The Church Lunar Calendar

Having just seen the last full moon before Spring (March 18, 2022), all of the sons of Abraham, our father in the Faith, are now awaiting the first full moon of Spring after which is the Paschal Mystery, the death and resurrection of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, Salvator mundi, the logic of Passover.

Here is an article in The Catholic Encyclopedia on all things lunar pertaining to the Church.

(Greek épaktai hemérai; Latin dies adjecti).

The surplus days of the solar over the lunar year; hence, more freely, the number of days in the age of the moon on 1 January of any given year. The whole system of epacts is based on the Metonic Lunar Cycle (otherwise known as the Cycle of Golden Numbers), and serves to indicate the days of the year on which the new moons occur.

The Church lunar calendar

It is generally held that the Last Supper took place on the Jewish Feast of the Passover, which was always kept on the fourteenth day of the first month of the old Jewish calendar. Consequently, since this month always began with that new moon of which the fourteenth day occurred on or next after the vernal equinox, Christ arose from the dead on Sunday, the seventeenth day of the so-called paschal moon. It is evident, then, that an exact anniversary of Easter is impossible except in years in which the seventeenth day of the paschal moon falls on Sunday. In the early days of Christianity there existed a difference of opinion between the Eastern and Western Churches as to the day on which Easter ought to be kept, the former keeping it on the fourteenth day and the latter on the Sunday following. To secure uniformity of practice, the Council of Nicæa (325) decreed that the Western method of keeping Easter on the Sunday after the fourteenth day of the moon should be adopted throughout the Church, believing no doubt that this mode fitted in better with the historical facts and wishing to give a lasting proof that the Jewish Passover was not, as the Quartodeciman heretics believed, an ordinance of Christianity.

As in the Julian calendar the months had lost all their original reference to the moon, the early Christians were compelled to use the Metonic Lunar Cycle of the Greeks to find the fourteenth day of the paschal moon. This cycle in its original form continued to be used until 1582, when it was revised and embodied in the Gregorian calendar. The Church claims no astronomical exactness for her lunar calendar; we shall show presently the confusion which would necessarily result from an extreme adherence to precise astronomical data in determining the date of Easter. She wishes merely to ensure that the fourteenth day of the calendar moon shall fall on or shortly after the real fourteenth day but never before it, since it would be chronologically absurd to keep Easter on or before the Passover. Otherwise, as Clavius plainly states (Romani Calendarii a Gregorio XIII P.M. restituti explicatio, cap. V, § 13, p. 85), she regards with indifference the occurrence of the moons on the day before or after their proper seats and cares much more for peace and uniformity than for the equinox and the new moon. It may be mentioned here that Clavius's estimate of the accuracy of the calendar, in the compilations of which he took such a leading part, is extremely modest, and the seats assigned by him to the new moons tally with strict astronomical findings in a degree which he seems never to have anticipated. The impossibility of taking the astronomical moons as our sole guide in finding the date of Easter will be best understood from an example: Let us suppose that Easter is to be kept (as is at least implied by the British Act of Parliament regulating its date) on the Sunday after the astronomical full moon, and that this full moon, as sometimes happens, occurs just before midnight on Saturday evening in the western districts of London or New York. The full moon will therefore happen a little after midnight in the eastern districts, so that Easter, if regulated strictly by the paschal full moon, must be kept on one Sunday in the western and on the following Sunday in the eastern districts of the same city. Lest it be thought that this is carrying astronomical exactness to extremes, we may say that, if Easter were dependent on the astronomical moons, the feast could not always be kept on the same Sunday in England and America. Seeing, therefore, that astronomical accuracy must at some point give way to convenience and that an arbitrary decision on this point is necessary, the Church has drawn up a lunar calendar which maintains as close a relation with the astronomical moons as is practicable, and has decreed that Easter is to be kept on the Sunday after the fourteenth day of the paschal moon as indicated by this calendar.

Metonic lunar cycle or cycle of golden numbers

In the year now known as 432 B.C., Meton, an Athenian astronomer, discovered that 235 lunations (i.e. lunar months) correspond with 19 solar years, or, as we might express it, that after a period of 19 solar years the new moons occur again on the same days of the solar year. He therefore divided the calendar into periods of 19 years, which he numbered 1, 2, 3, etc. to 19, and assumed that the new moons would always fall on the same days in the years indicated by the same number. This discovery found such favour among the Athenians that the number assigned to the current year in the Metonic Cycle was henceforth written in golden characters on a pillar in the temple, and, whether owing to this circumstance or to the importance of the discovery itself, was known as the Golden Number of the year. As the 19 years of the Metonic Cycle were purely lunar (i.e. each contained an exact number of lunar months) and contained in the aggregate 235 lunations, it was clearly impossible that all the years should be of equal length. To twelve of the 19 years 12 lunations were assigned, and to the other seven 13 lunations, the thirteenth lunation being known as the embolismic or intercalary month.

Length of the lunations

The latest calculations have shown that the average duration of the lunar month is 29 days, 12 hours, 44 mins., 3 secs. To avoid the difficulty of reckoning fractions of a day in the calendar, all computators, ancient and modern, have assigned 30 and 29 days alternately to the lunations of the year, and regarded the ordinary lunar year of 12 lunations as lasting 354 days, whereas it really lasts some 8 hours and 48 mins. longer. This under-estimation of the year is compensated for in two ways: (1) by the insertion of one extra day in the lunar (as in the solar) calendar every fourth year, and (2) by assigning 30 days to six of the seven embolismic lunations, although the average lunation lasts only about 29.5 days. A comparison of the solar and lunar calendars for 76 years (one cycle of 19 years is unsuitable in this case, since it contains sometimes 4, sometimes 5, leap years) will make this clearer:

76 solar years = (76 X 365) + 19, i.e. 27,759 days.

