E
- Status
O
otjm
Guest
This reminds me of the old saw: One attorney in a town starves; two attorneys in a town make a good living, and three attorneys in a town get rich.
As Dr. Peters noted, they are canonical commentaries, which mean they are comments made, by Canon lawyers, as to interpretation of a law which on the face of it is not clear (here, what is not clear is how early or late the initial start time may be.
There could be references to other documents coming from Rome (which should have more or less authority depending on source - who wrote them - and possibly what “level” of document they were), and any case law reported (a decision by a tribunal).
As such, they have whatever authority those reading them give to the commentaries.
As Dr. Peters notes, Dr. John Huels is recognized widely as an expert, or an expert of experts.
Which does not mean That Rome cannot intervene to set a different time.
However, one could wait a long time for Rome to intervene, even if there is an apparent conflict.
M
Mintaka
Guest
Unless there’s a real problem, there’s no reason that the Vatican should intervene. Local bishops hold local power over a lot of this stuff, and the bishops can choose from various canon law authorities if they want them.
Sometimes, there’s no real reason to smoothe everything into absolute consistency and sameness. I can see why Dr. Peters wants to set people’s minds at rest, but of course a lot of people will squawl about this, whatever is decided. So why decide?
(It does seem funny that often, the same people who want their bishop to have huge amounts of local say about big issues, don’t want their bishop to be able to determine their own start times.)
Sometimes, there’s no real reason to smoothe everything into absolute consistency and sameness. I can see why Dr. Peters wants to set people’s minds at rest, but of course a lot of people will squawl about this, whatever is decided. So why decide?
(It does seem funny that often, the same people who want their bishop to have huge amounts of local say about big issues, don’t want their bishop to be able to determine their own start times.)
O
otjm
Guest
Or other issues, if it is one’s ox that is being gored.
Many people - Catholic and non-Catholic - have the impression that the Church has a rule for everything, and that the rule is explicit to the nth degree.
And some of that depends on whether one presumes the Germanic or the Mediterranean approach to law.
V
Vico
Guest
I am surprised the Dr. Peters does not mention the discussion that occured on the 1983 canon law when it was drafted, to intentionally make the time less precise than the preceding canon law was. (per Exegetical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law.)
Also, when the word vespere was translated from Latin to other languages (on the Vatican website) it used words in some languages that are used for times after noon, rather that later. In particular, Spanish tardes and the German translation uses “Vorabend” (Eve), rather than “der Nachmittag” (afternoon) or “der Abend” (evening), which seems to be the figurative use which is broader.
P
Phemie
Guest
Most of those who argue for the 4 p.m. base their reasoning on Constitution, Rule VI of Pius XII’s 1953 Apostolic Constitution CHRISTUS DOMINUS, which said:
With Reference to Evening Masses
By the force of the Constitution the Ordinaries of places[27] have the faculty of permitting the saying of evening Masses in their own territory, should circumstances render this necessary. This holds true despite the command of canon 821, # 1. The common good sometimes demands the saying of Mass after midday: For example, for the workers in some industries who work their shifts even on feast days, for those categories of workers who must be on the job during the morning hours of feast days, like dock workers, and likewise for those who have come in great numbers and from considerable distances for some religious or social celebration, etc.
With Reference to Evening Masses
By the force of the Constitution the Ordinaries of places[27] have the faculty of permitting the saying of evening Masses in their own territory, should circumstances render this necessary. This holds true despite the command of canon 821, # 1. The common good sometimes demands the saying of Mass after midday: For example, for the workers in some industries who work their shifts even on feast days, for those categories of workers who must be on the job during the morning hours of feast days, like dock workers, and likewise for those who have come in great numbers and from considerable distances for some religious or social celebration, etc.
- Such Masses, however, may not be said before four o’clock in the afternoon, and may be celebrated only on the following definitely stated days.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
And yet, none of the vernacular translations have any authority.
Dr P----- knows this well. I cannot help but wonder why he is willing to accept the canons in the vernacular on this particular point.
