Christmas 2017

[Vico]

I was reading another post and this crossed my mind…

Next year, Christmas 2017 will be on a Monday.

If does that mean that if someone attend Christmas Eve Vigil Mass (not Midnight Mass), they can meet two Mass obligations by attending one mass?

Aka, meet the Sunday requirement and the Christmas requirement by attending a 6PM or 8PM Christmas Eve Mass?

It is very simple, for each obligation (based upon what the bishops have determined in your area - should be USCCB) you have the day of the solemnity and the evening of the prior day available to fulfill the obligation. Canon law of 1983 was relaxed to allow evening earlier than 4 pm which was used previously when communion fasting was three hours. (Then it would allow for three hours after a 12-1 pm lunch.) Notably there are two parishes in the USA, that I know of, that have Saturday vigil Mass @ 2:30 PM that fulfills the Sunday obligation:

Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception
416 W. 12th Street
Kansas City, MO 64105

Guardian Angel Cathedral
302 Cathedral Way
Las Vegas, NV 89109

 

[buc_fan33]

I’m going to just throw this on here, because I see it all the time. I don’t mean this as a direct attack against any one or several specific posters. I’m trying to find the appropriate words to address something that I read on this forum frequently when this question, or ones like it, are posed.

Going to Mass is not merely about “satisfying an obligation.” I’ve seen people text throughout Mass, play video games throughout Mass, listen to a football game during Mass (at least they had the courtesy to use earbuds), read the paper during Mass, etc. Did they fulfill their “obligation?” I suppose in the strict sense, yes. But, Mass is about the encounter with the Risen Lord, the Savior of the Universe, Jesus Christ Himself. I realize I’m preaching to the choir on this board, but some of the comments I often read seem to imply that it’s more about fulfilling an obligation.

So, while yes, one could technically go to Mass Sunday evening, and again Monday morning or even a second time on Sunday evening, personally, I would strongly advise against doing that. Again, by the letter of the law, no, the readings don’t “matter,” per se. But, they do matter. It matters that one attends Mass for the Fourth Sunday of Advent. Advent is a distinct liturgical season from Christmas with a distinct focus.

If one can only go to Mass on Sunday evening (he or she is working Saturday evening and Sunday morning, for example, and can’t change that/work around it), then fine. Go Sunday evening. But, if one is simply going to go on Sunday evening, because that’s what one always does, I’d strongly encourage that individual to consider changing his or her routine for one Sunday, so as to experience the spiritual and liturgical difference between the seasons of Advent and Christmas. Heck, even within Christmas day itself there are four distinct Masses with four distinct sets of readings, each emphasizing a different aspect of the mystery of the Nativity.

There’s a reason the Church doesn’t let me as a priest just pick and choose any reading I want to use. I’m bound to use the readings prescribed in the Roman Missal, save for an exceptional circumstance. It’s because the readings do matter, if we’re following the spirit, and not merely the letter, of the law.

Blessings and Merry Christmas!

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m going to just throw this on here, because I see it all the time. I don’t mean this as a direct attack against any one or several specific posters. I’m trying to find the appropriate words to address something that I read on this forum frequently when this question, or ones like it, are posed.

Going to Mass is not merely about “satisfying an obligation.” I’ve seen people text throughout Mass, play video games throughout Mass, listen to a football game during Mass (at least they had the courtesy to use earbuds), read the paper during Mass, etc. Did they fulfill their “obligation?” I suppose in the strict sense, yes. But, Mass is about the encounter with the Risen Lord, the Savior of the Universe, Jesus Christ Himself. I realize I’m preaching to the choir on this board, but some of the comments I often read seem to imply that it’s more about fulfilling an obligation.

So, while yes, one could technically go to Mass Sunday evening, and again Monday morning or even a second time on Sunday evening, personally, I would strongly advise against doing that. Again, by the letter of the law, no, the readings don’t “matter,” per se. But, they do matter. It matters that one attends Mass for the Fourth Sunday of Advent. Advent is a distinct liturgical season from Christmas with a distinct focus.

