Sanctuary Lamp

[japhy]

Checking the French translation out of curiosity … no ‘should’, ‘let there shine’, etc. Just the statement that it is there burning. It doesn’t leave anything to interpretation.

That’s good to hear.

If anyone is curious what the previous Code of Canon Law said:

1917 CIC can. 1271. Coram tabernaculo, in quo sanctissimum Sacramentum asservatur, una saltem lampas diu noctuque continenter luceat, nutrienda oleo olivarum vel cera apum; ubi vero oleum olivarum haberi nequeat, Ordinarii loci prudentiae permittitur ut aliis oleis commutetur, quantum fieri potest, vegetabilibus.

As best I can render it: “Before (i.e. in the presence of) the tabernacle, in which the Most Blessed Sacrament is reserved, let there shine continuously (i.e. without interruption), by day and by night, at least one lamp, fueled by olive oil or bee’s wax; where true olive oil cannot be obtained, at the discretion of the local Ordinary, it may be permitted to be substituted by another oil, insofar as can be done, from vegetables.”

The point I wish to bring out is that the 1917 Code of Canon Law uses the same subjunctive-jussive verb luceat (“let there shine”) as the 1983 Code of Canon Law. If it was a requirement then, it’s a requirement now.

 

[japhy]

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.

Welcome to the conversation! I am genuinely interested in your perspective because you are more qualified in this department than myself.

First, church Latin and latin in general doesn’t like the jussive, its to messy. Second, the jussive is normally found in the past tenses of verbs, that is not the case here. I would say its either just a normal subjunctive or at best (and weirdest), as an optative (which is common in prayers and things of that sort). WIth things like the subjunctive you have to look at context and there just isn’t the context for the jussive so I dont think you can claim it is one.

Is the subjunctive being used here as “should” (positively permissive, you could say) then? I guess that’s “optative”?

I suppose the reason I think the jussive is being used here is because of what this guide tells me:
A speaker uses the jussive subjunctive (iubeo) to express his will that an action take place (or not take place). The negative is ne. This subjunctive is usually seen in the first person, where it is sometimes called the hortatory subjunctive (if a statement) or deliberative (if a question), and in the third person.

[The normal way of expressing will in the second person is to use the imperative, but the jussive subjunctive is also used, most often in early or colloquial Latin, or when the second person is indefinite (often with the perfect tense). Negative commands normally use the jussive (with ne) or noli/nolite with an infinitive, noli/nolite being a bit more polite.]

Church Latin likes the be easy and clear, that isn’t what happens with the jussive. Further, when the church wants to claim something that ought to be they just use the imp. not the subj. esp. when its not in the past.

For that, I will look elsewhere in the GIRM, to see if there is a clear distinction.

So, the conclusion that I think can be drawn is that while its nice to have it as an oil or wax fueled lamp, like most things in the Church, Christ won’t come down and beat you up for not having it that way. At best and most importantly the force of the Latin and the English is that something ought to be done to highlight the importance of the Sanctuary.

Well, of course Christ’s not going to beat us up, but some Catholics who fear the long-standing tradition of the Church is being sucked out of their local parishes might consider landing a blow or two on the poor soul whose job it is to extinguish (or replace with a electric bulb) the lamp by the tabernacle!

And I think the attention/importance is drawn specifically to the tabernacle and what is contained therein, rather than to the sanctuary in general (especially since tabernacles have a way of disappearing from the sanctuary these days).

 

[japhy]

Church Latin likes the be easy and clear, that isn’t what happens with the jussive. Further, when the church wants to claim something that ought to be they just use the imp. not the subj. esp. when its not in the past.

For that, I will look elsewhere in the GIRM, to see if there is a clear distinction.

… and I’m not sure I’m finding it. Here’s a simple sampling, with subjunctive (jussive?) in bold and permissive/preferential verbs underlined:

GIRM 117 (USCCB): The altar is to be covered with at least one white cloth. In addition, on or next to the altar are to be placed candlesticks with lighted candles: at least two in any celebration, or even four or six, especially for a Sunday Mass or a holy day of obligation. If the Diocesan Bishop celebrates, then seven candles should be used {the Latin does not have an additional verb here – japhy}. Also on or close to the altar, there is to be a cross with a figure of Christ crucified. The candles and the cross adorned with a figure of Christ crucified may also be carried in the Entrance Procession. On the altar itself may be placed the Book of the Gospels, distinct from the book of other readings, unless it is carried in the Entrance Procession.

GIRM 117 (Latin): Altare una saltem tobalea albi coloris cooperiatur. Super ipsum vero aut iuxta ipsum duo saltem in omni celebratione, vel etiam quattuor aut sex, praesertim si agitur de Missa dominicali vel festiva de praecepto, vel, si Episcopus diocesanus celebrat, septem candelabra cum cereis accensis ponantur. Item super altare vel circa ipsum habeatur crux, cum effigie Christi crucifixi. Candelabra autem et crux effigie Christi crucifixi ornata in processione ad introitum afferri possunt. Super ipsum altare poni potest, nisi in processione ad introitum deferatur, Evangeliarium a libro aliarum lectionum distinctum.

GIRM 301 (USCCB): In keeping with the Church’s traditional practice and the altar’s symbolism, the table of a fixed altar is to be of stone and indeed of natural stone.

GIRM 301 (Latin): Iuxta traditum Ecclesiae morem et significationem, mensa altaris fixi sit lapidea, et quidem ex lapide naturali.

GIRM 310 (USCCB): (Regarding the chair of the priest celebrant) Any appearance of a throne, however, is to be avoided.

GIRM 310 (Latin): Omnis autem species throni vitetur.

GIRM 333 (USCCB): For the blessing of sacred vessels, the rites prescribed in the liturgical books are to be followed.

GIRM 333 (Latin): Quoad vasorum sacrorum benedictionem, serventur ritus in libris liturgicis praescripti.

GIRM 334 (USCCB): The practice is to be kept of building a sacrarium in the sacristy, into which are poured the water from the purification of sacred vessels and linens.

GIRM 334 (Latin): Mos servetur exstruendi in sacristia sacrarium, in quod aqua ablutionis sacrorum vasorum et linteaminum fundatur.

I do see the occasional usage of the future-passive-participle + est (the “passive periphrastic”) construct which means “should/ought/had to [VERB]”, such as here:
GIRM 297 (USCCB): The celebration of the Eucharist in a sacred place is to be carried out on an altar…

GIRM 297 (Latin): Celebratio Eucharistiae, in loco sacro, peragenda est super altare…
I’ll compile more results.

 

[tee_eff_em]

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?

Only one thought comes to mind: I am sad to report that in my parish, though we have the usual altar candles and a candle (white) vigil lamp, we have no other candles. A few years ago, a previous pastor finally compromised to many requests and installed electric votive lights, for those who wished to use them (and from the look of them, many people do). He would not consider votive candles, in order to prevent the build-up and (ultimate) expense of cleaning the soot they would produce.

tee