Therefore 940 calendar lunations (since 19 years equal 235 lunations) contain 27,759 days (29 d., 12 hrs., 44 mins., 3 secs. times 940 equals 27,758 d., 18 hrs., 7 mins.). But 940 lunations averaging 29.5 days equal only 27,730 days. Consequently, if we assign 30 and 29 days uninterruptedly to alternate lunations, the lunar calendar will, after 76 years, anticipate the solar by 29 days. The intercalation of the extra day every fourth year in the lunar calendar reduces the divergent to 10 days in 76 years i.e. 2.5 days in 19 years. The divergence is removed by assigning to the seven embolismic months (which would otherwise have contained 7 times 29.5, or 206.5, days) 209 days, 30 days being assigned to each of the first six and 29 to the seventh.

The manner of insertion of the embolismic months

As the Gregorian and Metonic calendars differ in the manner of inserting the embolismic months, only the former is spoken of here. It has just been said that seven of the 19 years of the lunar cycle contain a thirteenth, or embolismic, month, consisting in six cases of 30 days and in the seventh of 29 days. Granted that the first solar and lunar years begin on the same day (i.e. that the new moon occurs on 1 January), it is evident that, as the ordinary lunar year of 12 lunations is 11 days shorter than the solar, the lunar calendar will, after three years, anticipate the solar by 33 days. To the third lunar year, then, is added the first embolismic month of 30 days, reducing the divergence between the calendars to three days. After three further years, i.e. at the end of the sixth year, the divergence will have mounted to 36 (3 X 11 + 3) days, but, by the insertion of the second embolismic lunation, will be reduced to six days. Whenever, then, the divergence between the calendars amounts to more than 30 days, an embolismic month is added to the lunar year; at the end of the nineteenth lunar year, the divergence will be 29 days, and, as the last embolismic month consists of 29 days, it is clear that after the insertion of this month the nineteenth solar and lunar years will end on the same day and that the first new moon of the twentieth (as of the first) year will occur on 1 January. The divergence, therefore, at the end of the 19 successive years of the lunar cycle is: 11, 22, 3, 14, 25, 6, 17, 28, 9, 20, 1, 12, 23, 4, 15, 26, 7, 18, and 0 days.

Cycle of epacts

We have defined an epact as the age of the moon on 1 January, i.e. at the beginning of the year. If, then, the new moon occurs on 1 January in the first year of the Lunar Cycle, the Epact of the year is 0 or, as it is more usually expressed, *; and since the lunar year always begins with the new moon, it is clear that the divergence between the solar and lunar calendars, of which we have just been speaking, gives the Epacts of the succeeding years. Thus, after the first year, the divergence between the calendars amounts to 11 days; therefore, the new moon occurs 11 days before 1 January of the second solar year, which is expressed by saying that the Epact of the second solar year is XI. Granted, then, that the new moon occurs on 1 January in the first year of the Lunar Cycle, the epacts of the 19 years are as follows:

Golden Numbers	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
Epacts	*	XI	XXII	III	XIV	XXV	VI	XVII

9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19
XXVIII	IX	XX	I	XII	XXIII	IV	XV	XXVI	VII	XVIII

Inaccuracy of the metonic cycle

Meton's theory, as adopted by the Church until the year 1582, might be briefly expressed as follows: The average Lunar Cycle consists of,

19 lunar years averaging 354.25 days, i.e. 6730.75 days.

6 extra, or embolismic, months of 30 days, i.e. 180 days.

1 embolismic month of 29 days.

Total......6939.75 days.

19 solar years averaging 365.25 days equal 6939.75. But later computators found that the average lunation lasts 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, 3 seconds, consequently:

235 calendar lunations (one Lunar Cycle) equal 6939 d. 18 h. 0 m. 0 s.
235 astronomical lunations equal 6939 d. 16 h. 31 m. 45 s.

Difference....1 h. 28 m.15 s.

We thus see that the average Lunar Cycle is about 1 hour too long, and that, though the new moons occur on the same dates in successive cycles, they occur, on an average, 1.5 hours earlier in the day. The astronomers entrusted with the reformation of the calendar calculated that after a period of 312.5 years (310 years is according to our figures a closer approximation) the new moons occur on the day preceding that indicated by the Lunar Cycle, that is, that the moon is one day older at the beginning of the year than the Metonic Cycle, if left unaltered would show, and they removed this inaccuracy by adding one day to the age of the moon (I. e. to the Epacts) every 300 years seven times in succession and then one day after 400 years (i.e. eight days in 8 X 312.5 or 2500 years). This addition of one to the Epacts is known as the Lunar Equation, and occurs at the beginning of the years 1800, 2100, 2400, 2700, 3000, 3300, 3600, 3900, 4300, 4600, etc. A second disturbance of the Epacts is caused by the occurrence of the non-bissextile centurial years. We have seen above that the assigning of 6939.75 days to 19 lunar years leads to an error of one day every 312.5 years, and that within these limits the lunar calendar must not be disturbed; but the assigning of 6939.75 days to every 19 solar years amounts to an error of 3 days every 400 years, and it is therefore necessary to omit one day from the solar calendar in every centurial year not divisible by 400. Consequently, since this extra day in February every fourth year is an essential part of the lunar calendar, the new moons will occur one day later in the non-bissextile centurial years than indicated by the Lunar Cycle (e.g. a new moon which under ordinary circumstances would have occurred on 29 February will occur on 1 March) and the age of the moon will, after the omission of the day, be one day less on all succeeding days of the solar year. As the fact that the January and February moons are not properly indicated is immaterial in a system whose sole object is to indicate as nearly as practicable the fourteenth day of the moon after 21 March, the subtraction of one from the Epacts takes place at the beginning of all non-bissextile centurial years and is known as the Solar equation. In the following table, +1 is written after the years which have the Lunar Equation, and -1 after those which have the Solar:

1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 +1 +1 +1 +1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1

2800 2900 3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3700 3800 3900 +1 +1 +1 +1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1

4000 4100 4200 4300 4400 4500 4600 4700 4800 4900 5000 5100 +1 +1 +1 +1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1

Clavius continued this table as far as the year 300,000, inserting the Lunar Equation eight times every 2500 years and the Solar three times every 400 years. As he thus treats the year 5200 as a leap year his table is untrustworthy after 5199.

Indication of new moons

Before proceeding further, it will be convenient to consider the method devised by Lilius of indicating the new moons of the year in the Gregorian calendar. As the first lunation of the year consists of 30 days, he wrote the Epacts *, XXIX, XXVIII . . . III, II, I opposite the first thirty days of January; then continuing, he wrote * opposite the thirty-first, XXIX opposite the first of February and so on to the end of the year, except that in the case of the lunations of 29 days he wrote the two Epacts XXV, XXIV opposite the same day (cf. 5 Feb., 4 April, etc. in the Church calendar). From this arrangement it is evident that if, for example, the Epact of a year is X, the new moons will occur in that year on the days before which the Epact X is placed in the calendar. One qualification must be made to this statement. According to the Metonic Cycle, the new moon can never occur twice on the same date in the same nineteen years (the case is exceedingly rare even in the purely astronomical calendar); consequently, whenever the two Epacts XXV and XXIV occur in the same nineteen years, the new moons of the year whose Epact is XXV are indicated in the months of 29 days by Epact XXVI, with which the number 25 is for this object associated in the Church calendar.

How to find the epact

We have already seen that the Church used the Metonic Cycle until the year 1582 as the only practical means devised of finding the fourteenth day of the paschal moon. Now, this cycle has always been regarded as starting from the year 1 B.C., and not from the year of its introduction (432 B.C.), probably (although all the authors we have seen appear to have overlooked the point) because such change was found necessary if the leading characteristic of the Metonic Cycle were to be retained in changing from a lunar to a solar calendar viz., that the first lunar and solar years of the cycle should begin on the same day. That two nations with calendars so fundamentally different as those of the Greeks and the Romans should regard the solar year as beginning with the same phases of the sun would be highly improbable, even if there were no direct evidence that such was not the case. But we have shown that when the solar and lunar years begin on the same day, the Epacts of the successive years of the cycle are:

Golden Numbers	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
Epacts	*	XI	XXII	III	XIV	XXV	VI	XVII

9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19
XXVIII	IX	XX	I	XII	XXIII	IV	XV	XXVI	VII	XVIII

Consequently, if we divide the calendar into cycles of 19 years from 1 B.C., the first year of each cycle will have the Epact *, the second the Epact XI and so on, or, in other words, the Epact of any year before 1582 depends solely on its Golden Number. The Golden Number of any year may be found by adding 1 to the year and dividing by 19, the quotient showing the number of complete cycles elapsed since 1 B.C. and the remainder (or, if there be no remainder, 19) being the Golden Number of the year. Thus, for example, the Golden Number of 1484 is 3, since (1484+1)÷19 = 78, with 3 as remainder; therefore the Epact of the year 1484 is XXII.

In the course of time it was found that the paschal moon of the Metonic Cycle was losing all relation to the real paschal moon, and in the sixteenth century (c. 1576) Gregory XIII entrusted the task of reforming the calendar to a small body of astronomers, of whom Lilius and Clavius are the most renowned. These astronomers having drawn up the table of equations to show the changes in the Epacts necessary to preserve the relations between the ecclesiastical and astronomical calendars, proceeded to calculate the proper Epacts for the years of the Lunar Cycle after 1582. These they found to be as follows:

Golden Numbers	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
Epacts	I	XII	XXIII	IV	XV	XXVI	VII	XVIII

9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19
XXIX	X	XXI	II	XIII	XXIV	V	XVI	XXVII	VIII	XIX

Now the essential difference between the Metonic Cycle and the Gregorian system of Epacts lies in this, that, whereas the sphere of application of the former was held to be unlimited, that of the latter is bounded by the Lunar and Solar equations. Since, then, a Solar Equation occurs in 1700, the Cycle of Epacts just given holds only for the period 1582-1699, after which a new cycle must be formed. To understand the reason of the changes we must remember

(1) that by treating 365 days as equivalent to one solar year and to 12 lunations plus 11 days, we under-estimate the solar year by about 5.8 hours and the lunations by 8.8 hours;

(2) that in consequence of this under-estimation of the solar year, one day must be inserted in every fourth solar year except in the case of the centurial years not divisible by 400; and

(3) that the under-estimation of the lunations by 6 hours every year (the additional 2.8 hours are compensated for in the embolismic months and by the Lunar Equation) necessitates the insertion of one extra day in the lunar calendar every fourth year without exception.