If one can only go to Mass on Sunday evening (he or she is working Saturday evening and Sunday morning, for example, and can’t change that/work around it), then fine. Go Sunday evening. But, if one is simply going to go on Sunday evening, because that’s what one always does, I’d strongly encourage that individual to consider changing his or her routine for one Sunday, so as to experience the spiritual and liturgical difference between the seasons of Advent and Christmas. Heck, even within Christmas day itself there are four distinct Masses with four distinct sets of readings, each emphasizing a different aspect of the mystery of the Nativity.

There’s a reason the Church doesn’t let me as a priest just pick and choose any reading I want to use. I’m bound to use the readings prescribed in the Roman Missal, save for an exceptional circumstance. It’s because the readings do matter, if we’re following the spirit, and not merely the letter, of the law.

Blessings and Merry Christmas!

We really do have a moral obligation to observe Sunday, even if that Sunday happens to be Christmas Eve.

The canonical obligation itself is satisfied (if Christmas is a Monday) but that leaves the moral obligation to observe Sunday unfulfilled.

We have the 4th Sunday of Advent and we have Christmas. We have a moral obligation to observe both of them.

 

[FrDavid96]

… Canon law of 1983 was relaxed to allow evening earlier than 4 pm …

Really?

Well then if that’s true, then you should be able to answer the following questions:

1. What time was evening in the 1917 code? Please post the actual canon(s) from the 1917 Code. If you have any clue of what you posted, then that should be very simple to do.
2. Please post the new canon from 1983 that “moved” evening.
3. Please show the differences between the 2 codes. Show the exact words which were changed from one code to the other.

These are very simple questions, which should be quite easy to answer if what you claim is true, and if you have even the slightest notion of what you’re posting.

Otherwise,** if you cannot answer those questions, then you are proving that you have no idea what you’re posting about,** and that what you posted is simply untrue.

 

[Vico]

Really?

Well then if that’s true, then you should be able to answer the following questions:

1. What time was evening in the 1917 code? Please post the actual canon(s) from the 1917 Code. If you have any clue of what you posted, then that should be very simple to do.
2. Please post the new canon from 1983 that “moved” evening.
3. Please show the differences between the 2 codes. Show the exact words which were changed from one code to the other.

These are very simple questions, which should be quite easy to answer if what you claim is true, and if you have even the slightest notion of what you’re posting.

Otherwise,** if you cannot answer those questions, then you are proving that you have no idea what you’re posting about,** and that what you posted is simply untrue.

There is not universal agreement as you can see by reading the commentary by Edward Peters, JD, JCD, Ref. Sig. Ap.

“But what qualifies as a ‘universal’ response in canon law goes considerably beyond what English-speaking North America might hold (even if it is held for very good reasons). Consider these overseas canonical commentaries, three of which hold for a noon start-time and one of which holds for a 2:00 pm start time”

See: canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/12/08/a-question-on-mass-start-times-that-warrants-attention/

There was a series of changes applied when the 1917 canon law was in effect.

On Epiphany, 1953, Pope Pius XII issued “CHRISTUS DOMINUS – Concerning The Discipline To Be Observed With Respect To The Eucharistic Fast.”

This allowed evening Masses for the first time and set 4 p.m. as the earliest an ‘evening’ Mass could be celebrated:

Rule VI. If the circumstance calls for it as necessary, We grant to the local Ordinaries the right to permit the celebration of Mass in the evening, as we said, but in such wise that the Mass shall not begin before four o’clock in the afternoon.

