Easter should be respectfully dismissed as were the proposals to redefine Justification.

Lynne Boughton holds a B.A. and M.A. from Fordham University and a Ph.D. in Intellectual History from University of Illinois. Married to Dr. Willis Boughton, she teaches graduate courses at the Liturgical Institute of Mundelein Seminary on the history of various rites. Her research has been published by Journal of Religion, Revue biblique, Gregorianum, Irish Theological Quarterly, Antiphon, Questions liturgiques, and Tyndale Bulletin.

References: Any websites cited below were accessed between April 17 and June 5, 2021.

1. Second Vatican Council, Constitutio de Sacra Liturgia: Sacrosanctum concilium (December 4, 1963) AAS 56 (1964) Appendix 133-34.

2. A “fixed date” (e.g., March 25 for Annunciation/Incarnation) has the same enumeration every year but can fall on any day of the week. Though English translations (including those on the Vatican website) cite Sacrosanctum concilium as proposing a “fixed” Easter date, the words are actually dominica assignando (assigned Sunday). The word “fixed” also mistranslates the phrase unico die (single day) in Orientalium Ecclesiarum #20 (November 21, 1964) AAS 57 (1965) 82.

3. Sozomen (c.400-450), Ecclesiastical History: A History of the Church in Nine Books (London: Bagster, 1846) 353-54.

4. J. Burger, “Pope Francis Calls for One Date for Easter” Aleteia, June 22, 2015.

5. S. Zaimov, “Coptic Orthodox Pope Tawadros Suggests One Easter Date for All Churches in Letter to Pope Francis” Christian Post, May 8, 2014.

6. L. Ieraci, “Pope, Orthodox Patriarch Express Commitment for Unity,” Catholic News Service, June 19, 2015.

7. B. Quinn, “Christian Leaders Attempt to Fix [sic] Global Date for Easter,” Guardian, January 15, 2016.

8. Kurt Cardinal Koch (President, Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity) and Ukrainian Orthodox Abp. Job Getcha (Patriarchal Exarch for Orthodox Parishes of Russian Tradition in Western Europe) advised adoption of a common date in time for Easter in 2025. Catholic News Agency, March 12, 2021. Reprinted Adoremus, May 17, 2021.

9. The rule was issued as an appendix to its canons. Nicaea noted that these basic principles of Paschal calculation were already used by Rome and Alexandria and by “us” (i.e., Constantinople). Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Norman P. Tanner, S.J. (English translation facing Greek/Latin texts; 2 vols.; London: Sheed & Ward, 1990) 1.6.

10. Equinoxes occur twice in the course of the earth’s annual revolution around its sun. As earth makes this revolution (orbital axis), it also spins on its own axis (rotational axis).

In this rotational axis, earth’s north and south poles manifest an “axial tilt” (obliquity) of about 23.43o alternately turning one pole toward the sun and the other away as earth rotates. This causes the solar year to be “tropical” in that the sun appears over the “tropic of Cancer” (a latitude north of the equator) in June (Summer Solstice) and the “tropic of Capricorn” (a latitude south of the equator) in December (Winter Solstice). At both the Vernal (Spring) and Autumnal (Fall) Equinoxes, the sun appears at zenith over the equator. Stanley Wyatt, Principles of Astronomy (2nd. ed., Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1971), 37-48.

11. Mathematical calculations to ascertain each year’s variable date of Easter, as well as the place on the Julian calendar of the Passover and Unleavened Bread observance in the year of Jesus’ death were increasingly refined and perfected in the 230s and 240s. Writings such as those of Julius Africanus (d. 240 AD) and the anonymous author of De pascha computus (243 AD) indicated the deep interest, especially among Latin-speaking Africans who valued their ecclesial connection with the Church in Rome, in assuring a correct variable date.

12. Passover could be postponed to the 14th day of the month after Nisan if time were needed for the ordained priests to carry out purifications (2 Chronicles 30:3, 15). But more commonly Passover was postponed if use of a Sinai Covenant lunar calendar of 354 days caused the month of Nisan to fall too early in comparison to the 365 day tropical/solar year. This was done by inserting, every two or three years, an intercalary month (Second Adair) before Nisan. If the Sinai Covenant in use was the 364 day “priestly” version, regular addition of an intercalary day or days was sufficient.

13. Easter was celebrated on March 23 in 2008 by those using Gregorian calendar dates in calculating celestial phenomena, and also in applying those dates to the Gregorian (New Style=NS) calendar. The earliest date for Easter in a Gregorian year was March 21 in 1666.

Easter occurred as late as May 8 in 1983 for those who, though using Julian calendar dates for calculation, reconciled this to a Gregorian (NS) calendar. For those using the Julian calendar both for calculating and applying a date for Easter Sunday for 1983, the celebration date was April 25 OS which is the same “day” as May 8 NS. 14. “Oriental” Orthodox churches differ from Eastern Orthodox and from Catholicism by rejecting the explanation of the “two natures” (divine and human) of Jesus that was affirmed by the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451.

15. Some “particular” churches within Orthodoxy use the Easter date accepted by non-Orthodox neighbors. For example, Finland’s Eastern Orthodox Church, asserting independence from Russian Orthodoxy, celebrates Easter according to the date used by Lutherans, who in turn follow Catholicism’s “Gregorian” date of Easter. Among Oriental Orthodox churches, Armenians in general follow Rome’s dates but the Armenian Patriarchate in Jerusalem observes dates accepted by most Eastern Orthodox churches.

16. World Council of Churches, “Toward a Common Date for Easter,” World Council of Churches/ Middle East Council for Churches Consultation, Aleppo, Syria. March 5-10, 1997.

17. Ibid.

18. This is because astronomically (sidereally) calculated equinoxes can be set to one date earlier or later than those measured by observation of the earth and sun.

19. Ambiguity as to whether Passover/Unleavened Bread lasted for seven or eight days stems from whether the observance’s beginning and ending days are included in an enumeration. This is further complicated by disagreement within biblical Judaism as to whether a calendar date begins at sunset, midnight, or sunrise.

20. Recent research emphasizes that all four canonical gospels, including John, were composed before 66-67. See, for example, Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospel as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006).

21. Baruch M. Bokser, The Origins of the Seder: The Passover Rite and Early Rabbinic Judaism (Berkeley: University of California, 1984) xi and Joshua Kulp, “The Origins of the Seder and Haggadah” Currents in Biblical Research 4.1 (2005) 109-134.