To take an example: the Epact of 1696 (its Golden Number being 6) is XXVI, and since this Epact is found opposite 4 February in the Church calendar we know that in 1696 the new moon happened on that date and that consequently 23 February was the twentieth day of the calendar moon. But, since the under-estimation of the lunations amounts to one day in every four years, the following day (our 24 Feb.) was only nominally the twenty-first day of the moon and the proper twenty-first was our 25 February. The Church therefore inserted an extra day after 23 February and treated this and the real 24 Feb. (our 24 and 25) as one continuous day in both the solar and lunar calendars, and consequently 25 February (our 26) was again legitimately regarded as the twenty-second day of the moon and the fifty-sixth day of the astronomical solar year. Coming now to the year 1700, we find its Epact to be X, consequently the new moon occurred on 19 February and 23 February was the fifth day of the calendar moon. But, since no extra day could be inserted in February, 1700, the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth of this month had to be treated as the sixth day of the moon, and the age of the moon on every subsequent day of the year 1700 was one day less than indicated by the Epact X. As the moons of January and February are of very secondary importance in the Church calendar, we may say that the age of the moon in 1700 and all subsequent years was one day less than indicated by the above Cycle of Epacts, and thus the Epacts for the years of the Lunar Cycle after 1700 are:

Golden Numbers	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
Epacts	*	XI	XXII	III	XIV	XXV	VI	XVII

9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19
XXVIII	IX	XX	I	XII	XXIII	IV	XV	XXVI	VII	XVIII

In the year 1800, both the Lunar and Solar Equations (i.e. the addition and subtraction of 1) occur and no change of Epacts takes place. In 1900 the Solar Equation occurs and we must again subtract 1 from the Epacts. No change takes place in 2000 or in 2100, the former being a leap year and the latter having both equations. In 2200 and in 2300, we must again subtract 1, while in 2400, in which the Lunar Equation occurs and is not neutralized as usual by the Solar Equation, we add 1 to all the Epacts. The accompanying table [below] gives the Epact of every year from 1 B.C. to A.D. 3099.

Examples. (1) To find the Epact of the year 3097. Golden Number is 1, since (3097+1)÷19 = 163, with 1 as remainder. Epact corresponding to Golden Number 1 after 2900 is XXV; therefore the Epact of 3097 is XXV.

(2) On what Sunday will Easter fall in the year 2459? Golden Number of 2459 is 9, and Epact of ninth year of Lunar Cycle after 2400 is XXVI. Since the Epact of 2459 is XXVI, the new moons of this year will occur on the days before which XXVI is placed in the church calendar (e.g. in the Breviary). Now, since the paschal moon is that whose fourteenth day falls on or next after 21 March, the paschal new moon can never happen before 8 March. The first day after 8 March to which the Epact XXVI is prefixed in the Church calendar is 4 April: consequently the paschal new moon in the year 2459 will occur on 4 April. Counting 14 days from 4 April, which we include in our reckoning, we find the fourteenth day of the paschal moon to be 17 April. In 2459, therefore, Easter will be kept on the Sunday after 17 April, which with the help of the Dominical Letters is found to be 20 April.

EPACTS FROM 1 B.C. TO A.D. 3099
Golden Numbers	1 B.C.- A.D. 1582	1582- 1699	1700- 1899	1900- 2199	2200- 2299	2300- 2399	2400- 2499	2500- 2599	2600- 2899	2900- 3099
1	*	I	*	XXIX	XXVIII	XXVII	XXVIII	XXVII	XXVI	XXV
2	XI	XII	XI	X	IX	VIII	IX	VIII	VII	VI
3	XXII	XXIII	XXII	XXI	XX	XIX	XX	XIX	XVIII	XVII
4	III	IV	III	II	I	*	I	*	XXIX	XXVIII
5	XIV	XV	XIV	XIII	XII	XI	XII	XI	X	IX
6	XXV	XXVI	XXV	XXIV	XXIII	XXII	XXIII	XXII	XXI	XX
7	VI	VII	VI	V	IV	III	IV	III	II	I
8	XVII	XVIII	XVII	XVI	XV	XIV	XV	XIV	XIII	XII
9	XXVIII	XXIX	XXVIII	XXVII	XXVI	XXV	XXVI	XXV	XXIV	XXIII
10	IX	X	IX	VIII	VII	VI	VII	VI	V	IV
11	XX	XXI	XX	XIX	XVIII	XVII	XVIII	XVII	XVI	XV
12	I	II	I	*	XXIX	XXVIII	XXIX	XXVIII	XXVII	XXVI
13	XII	XIII	XII	XI	X	IX	X	IX	VIII	VII
14	XXIII	XXIV	XXIII	XXII	XXI	XX	XXI	XX	XIX	XVIII
15	IV	V	IV	III	II	I	II	I	*	XXIX
16	XV	XVI	XV	XIV	XIII	XII	XIII	XII	XI	X
17	XXVI	XXVII	XXVI	XXV	XXIV	XXIII	XXIV	XXIII	XXII	XXI
18	VII	VIII	VII	VI	V	IV	V	IV	III	II
19	XVIII	XIX	XVIII	XVII	XVI	XV	XVI	XV	XIV	XIII
This table may, with the help of the table equations, be continued to 5199.

Source: newadvent.org

APA citation. Kennedy, T. (1909). Epact. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved March 20, 2022 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05480b.htm

MLA citation. Kennedy, Thomas. "Epact." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 20 Mar. 2022 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05480b.htm>.

Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Rick McCarty.

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Brief Plinthos Assessment of The Chinese Flu

Today, March 16, 2022, here are my simple thoughts on the past two years' gross failure against the worldwide plague, so-called Covid-19 or Coronavirus, more properly called "The Chinese Flu," and the narrative thereof.

