All Saints Day this year

[rondirect]

It is more basic than this. You can have a priest or parish do EVERYTHING you suggest and there will be people who do not pay attention, period.

Also, remember that most of the calls to a parish office are from people who probably do not attend regularly so they would not have heard the catechesis. And if you’re calling for a time, they all they want to hear what time Mass is, not what it is called. If I call to find out what time the movie starts, I really don’t give a hoot whether you call it a movie, a film, a cinema masterpiece, or visual expression.

I am a college professor. I have dates on my syllabus, my course website, I announce deadlines in class, we send email reminders but there will always be a segment of students who are “surprised” by a test, paper due, etc. That’s life.

I worked in business for over two decades and despite memos, announcements, and one on one conversation there were always people who asked when and where the meeting is. That’s life.

It is obvious this bothers you, but all you’re doing is giving yourself a headache. Face it, the Catholic Church could pick up each one of these people in a car and drive them to church and they would still manage to get it wrong!

Bless their heart, they did not get the common sense gene

Dennis, totally agree with you here. We can have a banner outside, an announcement before mass, a banner on the entrance/exit doors, a notice in the bulletin, a special announcement after communion by our pastor and someone will always say, “I never heard about that!” However, I have to believe that some if not a good portion of the people that regularly attend mass will hear or see it, whatever it is. We need to start somewhere and try, and not forget about it just because we know that some will not get it anyway. The C & E Catholics that call are corrected as I mentioned by me asking the staff members to say that, “we do not have a midnight mass, but a mass during the night.” Also, I make sure that our night time phone system and web site uses the correct terminology. Hopefully, over time, they will get it. I try, now to get the staff to understand! The people didn’t get the the new RM3 at first, but now it’s familiar; well, to the regulars anyway. You know darn well, that some will say after Christmas mass, “when did they change the responses?” I remember last year at our Christmas masses, their was a distinct stereo effect of the old and new, “And with your Spirit,” combined with “And also with you.”

 

[rondirect]

I agree with everything that Coach Dennis says above. Moreover, the term Midnight Mass was in use in the English language long before OCP or any other missalette publisher ever printed it. All those companies did was use the term that was used by most English-speaking Catholics for centuries, since the first Mass of Christmas was celebrated at midnight. Yes, the Missale Romanum has always called it Missam in Nocte, but most lay Catholics did not know that, and the term Midnight Mass was used in everyday speech, so that is what the missalette companies used, just as they used Holy Thursday, Easter Sunday, Corpus Christi, etc. These are the names that were most familiar to Catholics.

Yes, the 2011 translation of the missal (thankfully) focuses on more accurately translating the names of feast days, as well–hence, the Solemnity of the Mary, the Holy Mother of God; the Nativity of the BVM and St. John the Baptist–though not Ordinary Time, which is still a banal and somewhat misleading rendering of Tempus per Annum. So the use of the term Mass During the Night continues that recent translation trend. The trend of parishes in some parts of the country (and hardly at all in others) of celebrating the Mass during the night at an earlier time is a somewhat separate phenomenon that has been growing for the last two or more decades, and is not really related to what the missal itself or the missalette companies prints as the name of the Mass.

Wow, I thought I was the only one who liked the new changes to names of solemnities and Feasts. It’s only a few that really care. My wife always says to me to stop worrying about this, the majority of the people don’t really know that it’s been changed nor do they care!

 

[CatholicZ09]

I do appreciate the fact that the Roman Missal focuses on more accurate translations of solemnities and feasts. “Our Lord Jesus Christ, King of the Universe” is a lot more powerful than “Feast of Christ the King.”

 

[babochka]

I have to agree. Midnight Mass has become the all-too common term used for describing the Mass during the Night. I’m glad to see that many publications have started to use “Mass during the Night” instead of “Midnight Mass.” I never even knew it was “Mass during the Night” until the Roman Missal was revised in 2011. Every year, OCP missals erroneously wrote, “Midnight Mass,” and of course, that error furthered the use of the term.