22. Even Joachim Jeremias, who (mistakenly) characterizes the Last Supper as a Seder and rejects the suggestion in John’s Gospel that the starting date of Passover (14 Nisan) began after the Last Supper and continued into the next afternoon, admits that ordained priests of the Second Temple disagreed over the point in each 24-hour period that began/ended a calendar date. The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (London: SCM/Trinity, 1966, repr. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2001) 125-137. Roger T. Beckwith notes that biblical-era Jewish belief that daylight or movement toward daylight (rather than sundown) began a calendar date is suggested in Genesis 1:14, 16, 18; Wisdom 10:17; Tobias 10:7; Baruch 2:25; and 2 Maccabees 13:10 and also in Qumran (1 QS 10.1). Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian (Leiden: Brill, 2001) 6.

23. As Thomas J. Talley notes: “While it has been easy at times in the past to dismiss this Johannine chronology as conscious theologizing of little historical merit, more recent exegetical opinion has been less inclined to reject the historicity of the Johannnine chronology. It seems safe to say that 1 Corinthians 5.7 reflects Paul’s familiarity with a tradition in the primitive Church predicated upon the chronology that we know as Johannine.

Indeed…the early celebration of Pascha by Christians seems to presuppose that chronology.” The Origins of the Liturgical Year (2nd ed.; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991) 3-4.

See also Lynne Boughton, “The Priestly Perspective of the Johannine Trial Narratives,” Revue biblique 110 (2003) 517-51.

24. The ancient practice in the Sinai Covenant was to start the year at the Vernal Equinox with Nisan being the first month. This continued into the lifetime of Jesus and remains the practice in modern Judaism for their liturgical year. Jewish policy of beginning the civil year at the Autumnal Equinox began under Seleucid influence in the fourth century BC. Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BC- AD 135), Volume 1, tr. John Macpherson (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1890), 36-46.

25. The Hebrew word tekufah literally means “season.” Thus tekufah Nisan/Abib denotes the Vernal Equinox that ends winter and signals the beginning of spring (2 Samuel 11:1; 2 Chronicles 24:23); tekufah Tammuz denotes the Summer Solstice; tekufah Tishri denotes the Autumnal Equinox; and tekufah Tevet denotes the Winter Solstice.

26. Some maintain that Sinai Covenant authorities in the era of the Second Temple and into the earliest Christian centuries set 1 Nisan/Abib to the new moon closest to the equinox.

Others hold that 1 Nisan coincided with the first new moon after the equinox. The reason for disagreement is Deuteronomy 16:1 which states: “Observe the month of Abib by keeping the Passover of Yahweh your God since it was in the month of Abib that Yahweh, your God, brought you out of Egypt by night.” What is unclear is whether this means that the whole “month” of Nisan/Abib should follow the Vernal Equinox or only 14 Nisan/Abib, the date of Passover, should follow the equinox.

27. The variety of Sinai Covenant calendars in the era of the Second Temple is noted by Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BC-AD 135), Volume 2 (rev. ed., Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973), Appendix 3; E. Ratzon and J. Ben-Dov, “ A Newly Reconstructed Calendrical Scroll from Qumran in Cryptic Script” JBL 136.4 (2017), 905-36.

28. T.C. Skeat, The Reign of Augustus in Egypt: Conversion Tables for the Egyptian and Julian Calendars 30 BC-14 AD (MBPAR 84: Munich: Beck, 1993).

29. Among Quartodecimans was Melito, Bishop of Sardis (Asia Minor) who composed Peri Pascha c. 165 AD/CE. 30. The physical reality of Jesus’ Resurrection is noted c. 180, Irenaeus, Against heresies 5.311-2.

31. Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea reports in Ecclesiastical History 5.23-24 (326) that Polycarp claimed these ideas were based on the practice of the Apostle John even though they are inconsistent with a correct interpretation of dates in John’s Gospel.

32. Talley, Origins 18-27.

33. Charles von Hefele, A History of the Christian Councils from the Original Documents: To the Close of the Council of Nicaea, A.D. 325, tr. William Clark (2nd ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1883) 1.326-27.

34. Leo I, “Letter to Emperor Marcian” PL 54.1055. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, and Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, made similar observations. This may be why fifth-century Latin translations of Nicaea’s decrees add that the Archbishop of Alexandria was to provide the calculation of the Easter date to the Roman pontiff. Hefele, History 1.328.

35. Venerable Bede, The Reckoning of Time, tr. Faith Wallis (Liverpool: Liverpool University, 1988).

36. Currently in the Gregorian calendar, the Vernal Equinox is March 19 or 20 and the Autumnal is September 22 or 23. Variations of a day or two each year in modern calculations represent time zone differences and slight perturbations in earth’s movement.

37. Most Orthodox churches, which use a Julian calendar Paschalion to calculate the date of Easter but which follow the Gregorian (NS) calendar for both the civic year and most of the liturgical year, experience variable Easter dates on the Gregorian calendar. A few Orthodox churches, which use the Julian calendar not only for calculating the Easter date but also for the whole liturgical year, posit Easter dates on the Julian calendar (OS). For example, in 2019, the Julian Easter date of April 15 OS was the same “day” as Julian April 28 NS, though seven “days” after the April 21 date that was both calculated with, and projected upon, a Gregorian calendar. Though a Gregorian calculation of Easter can be plotted on a Julian calendar (OS), this is rarely done. For calibration of Julian and Gregorian Easter dates to OS and NS calendars see “Side-by-Side Easter Calendar Reference for the 21st Century,” http://5ko.free.fr/en/easter.php.

38. In 1924 the Patriarchate of Constantinople set its liturgical year to the Gregorian calendar but retained the Julian to determine the Paschal season and Lent. Although many Orthodox adopted this method, others entered into schism.

39. Thomas Torrance, Space, Time, and Resurrection (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976; reprint, London: T&T Clark, 2019), 86.

40. Lutheran World Federation and Catholic Church, “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” (1997) #40.

Adoremus Bulletin, November 2021

An “Unwelcome” Change?

9

Reflections on the New Translation of the Order of Baptism of Children

By Michael Brummond, S.T.D.

Receptive to Change The first occasion occurs during the Rite of Receiving the Children, just before the celebrant signs the forehead of the child with the sign of the cross (41). The previous translation introduced the gesture in part by saying, “the Christian community welcomes you with great joy.”