The "lock-downs" and the mask and vaccine requirements failed to control The Chinese Flu.

"The science" that forces obviously ineffective "solutions" is unscientific and illogical. Such irrational measures have been therefore enforced by constant propaganda, censorship and unjust mandates and "laws."

Meanwhile, in idolatrous adoration of this false idol "the science," our religious authorities, philosophers, politicians, political analysts and investigative journalists, have largely relinquished their serious responsibilities in the pursuit of truth, and in their duty to defend and promote the legitimate and necessary rights and responsibilities of each individual person and of every group of persons, beginning with the smallest, families/neighborhoods and every community.

No crisis exempts anyone from the moral law which requires each person and group of persons to personally judge what is reasonable to do or not to do for his own spiritual and physical well-being and that of his neighbor.

The Mother of all science is Theology because she considers the universal and unchanging Truth whereas technological science is always changing in its (presumably honest) attempt to understand and address changing needs. "Science," in all her legitimate efforts, therefore, should not leave the sure mooring of truth. Science always needs guidance, especially to determine what is good against what is evil.

The question of morality (of what is good or evil in human action) is a question of religion, not of science. The relative worth of physical health, one's own and that of one's neighbor, is to be weighed, therefore, by religion not by "science." Theology is greater than technology and all practical sciences. In the first question of his treatise on theology, Saint Thomas Aquinas indicates that necessary supremacy of divine science.

"I answer that, Since sacred doctrine is a science which is partly speculative and partly practical, it transcends all others speculative and practical. Now one speculative science is said to be nobler than another, either by reason of its greater certitude, or by reason of the higher worth of its subject-matter. In both these respects this science surpasses other speculative sciences; in point of greater certitude, because other sciences derive their certitude from the natural light of human reason, which can err; whereas this derives its certitude from the light of divine knowledge, which cannot be misled: in point of the higher worth of its subject-matter because this science treats chiefly of those things which by their sublimity transcend human reason; while other sciences consider only those things which are within reason's grasp. Of the practical sciences, that one is nobler which is ordained to a further purpose, as political science is nobler than military science; for the good of the army is directed to the good of the State. But the purpose of this science, in so far as it is practical, is eternal bliss; to which as to an ultimate end the purposes of every practical science are directed. Hence it is clear that from every standpoint, it is nobler than other sciences." Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, Q.1, Art.5, c.

Saint Teresa of Calcutta at Thomas Aquinas College

Lawlessness Prevails in the Vatican

Traditional Latin Mass: Canonists Question the Legislative Force of Recent Vatican Guidelines
ANALYSIS: A Dec. 18 instruction considerably tightens already-sweeping restrictions on the traditional form of the Roman Rite that had come into force with the Pope’s document of July 16, 2021. The interpretive document considerably tightens already-sweeping restrictions on the traditional form of the Roman Rite. 

Edward Pentin

The National Catholic Register, February 8, 2022

VATICAN CITY — The Vatican document to bishops on how to implement certain restrictions on the traditional rites of the Mass and the sacraments has drawn concern from some canonists over the weight of its interpretation and authority to further limit use of the traditional Latin form of the Rome Rite.

Canonists speaking to the Register contend that although the recent document is meant to be merely an interpretation of certain passages of the apostolic letter Traditionis Custodes (Guardians of the Tradition), it moves beyond this papal document, an action that exceeds the powers of its author, Archbishop Arthur Roche, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (CDW).

The interpretive document, called “Responsa ad Dubia on Certain Provisions of the Apostolic Letter Traditionis Custodes issued Motu Proprio” and published Dec. 18, considerably tightens already-sweeping restrictions on the traditional form of the Roman Rite that had come into force with the Pope’s document, issued on July 16, 2021.

Written in the form of responses to dubia (questions), which the congregation said it had received from “several quarters and with greater frequency” regarding the correct application of the motu proprio, the Responsa Ad Dubia prohibits traditional rites for marriages, baptisms, confessions, last rites and burials, except in “canonically erected personal parishes” — that is, exclusively in those parishes already designated by the bishop and dedicated to the faithful who frequent the former rite. These are few in number and, since July 16, no longer to be erected.

Archbishop Roche also made it clear that confirmations and ordinations according to the older rite are no longer to be allowed.

Other stipulations in the guidelines include banning priests from saying more than one traditional Latin Mass on a Sunday, allowing them to celebrate it on a weekday only if they have no Novus Ordo Masses scheduled, and enforcing concelebration on traditional priests.

The document was signed by Archbishop Roche on Dec. 4 and earlier approved by Pope Francis on Nov. 18.

Council for Legislative Texts Not Consulted

The Responsa, which the Register has learned from multiple Vatican sources, was written without consulting the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts — the main Vatican department responsible for interpreting Church law — does not have any legislative force in itself, according to the law of the Church and the CDW’s own rules.

In 1969, the congregation indicated that any Responsa ad Dubia published in its official bimonthly journal Notitiae were to be considered private responses and as having no official value unless they were published in the official record of the Church. The Responsa, signed on Dec. 4, has so far only been published, on Dec. 18, on the Vatican website and as an article in the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, but not in the official gazette of the Holy See, where papal legislation is usually published, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis — Acts of the Apostolic See.

This policy, repeated in Notitiae in 1997 but in slightly different terms, “explicitly” means that the Responsa ad Dubia “have no legislative force,” according to Dominican Father Pius Pietrzyk, adjunct professor of canon law at the Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception (Dominican House of Studies) in Washington, DC.