The last part of your comment makes me laugh, too. I always have to watch myself when I am talking about the sanctuary and the altar. I always used to use “altar” and “sanctuary” interchangeably.

I don’t really think that Midnight Mass is an inaccurate translation or usage, it has just been interpreted in one way ( for a very long time) when it should have been interpreted differently.

“Mid-night” and “During the night” can mean the same, thing, but “mid-night” is not used much anymore. This is one example of why translations should be regularly updated to reflect contemporary language usage. We have understood it to mean “Mass at the hour of Midnight”, when it could just as accurately be interpreted as “Mass at mid-night”; In other words, Mass in the middle of the night. “Midnight” is unfortunately ambiguous because of common usage in the English language and it has been clarified.

If the descriptions were for the beginning of the day, we would have no trouble with “Mass at dawn” , and “Mass during the morning” or “Mid-morning Mass”.

 

[rondirect]

I don’t really think that Midnight Mass is an inaccurate translation or usage, it has just been interpreted in one way ( for a very long time) when it should have been interpreted differently.

“Mid-night” and “During the night” can mean the same, thing, but “mid-night” is not used much anymore. This is one example of why translations should be regularly updated to reflect contemporary language usage. We have understood it to mean “Mass at the hour of Midnight”, when it could just as accurately be interpreted as “Mass at mid-night”; In other words, Mass in the middle of the night. “Midnight” is unfortunately ambiguous because of common usage in the English language and it has been clarified.

If the descriptions were for the beginning of the day, we would have no trouble with “Mass at dawn” , and “Mass during the morning” or “Mid-morning Mass”.

I think all of us here by what I am reading are in agreement with you. However, most people still use the term midnight mass and have not yet conformed to the use of the term “Mass During the Night.”

 

[babochka]

I think all of us here by what I am reading are in agreement with you. However, most people still use the term midnight mass and have not yet conformed to the use of the term “Mass During the Night.”

But colloquial terms are used all the time. Saying “what time is midnight Mass?” can be just a colloquial way of saying “What time is Mass During the Night” and I don’t see any pressing need to change the terminology in common usage. I don’t see any pressing movement to call “Christmas” the “Feast of the Nativity” in common usage.

 

[rondirect]

But colloquial terms are used all the time. Saying “what time is midnight Mass?” can be just a colloquial way of saying “What time is Mass During the Night” and I don’t see any pressing need to change the terminology in common usage. I don’t see any pressing movement to call “Christmas” the “Feast of the Nativity” in common usage.

I understand the Christmas vs. Feast of the Nativity example just as I would “Mary, Mother of God” vs. “Mary, the Holy Mother of God,” but “What time is midnight mass” is quite different in my opinion. Midnight is a time and saying that midnight mass is at 10:00pm is doesn’t fit the logic test. As I have mentioned before, our announcements, bulletin, telephone voice messages and staff mention this correctly in hopes that “Mass during the Night” is learned even if we were to move it back to midnight. We have it at 10:30 pm by the way.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

As I have mentioned before, our announcements, bulletin, telephone voice messages and staff mention this correctly in hopes that “Mass during the Night” is learned even if we were to move it back to midnight. We have it at 10:30 pm by the way.

When people call what they most likely want is not the time for one Mass, but for all of the Masses on Christmas Eve, including the late afternoon/early evening Masses popular with families with children, as well as the later Masses attended mostly by adults.

What they don’t need – and I hope your staff doesn’t do – is to be made to feel foolish for not knowing the proper terminology. People who have a weak connection to the Church need to be welcomed and invited. Perhaps this Christmas Mass will be the one that makes them realize what they are missing. Rule number one: help the other person. Don’t use your knowledge to make them feel like outsiders.

 

[rondirect]

When people call what they most likely want is not the time for one Mass, but for all of the Masses on Christmas Eve, including the late afternoon/early evening Masses popular with families with children, as well as the later Masses attended mostly by adults.