The current translation, however, replaces this phrase with “the Church of God receives you with great joy.” The change from the “Christian community” to the “Church of God” has received more attention and reflects a change in the Latin typical edition ordered by Pope Benedict XVI in 2013. In either case though, the Latin verb rendered first as “welcomes,” and then as “receives,” remained the same: “magno gaudio communitas christiana vos excipit” and “magno gaudio Ecclesia Dei vos excipit.” Excipio has a range of meanings including take out, rescue, capture, or, as it is now translated in the Order of Baptism of Children, receive. Compare this with the Spanish Second Typical Edition, first published in the United States in 2009 which uses the verb recibe. What one would not necessarily expect as a translation of the verb excipit is “welcomes.”

The second example comes from the Prayer of the Faithful (47). The first petition previously prayed: “By the mystery of your death and resurrection, bathe these children in light, give them the new life of baptism and welcome them into your holy Church.” The same prayer now concludes, “and join them to your holy Church.” The Spanish edition uses the verb incorpores. The Latin of the typical edition is “sanctae Ecclesiae aggregare digneris.” Aggrego has the meaning to join with, or to add to. Again, “welcome” would not normally be an expected translation of the verb.

The same Latin root is found in the final instance, during the anointing with sacred chrism after baptism (62).

The original English version spoke to the child in this way: “God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ has freed you from sin, given you a new birth by water and the Holy Spirit, and welcomed you into his holy people.” As in the previous example, “welcomed” is replaced by “joined.”

Now it states that God has “joined you to his people,” and the Spanish is again incorporen. This renders the Latin “eius aggregati populo.”

While any one of these differences in translation might be rather unremarkable in itself, viewed together in this way, the change is rather striking. For five decades the faithful had heard in the Church’s prayers that the community welcomed the child, petitioned God to welcome the child into the Church, and again extolled God’s action in baptism of welcoming the child into the People of God. In each case, welcome has been replaced with the less affective, more objective terms “receive” and “join.” At no point now in the prayers of The Order of Baptism of Children do we explicitly hear that the child is welcomed into anything by anyone. Given this conspicuous absence in the new translation, it could be objected that the celebration of

AB/L’OSSERVATORE ROMANO

J

ust over a year ago on Easter 2020, a new translation of The Order of Baptism of Children replaced the translation that had been in use for around 50 years. The first edition of the Latin typical edition of the Rite of Baptism for Children was published in 1969, and many ritual editions in English were based off of that version. Some reprints of the rite also incorporated modifications from second typical edition in 1973. This second edition served as the basis for the new English translation in 2020. The new translation is a fruit, in part, of the 2001 instruction Liturgiam Authenticam that provided new and expanded guidelines for the translation of liturgical documents of the Roman liturgy.

The changes to baptism were rather modest since they reflected only a new translation rather than a new edition of the liturgical book. Compared with the translation of the Roman Missal nine years previous, the modifications to The Order of Baptism of Children went largely unnoticed. This is certainly due to the fact that the faithful hear the prayers of baptism far less frequently than they do the order of Mass. Moreover, the promulgation of the new translation during COVID-19 restrictions probably led to even fewer people hearing the newly translated prayers.

Nevertheless, it remains the case that the voice with which the Church speaks at baptism has received a slightly different inflection. Small changes in word choice connote theologically significant differences and highlight diverse realities. Take, for example, changes to the word “welcome.” At three points in the previous translation, the child baptized was said to be welcomed. In each instance, the 2020 translation eliminates and replaces the word “welcome.” It is worth examining each case.

For five decades the faithful had heard in the Church’s prayers that the community welcomed the child, petitioned God to welcome the child into the Church, and again extolled God’s action in baptism of welcoming the child into the People of God. In each case, welcome has been replaced with the less affective, more objective terms “receive” and “join.”

the sacrament of baptism has been rendered rather unwelcoming. Perhaps a brief apologia for the positive value of the changes is in order.

Effective vs. Affective Underlying the recent translations of the Church’s liturgical books are the principles found in the 2001 instruction Liturgiam Authenticam. The following is particularly relevant to the instances mentioned above: “To be avoided in translations is any psychologizing tendency, especially a tendency to replace words treating of the theological virtues by others expressing merely human emotions” (54).

“Welcome” carries a sense of the personal attitude or affect of the subject. To welcome is not merely to greet, but to do so with warmth or gladness. To say that the Church or God welcomes the child is to make a statement about the affective quality of the action of the subject. This seems to be a rather clear instance of what Liturgiam Authenticam referred to as a “psychologizing tendency” that replaces theological terms with “merely human emotions.”

Indeed, the members of the Church ought to exhibit this warmth or gladness in relation to the child to be incorporated into the Church. The first text examined above says as much when it states that the child is received “with great joy.” That, however, is not what the modified portions of the liturgical texts intend to highlight.

Rather, the texts seem to be focusing on the effects being accomplished in the sacrament. As the Blessing of Water in The Order of Baptism of Children prays, “O God, who by invisible power accomplish a wonderful effect through sacramental signs…” (54, emphasis added). In other words, sacraments are efficacious signs that bring about objective realities: “Celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that they signify. They are efficacious because in them Christ himself is at work…. As fire transforms into itself everything it touches, so the Holy Spirit transforms into the divine life whatever is subjected to his power” (Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), 1127). Something happens to the child, and that is what is stressed by these particular instances in the new translation.

Sign of Unity Each of the three cases are ecclesiological statements. The Church of God receives the child; we ask God to join the child to his Holy Church; and after baptism we explain how God has indeed joined the child to his people. Each describes the new relationship the child has with the Church. Baptism incorporates us into the Church and makes us members of the Body of Christ (see CCC, 1267).

Being incorporated into the Church is not like being made part of a baseball team or joining the Knights of Columbus. In any other human association, the bond that ties its members together is some common end. Whether that shared goal is mundane or more exalted, it remains extrinsic to the members.

When we are baptized, however, and joined to the Church, it is with a unity unlike that which bonds people in any other group or association. The principle of unity in the Mystical Body of Christ is intrinsic to each of the members. The baptized receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which is numerically identical in each of the baptized as it is in Christ. The same Holy Spirit who Christ possessed in plentitude dwells personally in each of the

baptized. The indwelling of the same Holy Spirit in each of the baptized is what unifies the Church analogously to the way the soul provides unity and life to the human body (cf.

Lumen Gentium (LG), 7).

This new reality has objective, permanent consequences for the baptized: “Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ” (CCC, 1272). Such a person is united in the Mystical Body to Christ the Head, sharing his life and receiving grace from this vital connection between Head and members. “All the members ought to be molded in the likeness of Him, until Christ be formed in them. For this reason we, who have been made to conform with Him, who have died with Him and risen with Him, are taken up into the mysteries of His life, until we will reign together with Him” (LG, 7).

