1917 Canon Law - Sunday Mass Obligatioin

  • Thread starter Thread starter jmg97ia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jmg97ia

Guest
Where is the reference in the 1917 canon law that removed the Sunday Mass obligation should a person have to travel more than certain distance. This relief from the Sunday obligation was removed in the 1983 Canon Law.
 
jmg97ia said:
Where is the reference in the 1917 canon law that removed the Sunday Mass obligation should a person have to travel more than certain distance. This relief from the Sunday obligation was removed in the 1983 Canon Law.
Click to expand...
Does it matter. The 1983 one supersedes the 1917 one which is no longer in force.
 
thistle said:
Does it matter. The 1983 one supersedes the 1917 one which is no longer in force.
Click to expand...
Not to mention, here in the southeastern United States, there’s a good bit of distance between some rural areas and the closest Catholic churches.
 
jmg97ia said:
Where is the reference in the 1917 canon law that removed the Sunday Mass obligation should a person have to travel more than certain distance. This relief from the Sunday obligation was removed in the 1983 Canon Law.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant at this point.
 
They opened a hole in the roof and lowered a paralytic to Him! If one loves the Lord with all their heart, strength and mind, they will find a way to worship Him at mass.
 
jmg97ia said:
Where is the reference in the 1917 canon law that removed the Sunday Mass obligation should a person have to travel more than certain distance. This relief from the Sunday obligation was removed in the 1983 Canon Law.
Click to expand...
Can 1248. Festis de praecepto diebus Missa audienda est; et abstinendum ab operibus servilibus, actibus forensibus, itemque, nisi aliud ferant legitimae consuetudines aut peculiaria indulta, publico mercatu, nundinis, aliisque publicis emptionibus et venditionibus.

From: *A commentary on the new Code of canon Law *
by Charles Augustine, Rev. P., O.S.B., b.1872
Copyright 1921

archive.org/stream/commentarycanon06charuoft/commentarycanon06charuoft_djvu.txt

CANON 1248 173

As stated in the historical note, every holyday of obli
gation is a day of rest and worship. Hence on these days
Mass must be heard. This obligation obliges all the faith
ful of the Latin Church and the inhabitants of China and
other missionary countries under the S. C. P. F. 5 The
obligation is grievous, binding under mortal sin. One
does not comply with this precept by hearing two or even
four parts of Masses said simultaneously by different
priests. 6 It may not be amiss to set forth here what the
S. C. P. F. answered the Vicar Apostolic of Ueskub in
Servia; for it has a general bearing. Not only distance,
but also the condition of roads, as well as age, sex, and
mental attitude of the faithful must be taken into con
sideration where there is question of excusing them from
the obligation of attending Mass on holydays of obliga
tion. If going to church would cause a great inconven
ience, one may be freed from the duty ; but if the distance
is not great, or the fatigue would be but small, the obliga
tion does not cease. 7 The decision refers to the theories
of the moralists, who may therefore be consulted. 8
 
jmg97ia said:
Where is the reference in the 1917 canon law that removed the Sunday Mass obligation should a person have to travel more than certain distance. This relief from the Sunday obligation was removed in the 1983 Canon Law.
Click to expand...
The law itself said nothing about this.
 
Vico said:
Can 1248. Festis de praecepto diebus Missa audienda est; et abstinendum ab operibus servilibus, actibus forensibus, itemque, nisi aliud ferant legitimae consuetudines aut peculiaria indulta, publico mercatu, nundinis, aliisque publicis emptionibus et venditionibus.From: *A commentary on the new Code of canon Law *
by Charles Augustine, Rev. P., O.S.B., b.1872
Copyright 1921

archive.org/stream/commentarycanon06charuoft/commentarycanon06charuoft_djvu.txt
CANON 1248 173

As stated in the historical note, every holyday of obli
gation is a day of rest and worship. Hence on these days
Mass must be heard. This obligation obliges all the faith
ful of the Latin Church and the inhabitants of China and
other missionary countries under the S. C. P. F. 5 The
obligation is grievous, binding under mortal sin. One
does not comply with this precept by hearing two or even
four parts of Masses said simultaneously by different
priests. 6 It may not be amiss to set forth here what the
S. C. P. F. answered the Vicar Apostolic of Ueskub in
Servia; for it has a general bearing. Not only distance,
but also the condition of roads, as well as age, sex, and
mental attitude of the faithful must be taken into con
sideration where there is question of excusing them from
the obligation of attending Mass on holydays of obliga
tion. If going to church would cause a great inconven
ience, one may be freed from the duty ; but if the distance
is not great, or the fatigue would be but small, the obliga
tion does not cease. 7 The decision refers to the theories
of the moralists, who may therefore be consulted. 8
Click to expand...
1ke said:
The law itself said nothing about this.
Click to expand...
Thank you both for confirming that and Vico’s inclusion of the commentary. I had gone over Dr Peter’s English translation several times and found no exemption in the law itself and did not have access to the sources in his footnotes.