Then Eucharisticum Mysterium (Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery) May 25, 1967:

1. Anticipating the Sunday and Feast Day Masses on the Previous Evening

Where permission has been granted by the Apostolic See to fulfill the Sunday obligation on the preceding Saturday evening, pastors should explain the meaning of this permission carefully to the faithful and should ensure that the significance of Sunday is not thereby obscured. The purpose of this concession is in fact to enable the Christians of today to celebrate more easily the day of the resurrection of the Lord.

All concessions and contrary customs notwithstanding, when celebrated on Saturday this Mass may be celebrated only in the evening, at times determined by the local Ordinary.

In these cases the Mass celebrated is that assigned in the calendar to Sunday, the homily and the prayer of the faithful are not to be omitted.

What has been said above is equally valid for the Mass on holy days of obligation which for the same reason has been transferred to the preceding evening.

catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/11/DocumentIndex/338

1917 canon law
Can 821 §1. Missae celebrandae initium ne fiat citius quam una hora ante auroram vel serius quam una hora post meridiem.
§2. In nocte Nativitatis Domini inchoari media nocte potest sola Missa conventualis vel paroecialis, non autem alia sine apostolico indulto.
§3. In omnibus tamen religiosis seu piis domibus oratorium habentibus cum facultate sanctissimam Eucharistiam habitualiter asservandi, nocte Nativitatis Domini, unus sacerdos tres rituales Missas vel, servatis servandis, unam tantum quae adstantibus omnibus ad praecepti quoque satisfactionem valeat, celebrare potest et sacram communionem petentibus ministrare.

Can 1247 §1. Dies festi sub praecepto in universa Ecclesia sunt tantum: Omnes et singuli dies dominici, festa Nativitatis, Circumcisionis, Epiphaniae, Ascensionis et sanctissimi Corporis Christi, Immaculatae Conceptionis et Assumptionis Almae Genitricis Dei Mariae, sancti Ioseph eius sponsi, Beatorum Petri et Pauli Apostolorum, Omnium denique Sanctorum.
§2. Ecclesiastico praecepto dies festi Patronorum non subiacent; locorum autem Ordinarii possunt sollemnitatem exteriorem transferre ad dominicam proxime sequentem.
§3. Sicubi aliquod festum ex enumeratis legitime sit abolitum vel translatum, nihil inconsulta Sede Apostolica innovetur.
1983 canon law
Can. 1248 - §1. Praecepto de Missa participanda satisfacit qui Missae assistit ubicumque celebratur ritu catholico vel ipso die festo vel vespere diei praecedentis.

The 1983 canon law does not specify evening at a particular hour. The word used is vespere. The antynoym for vespere (in the evening) is matene (in the morning).

Per the Exegetical Commentary (Spanish) of 2004, the intention of the 1983 canon law was to not make the time precise. Noted in Communicationes 15, pp. 251-253."

"the “Exegetical Commentary” remarks about those who wrote the canon that the wording is “intentionally ‘general in order to avoid casuist situations and anxieties.’”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=492772

 

[FrDavid96]

There is not universal agreement as you can see by reading the commentary by Edward Peters, JD, JCD, Ref. Sig. Ap.

“But what qualifies as a ‘universal’ response in canon law goes considerably beyond what English-speaking North America might hold (even if it is held for very good reasons). Consider these overseas canonical commentaries, three of which hold for a noon start-time and one of which holds for a 2:00 pm start time”

See: canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/12/08/a-question-on-mass-start-times-that-warrants-attention/

There was a series of changes applied when the 1917 canon law was in effect.

On Epiphany, 1953, Pope Pius XII issued “CHRISTUS DOMINUS – Concerning The Discipline To Be Observed With Respect To The Eucharistic Fast.”

This allowed evening Masses for the first time and set 4 p.m. as the earliest an ‘evening’ Mass could be celebrated:

Rule VI. If the circumstance calls for it as necessary, We grant to the local Ordinaries the right to permit the celebration of Mass in the evening, as we said, but in such wise that the Mass shall not begin before four o’clock in the afternoon.