Hence, when the child is marked with the sign of the cross, the Church of God recognizes that God is about to do in the child what no one else could accomplish: he is about to pour out his Holy Spirit and incorporate the child into the Mystical Body of Christ. The Church for its part “receives” what God has accomplished in the child with great joy. The other two texts petition God for this great gift and speak well of God who has accomplished the same: he has joined this child to his people, the Church. In other words, the stress in the liturgical texts we have noted is not on the subjective attitudes of those involved, but on the objective reality of what baptism accomplishes in and for the child. Being welcomed is a wonderful thing. Being joined to the Mystical Body of Christ through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is an infinitely more marvelous reality.

Welcome One in All All this being said, however, is it not still the case that by removing these explicit mentions of welcome, the new translation leaves the rite a bit less warm, a bit more impersonal? Even if that were the case in the three examples above, it is worth pointing out two counter examples where the new translation actually stresses the affective aspect of the celebration.

The first example comes from the Introduction to the Order of Baptism of Children. The previous version offered this instruction, trying to balance the reverence due to the sacrament with a friendly demeanor: “All who perform the rite of baptism should do so with exactness and reverence; they must also try to be understanding and friendly to all” (7.2). The 2020 translation is very similar, but includes a notable addition: “Whoever is conferring baptism should carry out the rite carefully and reverently; he should strive above all to be courteous and affable to everyone.” The phrase “above all” newly renders the Latin insuper. The minister of baptism is instructed that being courteous and affable is a priority in the celebration of the sacrament of baptism. So, while the rite may not use the terminology of welcoming any longer, that does not preclude the Church’s minister from being welcoming. In fact, he should “strive above all” to do so.

Finally, another rather major adaptation in the 2020 translation is the addition of a newly composed text suggested for greeting the parents and godparents at the doors of the Church in paragraph 36 of the Order. The example given for such a greeting is replete with a welcoming tone and wording. It speaks of how the Church “shares your happiness” and that “this community rejoices with you.”

As such, the community offers its “support in raising your children in the practice of the faith” while “praying for these children and their families.” Such a greeting, spoken with the care and attention it deserves, undoubtedly communicates in ritual form the welcome of the Church at the outset of the rite.

These few changes in the translation that omit the explicit language of “welcome” should not be viewed as a loss of such a sense of welcoming in the celebration of the sacrament as a whole. Indeed, the ars celebrandi of the Church’s minister and his human bearing, along with the support of the whole community, ought to rightfully convey an authentic welcome. Rather, these modifications in our liturgical prayers should be taken as an occasion to renew our praise and thanks for the mirabilia Dei, “for by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body” (1 Corinthians 12:13).

Mike Brummond holds a Doctorate in Sacred Liturgy from the University of St. Mary of the Lake, Mundelein Seminary, IL. He is assistant professor of systematic studies at Sacred Heart Seminary and School of Theology in Hales Corners, WI.

10

Adoremus Bulletin, November 2021

Editor’s note: In the September 2021 issue we addressed a number of questions about how to reintroduce elements of the Mass that had become casualties of COVID-19 precautions: How should my parish reintroduce singing at Mass? How should my parish reintroduce communion from the chalice? How should my parish reintroduce the sign of peace at Mass? We continue to take up similar questions this time.

The elimination or modification of normative practices has in some instances disfigured the liturgy—and disfigured the liturgical portrayal of Christ. Bringing these elements back according to current ritual books, ecclesial law, and the liturgical tradition is an opportunity for all liturgical leaders.

Q A

: How can the offertory procession be reinstated?

: To avoid any unnecessary, close contact between persons, as well as to limit any extra handling of the Eucharistic bread and wine to be consumed by parishioners, many parishes or dioceses removed the offertory procession from the Mass and simply moved the elements from the credence table in the sanctuary to the altar during the preparation of the gifts. Additionally, in some churches, baskets or other containers were placed at the entrance of the nave for parishioners to leave envelopes. These are safe and efficient means to get gifts to the altar and to the bank. But should these adaptations continue?

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) states, “It is desirable that the participation of the faithful be expressed by an offering, whether of bread and wine for the celebration of the Eucharist or of other gifts to relieve the needs of the Church and of the poor” (140). In another section, the GIRM not only calls the offertory procession “desirable” but “praiseworthy,” adding that “even though the faithful no longer bring from their own possessions the bread and wine intended for the liturgy as was once the case, nevertheless the rite of carrying up the offerings still keeps its spiritual efficacy and significance” (73). What is the significance of the offering of the bread and wine (and gifts for the poor) that make it desirable and praiseworthy to reintroduce?

One way to provide an answer begins from the doctrine that the Church makes the Eucharist at the same time that the Eucharist makes the Church. There exists, in other words, the most intimate connection between the Sacramental Body of Christ which is the Eucharist and the Mystical Body of Christ which is the Church.

We begin our membership in the Church at baptism, and we grow into living cells of the Church by the worthy reception of the Eucharist. It is the Church and her members who offer the Eucharistic sacrifice, and the life of the Church and her members are the fruit of the sacrifice. Each of the baptized, then, offers his prayers, works, joys, and sufferings—his whole self—along with Jesus, to the Father, by the hands of the priest. The presentation of bread and wine—and even that $5 bill— symbolize and express the giving of self to God. The three young men from the Book of Daniel— Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego—prefigure from the fiery furnace the type of offering that is supposed to take place today at Mass. Although they have nothing externally to facilitate an offering—“no prince, prophet, or leader, no holocaust, sacrifice, oblation, or incense, no place to offer first fruits” (Daniel 3:38)—they give to God that which he really wants in the first place—their hearts. “But with contrite heart and humble spirit let us be received; as though it were holocausts of rams and bullocks, or thousands of fat lambs, so let our sacrifice be in your presence today, as we follow you unreservedly; for those who trust in you cannot be put to shame.

And now we follow you with our whole heart” (Daniel 3:39-41).

When returning the offertory procession to the postCOVID Mass, the faithful ought to be taught that the visible gifts coming through the nave and to the altar express the inner giving of the heart to God—which is why the offertory procession is praiseworthy. Indeed, once these gifts—these hearts—are upon the altar, the priest prays (quietly) the very prayer of Azariah from the furnace, saying: “With humble spirit and contrite heart may we be accepted by you, O Lord, and may our sacrifice in your sight this day be pleasing to you, Lord God” (Order of Mass, 26). Then returning to the center of the altar and facing the people, he commands them to “Pray, brethren (brothers and sisters), that my sacri-

THE RITE QUESTIONS fice and yours may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.” The proper restoration of the offertory procession will contribute the faithful’s role in offering themselves to God.