“They merely express the thinking and practice of the congregation on a particular legal issue,” Father Pietrzyk told the Register. “Therefore, unlike the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, these Responsa have no legal force in se.”

His comments echo a paper issued by the Latin Mass Society of the U.K., in consultation with several canonists, which said the Responsa “is not an instruction or a law, but an administrative act, an interpretation of Traditionis Custodes.” It said it has force insofar as it is in line with what the motu proprio requires, but it cannot go beyond it, “and is itself subject to the Church’s law.”

It also added that the Pope’s approval of the document “is generic not specific: Only in the latter case would it become an act of the legislator, rather than of the dicastery [Congregation].”

Father Pietrzyk stressed that the Holy Father has the “right and authority to regulate the liturgy of the universal Church,” within boundaries limiting papal authority, and the Church does not question his authority. Furthermore, the Second Vatican Council made clear in its constitution on the liturgy, Sancrosanctum Concilium, that “regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely” on the authority of the Church, that is, both the Holy See and the local bishop.

But he said the head of a Curial department “is not the same as the Supreme Pontiff” and that, as prefect of the congregation prefect, Archbishop Roche “exercises vicarious power, which flows from the Supreme Pontiff, and therefore relies on the strictures of law for its authority.” However, he added, he does not have “legislative power — that is, he does not establish new, universally binding law.”

“Rather, he exercises authority according to laws established by the Supreme Pontiff,” Father Pietrzyk explained. “As a result, the scope of his authority relies on the parameters of that established law. He cannot of his own accord increase the ambit of his authority.”

This does not mean the Responsa ad Dubia “has no value,” he added, and that, legally speaking, Responsa can be an “important source” when considering gaps in the law, but it “does not establish new law.” Rather, the Dominican canonist said, it is “meant to assist ordinaries in the application of law when express provisions are lacking.”

Given that these responses are “simply an expression of the mind” of the CDW on how it believes ordinaries should apply Traditionis Custodes, and that they do not “have the force of law,” Father Pietrzyk said “bishops and pastors are free, both legally and morally, to arrive at another conclusion, after due consideration of the mind of the congregation, and considering the pastoral circumstances in their local communities.”
‘Confused’ and ‘Contradictory’

Cardinal Raymond Burke, prefect emeritus of the Apostolic Signatura, the Church’s highest court, told the Register the Responsa ad Dubia are binding “only inasmuch as they are coherent with the doctrine and discipline of the Church, according to the fundamental principle of the regula iuris [rule of law], which, when it is not respected, makes the law an arbitrary tool in the hands of individuals advancing a particular ideology or agenda.”

In this context, he believes the Responsa ad Dubia are “confused” and “contradictory” when read in conjunction with the motu proprio itself, and as such, “what the congregation pretends is not only contrary to the good order of the Church but contrary to reason.”

“For instance,” Cardinal Burke said, “it takes to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments acts which belong properly to the diocesan bishop, even though Traditionis Custodes insists that the diocesan bishop knows what is best for the good of souls.”

And he questioned how it can be for the good of souls if it is being applied at a time when the traditional rite “has a great vitality in the Church today” and is attracting large Mass attendances and vocations, while elsewhere the Mass is suffering a “great absence of the faithful” and few vocations.

The document also has many other points of concern for canonists. The Responsa appears to lack a “sufficient understanding on the legal and ecclesiological norms of concelebration,” said Father Pietrzyk, and on that issue alone, it is “impossible to square” with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which stipulated priests have a right not to be required to concelebrate. Canon 902 states that priests are “completely free to celebrate the Eucharist individually” but not when “concelebration is taking place in the same church or oratory.”

A further problem concerns Responsum No. 5 — that the Holy See must authorize a diocesan bishop to allow priests ordained after the publication of Traditionis Custodes to celebrate the old Mass.

A new Latin version of Traditionis Custodes, which appeared after the motu proprio was promulgated in Italian, speaks of licentia (permission) that a bishop has to seek from the Holy See to allow priests ordained after the publication of the motu proprio to celebrate the Missale Romanum of 1962. This particular sentence was inserted into the Responsa, but the original Italian of the promulgated text mentioned an obligatory but non-binding consultation of the Holy See was required.

Father Pietrzyk said that, given “promulgation is a necessary part of a law” and that the text the congregation used is a Latin version that has not been promulgated, its “printing” of the Latin in the Responsa “has no legal force.”

For the sake of the just application of law, he added, “it cannot expect the faithful to adhere to a norm that it has not promulgated through the means it itself has given for the proper recognition of what a law is.”

A Vatican official pointed out to the Register that it is not possible to “change a law after promulgation; you would need to have it re-promulgated.” The official said that Pope Francis doesn’t usually produce documents in Latin and added that, in any case, it made little sense to have a bishop seek permission of the Holy See for a priest to celebrate the old Mass, as the Holy See will not know those priests, whereas the bishop does.

Exceeds Traditionis Custodes

Canonists have also pointed out other areas where the Responsa exceeds Traditionis Custodes and in their view therefore lacks legal force, as this breaches Canon 18. That canon stipulates that restrictive laws are to be interpreted strictly; some canonists, however, argue that the Responsa exceeds the restrictions laid out in Traditionis Custodes. The second Responsum stipulates that a bishop is no longer authorized to grant permission to use the 1962 Pontificale Romanum, a liturgical text containing the rites and ceremonies usually performed by bishops in the Roman Rite, and so traditional ordinations and confirmations are no longer permitted.

