Abrogating a holy day

[Loud-living-dogma]

Loud-living-dogma:

I can see your point about Holy Days, but isn’t the obligation to attend Mass on Sundays directly coming from the 3rd Commandment?

No, actually. The commandment only says to keep holy the sabbath, and in our case the Lord’s Day. It doesn’t command that we must attend Mass.

It is the Church that places the requirement to attend mass on that day as an obligation, not the commandment itself.

Mass is certainly an excellent way to keep the Sabbath holy. But don’t confuse the commandment with the mass obligation. They are not the same thing.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, there. Then theoretically, couldn’t any bishop could say “a lot of Catholics aren’t getting to Mass on Sunday. I don’t want them to be in a state of mortal sin for that, or to feel bad. Therefore, since it’s only a requirement of the Church, I will abrogate the obligation to attend Mass on Sunday for the Catholics in X diocese”. If a single bishop can abrogate the obligation for a HDO, why not any old Sunday?
Or what does this Canon mean? I don’t know the exact meaning of these terms, but I am curious now. Could a bishop, acting on his own, dispense (abrogate?) the obligation to attend Mass on Sundays, or every Sunday, or a particular Sunday?

Can. 87 §1. A diocesan bishop, whenever he judges that it contributes to their spiritual good, is able to dispense the faithful from universal and particular disciplinary laws issued for his territory or his subjects by the supreme authority of the Church. He is not able to dispense, however, from procedural or penal laws nor from those whose dispensation is specially reserved to the Apostolic See or some other authority.

Code of Canon Law: Table of Contents

Code of Canon Law: Table of Contents

www.vatican.va

 

[thistle]

I’ve been reading that some dioceses don’t observe January 1st as a Holy Day of Obligation. Does anyone know the reasoning behind that? I know that individual bishops may choose to not require it as a Holy Day (Canon 87 section 1), but I wondered specifically about the reason why they don’t.
Thanks!

It also depends on which country you live in. Holy Days of Obligation differ from country to country.

 

[Titivillus]

Could a bishop, acting on his own, dispense (abrogate?) the obligation to attend Mass on Sundays, or every Sunday, or a particular Sunday?

Yes.

There has been a time or two in my area when due to severe winter weather the diocesan bishop has dispensed with the obligation for a particular Sunday. (Whether it would be prudent to do so in general is a question of …um… prudence)

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I understand dispensing with the obligation in bad weather, or abrogating it in a case of having a priest shortage or some other hardship situation where people would have physical difficulty getting to church on a weekday, like maybe there’s only one church for a big area and people have to drive over an hour to get there on a day when they also have to work.

If it’ s just a case of people partying and not coming to Mass, I do not understand why in some dioceses people are expected to just man up and get themselves to Mass (a vigil Mass if need be) and in other dioceses people are allowed to be lazy. It makes no sense. If people in Philadelphia can get to Holy Day Mass, then what makes people in Southern California so special that they’re exempt? Both areas have a ton of Catholic churches and significant traffic congestion.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Well, you wouldn’t want Catholics in Southern California to feel bad, or to incur a mortal sin, would you? Seriously, why not dispense the obligation for every Sunday? After all, churches would still offer Mass, and people could still go then…

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Given the priest shortages and the parish clustering in some parts of the country, I"m actually surprised that no diocese has tried to get rid of the Sunday Mass obligation yet.

I’ve certainly heard enough stuff about “it would be better if people came to Mass because they wanted to be there and not because it was required for them to be there.”

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Loud-living-dogma:

I’ve been reading that some dioceses don’t observe January 1st as a Holy Day of Obligation. Does anyone know the reasoning behind that? I know that individual bishops may choose to not require it as a Holy Day (Canon 87 section 1), but I wondered specifically about the reason why they don’t.
Thanks!

Joanna Bogle comments on the Church in England and Wales:

“The thinking behind this is not daft. Many people, by failing to attend Mass on a Holy Day, miss out on the great reality of the feast, and the importance that it holds for us in our lives as Christians. The bishops believe that, rather than allow this to occur, the feast should be observed on a Sunday when more people are likely to be at Mass.”

Holy Days

Well, that would explain why a Holy Day of Obligation would be to the Sunday. I suppose that has the same effect as abrogating the obligation, though, doesn’t it?