Q

: How should my parish

begin using extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion again?

A

: For starters, recall that, as the name of this role indicates, the function of an “extraordinary minister of Holy Communion” is an extra-ordinary one. This means that the role of distributing Holy Communion falls, under normal circumstances, to an “ordinary” minister: a bishop, priest, or deacon. The connection of the priest and the sacrificial offerings is both theological and etymological.

Theologically, the priest is one who mediates between God and man by means of a sacrificial gift. On behalf of man, he offers precious gifts to God; on behalf of God, he distributes graces and blessings to men. In the Mass, all gifts arrive at the altar through his hands (or those of is assistant, the deacon); bread and wine are not placed directly on the altar by acolytes or altar servers (see General Instruction on the Roman Missal (GIRM), 140, 178, 190). After the offering of the sacrifice, it then falls to the priest (or his assistant, the deacon) to return these gifts, now received by God and blessed by him, to the people. It is a part of a priest’s identity that he present human gifts to God from the people and return sanctified gifts to the people from God. This theological truth is also suggested by the etymology of both pastor and panis (bread): the root of each word, pa-, means to “to feed,” even and especially with bread: a pantry is a room for the bread, a companion is one who shares bread, and a pastor is one who feeds with bread. Thus, not only is giving the Eucharist to the people an essential part of his priesthood, feeding with food is a part of his definition. A pastor who doesn’t feed is a contradiction in terms. Hence, as is codified in Church law, “the ordinary minister of holy communion is a bishop, presbyter, or deacon” (Canon 910 §1).

The use of laity to assist in the distribution of Holy Communion is, then, an extra-ordinary function. Such a role is not a part of the baptismal “job description”— although it very much is so for an ordained minister.

As the Code of Canon Law says, “When the need of the Church warrants it and ministers are lacking, lay persons, even if they are not [instituted] lectors or acolytes, can also supply certain of their duties, namely, to exercise the ministry of the word [i.e., preach], to preside over liturgical prayers, to confer baptism, and to distribute Holy Communion, according to the prescripts of the law” (Canon 230 §3). Notice the rather strict conditions: the needs of the Church must warrant the extraordinary use of laity; ministers must be lacking; and laity can only perform certain of the duties of the ordained.

Some of these conditions have not always been followed regarding the use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. In its 2004 instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum (RS) (bearing the subtitle, “On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist”), the Holy See reemphasized the supplementary nature of extraordinary ministers: “Only out of true necessity is there to be recourse to the assistance of extraordinary ministers in the celebration of the Liturgy.” It continues: “Such recourse is not intended for the sake of a fuller participation of the laity but rather, by its very nature, is supplementary and provisional. Furthermore, when recourse is had out of necessity to the functions of extraordinary ministers, special urgent prayers of intercession should be multiplied that the Lord may soon send a Priest for the service of the community and raise up an abundance of vocations to sacred Orders” (151).

The present Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America even warns, “In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the Priest and the Deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary ministers might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice” (24).

Indeed, until communion from the chalice returns, it may not be necessary at all to use extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion.

In short, the first consideration before returning extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to Mass will determine if, in fact, they are necessary at all.

If they are needed to facilitate the distribution of Holy Communion, then a further consideration about the nature and qualifications of such ministers is in order.

First, and more generally, “the lay Christian faithful called to give assistance at liturgical celebrations should be well instructed and must be those whose Christian life, morals and fidelity to the Church’s Magisterium recommend them. It is fitting that such a one should have received a liturgical formation in accordance with his or her age, condition, state of life, and religious culture. No one should be selected whose designation could cause consternation for the faithful” (RS, 46).

Secondly, and more directly related to the role of the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, candidates ought to have a great love for the Blessed Sacrament, one that they will work to deepen not only for their own sakes but for the good of the parish. Pastors might look to the instituted acolyte (a permanently instituted minister devoted to service at the altar), who is among the first of extraordinary ministers to be called upon. Pope Paul VI said of this minister that he “should learn all matters concerning public divine worship and strive to grasp their inner spiritual meaning: in that way he will be able each day to offer himself entirely to God, be an example to all by his gravity and reverence in church, and have a sincere love for the Mystical Body of Christ, the people of God, especially for the weak and the sick” (motu proprio Ministeria Quaedam).

The group of extraordinary ministers whom the pastor selects (and whom the bishop approves, according to Redemptionis Sacramentum, 155), ought to come from parishioners who fit this description.

Like many elements of the Mass that have been omitted or obscured by the pandemic, the use of the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion is now able to be reintroduced in a manner more in keeping with traditional theology and current norms.

Q A

: How can holy water be returned to the church’s stoups?

: The absence of holy water from the fonts and stoups has been one of the most jarring things about going to church during the pandemic.

Indeed, in many parishes, holy water stoups ran dry almost immediately. While parish reservoirs of holy water remained available to take holy water home for domestic use, parochial use largely evaporated.

Sightings of holy water in the stoups of parish churches is a more regular occurrence these days. Many parishes have gotten creative, employing “touchless” holy water dispensers that release a dribble of holy water as you place your hand underneath the unit. While these get the job done, the resemblance to soap or sanitizer dispensers is out of place and they often dispense more holy water than needed, leaving a puddle on the floor. Some parishes have fonts that send the water through a filtration system, while other parishes are simply cleaning their fonts more often than before. Regardless of the delivery mechanism, the return of holy water calls us to learn again how to use it.

Holy water is arguably one of the most widely used sacramentals in the Church. Water “is one of the signs that the Church often uses in blessing the faithful” (Book of Blessings, 1388). As we sign our bodies with water in the form of the Holy Cross, we call to mind our baptism, praying for a renewal of the covenant first forged in those holy waters. Indeed, at the Mass of Christian Burial, the casket is sprinkled with holy water with these words: “In the waters of baptism N. died with Christ and rose with him to new life. May he now share with him eternal glory.”

From rebirth in baptism to Christian burial, holy water accompanies us throughout our Christian life.

But holy water isn’t liquid grace. Like all sacramentals, holy water does not work mechanically. As a sacramental, holy water draws its spiritual power from Christ, through the intercession of the Church, preparing “us to receive grace and disposing us to cooperate with it” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1670). But sacramentals not only dispose us to cooperate with grace, they also depend on our dispositions if we are to receive grace when we make use of them. For example, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, the sprinkling of holy water can “conduce to the remission of venial sins” not simply because it is blessed, but because its use implies “a movement of reverence for God and Divine things” on the part of the user (STh., III q.87 a.3 resp). In this way the power of holy water is dependent on engaging actively in its use—believing and trusting in God and his Holy Church as we sprinkle it or use it to trace the Holy Cross over ourselves. Perhaps returning the use of holy water can be an occasion of learning to engage more actively and prayerfully in its use!