What they don’t need – and I hope your staff doesn’t do – is to be made to feel foolish for not knowing the proper terminology. People who have a weak connection to the Church need to be welcomed and invited. Perhaps this Christmas Mass will be the one that makes them realize what they are missing. Rule number one: help the other person. Don’t use your knowledge to make them feel like outsiders.

Yes, you are correct, some people call, but not “most likely,” to get the whole rundown of all the masses. But, we are talking about the calls that people make to ask “what time is midnight mass” here. That is what I responded to. And, of course the staff does not make anyone feel foolish by correcting them outright. Perhaps you missed by response earlier where I said that the staff is asked to say, "we do not have a midnight mass, but the Mass during the Night is at 10:30 pm. When they get to church at 10:30 pm (well, 10:35!) they will see that the missal states Mass during the Night and Midnight Mass will not be there. I don’t think the way this done does not make anyone feel unwelcomed or an outsider.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

This discussion about terminology seems to lose sight of the fact that historically the Mass during the night was, in fact, at Midnight. And that is why people still popularly reference “Midnight Mass”, whatever time that Mass is celebrated. It is in their lived experience. I myself still use the term…especially when I refer back to what I did decades ago, remembering my first Midnight Mass.

Going back to its origin in antiquity, the first Mass of Christmas was the Mass of Midnight. With the reforms initiated by Pope Pius XII and continued by the Council and its aftermath, parishes and other communities used the latitude to adjust the time of the Midnight Mass for a variety of reasons, something not possible with previous prescriptions concerning the Communion fast. The prescribed terminology is catching up to today’s actual practice.

That said, if someone were to ask me, as a priest, “what time is the Mass during the night?”, I would answer with three times: the two vigil Masses (both are after all after dark) as well as the one when the text is that of “Mass During the Night” because, honestly, I don’t have people typically saying it that precisely and it comes out as a generic request as though for the Masses of the night of Christmas Eve.

On the other hand, if someone asked me, “what time is Midnight Mass?”, they would only get the third time…and, no, it is not at midnight but they have clearly formulated the question for me to know they do not want to know the times of the earlier vigil Masses.

 

[rondirect]

This discussion about terminology seems to lose sight of the fact that historically the Mass during the night was, in fact, at Midnight. And that is why people still popularly reference “Midnight Mass”, whatever time that Mass is celebrated. It is in their lived experience. I myself still use the term…especially when I refer back to what I did decades ago, remembering my first Midnight Mass.

Going back to its origin in antiquity, the first Mass of Christmas was the Mass of Midnight. With the reforms initiated by Pope Pius XII and continued by the Council and its aftermath, parishes and other communities used the latitude to adjust the time of the Midnight Mass for a variety of reasons, something not possible with previous prescriptions concerning the Communion fast. The prescribed terminology is catching up to today’s actual practice.

That said, if someone were to ask me, as a priest, “what time is the Mass during the night?”, I would answer with three times: the two vigil Masses (both are after all after dark) as well as the one when the text is that of “Mass During the Night” because, honestly, I don’t have people typically saying it that precisely and it comes out as a generic request as though for the Masses of the night of Christmas Eve.

On the other hand, if someone asked me, “what time is Midnight Mass?”, they would only get the third time…and, no, it is not at midnight but they have clearly formulated the question for me to know they do not want to know the times of the earlier vigil Masses.

Agreed. I am basically saying the same thing, however, adding that "we do not have a
Midnight Mass but a Mass During the Night at 10:30 pm.

Now, that adds another curve ball in this mix. Since you have 3 masses in the night, can all 3 be called a Mass During the night? Or, does the “new” terminology require it be the only mass on Christmas Eve? In reality all masses before midnight are really vigil masses. “They” just had to add Mass during the Night to make it confusing! If in fact the term Mass during the Night really referred to Midnight Mass, why wasn’t it left alone since Midnight Mass is really the first mass of the Day and not night!!! LOL!

