Abrogating a holy day

[edward_george1]

I would, but I’m lying on the couch doing nothing and can’t be bothered to do so. Sorry.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

And I bet you have been for the past couple of weeks, right?

 

[edward_george1]

Well, actually, no joke, this week I’ve been catching up on sleep after traveling right after Christmas and then having weekend masses before a long day on New Year’s with a weird schedule. So I’ve actually been lying on the couch more than usual.

 

[11101]

And what is the explanation for Ascension Thursday where it isn’t getting dark? WHat is the explanation for the diocese of LA, also urban, also lots of public transport?

Edit: I think I edited this comment in stead of creating a new one

 

[1ke]

WHat do you think the explanation is for moving everything to Sundays, dispensing with Holy Days, etc?

I think each bishop looks at the situation in his diocese, confers with the curia, confers with his brother priests, and then makes decisions that he thinks are best for the spiritual welfare of his flock and for his priests.

My pastor is the pastor of 3 parishes that are geographically 80 miles one way from point to point with one parish between the two most distant parishes. He had to do cover two Sundays and two holy days at all three parishes in one week, trying to give each parish mass times that worked for their parishioners (one is mostly elderly and they don’t drive at night… and it gets dark between 4:30 and 5 p.m. here). That is a lot. He was on the road many hours. We are in the north, and there were bad road conditions. That is repeated all over our diocese where many priests are taking care of between 2-4 parishes in a rural geography.

So, yes, I can see a bishop looking at how his priests are spread thin and saying, “I am dispensing Jan 1”. When the holy day calendar was revised, the bishop’s conferences were asked to retain Christmas and one Marian feast. If a diocesan bishop has done that, then he may feel that he can dispense the additional Marian feast so close to one we just had (Dec 8) and Christmas.

In more urban areas, such as those who mention Philadelphia, they may have a much different situation as it pertains to number of priests, ability of parishioners to walk or take public transport, more parishes in a smaller geography, etc.

These are some alternatives to thinking “priests just don’t want to be bothered”.

 

[edward_george1]

I think I answered that in my post above, at least in terms of the general principles. But I can’t speak for anyone’s particular reasons for abrogating or dispensing obligations. You’d have to ask them.

It truly isn’t worth getting worked up about. If a bishop somewhere wants to dispense his people from an obligation, fine. If he did it for good reason, great. If he did it for a bad reason, that’s his to account for. It doesn’t really concern me one way or the other. If it were my Bishop, then there simply wouldn’t be an obligation to attend Mass. I would still celebrate Mass, and surely people would still come. I celebrate Mass a lot of days where there’s no obligation and lots of people still come.

Mass obligations aren’t magic, they don’t necessarily make people go to Mass. It’s a bit of a catch-22 anyway. The kind of people who don’t feel obligated to go to Mass regardless aren’t going to be troubled in their consciences by not fulfilling the obligation. You have to care about the obligation in order for it to have its effect.

 

[1ke]

why dispensing with obligations had become the norm in many dioceses

“Many”? I know of two.

and many things are moved to Sundays in certain US dioceses but not others

“Many”? There is one: Ascension.

what would be a reasonable guess?

The bishops conference looks at things broadly. The US is vastly different. They chose the holy days and to celebrate Ascension on Sundays. They likely had to compromise amongst themselves when setting the norms for the conference as a whole.

Individual bishops, using their authority, retained Ascension on Thursday. They didn’t give a reason. But it is mostly in the very densely populated NE of the US where public transport and many downtown churches are readily available for working people, and Nebraska-- and Bishops B has an affinity for traditional practices, so he might have just preferred it. He need give no reason.

 

[11101]

The Epiphany is also moved to a Sunday in most of the US (all save Puerto Rico). And the traditional days set forth by the Holy See don’t even come up because we forgot them.

The explanation that this has become the rule in the US because of special cases, except for the North East, (bot not most of the NE) and Omaha, because there is just so much difficulty in getting around elsewhere in America…that just seems less likely to me than does the general sense that obligations aren’t important.

But at a certain point it is, “WHat looks more likely,” and maybe that is tough to sell someone else on.

 

[edward_george1]

There’s nothing to be sold on. That’s not how obedience works.

If you live in a Diocese where there’s an obligation, go to Mass.

If you don’t, you may still go to Mass. You don’t have to.

It really isn’t worth as much time and energy as has now been devoted to this thread. So I’m out now, I truly can’t be bothered. I need to drink tea and read my breviary and study. It’s a long day ahead.

 

[1ke]

There’s nothing to be sold on. That’s not how obedience works.

