That’s simply not true given the language used throughout the GIRM. There are countless instances where it does not give this level of latitude. If the Church did not want to allow any latitude it could have used “will”, “must” or another word that did not allow any deviation.In English this “should” is understood to mean “is expected to be.” A very educated priest once told me that there is no Latin word for “should” if we want to say “optionally.”
So yes, there must be a flame near the tabernacle to indicate the presence of our Lord.
Yes, it should, but it’s not mandated (will/must) and the GIRM does mandate quite a few things.
In English this “should” is understood to mean “is expected to be.” A very educated priest once told me that there is no Latin word for “should” if we want to say “optionally.”
The choice of English words was made by the USCCB. They’ve gotten parts of the GIRM wrong before (their translation of this one doesn’t do justice to perenniter (“perpetually”)) and I would argue that the Latin for this part is not permissive language but declarative (grammatically called the “jussive”).That’s simply not true given the language used throughout the GIRM. There are countless instances where it does not give this level of latitude. If the Church did not want to allow any latitude it could have used “will”, “must” or another word that did not allow any deviation. I agree that a special lamp, fueled by oil or wax, is expected to be be kept alight, but it’s not mandated. Not with that language.
The Latin of GIRM 316: Secundum traditam consuetudinem, iuxta tabernaculum peculiaris perenniter luceat lampas, oleo vel cera nutrienda, qua indicetur et honoretur Christi praesentia.
The USCCB translation reads: “In accordance with traditional custom, near the tabernacle a special lamp, fueled by oil or wax, should be kept alight to indicate and honor the presence of Christ.”
There is no verb “to be” in this sentence. Luceat is the 3rd person singular present-tense active subjunctive; this might make it the “jussive” sense, which is best translated as “let …” in the sense of “let there be light” (cf. Gen 1:3, “Fiat lux”).
My translation: “According to the received tradition, let there shine perpetually near the tabernacle a special lamp, fueled by oil or wax, by which the presence of Christ is indicated and honored.”
OK, you can challenge the accuracy of the GIRM interpretation and you may well be right, but that’s an entirely different issue. As translated and approved in English, it does allow considerable latitude – in this case it is not mandated that we have an open flame. The Church would need to change at least this interpretation of the GIRM in order to make it mandatory across the board for the USA and likely elsewhere.The choice of English words was made by the USCCB. They’ve gotten parts of the GIRM wrong before (their translation of this one doesn’t do justice to perenniter (“perpetually”)) and I would argue that the Latin for this part is not permissive language but declarative (grammatically called the “jussive”).
Here’s the post I wrote before; perhaps you glossed over it…
Actually the version of the GIRM we are discussing is confirmed for use in the Dioceses of the USA and is to be followed. It’s far more than a “mere convenience.”It is important to remember that, in the case of Canon Law and Missal Instructions, the Latin is the definitive version, and the English a mere convenience.
Ok, then the question becomes: extreme cases (fire code violations, etc.) aside, why would a parish or diocese choose to deviate from the long-standing tradition of the Church in this matter?As translated and approved in English, it does allow considerable latitude – in this case it is not mandated that we have an open flame.
How does one insure that the electric lamp stays lit at all times the Blessed Sacrament is in the tabernacle? Do they have a special generator for it in case the power goes out due to a snow storm or something?Actually the version of the GIRM we are discussing is confirmed for use in the Dioceses of the USA and is to be followed. It’s far more than a “mere convenience.”
Does that mean that an oil or wax-fired open flame should be near a tabernacle if the Blessed Sacrament is reposed inside? Yes, the governing version of the GIRM for the USA is clear, it does. Does it mandate it? Absolutely not.
If someone attends a parish where the eternal light is electric, would their pastor listen if they claimed the confirmed translation of the GIRM for the US was in error and that the parish should be following their personal interpretation? Likely not. More important, the parish would not be in error for using the electric light.
Ask how they keep it lit when the power goes out? Maybe the plan is to bring out a candle!The adoriation chapel that I attend weekly, has an electric votive lamp. They use to have a traditional candle, but last year converted over to the electric one.
I’m going to ask the director why. My guess is that it was approved by the Bishop’s office, as the entire chapel was.
Jim
Church law is always the Latin… when in doubt, one goes to the latin… which requires flame, not just light.Actually the version of the GIRM we are discussing is confirmed for use in the Dioceses of the USA and is to be followed. It’s far more than a “mere convenience.”
Does that mean that an oil or wax-fired open flame should be near a tabernacle if the Blessed Sacrament is reposed inside? Yes, the governing version of the GIRM for the USA is clear, it does. Does it mandate it? Absolutely not.