Then Eucharisticum Mysterium (Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery) May 25, 1967:

1. Anticipating the Sunday and Feast Day Masses on the Previous Evening

Where permission has been granted by the Apostolic See to fulfill the Sunday obligation on the preceding Saturday evening, pastors should explain the meaning of this permission carefully to the faithful and should ensure that the significance of Sunday is not thereby obscured. The purpose of this concession is in fact to enable the Christians of today to celebrate more easily the day of the resurrection of the Lord.

All concessions and contrary customs notwithstanding, when celebrated on Saturday this Mass may be celebrated only in the evening, at times determined by the local Ordinary.

In these cases the Mass celebrated is that assigned in the calendar to Sunday, the homily and the prayer of the faithful are not to be omitted.

What has been said above is equally valid for the Mass on holy days of obligation which for the same reason has been transferred to the preceding evening.

catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/11/DocumentIndex/338

1917 canon law
Can 821 §1. Missae celebrandae initium ne fiat citius quam una hora ante auroram vel serius quam una hora post meridiem.
§2. In nocte Nativitatis Domini inchoari media nocte potest sola Missa conventualis vel paroecialis, non autem alia sine apostolico indulto.
§3. In omnibus tamen religiosis seu piis domibus oratorium habentibus cum facultate sanctissimam Eucharistiam habitualiter asservandi, nocte Nativitatis Domini, unus sacerdos tres rituales Missas vel, servatis servandis, unam tantum quae adstantibus omnibus ad praecepti quoque satisfactionem valeat, celebrare potest et sacram communionem petentibus ministrare.

Can 1247 §1. Dies festi sub praecepto in universa Ecclesia sunt tantum: Omnes et singuli dies dominici, festa Nativitatis, Circumcisionis, Epiphaniae, Ascensionis et sanctissimi Corporis Christi, Immaculatae Conceptionis et Assumptionis Almae Genitricis Dei Mariae, sancti Ioseph eius sponsi, Beatorum Petri et Pauli Apostolorum, Omnium denique Sanctorum.
§2. Ecclesiastico praecepto dies festi Patronorum non subiacent; locorum autem Ordinarii possunt sollemnitatem exteriorem transferre ad dominicam proxime sequentem.
§3. Sicubi aliquod festum ex enumeratis legitime sit abolitum vel translatum, nihil inconsulta Sede Apostolica innovetur.
1983 canon law
Can. 1248 - §1. Praecepto de Missa participanda satisfacit qui Missae assistit ubicumque celebratur ritu catholico vel ipso die festo vel vespere diei praecedentis.

The 1983 canon law does not specify evening at a particular hour. The word used is vespere. The antynoym for vespere (in the evening) is matene (in the morning).

Per the Exegetical Commentary (Spanish) of 2004, the intention of the 1983 canon law was to not make the time precise. Noted in Communicationes 15, pp. 251-253."

"the “Exegetical Commentary” remarks about those who wrote the canon that the wording is “intentionally ‘general in order to avoid casuist situations and anxieties.’”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=492772

The 1983 Code did not move evening. Evening is a time of day.

Nothing in your cut-and-paste shows where evening was moved, which is what you claimed.

 

[Vico]

The 1983 Code did not move evening. Evening is a time of day.

Nothing in your cut-and-paste shows where evening was moved, which is what you claimed.

I did not say evening was moved.

 

[FrDavid96]

I did not say evening was moved.

… Canon law of 1983 was relaxed to allow evening earlier than 4 pm …

 

[Vico]

FrDavid96:
Yes, that is not moving evening is it a change from the previous practice of the 1917 code and of Christus Dominus and as specified in Eucharisticum Mysterium per the time of the local ordinary. Evening is not defined in canon law at a particular hour.

 

[FrDavid96]

I was reading another post and this crossed my mind…

Next year, Christmas 2017 will be on a Monday.

If does that mean that if someone attend Christmas Eve Vigil Mass (not Midnight Mass), they can meet two Mass obligations by attending one mass?