CIC 1246, §2 includes: "… the conference of bishops can abolish certain holy days of obligation or transfer them to a Sunday with prior approval of the Apostolic See,

Recent example USCCB:

Since December 8, 2013, is the Third Sunday of Advent, the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary is transferred to Monday, December 9, 2013. The obligation to attend Mass, however, does not transfer.

Obligatory liturgy and rest from labors based upon CIC and CCEO canon laws are:

Obligation	Latin​	Eastern​
Sundays	yes​	yes​
Immac. Conc. - Dec 8	yes​	no​
Nativity of our Lord - Dec 25	yes​	yes​
Mother of God - Jan 1	yes​	no​
Epiphany of our Lord - Jan 6	yes​	yes​
St. Joseph - Mar 19	yes​	no​
Ascension Thursday	yes​	yes​
Body and Blood of Christ Thursday	yes​	no​
Sts. Peter and Paul - Jun 29	yes​	yes​
Assumption - Aug 15	yes​	yes​
All Saints - Nov 1	yes​	no​

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Yep - we’ve already argued about this. Done and dusted.

 

[1ke]

If a single bishop can abrogate the obligation for a HDO, why not any old Sunday?

Abrogate, no. That requires approval of the Holy See.

Dispense, yes.

 

[1ke]

If it’ s just a case of people partying and not coming to Mass, I

That’s an assumption, not a fact. I haven’t seen any bishop state they were dispensing anything for this reason.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The problem is when they don’t give a reason, and the reason isn’t obvious (e.g. bad weather), that’s the inference that people draw.

Although the bishops don’t have to give a reason, it would be helpful if they did give one, so the faithful could understand why Diocese A is still expected to comply while Diocese B, that seems fully capable of complying, is getting a “free pass”.

 

[11101]

At a certain point, an inability to make a reasonable assumption is to be naïve. The only other possibility I can think of is that priests don’t feel like holding mass that day (which would pair with the fact that a lot of parishes actually do fewer services that day than their normal holy day schedules).

Of the two, “people don’t feel like coming, and won’t, so why require them?” is a more charitable assumption.

Seriously, though, they should just have the masses later. Have a mass at 8pm on New Years’ Day. That’s what some parishhes do around here.

 

[11101]

I live in Philadelphia, one of the few places in the US where you still have to come to church on Ascension Thursday (because Thursday isn’t Sunday). Apparently, we are superhumans.

 

[Vico]

…
Seriously, though, they should just have the masses later. Have a mass at 8pm on New Years’ Day. That’s what some parishhes do around here.

It is already a norm that the evening of the day before the Holy Day is included in the time allowed for fulfillment of the obligation, and it is an accommodation for modern work schedules. Apparently the bishops think even that is insufficient.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

11101:

…
Seriously, though, they should just have the masses later. Have a mass at 8pm on New Years’ Day. That’s what some parishhes do around here.

It is already a norm that the evening of the day before the Holy Day is included in the time allowed for fulfillment of the obligation, and it is an accommodation for modern work schedules.

True, but often those are at 5 or 6, and us modern working stiffs cannot necessarily get to those.
8 would be awfully accommodating, but I agree not necessary.

 

[11101]

No, not NEw Year’s Eve. New Year’s DAY. JAnuary the 1st. IT doesn’t interfere with parties or parades

 

[1ke]

The only other possibility I can think of is that priests

Oh, yes, that’s it. The bishops are lazy, the priest are lazy, the faithful are lazy. That’s the only possible explanation.

@edward_george1 care to chime in on how lazy you and your fellow priests are?

 

[11101]

I think this is a big big issue. ON days we have work, most parishes offere fewer mass times!

 

[Vico]

Vico:

11101:

…
Seriously, though, they should just have the masses later. Have a mass at 8pm on New Years’ Day. That’s what some parishhes do around here.

It is already a norm that the evening of the day before the Holy Day is included in the time allowed for fulfillment of the obligation, and it is an accommodation for modern work schedules.

True, but often those are at 5 or 6, and us modern working stiffs cannot necessarily get to those.
8 would be awfully accommodating, but I agree not necessary.

Note that I added to my previous post: “Apparently the bishops think even that is insufficient.”

In my parish, 7:30 PM is the usual time for evening weekday liturgy. Otherwise Saturday at 5:30 PM and Sunday at 10 AM. We only have a maximum of one liturgy per day.

 

[11101]

I didn’t say I thought that. I said that was the only other explanation I could think of, and that I preferred the other one. WHat do you think the explanation is for moving everything to Sundays, dispensing with Holy Days, etc?