If someone attends a parish where the eternal light is electric, would their pastor listen if they claimed the confirmed translation of the GIRM for the US was in error and that the parish should be following their personal interpretation? Likely not. More important, the parish would not be in error for using the electric light.
I know of one parish that is currently being remodeled which has had an open flame (and a city permit for it) since it opened 50 years ago. The bishop (of course) approved all plans. On his list of directed changes and additions was replacing the open flame with an electric light.Ok, then the question becomes: extreme cases (fire code violations, etc.) aside, why would a parish or diocese choose to deviate from the long-standing tradition of the Church in this matter?
Actually, no, that’s not true. Our marching orders are from our Bishops. They are instructed in this case by the GIRM as approved for the USA. Under these circumstances if they direct the use of an electric light, they would not be in error. It’s really not our responsibility to suggest the Church in the USA is in error based on our own personal translations. I also don’t believe they would take anyone very seriously who claimed their personal interpretation of Latin was better than the USCCB’s interpretation.Church law is always the Latin… when in doubt, one goes to the latin… which requires flame, not just light.
The reliance on the Latin is always the recourse when there is doubt (or error) in the typical vernacular edition.
What needs to be understood though is that Bishops and pastors can and do have agendas and can and do make errors, sometimes even intentionally because of their own personal views.Actually, no, that’s not true. Our marching orders are from our Bishops. They are instructed in this case by the GIRM as approved for the USA. Under these circumstances if they direct the use of an electric light, they would not be in error. It’s really not our responsibility to suggest the Church in the USA is in error based on our own personal translations. I also don’t believe they would take anyone very seriously who claimed their personal interpretation of Latin was better than the USCCB’s interpretation.
The GIRM could have easily mandated the use of an open flame and it did not. I’m quite certain that’s by design although I won’t speculate what caused the language that was ultimately used.
The worst part is making people feel as if their pastors/bishops erred by not following other peoples’ personal translations of the GIRM.
Let’s break this down logically…What needs to be understood though is that Bishops and pastors can and do have agendas and can and do make errors, sometimes even intentionally because of their own personal views.
Well, isn’t the purpose of the candle to let people know that the Blessed Sacrament is present in the tabernacle?Ask how they keep it lit when the power goes out? Maybe the plan is to bring out a candle!
Checking the French translation out of curiosity, it saysThere is no verb “to be” in this sentence. Luceat is the 3rd person singular present-tense active subjunctive; this might make it the “jussive” sense, which is best translated as “let …” in the sense of “let there be light” (cf. Gen 1:3, “Fiat lux”).
My translation: “According to the received tradition, let there shine perpetually near the tabernacle a special lamp, fueled by oil or wax, by which the presence of Christ is indicated and honored.”
The candle’s purpose is twofold: it indicates the presence of Christ (for our benefit) and it honors the presence of Christ (for His benefit). As such, it should burn perpetually, so long as the Blessed Sacrament is present.Well, isn’t the purpose of the candle to let people know that the Blessed Sacrament is present in the tabernacle? Being no one is allowed into the adoration chapel after hours, there wouldn’t be a need for the candle?
The candle’s purpose is twofold: it indicates the presence of Christ (for our benefit) and it honors the presence of Christ (for His benefit). As such, it should burn perpetually, so long as the Blessed Sacrament is present.
The precursor to the sanctuary lamp, the tabernacle lamp of the Israelites, was kept burning perpetually as well:
“And you shall command the people of Israel that they bring to you pure beaten olive oil for the light, that a lamp may be set up to burn continually.” (Exodus 27:20)
“Command the people of Israel to bring you pure oil from beaten olives for the lamp, that a light may be kept burning continually. Outside the veil of the testimony, in the tent of meeting, Aaron shall keep it in order from evening to morning before the LORD continually; it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations.” (Leviticus 22:2-3)
In Job 21:17, we read “How often is it that the lamp of the wicked is put out? That their calamity comes upon them?” In Proverbs 13:9, we read “The light of the righteous rejoices, but the lamp of the wicked will be put out.” Putting out a lamp was a symbol of death or at least of absence of presence. The sanctuary lamp is a symbol of the Lamb in Revelation 21:23: “And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine upon it, for the glory of God is its light, and its lamp is the Lamb.”
I think it is proper, then, that the sanctuary lamp be kept burning perpetually, even when no one visible is there to see it.
Alright just a bit of background first, Im a church historian by trade and training. That means I love the Latin Language and I’m good at it and have been around it both classically and theologically for years, not to brag just an intro. I know this isn’t the argument on which this whole thread depends but I wanted to add my two latin cents:The choice of English words was made by the USCCB. They’ve gotten parts of the GIRM wrong before (their translation of this one doesn’t do justice to perenniter (“perpetually”)) and I would argue that the Latin for this part is not permissive language but declarative (grammatically called the “jussive”)…