Aka, meet the Sunday requirement and the Christmas requirement by attending a 6PM or 8PM Christmas Eve Mass?

That’s not what I meant.

I was simply asking that if you skip the Sunday morning Mass next year on Sunday, Dec 24th and only attend at Christmas Vigil Mass at 6PM (for example) would you basically be satisfying the requirement to attend Mass on Sunday and to attend a Christmas Liturgy?

My thought is yes, since the only requirement for Sunday is to attend Mass on Sunday (or on Saturday evening).

Distractions aside:

The answer is no.

Two separate and distinct obligations (which is exactly what we have in that situation) means that one is obligated to attend two Masses, not one.

When the two feasts happen on the same day (such as 2016 when Christmas is on a Sunday) there is only one obligation.

When two feasts happen on two different days (eg 2017), both obligations remain; even if those days are one-after-another.

 

[zab]

I’m going to just throw this on here, because I see it all the time. I don’t mean this as a direct attack against any one or several specific posters. I’m trying to find the appropriate words to address something that I read on this forum frequently when this question, or ones like it, are posed.

Going to Mass is not merely about “satisfying an obligation.” I’ve seen people text throughout Mass, play video games throughout Mass, listen to a football game during Mass (at least they had the courtesy to use earbuds), read the paper during Mass, etc. Did they fulfill their “obligation?” I suppose in the strict sense, yes. But, Mass is about the encounter with the Risen Lord, the Savior of the Universe, Jesus Christ Himself. I realize I’m preaching to the choir on this board, but some of the comments I often read seem to imply that it’s more about fulfilling an obligation.

So, while yes, one could technically go to Mass Sunday evening, and again Monday morning or even a second time on Sunday evening, personally, I would strongly advise against doing that. Again, by the letter of the law, no, the readings don’t “matter,” per se. But, they do matter. It matters that one attends Mass for the Fourth Sunday of Advent. Advent is a distinct liturgical season from Christmas with a distinct focus.

If one can only go to Mass on Sunday evening (he or she is working Saturday evening and Sunday morning, for example, and can’t change that/work around it), then fine. Go Sunday evening. But, if one is simply going to go on Sunday evening, because that’s what one always does, I’d strongly encourage that individual to consider changing his or her routine for one Sunday, so as to experience the spiritual and liturgical difference between the seasons of Advent and Christmas. Heck, even within Christmas day itself there are four distinct Masses with four distinct sets of readings, each emphasizing a different aspect of the mystery of the Nativity.

There’s a reason the Church doesn’t let me as a priest just pick and choose any reading I want to use. I’m bound to use the readings prescribed in the Roman Missal, save for an exceptional circumstance. It’s because the readings do matter, if we’re following the spirit, and not merely the letter, of the law.

Blessings and Merry Christmas!

Thank you. You answered the question that I had in mind. It doesn’t make sense to me that one could attend a Christmas Mass that would not fulfill their Christmas obligation. Yet, according to our priests here on this board, that is a possibility. So while it is technically a possible for the Christmas Eve Mass to fulfill the Sunday obligation in this situation, it is not recommended. It would be preferable to attend the Sunday morning Mass for the 4th Sunday in Advent if at all possible and a work schedule does not interfere.

 

[Phemie]

Thank you. You answered the question that I had in mind. It doesn’t make sense to me that one could attend a Christmas Mass that would not fulfill their Christmas obligation. Yet, according to our priests here on this board, that is a possibility. So while it is technically a possible for the Christmas Eve Mass to fulfill the Sunday obligation in this situation, it is not recommended. It would be preferable to attend the Sunday morning Mass for the 4th Sunday in Advent if at all possible and a work schedule does not interfere.

That wasn’t the OP’s question, though.

Sure it’s preferable, nobody argued that it wasn’t. But “preferable” is not usually what happens.