Traditionis Custodes only mentions the use of the Missale Romanum, and so the reference to the Pontificale Romanum exceeds “the executory authority of the prefect,” Father Pietrzyk said, noting that the 2011 Vatican instruction Universae Ecclesiae gave explicit permission for the use of the Pontificale Romanum in use in 1962 for the conferral of major and minor orders and the sacrament of confirmation, in certain circumstances.

“Those permissions were untouched by Traditionis Custodes,” Father Pietrzyk explained, “and therefore diocesan bishops are free to continue to use those pursuant to those norms, despite the statements to the contrary in the Responsa.”

This is significant in view of Cardinal Vincent Nichols of Westminster recently prohibiting traditional confirmations in his English diocese on the basis of the Responsa.

Some canonists speaking to the Register on background argued that all the provisions in the Responsa contrast the suprema lex (supreme law), according to which the action of the Church authorities should favor the salus animarum (health of souls), a principle of divine law received in Canon 1752.

Cardinal Burke said it is the “primary responsibility of the diocesan bishop to provide for the good of souls, in accord with the Church’s constant doctrine and discipline,” and recalled that the Pope does not enjoy “absolute power” to remove the legitimate exercise of power of the local bishops. Furthermore, he disputed the overarching reason given for both the motu proprio and the Responsa, which is to discipline faithful who are agents of division and even schism within the Church.

Cardinal Burke said such cases need to be dealt with individually, “in accord with the regula iuris (rule of law).” And he said he himself had found traditional faithful to be “agents of unity in the Church” who “respected and loved the Holy Father and the bishop as their true shepherds.” He acknowledged some individuals had “gone astray in their thinking or were strongly tempted to go astray, as happens in any body of the faithful,” in both forms of the Roman Rite, “but these individuals were hardly characteristic of the faithful involved.”

“In the same way,” he added, “priests and lay faithful, who do not follow the more ancient usage but respect their brothers and sisters who do, are deeply concerned about the manner in which these brothers and sisters are being treated by the highest authority in the Church. They do not see them as a blight on the communion of the Church but as truly full members of the Church.”

Father Pietrzyk also pointed out what he sees as another important consideration: Despite Pope Francis stating in Traditionis Custodes that previous “norms, instruction, permissions, and customs” are abrogated, this does not mean that Pope Benedict’s 2007 motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, which made the older rite more available, and its 2011 application document, Universae Ecclesiae, are now void. He argues that Traditionis Custodes appears to both abrogate and derogate the previous laws, and it is “not readily apparent which is meant.” The Responsa ad Dubia also has “no power” in itself to abrogate these earlier documents, as it is not legislative in nature.

Prevailing ‘Lawlessness’?

Given the absence of any legal force, canonists believe there is little the Vatican can do to enforce the Responsa ad Dubia. The Congregation for Divine Worship could seek the approval of the Pope to issue true binding norms, but if it does, it must observe the canonical norms in promulgating such a document. As it has not done this, “it cannot in justice demand obedience to the Responsa, although it may rightly expect ordinaries to consider its advice respectfully,” Father Pietrzyk said.

The disregard for canon law throughout the document is simply reflective of a prevailing “lawlessness in the Vatican,” the official quoted above said. “It’s just another example, and it’s a great problem.”

The official’s comments echo those made by Italian canonist and consultor to the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, professor Geraldina Boni. Last November, Boni noted in a book titled Finis Terrae per lo Ius Canonicum “problems with imperfect drafting” of ecclesial legislation during Francis’ pontificate, including “poor attention to formal aspects, inaccurate terminology, inner incoherence and lack of coordination with the whole legal system.” Boni also affirmed that the Pontifical Council is no longer called upon to give authentic interpretations of Church law.

Father Pietrzyk stressed that “the lack of sufficient attention to proper legal form and canonical tradition have raised a myriad of questions,” and he fears “this has also led to, and will continue to foster, confusion.” Concern for the law is “not mere legalism,” he said, quoting a speech of St. Paul VI to the Roman Rota in 1970, “but necessary to protect the common good and to foster freedom of the members of a given society.”

“This is just as true in the society of the Church,” Father Pietrzyk said, adding that Church authorities must be rooted in the natural law and observe the formalities of Church law.

He said, “I regret that these Responsa ad Dubia, despite their good intention, fail in some significant ways to do just that.”

Source: https://www.ncregister.com/news/traditional-latin-mass-canonists-question-the-legislative-force-of-recent-vatican-guidelines

Brief Plinthos Response to Vatican Bucking of Tradition

As long as the Church continues to neglect and even reject our marvelous liturgical patrimony the traditional movements will continue to flourish to supply that gross and wrongful omission and opposition: e.g. the forbidding of ad orientem worship, kneeling for communion and directly on the tongue, gregorian chant, polyphony, use of Latin.

The extraordinary form of the roman liturgy is culturally far superior to the ordinary form which tends toward banality, whereas the extraordinary form in its solemn rituals is one of the highest, if not the highest, form of artistic expression achieved by man. And, at this historical moment, with the easy access to these treasures on the internet anywhere, anytime, containing this traditional explosion is impossible.

For example, here is the traditional marian antiphon proper to this post-Presentation/pre-Easter liturgical season (viz. Septuagesima/Lent), the Ave Regina Caelorum.

Below I give Palestrina's polyphonic setting, the solemn tone and the simple tone gregorian chant. At the end I also give another polyphonic version, one by des Prez.