Adoremus Bulletin, November 2021

11

1. d. Jesus died nine months earlier. Cardinal Ratzinger’s The Spirit of the Liturgy sums up nicely the dating of Christmas on December 25 from its mooring on March 25. “Astonishingly, the starting point for dating the birth of Christ was March 25. As far as I know, the most ancient reference to it is in the writings of the African ecclesiastical author Tertullian (ca.

150–ca. 207), who evidently assumes as a well-known tradition that Christ suffered death on March 25. In Gaul, right up to the sixth century, this was kept as the immovable date of Easter. In a work on the calculation of the date of Easter, written in a.d. 243, and also emanating from Africa, we find March 25 interpreted as the day of the world’s creation, and, in connection with that, we find a very peculiar dating for the birth of Christ. According to the account of creation in Genesis 1, the sun was created on the fourth day, that is, on March 28. This day should, therefore, be regarded as the day of Christ’s birth, as the rising of the true sun of history. This idea was altered during the third century, so that the day of Christ’s Passion and the day of his conception were regarded as identical. On March 25, the Church honored both the Annunciation by the angel and the Lord’s conception by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin. The feast of Christ’s birth on December 25—nine months after March 25—developed in the West in the course of the third century…” (The Spirit of the Liturgy. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2018. p.121).

2. b. The Sunday closest to the Feast of Andrew the Apostle. November 30 marks the Feast of St. Andrew, and it also is the measure for the beginning of Advent.

The Universal Norms on the Liturgical Year and the Calendar (UNLYC) says: “Advent begins with First Vespers (Evening Prayer I) of the Sunday that falls on or closest to November 30 and it ends before First Vespers (Evening Prayer I) of Christmas” (40).

Accordingly, Advent may begin as early as Sunday, November 27 (if November 30 were a Wednesday), or as late as December 3 (if November 30 were a Thursday). This arrangement guarantees no more nor less than four proper Sundays of the Advent season.

Advent begins on Sunday, November 28, in the year 2021.

3. False. Both Advent and Lent are preparatory in nature and will include common characteristics, such as increased prayer, interior examination, and self-denial.

But the proper ends of each season differ. Lent “is ordered to preparing for the celebration of Easter, since the Lenten liturgy prepares for celebration of the Paschal Mystery both catechumens, by the various stages of Christian Initiation, and the faithful, who recall their own Baptism and do penance” (UNLYC, 27).

Advent does not prepare for our principal celebration in the Paschal Mystery, as does Lent. Rather, “Advent has a twofold character, for it is a time of preparation for the Solemnities of Christmas, in which the First Coming of the Son of God to humanity is remembered, and likewise a time when, by remembrance of this, minds and hearts are led to look forward to Christ’s Second Coming at the end of time. For these two reasons, Advent is a period of devout and expectant delight” (UNLYC, 39). “Devout and expectant delight” are not common themes associated with Lent’s penitential practices.

4. b. The weekdays of Advent give way to a more intense preparation for Christmas by this time, and it is then time to sing “O Come, O Come, Emmanuel.” The Church’s week is marked by days that differ in importance and rank: Sunday, solemnity, feast, memorial, optional memorial, and weekday. Even among weekdays, “they are celebrated differently according to the importance of each” (UNLYC, 16). For example, “the weekdays from December 17 up to and including December 24 are ordered in a more direct way to preparing for the Nativity of the Lord” (UNLYC, 42). In other words, once December 17 arrives, it and the following weekdays take precedence over the other weekdays of Advent. It is, furthermore, impossible that Saturday of the Third Week of Advent would come before December 17 (i.e., if Advent were to begin on its earliest possible date, November 27, Saturday of the Third Week of Advent would be on December 17). Other signs of these weekdays are the “O Antiphons,” a series of texts that are said at Vespers on the weekdays between December 17 and 24, and are also used as the verse to the gospel acclamation at Mass: “O King of all nations and keystone of the Church: come and save man, whom you formed from the dust!” (antiphon for December 22). These

AB/WIKIMEDIA. ADORATION OF THE SHEPHERDS, BY MATTHIAS STOMER, 1632.

Readers’ Quiz Answers

liturgical verses are the basis for the hymn, “O Come, O Come, Emmanuel!”

5. False. During Lent, “the playing of the organ and musical instruments is allowed only in order to support the singing.” During the period of Advent, the instruction is slightly different: “In Advent the use of the organ and other musical instruments should be marked by a moderation suited to the character of this time of year, without expressing in anticipation the full joy of the Nativity of the Lord” (General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), 313). The GIRM gives similar instructions regarding the decoration of the altar during Advent and Lent: “During Advent the floral decoration of the altar should be marked by a moderation suited to the character of this time of year, without expressing in anticipation the full joy of the Nativity of the Lord. During Lent it is forbidden for the altar to be decorated with flowers” (GIRM, 305). Recall that while Advent and Lent are similar in character, the former expresses “devout and expectant delight,” the latter prepares by penance to participate in the Paschal Mystery.

6. a. In a place outside the sanctuary so that all the faithful can approach it easily and pray before it. The order for blessing says: “The blessing of the Christmas manger or nativity scene, according to pastoral circumstances, may take place on the Vigil of Christmas or at another more suitable time. The blessing may be given during a celebration of the word of God, during Mass, or even during another service, e.g., a carol service. If the manger is set up in the church, it must not be placed in the presbyterium. A place should be chosen that is suitable for prayer and devotion and is easily accessible by the faithful” (1541).

7. Immaculate Conception, Christmas, Mary, Mother of God, and Epiphany. These days represent four out of the 10 holy days of obligation on the universal calendar (Canon 1246 §1). In the dioceses of the United States, the Epiphany is not observed as a holy day so is transferred to Sunday that falls between January 2 and January 8 (see UNLYC, 7). Furthermore (at least in the United States), when January 1 falls on a Monday or a Saturday (which it does in 2022), the precept to attend Mass on that day is abrogated. On the other hand, the Immaculate Conception on December 8 and the Nativity of Christmas always retain their obligatory character, even if falling on a Monday or a Saturday (as Christmas does in 2021). It is important for pastors to recall this precept, since ritual Masses are prohibited on Solemnities (GIRM, 372), and funeral Masses are prohibited on Solemnities of obligation (GIRM, 380).