Whew! Interesting, but tiring conversation!

 

[babochka]

Going back to its origin in antiquity, the first Mass of Christmas was the Mass of Midnight. With the reforms initiated by Pope Pius XII and continued by the Council and its aftermath, parishes and other communities used the latitude to adjust the time of the Midnight Mass for a variety of reasons, something not possible with previous prescriptions concerning the Communion fast. **The prescribed terminology is catching up to today’s actual practice. **

So is “Mass During the Night” actually new terminology to reflect a new reality, or a corrected translation?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Agreed. I am basically saying the same thing, however, adding that "we do not have a
Midnight Mass but a Mass During the Night at 10:30 pm.

Now, that adds another curve ball in this mix. Since you have 3 masses in the night, can all 3 be called a Mass During the night? Or, does the “new” terminology require it be the only mass on Christmas Eve? In reality all masses before midnight are really vigil masses. “They” just had to add Mass during the Night to make it confusing! If in fact the term Mass during the Night really referred to Midnight Mass, why wasn’t it left alone since Midnight Mass is really the first mass of the Day and not night!!! LOL!

Whew! Interesting, but tiring conversation!

No, all three assuredly could not be the Mass During the Night. When you know the propers and readings of each of the four Masses for the Solemnity of the Nativity of the Lord, the texts themselves makes it clear, at least in principle, which Mass should be said when. The first two Masses at 5 and 7:30 are both clearly and properly Vigil Masses occurring on Christmas Eve. The 11 p.m. Mass is, and should be, the Mass During the Night and it would be inappropriate to still use the vigil Mass for a Mass at this hour.

The Vigil Mass speaks of “tomorrow” whereas the Mass During the Night is clearly a Mass of Christmas Day, since its text uses “today”.

Every priest may celebrate three Masses of Christmas…and those are historically counted as the Mass During the Night, the Mass at Dawn and the Mass During the Day. The Mass During the Day may occur throughout the day and into the evening on Christmas Day. The Mass at Dawn is for dawn and it should not have more than a single iteration just as the sun only rises once per day.

In so far as the Mass During the Night is the continuation of what we once knew as Midnight Mass, then vis-a-vis both the priest celebrant and the community, it should be a singular occurrence. (I am, after all, not to exceed three Masses on Christmas Day, all else being equal beginning with one Mass During the Night) without the intervention of the Bishop. (It can happen one has to be a little creative in counting if one has an expected circumstance arise.) On the other hand, the reality is that there are parishes that have more than one language group associated with it and I have experienced the situation where the Mass During the Night was said by one priest for one language community at 10:00 and then another priest, for another language community, said the Mass During the Night at Midnight.

I actually appreciate the change in terminology to Mass During the Night in so far as it rectifies the anomalous situation of Midnight Mass being prayed at 10:30, since that is what was happening in the real world. On the other hand, I would never make an issue of people speaking of “Midnight Mass” since the origin of that is 1500 years ago and, in many ways, midnight really is the ideal moment still for it to happen – even if the liturgical ideal does not coincide with the practical reality a given community may confront.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

So is “Mass During the Night” actually new terminology to reflect a new reality, or a corrected translation?

I should have written “the vernacular terminology.” My posts seem too wordy but in this instance, the economy was ill advised.

The Latin was Missam in nocte, so Mass during the night or Mass in the night or Mass at night would be the proper rendering of the Latin, in a literal translation.

However, given that the Mass during the night was historically at midnight from its origins and remained so through the many intervening centuries and also given the liturgical prescriptions surrounding it and also given that until the process of the reforms had begun in the modern times, it really could not be before midnight, Missam in nocte was the Latin name for what was Midnight Mass. In all the languages I knew, the normative rendering in the vernacular, written and spoken, was “Midnight Mass”. It was a relatively rare occasion when the vernacular wording was more specific than the Latin formulation and described more precisely what we actually lived.