The Latin text says “vespere” it does not use the Latin equivalents of “afternoon” or “after noon.” It isn’t as if there’s some problem expressing “after noon” in Latin. If the legislator had intended to say “after noon” then the canon would read “post meridiem” but it does not.
I’ve seen the English language commentary that argues in favor of “after noon.” It’s based on not just interpreting the canon in the vernacular (which, everyone knows is not acceptable), but goes even further by using the vernacular word “evening” in a slang sense.
It’s amazing to me how such an argument is given any credence. We do not (not ever) interpret canons according to slang usage in the vernacular.
Why do it for this canon???I admit that there’s some problems translating a Latin word that’s based on times-of-day that were determined by the position of the sun rather than fixed-time hours that we have today. But quite frankly, the argument that “evening begins at noon” just carries no credibility in my mind. None whatsoever.
B
Brandon_Cal
Guest
Does Canon Law categorically define ‘Vespers’, or is there some leeway in that as well? I’ve been in Catholic churches that have run the gamut in celebration of Vespers; everything from 3:00 PM to 6:30 PM.And yet, none of the vernacular translations have any authority.
Dr P----- knows this well. I cannot help but wonder why he is willing to accept the canons in the vernacular on this particular point.
The Latin text says “vespere” it does not use the Latin equivalents of “afternoon” or “after noon.” It isn’t as if there’s some problem expressing “after noon” in Latin. If the legislator had intended to say “after noon” then the canon would read “post meridiem” but it does not.
I’ve seen the English language commentary that argues in favor of “after noon.” It’s based on not just interpreting the canon in the vernacular (which, everyone knows is not acceptable), but goes even further by using the vernacular word “evening” in a slang sense.
It’s amazing to me how such an argument is given any credence. We do not (not ever) interpret canons according to slang usage in the vernacular.
I admit that there’s some problems translating a Latin word that’s based on times-of-day that were determined by the position of the sun rather than fixed-time hours that we have today. But quite frankly, the argument that “evening begins at noon” just carries no credibility in my mind. None whatsoever.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
From what I understand, in monastic communities, Vespere is 4:00 PM. I’m not a monk.
The difficulty is that the ancient Roman calendar/clock divided the day into 12 equal hours of day and night. An hour in summer was longer than an hour in winter. They also had “markers” throughout the day that would indicate certain points on the clock. Christians eventually developed a prayer schedule based on those markers. That’s why the Liturgy of the Hours are named after times (the third hour, the noon hour, etc.)
I’ve looked at the Instruction for the Liturgy of the Hours and there’s nothing (I can find) that definitively assigns times (according to the modern clock) to the Hours.
There is an obvious problem when we try to take those ancient words and translate them into a modern clock that is not based on the position of the sun, but on an arbitrary system of fixed times (an hour is always the same length in our current system).
Since the Church does not specifically and definitively define how to reconcile the two systems, ancient and modern, I am of the opinion that we should follow the precedent that the Church has been using for decades.
Pope Pius XII, in 1953, defined an evening Mass as starting no earlier than 4:00 PM. He did it when he first allowed evening Masses (not evening-before, but evening of the same calendar day). See the quote from Christus Dominus posted by Phemie. I understand (but cannot prove at the moment) that he also granted an indult during World War II, so that moves the precedent a decade earlier.
The permission to attend a Mass on Saturday evening, as a Mass for Sunday (the so-called anticipated Mass) came later (after Christus Dominus); and developed gradually until it became universal in the 1983 Code. Before 1983, certain conditions had to be met, including special permission from the bishop, and a genuine necessity. Again, the time was specified as 4:00 PM.
On the one hand, we have 70 years of precedent defining “evening” as 4:00 PM according to the modern clock.
On the other hand, we have nothing that supports the idea that “evening begins at noon” (even the sentence itself is a non sequitur) other than a handful of people whose personal opinions want to use vernacular slang to interpret canon law.