I’ve yet to experience a “Vigil of the Natvity of the Lord” and I’m 63. I’ve had one priest very upset at the very idea of celebrating that Mass at 5:30 pm Christmas Eve. “Who ever heard of such a ridiculous idea!?!” All the priests I’ve worked with celebrate the “Mass during the Night” at every Christmas Eve Mass.

I also haven’t experienced a Mass at Dawn since the late 60s, when the priests of my parish would celebrate it immediately after Midnight Mass, several hours before dawn where I lived.

 

[zab]

That wasn’t the OP’s question, though.

Sure it’s preferable, nobody argued that it wasn’t. But “preferable” is not usually what happens.

I’ve yet to experience a “Vigil of the Natvity of the Lord” and I’m 63. I’ve had one priest very upset at the very idea of celebrating that Mass at 5:30 pm Christmas Eve. “Who ever heard of such a ridiculous idea!?!” All the priests I’ve worked with celebrate the “Mass during the Night” at every Christmas Eve Mass.

I also haven’t experienced a Mass at Dawn since the late 60s, when the priests of my parish would celebrate it immediately after Midnight Mass, several hours before dawn where I lived.

Maybe not the OP’s question, but it was my question as the discussion progressed

 

[buc_fan33]

That wasn’t the OP’s question, though.

Sure it’s preferable, nobody argued that it wasn’t. But “preferable” is not usually what happens.

I’ve yet to experience a “Vigil of the Natvity of the Lord” and I’m 63. I’ve had one priest very upset at the very idea of celebrating that Mass at 5:30 pm Christmas Eve. “Who ever heard of such a ridiculous idea!?!” All the priests I’ve worked with celebrate the “Mass during the Night” at every Christmas Eve Mass.

I also haven’t experienced a Mass at Dawn since the late 60s, when the priests of my parish would celebrate it immediately after Midnight Mass, several hours before dawn where I lived.

Well, I personally celebrated all four Christmas Masses this year. I can’t speak for other priests, but I celebrate the appropriate Mass for each time. My schedule was as follows:

5:00 P.M. Vigil
11:00 P.M. Mass during the night
7:00 A.M. Mass at dawn
11:00 A.M. Mass during the day

And I realize this wasn’t the OP’s question, but I see this answered this way on these boards all the time. People always quote the canon that a Catholic can satisfy his or her obligation at “any Mass in any Catholic rite, celebrated on Sunday, or the preceding evening.” Fine. No one disputes that. But, Fr. David is absolutely correct. We have a moral obligation to consider, not merely a canonical obligation. When Immaculate Conception, for instance, falls on a Saturday, Mass that evening will be the anticipatory Mass of the Second Sunday in Advent. Could one satisfy the obligation for the Immaculate Conception at such a Mass? I suppose (though I’ve asked other canonists–people who have earned PhDs in this field–who have responded by asking why someone would even consider that…in other words, there are a wide variety of opinions on this, even among professional canonists). But it’s not just about satisfying an obligation. It’s about entering into the liturgical life of the Church in order to deepen our spirituality and devotion to the Lord and to his mother.

The fact of the matter is that if one goes to two Masses for the Second Sunday of Advent, or two Masses for Christmas, then that person will simply not have entered into the liturgical reality of the Immaculate Conception or the Fourth Sunday of Advent.

So, while yes, the readings don’t matter, per se, they really do, because they mean the person isn’t merely just going to Mass to meet a requirement, but desiring to enter into the whole liturgical life of the Church.

