Paul Turner’s Catholic Liturgy Blog

Who replaced Judas?

Q:  In places where the Ascension is celebrated on a Thursday, the first reading on the Seventh Sunday of Easter is about the election of Matthias to replace Judas. In the New American Bible, Acts 1:23 gives the name of the other candidate as Joseph, but the Lectionary for Mass, which uses the same translation in the United States, says his name is Judas. Why is there a discrepancy?
A:  There are times when the vocabulary in the lectionary’s version of the NAB has been changed from the published bible, usually for some liturgical reason. For example, the Lord’s Prayer that appears in the lectionary matches the words we use at mass (“thy” instead of “your”), even though these are not the same words in the bible. Also, the word “cup” sometimes appears as “chalice” in the lectionary, supposedly because of its liturgical connotations. Eventually, we’ll probably see a translation of the NAB that matches what has been chosen for the lectionary.
In this case, the bible has “Joseph” – and so does the Greek original of Acts. The lectionary has changed it to Judas probably because of a tradition that he is the same person mentioned in Acts 15:22 (Judas Barsabbas). That reading appears in the lectionary cycle on Friday of the Fifth Week of Easter each year. It looks as though the compilers of the lectionary thought that this achieved better consistency.
On another note, I remember one wag suggesting that the reason Judas/Joseph/Barsabbas/Justus lost out to Matthias was not just the drawing of lots but because nobody could remember his name.

Last week on the site

The following was added this week to www.paulturner.org:

  • “My Sacrifice and Yours” – a workshop for National Association of Pastoral Musicians, Scranton Chapter, on May 11.
  • A blog post about reverencing the altar.
  • The homily for the Memorial Mass for Lucas Turner.
  • The homilies for Ascension Sunday in both English and Español:  https://paulturner.org/homilies-year-b-2015/
  • The scores for the Royals’ pre-game activities for the game on May 15:  https://paulturner.org/pre-game-grades/

Reverencing the altar

Q:  At our parish, cantors and lectors bow to the altar on their way to the ambo, but not on their way back to their original places. It is felt that reverencing the altar twice is redundant. What would you say is correct?
A:  The Ceremonial of Bishops #72 says, “A deep bow is made to the altar by all who enter the sanctuary (chancel), leave it, or pass before the altar.”  The way I read that, it would be preferable for the ministers to bow to the altar on entering and again on leaving the sanctuary.

Last week on the site

The following was added this week to www.paulturner.org:

 

Wedding Question

Q:  A Catholic bride and Methodist Groom are seeking marriage. The priest has denied allowing them to be married within the Mass and has assigned a Deacon to perform the rite outside of Mass. They have requested a priest and a Mass, as both parties have large numbers of Catholics in their families. Is it permissible for the priest to deny them the celebration of a Mass and ask a Deacon to fill in instead? They feel that since they both aren’t Catholic, that the priest is “ducking out” of his responsibilities to witness a sacramental marriage.   Any help is appreciated.
A:   The revised Rite of Marriage is still not available in English, but when it comes out, it will have an expanded introduction. The introduction is technically “in force” – even though we don’t have it in English yet. The translations I’m giving you below are not official.

  • from Paragraph 29: “with due regard both for the necessities of pastoral care and for the way in which the prospective spouses and those present participate in the life of the Church, the pastor should decide whether it would be preferable to propose that Marriage be celebrated within or without Mass.” It cites canon 1115, which doesn’t shed much light on this particular question.
  • from Paragraph 36: “If a Marriage takes place between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic, the rite for celebrating Marriage without Mass (nos. 79-117) should be used. If, however, the situation warrants it, the rite for celebrating Marriage within Mass (nos. 45-78) may be used, with the consent of the local Ordinary.”
The way I read it, the priest is within his rights. Nonetheless, a wedding without mass by a deacon is just as much a sacrament as a wedding with mass by a priest. The couple give the sacrament to each other. The priest or deacon is the Church’s official witness.
If the couple were in my parish, I’d probably agree that mass would be a good idea. But I don’t know all that this priest is dealing with. He might really be stressed to the max and unable to provide extra services on weekends. Just hard to know.

Last Week on the Site

The following was added this week to www.paulturner.org:

 

 

Women and Feet Washing

Q:  Is it a rule that women are banned from having their feet washed at the Holy Thursday service?  And if so, since when?

A:  The Roman Missal says that males may have their feet washed. It has said the same thing ever since the missal was revised after the Second Vatican Council. Many parishes allow women to have their feet washed at the Mass of the Lord’s Supper out of a spirit of service.  I treated this in more detail in two of my books:  “In These or Similar Words” and “Glory in the Cross”.  

The Emmaus Story

Q:  Do you know the history of the Emmaus story in the lectionary?  Would it have been read during the dies in albis in the early church as it is now?
A:  We don’t have enough information about the use of the Emmaus story early on. It did not play a role in the preconciliar lectionary, from what I can see.  And the early mystagogical catecheses (which predate the earliest “lectionary”) do not imply that the Emmaus story was proclaimed that week. But who knows?
The story appears twice in today’s Easter lectionary – once as an option for the gospel at an evening mass on Easter Sunday, and then again on Wednesday of the Octave. You can see the post-Vatican II lectionary committee at work here. The first instance happens because the Emmaus story took place on the evening of the day of the resurrection. And the second instance is put into place in an attempt to string together a series of gospel passages about the resurrection in somewhat chronological order from Monday through Saturday of the Octave.  But that’s sheer Vatican II thinking.

Covering crosses on Palm Sunday

Q:  The rubrics for the 5th Sunday of Lent provide the option of veiling crosses and statues. The crosses are unveiled on Good Friday and the images unveiled before the Vigil.   If a parish chooses to cover crosses, how does this take into consideration the rubric for Palm Sunday that states the processional cross should be decorated?

A:  There is no clear answer to this from the rubrics, so one has to use one’s judgment. The veiling of crosses and statues is optional, even if the conference of bishops permits it. (The US Conference does.) It would also be acceptable to veil some crosses and statues but not all. There is complete flexibility with this custom.

If a parish wants to cover every possible cross and statue, then it can make a case for covering – and decorating – the processional cross on Palm Sunday.

If the parish views the processional cross as a festive and essential element for the procession that day, it is perfectly fine to leave it uncovered.