8. d. Four. The Roman Missal contains four Mass settings for the Nativity of Jesus: 1) at the Vigil Mass, 2) at the Mass during the Night, 3) at the Mass at Dawn, and 4) at the Mass during the Day. The Lectionary for Mass likewise has four sets of readings. While Mass formularies ought to correspond to the actual time of day or night, there is greater flexibility for choosing the readings. The Lectionary for Mass indicates that the first set of readings for Mass at the Vigil “may also be used for Masses on Christmas Day, with the option of choosing from one or other of the three sets of readings according to the pastoral needs of each congregation” (rubric from the Lectionary for Mass, 13).

9. d. At the Liturgy of the Hours on December 24. The remarkable line about “the one hundred and ninetyfourth Olympiad”—and many others—occurs in the

announcement of the Solemnity of the Nativity of the Lord from the Roman Martyrology. As the Missal explains in its first appendix, the text “draws upon Sacred Scripture to declare in a formal way the birth of Christ. It begins with creation and relates the birth of the Lord to the major events and personages of sacred and secular history. The particular events contained in the announcement help pastorally to situate the birth of Jesus in the context of salvation history.” The Missal goes on to explain the use of the announcement: “This text, The Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, may be chanted or recited, most appropriately on December 24, during the celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours. It may also be chanted or recited before the beginning of Christmas Mass during the Night. It may not replace any part of the Mass.” If the text has never been used in your parish, perhaps 2021 would be a suitable start!

10. False. The Universal Norms on the Liturgical Year and Calendar indicates that “Christmas Time runs from First Vespers (Evening Prayer I) of the Nativity of the Lord up to and including the Sunday after Epiphany or after January 6” (33). Exceptions arise when, in some countries, the Epiphany ceases to be celebrated as a holy day of obligation and is transferred to the Sunday between January 2 and 8, per UNLYC, 7. If it is transferred to a Sunday between January 2 and 5 (it wouldn’t be transferred to the 6th, since this is Epiphany’s natural date), then the Sunday following will be the Baptism of the Lord and the simultaneous end of the Christmas season.

But if Epiphany is moved to January 7 or 8—where the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord falls in the Universal Church—then the Baptism of the Lord is moved to the subsequent Monday, and the end of the Christmas season would fall here.

MEMORIAL FOR

James Cook Hamilton from Gerald M. Schnabel Brend Joye Johnson from Danny Phillips

Rev. Richard Feller from John and Mira Simon

TO HONOR

Cardinal Raymond Burke for his defense of the truth from Joseph Norton Rev. Monsignor Stephen M. DiGiovanni on his retirement from Mike Guarnieri

IN THANKSGIVING

Ordination from Father Thomas Kobuszewski

OTHER

Our grandson Meyer Jay and his wife to be, Ashley from Mr. and Mrs. Charles Jay Special Intention from Monsignor Leonard Pivonka

12

Adoremus Bulletin, November 2021

New Book Offers a Marriage of True Minds on Holy Matrimony

The Mystery of Marriage: A Theology of the Body and the Sacrament by Perry Cahall. Mundelein, IL: Hillenbrand Books, 2016. 512 pp. ISBN:978-1595250407. $45 Hardcover.

correct understanding of the human person is to a correct understanding of marriage, and, vice versa, how central a correct understanding of marriage is to a correct understanding of the human person” (p. 268).

By Richard Budd

Unitive History Part Five draws together everything treated above on marriage and offers a systematic presentation of the theology of marriage as it stands today. Again, quotations from the Theology of the Body, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and other foundational documents are included, but it is in Part Six, that we find particular value for the reader in the actual lived experience of married couples today.

In Part Six, Cahall presents some practical considerations for Living the Mystery of Marriage. The sections on sexual morality, responsible parenthood, and the relationship between marriage and continence for the sake of the kingdom are all valuable additions to the text. However, the section I truly found value in was defining the key elements of married spirituality.

In developing his presentation on a married spirituality, Cahall begins by reflecting on a document from the Pontifical Council on the Family, which in 2004 identified “tenderness as the soul of the sacrament of marriage” (p.344). Cahall takes this insight and develops a spirituality which expresses this idea of tenderness in five key ways: reverencing, sacrificing, suffering, repairing, and resurrection.

This is easily one of the most beautiful parts of the entire text and would justify a review and reflection all its own, but evidence of what can be found in the whole chapter can be discovered in a small section on the place of suffering in a spirituality of marriage. Cahall notes, “Selfishness in all of its forms is the enemy of love, and in the end it is selfishness, not one’s spouse, that causes the most suffering in marriage” (p. 356). The author proceeds to reflect on the crucified Lord as an icon of suffering in marriage: “If true love cannot be experienced without the suffering of the cross, spouses will do well to hang a crucifix prominently in their home, and to spend time together praying before it. In fact, some friends of mine have even suggested that spouses focus more precisely on the feet of the crucified Jesus. On the Cross we see in Jesus’ feet two members of his body bound by the nail of suffering” (p. 357).

The profound beauty of such a reflection is readily apparent, but this reflection provides such dignity to the process of suffering together through the trials of life, rather than suffering alone. (Indeed, sharing in the travails of life will always provide an additional dimension to suffering.) Cahall offers the Church a distinct contribution to a married spirituality and this work deserves further reflection and efforts at implementation in parishes.

While Dr. Cahall offers some brief reflections on the administration of the sacrament (p. 297-300), I would have greatly appreciated a deeper study of the signs and symbols of the nuptial liturgy itself as well as possibly a comparison between the way the Roman liturgy has developed regarding this sacrament and the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church. Examining these would have certainly added to the text and would not have been outside the scope of Dr. Cahall’s stated project.

O

n April 27, 2014, Divine Mercy Sunday, under an overcast sky and before 24 heads of state, 150 cardinals, and 1,000 bishops, Pope Francis declared, “For the honor of the Blessed Trinity, the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and the increase of the Christian life, by the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own” that his predecessor John Paul II be numbered among the saints of the Church. During the homily for the Mass of Canonization, Pope Francis recalled that Pope John Paul II had said that he wanted to be remembered as the Pope of the Family. In fulfillment of that desire, the Holy Father indeed referred to his predecessor as the Pope of the Family and stated that it is “the saints who give direction and growth to the Church.”