 

[Vico]

Well, I personally celebrated all four Christmas Masses this year. I can’t speak for other priests, but I celebrate the appropriate Mass for each time. My schedule was as follows:

5:00 P.M. Vigil
11:00 P.M. Mass during the night
7:00 A.M. Mass at dawn
11:00 A.M. Mass during the day

And I realize this wasn’t the OP’s question, but I see this answered this way on these boards all the time. People always quote the canon that a Catholic can satisfy his or her obligation at “any Mass in any Catholic rite, celebrated on Sunday, or the preceding evening.” Fine. No one disputes that. But, Fr. David is absolutely correct. We have a moral obligation to consider, not merely a canonical obligation. When Immaculate Conception, for instance, falls on a Saturday, Mass that evening will be the anticipatory Mass of the Second Sunday in Advent. Could one satisfy the obligation for the Immaculate Conception at such a Mass? I suppose (though I’ve asked other canonists–people who have earned PhDs in this field–who have responded by asking why someone would even consider that…in other words, there are a wide variety of opinions on this, even among professional canonists). But it’s not just about satisfying an obligation. It’s about entering into the liturgical life of the Church in order to deepen our spirituality and devotion to the Lord and to his mother.

The fact of the matter is that if one goes to two Masses for the Second Sunday of Advent, or two Masses for Christmas, then that person will simply not have entered into the liturgical reality of the Immaculate Conception or the Fourth Sunday of Advent.

So, while yes, the readings don’t matter, per se, they really do, because they mean the person isn’t merely just going to Mass to meet a requirement, but desiring to enter into the whole liturgical life of the Church.

This is all true. The first reason for allowing the evening of the previous day by Pope Paul VI is modern work schedules. Interestingly some of the eastern Catholic churches, such as the Byzantine, actually use the sunset to sunset day rather than midnight to midnight, and also allow fulfillment of obligatory feasts with Vespers, Matins, Divine Liturgy, or Typica. Only the Divine Liturgy has consecration and Typica includes communion given by deacon.

 

[Phemie]

So, while yes, the readings don’t matter, per se, they really do, because they mean the person isn’t merely just going to Mass to meet a requirement, but desiring to enter into the whole liturgical life of the Church.

I agree with you about that. But as long as we have people concerned about meeting their obligation, don’t we have a duty to at least truthfully tell them how to do that?

In Canada we only face this twice a year, Dec. 25 & Jan. 1. So little is made of the Feast of Mary, Mother of God in my parish that I haven’t even heard the fact that it’s a HDO mentioned in at least 5 years. Outside of weekday Mass, it is probably the least attended Mass of the year. The choir doesn’t even bother to show up, making a point that they’ll have been out partying and won’t be in any shape to sing.

 

[Duane1966]

The sad thing is, people will take every opportunity to NOT come to church twice in a week. We already see that with holy Days of Obligation.

Agreed. Because they have the wrong view of what Mass is. I actually find my days are not as hectic during the week when I manage to squeeze daily Mass in. Find I am far less tempted to give into sin also.

 

[FrDavid96]

I agree with you about that. But as long as we have people concerned about meeting their obligation, don’t we have a duty to at least truthfully tell them how to do that?

Yes. There’s a duty to tell the truth, of course.

Most of the time, questions like this do come down to the person asking “what is my obligation?” Sometimes, the question is more complicated–like the original post in this thread.

In a complicated situation like the OP here, the answer shouldn’t be reduced to merely quoting the canon about meeting the obligation. So, if Christmas is Monday and someone asks “if I go to only a Sunday night Mass, will that fulfill my Sunday obligation?” A simple “yes, see canon 1248” doesn’t give a complete answer.

If that’s the only Sunday Mass a person can attend, even if it’s the Mass of Christmas Eve, yes it meets c. 1248, and such a person would not be at fault for missing Mass on Sunday (and would still have the Christmas obligation). However, when people try to use the letter of the law to manipulate the situation then that’s a problem. I recall one thread a few years back, someone asked about going to 2 Masses on Christmas Eve, one after the other, to count “one for Sunday, one for Christmas”–that’s what I mean by manipulating the law.

I agree completely with what you’re saying, people who know do have somewhat of a duty to answer the question, but I do think that a too-quick answer, especially one that addresses only the canonical and not the spiritual aspect of things is better; and healthy discussion is likewise a good thing.