If you live in a Diocese where there’s an obligation, go to Mass.

If you don’t, you may still go to Mass. You don’t have to.

It really isn’t worth as much time and energy as has now been devoted to this thread.

I’m with you. If people want to ascribe bad motives to their priests and bishops, I just don’t want to be part of the conversation.

I’m sorry I pulled you back into this thread. I work closely with our priest and see how hard he works, and it burns me up that people would come on an anonymous forum and cast aspersions on priests and bishops in this manner.

 

[11101]

You know, I really hope I haven’t offended anyone. I freely admit, I have a low view of most of the bishops in this country - and feel like it would not be right to apologize for it. But, I mentioned the priest thing, not as a likely explanation, but as an alternative I knew no one really wanted to give credence to, so that the more likely theories would needs be discussed. While I have my own views of who works harder, the average layman in the pew, or the average priest, the contributions of both are important and good.

Peace!

 

[Vico]

…

Also Body and Blood of Christ Thursday is moved three days to Sunday.
At least in the USA the Latin obligation was abrogated for four, and only two remain in Hawaii (Christmas and Immaculate Conception).

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’ll freely admit that I can no longer keep track of this stuff, especially now that I’m not in the same diocese all the time and sometimes don’t know where I’ll be from one week to the next.

Easier to just go to Mass on as many days as possible than sit with a calendar and bulletins trying to figure out what Mass schedule applies where.

 

[edward_george1]

I have a low view of most of the bishops in this country - and feel like it would not be right to apologize for it.

Apologize or not, you should probably give people the benefit of the doubt, especially those with as hard a job as bishops.

. While I have my own views of who works harder, the average layman in the pew, or the average priest, the contributions of both are important and good.

You might have your views, and your views might be validated by experience, but this kind of thinking isn’t truly helpful. It doesn’t matter “who works harder.” It’s not a contest. Pray for priests and bishops. I’m not saying to be uncritical, I’m rather saying that your lenses on these things might be less than helpful to your own growth in charity.

 

[11101]

Thank you. I know it doesn’t matter who works harder; that’s why I don’t go into it. I only mentioned it because people kept mentioning how hard priests work, so my only point was, “the contributions of both are important and good,” which is why I wrote that. I hope that my meaning was clear, and I hope that this helps clarify if it was not.

I really think though, that assuming that I write what I write out of a lack of charity, is an assumption not characterized by charity, an area for growth.

 

[edward_george1]

I never made such an assumption. I simply said that given how you expressed that you think about these things, such a manner of thinking is not likely to aid in your growth in charity. The only thing I assumed is the reasonable assumption I make of all people, first of all myself, that if we still walk the earth, there’s still plenty of room for growth in virtue.

 

[11101]

OH, well, thank you then. I think it should be clear from my original post that I was not calling priests lazy, and I preferred an alternative explanation. Maybe that got lost in translation.

Since all you meant, was that we can all grow in charity, then good luck to you on your growth in charity, and good luck to me in mine.

 

[exnihilo]

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.

I admire your diocese. This one really bothers me. The reason is because the Ascension happened exactly forty days after the Resurrection which is celebrated as Easter Sunday. I know that and every Catholic should. So celebrating it at a time other than forty days after Easter seems like forgetting about a birthday or something.

The Ascension isn’t an event where we go by tradition as to when to celebrate it, like Christmas. I mean we do in some sense, but it is an essential part of the Easter story and once Easter is set then we should keep linked days at their proper place in the order of days.

 

[TomH1]

We don’t know that. As I said they may themselves not have known. You can’t teach something you don’t know. The parents certainly do have an obligation to learn the Faith themselves so they can teach it.

I did not say parents bear any responsibility to teach their children something they do not know. What I did say was that parents bear the responsibility to be the primary educators of their children.

 

[Phemie]

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.

I don’t know of any diocese in Canada that abrogates the obligation to go to Mass on January 1st, but I do know that the fact that it’s a Holy Day of Obligation is never mentioned in my parish. The choir doesn’t even bother to show up for Mass. Nor do I recall it ever being mentioned in any other parish in which I’ve lived over the course of my 43 year marriage.

I never actually knew that Christmas and New Year were HDOs until I started reading the Complementary Norms to Canon Law back when I worked in the parish office some 20 years ago (my goodness, where has the time gone!?). I only knew that I’d grown up going to Mass on both those days and I continued to do so as an adult, taking my kids with me once they came along. Christmas was a no-brainer and It only made sense to start the New Year with Mass. Never knew there was an obligation, like that of Sunday, attached to those days.