In part, when the communion fast was reduced from midnight to three hours and then one hour and, with other provisions made, it became more and more possible to actually adjust the hour for this particular Mass to before midnight. I remember the reactions of some of the priests when the first Midnight Masses “earlier than midnight” occurred where I was. It was certainly viewed as a novelty.

And so, I have lived from the period in which it was unheard of to have the Mass before midnight through to a period when seemingly it is more prevalent to have it at any hour other than midnight.

 

[Vico]

So is “Mass During the Night” actually new terminology to reflect a new reality, or a corrected translation?

Two different translations of the Feb. 1969, General Norms for the Liturgical Year and the Calendar (Prot. 0):

Universal Norms on the Liturgical Year and the Calendar

1. The Vigil Mass of the Nativity is used on the evening of 24 December, either before or after First Vespers (Evening Prayer I).
   On the day of the nativity of the lord, following ancient roman tradition, Mass may be celebrated three times, that is, in the night, at dawn and during the day.
2. The Mass of the vigil of Christmas is used in the evening of 24 December, either before or after evening prayer I.
   On Christmas itself, following an ancient tradition of Rome, three Masses may be celebrated: namely, the Mass at Midnight, the Mass at Dawn, and the Mass during the Day.

 

[rondirect]

No, all three assuredly could not be the Mass During the Night. When you know the propers and readings of each of the four Masses for the Solemnity of the Nativity of the Lord, the texts themselves makes it clear, at least in principle, which Mass should be said when. The first two Masses at 5 and 7:30 are both clearly and properly Vigil Masses occurring on Christmas Eve. The 11 p.m. Mass is, and should be, the Mass During the Night and it would be inappropriate to still use the vigil Mass for a Mass at this hour.

The Vigil Mass speaks of “tomorrow” whereas the Mass During the Night is clearly a Mass of Christmas Day, since its text uses “today”.

Every priest may celebrate three Masses of Christmas…and those are historically counted as the Mass During the Night, the Mass at Dawn and the Mass During the Day. The Mass During the Day may occur throughout the day and into the evening on Christmas Day. The Mass at Dawn is for dawn and it should not have more than a single iteration just as the sun only rises once per day.

In so far as the Mass During the Night is the continuation of what we once knew as Midnight Mass, then vis-a-vis both the priest celebrant and the community, it should be a singular occurrence. (I am, after all, not to exceed three Masses on Christmas Day, all else being equal beginning with one Mass During the Night) without the intervention of the Bishop. (It can happen one has to be a little creative in counting if one has an expected circumstance arise.) On the other hand, the reality is that there are parishes that have more than one language group associated with it and I have experienced the situation where the Mass During the Night was said by one priest for one language community at 10:00 and then another priest, for another language community, said the Mass During the Night at Midnight.

I actually appreciate the change in terminology to Mass During the Night in so far as it rectifies the anomalous situation of Midnight Mass being prayed at 10:30, since that is what was happening in the real world. On the other hand, I would never make an issue of people speaking of “Midnight Mass” since the origin of that is 1500 years ago and, in many ways, midnight really is the ideal moment still for it to happen – even if the liturgical ideal does not coincide with the practical reality a given community may confront.

I really do get it. However, you can see how confusing this whole issue can be. In my logically world, if you do not have a mass at MIDNIGHT, you should not use the readings for Mass During the Night since they talk of “today.” The use of the those readings before midnight makes no sense. To me, anytime before midnight is still vigil. To further the confusion, when does dawn end?!?!? Is the first morning mass at 7:30 am considered dawn or day? Why do “they” do this? Like any other Holy Day with separate vigil readings, Christmas, IMO, should follow the same: no confusion, no reading the “Midnight Mass/Mass During the Night” readings that speak of today before midnight!

 

[ProVobis]

FWIW, the three Masses of Christmas are also referred to/known by the first line of the Introit.

*Dominus dixit

Lux fulgebit

Puer natus est*

The Vigil or Christmas Eve is the “Hodie scietis” Mass.