Aside: I’m at the office working right now, and I’m going back-and-forth adding paragraphs to this post. If it seems disconnected, my apologies.
V
Vico
Guest
Seems that Dr. Peters did post on these sources.
The three European canon law commentaries use noon, as opposed to North America, Huels 4PM (CLSA New Comm (2001) 1445.):
- British Isles: GB&I Comm (1985) 702
- Spain: Exegetical Comm III/2 (2004): 1901
- Italy: Chiappetta II (2011): 522.
canonlawblog.wordpress.com/
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Yes, some commentaries use the word “noon” or sometime after noon (at least the equivalent in those languages).
However, it’s not the commentaries that matter. The Code of Canon Law is what matters, and the Code says evening (vespere). The Code does not say noon, or afternoon.
If the legislator had meant for the Code to mean “noon” then the legislator (in this case, St John Paul II) would have used “noon” (ok, post meridiem) in the Code, and would not have used the word vespere.
A person who attends Mass on Saturday afternoon at 1:00 PM has not met the requirement of canon 1248, which says “vespere.”
D
Digitonomy
Guest
The English language commentary that argues in favor of “after noon” is Canon Law, Letter and Spirit by the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland. It does not use the vernacular word “evening” in a slang sense.I’ve seen the English language commentary that argues in favor of “after noon.” It’s based on not just interpreting the canon in the vernacular (which, everyone knows is not acceptable), but goes even further by using the vernacular word “evening” in a slang sense.
It’s amazing to me how such an argument is given any credence. We do not (not ever) interpret canons according to slang usage in the vernacular.
V
Vico
Guest
That is logical, and personally I think it natural to begin only after the ninth hour is completed. The difficulty is that evening has different meanings in English, for example, evening: (Southern US & British, dialect) the period between noon and sunset. (Collins Dictionary).
P
ProVobis
Guest
There is no exact translation of vespere into English, although it’s generally translated as “in the evening,” as you say, that meaning varies from region to region.
Think of the world “teenager.” Try translating that into some other language (other than German) and preserve its nuance.
…
F
FrDavid96
Guest
It certainly uses it in a slang sense. The word “evening” does not mean “after 12 noon” in standard English. That use is only found in Southern US slang----it’s not used anywhere else in the English language; and even in the South, it’s rarely used except by older generations.
The commentary (not the Code, but merely the commentary, which has no force of law) relies on a slang use of the word. That’s clearly in violation of canon 17
Can. 17 Ecclesiastical laws must be understood in accord with the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places, if there are such, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.
Parallel places refers to the fact that we have more than 70 years of precedent of popes (supreme legislators) specifying that evening begins at 4 PM.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Even so, it doesn’t matter.
Only the Latin text of the Code has force of law.
A vernacular slang use of a word has no force of law; not even if someone posits that use in a commentary.
If we were to apply that standard (evening means after noon) in other places in canon law, we might as well say that a priest can consecrate dollar bills at Mass because “bread” is an American slang word for “money.” Doing that would be to apply the exact same criteria.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Yet, it doesn’t matter what is meant by “evening” in English.
What does matter is what is meant by “vespere” in Latin.
There’s no way that vespere means “after noon” in Latin because it refers to the ninth hour of daylight, in the ancient system that had 12 equal hours of daylight.
If the intent of the legislator was to be “noon” then the legislator would have used the word noon in the code. That’s not what’s in the code. It’s not as if the Latin language lacks a word for noon.
Admitting that we cannot translate “vespere” into the modern clock, there is simply no way that the word can be used to mean “noon.” The word itself means (in a sense) three-quarters of the day after noon has passed. To equate “vespere” with “noon” (meridiem) is simply disingenuous. It’s like saying “four means eight” or “six means twenty.”
O
otjm
Guest
I guess the easiest answer would be obtained by asking Dr. Peters the question(s).
P
ProVobis
Guest
No argument from me.
G
Greg1963
Guest
It’s 4 PM local time no matter what time zone you are on.
- Status