What Catholic institutions (schools, colleges, seminaries, monasteries, parishes, cathedrals, etc.) even have any notion of any of these Catholic treasures? Most have never even heard of the Liber Usualis or the Graduale Romanum, both essential Catholic liturgical texts in any form of the liturgy! A Roman Rite which forbids Latin ceases to be the Roman Rite envisioned by all the liturgical books! The wrong-headed leadership of the Church seems to want to eliminate our liturgical patrimony by illegitimately forbidding its greatest fruit which continues to be, in the present liturgical dispensation, the typical and most standard form of the liturgy.

"And no man drinking old, hath presently a mind to new: for he saith, The old is better." Luke 5:39

Palestrina

Solemn tone (Liber)

Simple tone (Liber)

Josquin des Prez

"Speculum asceticum" of Pope Saint John XXIII

SPECULUM ASCETICUM

Fuge. Abstine. Vigila. Tace. Quiesce.

Ora. Lege. Meditare. Labora. Proba.

Exi. Intra. Crede. Ama. Subsiste.

                                                                                    (Hugo de Palma)

Pax in cella: foris autem plurima bella.

Omnis videre: multa dissimulare: pauca corrigere.

Audi omnes: paucis crede: cunctos honora.

Noli credere omnia quae audis;

Noli judicare omnia quae vides;

Noli facere omnia quae potes;

Noli dare omnia quae habes;

Nola dicere omnia quae scis.

Qui cupit in caelo optatam contingere vitam

Saepius in terris haec documenta legat:

Tria praeterita:                     Tria praesentia:

Malum commissum                   Vitae brevitatem              

Bonum omissum                        Se salvandi difficultatem

Tempus amissum                        Salvandorum paucitatem

               

Quattuor futura:

Mortem qua ni securius        Infernum quo nil terribilius  

Judicium quo nil severius     Paradisum quo nil jucundius

                                      Giovanni XXIII, Il giornale dell’anima, Milano: San Paulo, 2003, 672.

Church Doctors, Chronological List and Encyclopedic Project

Doctors of the Church, Chronological List by Date (or earliest circa date) of Birth; year of declaration, doctoral title.

1. Irenaeus 130-202                                 (2022)     Unitatis

2. Athanasius+ 298-373                          (1568)
   
3. Hilary 300-367                                    (1851)             Divinitatis Christi

4. Ephrem 306-373                                  (1920)

5. Cyril of Jerusalem 315-386                 (1883)

6. Gregory Nazianzus+ 329-389             (1568)

7. Basil the Great+ 330-379                    (1568)

8. Ambrose+ 340-397                             (1298)

9. Jerome+ c. 342-420                            (1298)

10. John Chrysostom+ c. 347-407         (1568)

11. Augustine+ 354-430                        (1568)                Gratiae

12. Cyril of Alexandria 376-444           (1883)                Incarnationis

13. Leo the Great 400-461                    (1754)                Unitatis Ecclesiae

14. Peter Chrysologus 406-450             (1729)

15. Gregory the Great + 540-604          (1298)

16. Isidore of Seville 560-636               (1722)

17. Bede the Venerable 672-735           (1899)               Anglorum

18. John Damascene 676-749                (1890)

19. Gregory of Narek 951-1003             (2015)

20. Peter Damian 1007-1072                  (1828)

21. Anselm of Cantebury 1033-1109     (1720)             Magnifucus, Marianus

22. Bernard of Clairvaux 1090-1153     (1830)              Mellifluus

23. Hildegard of Bingen 1098-1179      (2012)

24. Albert the Great 1193-1280             (1931)              Universalis

25. Anthony of Padua 1195-1231          (1946)              Evangelicus

26. Bonaventure 1221-1274                   (1588)              Seraphicus

27. Thomas Aquinas 1225-1274             (1567)             Angelicus, Communis

28. Catherine of Siena 1347-1380           (1970)

29. John of Avila 1500-1569                   (2012)

30. Teresa of Avila 1515-1582                (1970)             Orationis

31. Peter Canisius 1521-1597                 (1925)

32. John of the Cross 1542-1591             (1926)             Mysticus

33. Robert Bellarmine 1542-1621           (1931)

34. Lawrence of Brindisi 1559-1619       (1959)            Apostolicus

35. Francis de Sales 1567-1622               (1877)            Caritatis

36. Alphonsus de Liguori 1696-1787      (1871)            Zelantissimus

37. Therese of Lisieux 1873-1897           (1997)

These are the worlds' greatest extra-biblical authors, authoritatively declared by the Church.

It would therefore be most beneficial to have an encyclopedic compilation of all of the extant works of all of these Doctors of the Church, in the original languages, ordered chronologically with comprehensive indices, similar to and borrowing from the work done by Migne in the Patrologiae Graecae and Latinae.

Then there would need to be authoritative translations of that Encyclopedia of Doctors into all the major modern languages.

Next there should be much smaller and more selective editions of the same series, choosing from these best authors their best works, organized according to the various academic disciplines, a definitive encyclopedia of The Greatest Books.

With the proper technological tools, this task should be quite attainable today with the immense digital advancement in compiling and organizing data.

Of course, we are mindful that the Greatest Books, par excellence, are, The Holy Bible, The Liturgical Books of the Catholic Church (of all Her various Rites), The Catechism of the Catholic Church and The Code of Canon Law.

In fact, the greatest book is no mere book at all, but the Living Person of the Word of God Himself, Jesus Christ, the Lord, Who has entrusted Himself and His Word to the living Church, His Body, The Church, and these greatest authors and works are all in reference to Him, from Him and for Him, the Incarnate Wisdom Himself.