One could hardly argue that claim in regard to Pope John Paul II. His more than 26 years as Supreme Pontiff left absolutely no aspect of the Church unaffected. He wrote 14 encyclicals, visited 129 countries, oversaw the writing of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the new Code of Canon Law, and the third typical edition of the Roman Missal, to name only a few things. Yet, Pope John Paul’s most cherished project was the family, and marriage which it is founded upon (Evangelium Vitae, 92). No other person since St. Augustine of Hippo in the fourth and fifth centuries contributed more to the theological and pastoral understanding of the sacrament of marriage. The development of this theology was such a high priority for him that he chose as his first major teaching project as Pope a series of 129 Wednesday audiences which came to be known as the “Theology of the Body.” In addition to other teaching documents on marriage and the family, such as Familiaris Consortio, Mulieris Dignitatem, and the Letter to Families, the teaching of the Theology of the Body stands out because it developed the understanding of the person as ontologically relational, and thus ontologically a gift. John Paul II saw the fullest realization of man being made as the Imago Dei in the communion of persons, most fully realized in marriage and the family.

Such a foundational development in the theology of the person and marriage, which takes its starting point as the communion of persons rather than exclusively focusing on the rational soul as Augustine and Aquinas did, is a project the Church is still contemplating and meditating on. St. John Paul II’s teaching on the person, marriage, and the family is a lens through which a comprehensive theology of marriage must be viewed. Yet, that work had yet to be attempted until, that is, Dr. Perry Cahall wrote his textbook, The Mystery of Marriage: A Theology of the Body and the Sacrament.

In this substantial volume, Cahall attempts, as he states in his introduction, to give “a comprehensive Catholic theology of marriage…that incorporates biblical, historical, and systematic perspectives” (p. xvi). He goes on to explain that his project isn’t merely a comprehensive collection of previous scholarship on marriage, which alone would be a one-of-a-kind resource, but, additionally, he states that his project is to present this comprehensive theology of marriage while demonstrating what the implications of St. John Paul II’s Theology of the Body have had on that theology.

Finally, while presenting a comprehensive study of the theology of marriage in a textbook, Cahall aims to present this material in an accessible manner so that it can be used by those who may not necessarily have any background knowledge of the Catholic view of marriage.

His stated audiences range from undergrads, to seminaries, deacons in formation, and those preparing to work in the field of marriage preparation. I must admit, as someone who has spent a couple decades in the field of the Church’s theology of marriage and family, reading his stated goals in the introduction made me raise an eyebrow. Not only did Cahall want to write a comprehensive survey of the theology of marriage, but he wished to do so through the work of St. John Paul’s Theology of the Body, a dense and complex philosophical project which the best minds are still digesting. In addition, as someone who studied this theology at the graduate level, I was interested to see how well he could accomplish this goal of writing for someone who may not be familiar with Catholic theology at all. As I write these words, I’m still amazed at what he has been able to accomplish.

A Mystery in Six Parts In The Mystery of Marriage, Cahall divides his text into six major sections. Part One sets the stage for the rest of

the text by reviewing the Catholic sense of mystery as “a glorious reality about which we can know something, but it is a reality so rich and deep that regardless of how much we understand there is still more to learn” (p.2).

He also introduces in greater depth what the Theology of the Body is and, to my great pleasure, he sees in St. John Paul’s project more than merely a theology of sex; rather, he perceives that “the importance of the Theology of the Body lies in the fact that it is about what it means to be and act as a human person…‘the rediscovery of the meaning of the whole of existence, of the meaning of life’” (p.11).

In Part Two, Dr. Cahall systematically summarizes the theology of marriage. In many ways, I consider this to be the most impressive part of the book. It is a beautifully written exposition on the thought of St. John Paul II’s theology. And it is such an easily understandable presentation! Cahall draws together the Theology of the Body, Familiaris Consortio, the Letter to Families, Mulieris Dignitatem, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church— not to mention the Second Vatican Council, the Code of Canon Law, and the writings of Popes Benedict XVI, and Pius XI. This is where I believe his goal of presenting the Theology of the Body at an accessible level is achieved most fully. It truly takes a comprehensive understanding of a subject to be able to present it so succinctly and at such an accessible level.

In Parts Three and Four we receive a survey of the development of the Church’s understanding of marriage in scripture and then in the history of the Church. Cahall describes how in many ways the Old Testament as a whole could be described as a development of God’s people’s understanding of marriage. Marriage is certainly a central theme of the Old Testament as it features prominently in the stories of the patriarchs of Genesis, the legal texts that develop the understanding of adultery and the role faithfulness plays in a marriage, and the Wisdom and Prophetic literature that develops Israel’s perception of her relationship with God as analogous to a marriage in which God wishes to marry the people. Throughout this study of the Old Testament, Cahall leans on the Theology of the Body and continues to quote Pope John Paul II’s text extensively.

As he reviews the development of the theology of marriage throughout Church history, Cahall, shows his masterful grasp of not only the history of the Church but also the theology. He addresses each era of the Church’s development, and the reader is introduced to reflections of the Fathers of the Church, including St. John Chrysostom who famously said, “The love of husband and wife is the force that welds society together” (p. 188). We are treated to the developments of the medieval period, the Reformation and Post-Reformation periods, the development of canon law, as well as the developments of the 20th century, including the teaching of the Second Vatican Council.

Cahall devotes individual chapters to two men who had the most impact on our present understanding of marriage. The first, St. Augustine of Hippo, who through developing his three goods of marriage, “explained that marriage is good not only ‘because of the procreation of children, but also because of the natural companionship between the two sexes.’” Secondly, St. John Paul II, whose central contribution Cahall identifies as “how central a

Comprehensive and Comprehendible The eldest of the three children Our Lady appeared to in Fatima, Sister Lucia, famously prophesied that the “final battle between the Lord and the reign of Satan will be about marriage and the family. Don’t be afraid, because anyone who works for the sanctity of marriage and the family will always be fought and opposed in every way, because this is a decisive issue.”

There are many who are in the midst of that work— priests, deacons, and laity—and many more who are being trained to join in that work. They need high quality resources to continue in that mission and to receive the fruits of the theological reflection that St. John Paul II has left for the world. Dr. Perry Cahall has done a great service for the Church by providing her with a textbook which not only accomplishes the goal of supplying a comprehensive resource for study, but also weaves the teaching of St. John Paul II throughout so that his reflections become a seamless part of the Church’s treasury of teaching on this great sacrament.

Richard Budd lives in Lansing, MI, with his wife and four children. He obtained a Master’s degree in Marriage and Family Theology from the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family in Washington, D.C., and he has served as the Director of Marriage and Family Life for the Diocese of Lansing since 2015.