To those who say the 1917 code is irrelevant in light of the 1983 code it is a little like saying that the Old Testament is irrelevant in light of the New Testament (okay, not quite, but stick with me ;)). There is value in knowing what went before. It helps us understand what are merely human laws that might change versus those laws that are eternal and unchangeable. It can also provide us insight into how things were understood in previous generations and provide a better anchor to understand those same things in this generation. If certain laws changed or were abrogated it is not irrelevant if one want to understand how we got to where we are.

Should we not read anything written by the Church fathers simply because St John Paul II or Pope Francis might have spoken on it? Do the earlier writings have no bearing because they might have been expounded on? Of course not.

Just because someone asks why something in force before Vatican II might have been changed afterwords does not mean that they are attacking any teaching or have an ulterior motive. Perhaps they take the site name of “Catholic Answers” at face value and are asking to understand something of our past and not trying to undermine anything. Could people not just answer the question and then ask “is there a reason so that I can help provide further guidance” instead of just dismissing the question out of hands as unimportant?
 
adamhovey1988 said:
Historical reasons?
Click to expand...
👍

Personal interest? Trying to reach a better understanding of what may apply now, in principle if not in law? To settle an argument with someone who said there was never any such thing? To send some of us off into our old books, for no particular reason?

Half of the responses in this thread remind me that there is some nearly universal urge to, rather than answer a direct question, say that it’s the wrong question or to guess at the OP’s “real” mistake or motives. In many cases the OP can’t avoid taking the bait, and defending their question rather than addressing the answers.

And, yes that is an entirely tangential comment. Such is fair, within moderation, and is quite different from criticising/questioning the OP and diverting the discussion into “why are you asking this?”, especially when competent people are already engaged in answering the question.
Usige said:
Just because someone asks why something in force before Vatican II might have been changed afterwords does not mean that they are attacking any teaching or have an ulterior motive. Perhaps they take the site name of “Catholic Answers” at face value and are asking to understand something of our past and not trying to undermine anything.** Could people not just answer the question and then ask “is there a reason so that I can help provide further guidance” instead of just dismissing the question out of hands as unimportant?**
Click to expand...
👍:yup:

It’s been on mind for years to raise this issue as a direct post, but I haven’t got around to it because I want to frame it well when I do. I’ll call it “Wong’s Law” after a work colleague of mine who first pointed it out to me, in relation to other forums.
 
Vico said:
Can 1248. Festis de praecepto diebus Missa audienda est; et abstinendum ab operibus servilibus, actibus forensibus, itemque, nisi aliud ferant legitimae consuetudines aut peculiaria indulta, publico mercatu, nundinis, aliisque publicis emptionibus et venditionibus.
Click to expand...
Here is Dr. Peters’ translation, just in case anyone is curious: On feast days of precept, Mass is to be heard; there is an abstinence from servile work, legal acts, and likewise, unless there is a special indult or legitimate customs provide otherwise, from public trade, shopping, and other public buying and selling
For comparison, canon 1247 from the 1983 code can be read here.
 
po18guy said:
They opened a hole in the roof and lowered a paralytic to Him! If one loves the Lord with all their heart, strength and mind, they will find a way to worship Him at mass.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with the Mass obligation? 🤷
 
MikeDunphy said:
Here is Dr. Peters’ translation, just in case anyone is curious: On feast days of precept, Mass is to be heard; there is an abstinence from servile work, legal acts, and likewise, unless there is a special indult or legitimate customs provide otherwise, from public trade, shopping, and other public buying and selling
For comparison, canon 1247 from the 1983 code can be read here.
Click to expand...
I am not sure that answers the question. If taken as it is…then a Catholic in the hospital would be required to assist at Mass. There are no exceptions indicated. I don’t think it is universally.
 
Not canon law, of course, but here is the opinion of Fr. Arthur Devine, a Passionist Priest, from a book published in 1897:By moral impotence or inability, they are excused who live a long distance from a church : a distance of a walk of an hour and a quarter to the church is sufficient to excuse anyone ; a less distance when it rains or snows, or in the case of weak, delicate people
jmg97ia said:
Where is the reference in the 1917 canon law that removed the Sunday Mass obligation should a person have to travel more than certain distance. This relief from the Sunday obligation was removed in the 1983 Canon Law.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top