In Canada we only face this twice a year, Dec. 25 & Jan. 1. So little is made of the Feast of Mary, Mother of God in my parish that I haven’t even heard the fact that it’s a HDO mentioned in at least 5 years. Outside of weekday Mass, it is probably the least attended Mass of the year. The choir doesn’t even bother to show up, making a point that they’ll have been out partying and won’t be in any shape to sing.

 

[FrDavid96]

Well, I personally celebrated all four Christmas Masses this year. I can’t speak for other priests, but I celebrate the appropriate Mass for each time. My schedule was as follows:

5:00 P.M. Vigil
11:00 P.M. Mass during the night
7:00 A.M. Mass at dawn
11:00 A.M. Mass during the day

And I realize this wasn’t the OP’s question, but I see this answered this way on these boards all the time. People always quote the canon that a Catholic can satisfy his or her obligation at “any Mass in any Catholic rite, celebrated on Sunday, or the preceding evening.” Fine. No one disputes that. But, Fr. David is absolutely correct. We have a moral obligation to consider, not merely a canonical obligation. When Immaculate Conception, for instance, falls on a Saturday, Mass that evening will be the anticipatory Mass of the Second Sunday in Advent. Could one satisfy the obligation for the Immaculate Conception at such a Mass? I suppose (though I’ve asked other canonists–people who have earned PhDs in this field–who have responded by asking why someone would even consider that…in other words, there are a wide variety of opinions on this, even among professional canonists). But it’s not just about satisfying an obligation. It’s about entering into the liturgical life of the Church in order to deepen our spirituality and devotion to the Lord and to his mother.

The fact of the matter is that if one goes to two Masses for the Second Sunday of Advent, or two Masses for Christmas, then that person will simply not have entered into the liturgical reality of the Immaculate Conception or the Fourth Sunday of Advent.

So, while yes, the readings don’t matter, per se, they really do, because they mean the person isn’t merely just going to Mass to meet a requirement, but desiring to enter into the whole liturgical life of the Church.

Yes, we’re often too quick to say “the readings don’t matter” or the other choices don’t matter.

Even when that’s true, we shouldn’t be too quick to say it.

If someone attends an Ordination Mass on a Sunday in Ordinary Time, the readings will likely be the ritual Mass, not the Sunday Mass. So, as far as the obligation goes, the choice of the readings doesn’t affect the Sunday obligation. The readings themselves matter very much.

 

[tee_eff_em]

With every due respect:

So, while yes, one could technically go to Mass Sunday evening, and again Monday morning or even a second time on Sunday evening, personally, I would strongly advise against doing that. Again, by the letter of the law, no, the readings don’t “matter,” per se. But, they do matter. It matters that one attends Mass for the Fourth Sunday of Advent. Advent is a distinct liturgical season from Christmas with a distinct focus.

We really do have a moral obligation to observe Sunday, even if that Sunday happens to be Christmas Eve.

The canonical obligation itself is satisfied (if Christmas is a Monday) but that leaves the moral obligation to observe Sunday unfulfilled.

We have the 4th Sunday of Advent and we have Christmas. We have a moral obligation to observe both of them.

I am sorry, but how can we have a moral obligation to observe a particular feast when that is exactly not (as we all acknowledge) what the law says?

It is even possible to have no opportunity to observe a particular feast. For instance, I live in a diocese which maintains the Solemnity of the Ascension on Thursday following the 6th Sunday of Easter; A few years ago, my bride had to travel for work to a diocese which observes it on the following Sunday. She was away on Thursday (no observance for her), and had returned by Sunday (still no observance for her). I know the law dismisses the obligation to assist at Mass under such circumstances, and it was not intentional in any way, but she missed the Solemnity of the Ascension completely that year.

Respectfully,
tee
Neither a Canon Lawyer, nor Cleric, nor whatever credential you please