Does anyone else have a problem with "moving" Holy Days to the nearest Sunday?

[Bran_Stark]

Hello,
Your local Catholic diocese should hire you to direct the liturgy office. I say you can stick your (sensible) nose into our affairs as much as you want.

Haha, thank you! But actually, my local Catholic diocese is one of the few in the United States that do celebrate the Ascension on Thursday.

 

[Kielbasi]

However this is only mandatory in the Vatican, and I know in the United States a few of these are not celebrated. Why is up for grabs, I think these all should be required days to attend mass. I would love to hear opinions on the matter.

I respect your opinion, but I disagree.

Back in the old country and back in the day, most holy days were also civil holidays where offices were closed. The vast majority of parishioners already had the day off.

Even here in the US, although that usually wasn’t the case- most of your parishes were very local, making it a lot easier for the people to make it to church right in the old neighborhood.

This is no longer the situation, and the rules are getting changed because of it.

 

[drforjc]

I respect your opinion, but I disagree.

Back in the old country and back in the day, most holy days were also civil holidays where offices were closed. The vast majority of parishioners already had the day off.

Even here in the US, although that usually wasn’t the case- most of your parishes were very local, making it a lot easier for the people to make it to church right in the old neighborhood.

This is no longer the situation, and the rules are getting changed because of it.

For a sufficient reason, one’s obligation is excused already. That’s true with Sundays as well.

I don’t see what that has to do with celebrating holy days on their traditional dates.

 

[peter26]

I’ll post this here since its related to save starting a new thread. A nearby parish offers a TLM on a Monday night (7pm) once a month and this month that happens to fall on October 31st. Does this count as a vigil for All Saints, or can it not count since vigils did not exist I think when the 1962 Missal came out.

 

[OraLabora]

I’ll post this here since its related to save starting a new thread. A nearby parish offers a TLM on a Monday night (7pm) once a month and this month that happens to fall on October 31st. Does this count as a vigil for All Saints, or can it not count since vigils did not exist I think when the 1962 Missal came out.

Vigils certainly did exist pre-Vatican II. What you are referring to is not a “vigil” per se but the Mass of the feast offered in the evening.

However, All-Saint’s day is one of those feasts that actually had a proper Vigil Mass the prior evening, with different readings, and music.

I am looking at a 1926 Roman Gradual that I have in my liturgical library, the introit for the Mass of All Saints is Gaudeamus ones in Domini, and for the Vigil Mass the prior evening, Judicant sancti gentes. So yes, they can make that 7 pm Mass the Vigil of All Saints. That would fulfill the obligation, as would any Mass the prior evening. There is no separate law for the EF Mass. All Catholics are bound by the same rules regardless of what form of the Mass they attend.

 

[peter26]

Many thanks.

 

[Kielbasi]

For a sufficient reason, one’s obligation is excused already. That’s true with Sundays as well.

I don’t see what that has to do with celebrating holy days on their traditional dates.

Even if someone’s obligation is excused for a specific day, some might think its still an appropriate event to celebrate or take note of.

Moving it to Sunday allows a lot more people to participate.

Just like when my birthday event was celebrated on the following Sunday, a lot of folks couldn’t make it out to my mum’s on the weekday.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Nope.

It is 38 days.

Lent begins March 1 (Wednesday) in 2017.

4 days that week.
6 days (6th - 11th)
6 days (13th - 18th)
6 days (20th - 25th)
6 days (27th - 1st)
6 days (3rd - 8th)
4 days (10th - 13th), until evening, with the beginning of Holy Thursday Mass in the evening. You can count the daytime part of Holy Thursday if you wish, and make it 38 days; or not count Holy Thursday daytime, and make it 37; I won’t quibble. But it is not 40 days.

Holy Thursday is the 13th, and the start of the Triduum that evening, which is not part of Lent.

While the Triduum is by calendar three days - Holy Thursday evening to Easter Sunday evening, it is liturgically one day (c.f. the USCCB: "The summit of the Liturgical Year is the Easter Triduum—from the evening of Holy Thursday to the evening of Easter Sunday. Though chronologically three days, they are liturgically one day unfolding for us the unity of Christ’s Paschal Mystery.

The single celebration of the Triduum marks the end of the Lenten season, and leads to the Mass of the Resurrection of the Lord at the Easter Vigil.
The liturgical services that take place during the Triduum are:

Mass of the Lord’s Supper
Good Friday of the Lord’s Passion
Mass of the Resurrection of the Lord"

Easter is on the 16th.

One got to 40 days before the reform and renewal of the liturgy at and following Vatican II by virtue of the fact that the Sacred Triduum was not carved out as it’s own thing and Lent extended up until the afternoon of Holy Saturday. Of course, the Triduum should be its own reality liturgically.

For others who have posted in the thread, Sundays did not count into the observance of “the 40 days” because Sundays were not days of fast, even though they were called “Sundays of Lent,” according to the old formulation of the fast and abstinence rubrics.

Arriving at the correct answer had to do with how the old rubrics were formulated and in understanding that.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Why is up for grabs, I think these all should be required days to attend mass. I would love to hear opinions on the matter.

As a priest whose experience has spanned from the days when we had a full complement of Holy Day Masses – and a full complement of priests to celebrate them – through to today, I am actually quite happy with the disposition of today.

Even in the days long past, we did not have the numbers present at most Holy Days – Christmas being the obvious exception – that we did on Sundays…ever. Life even decades ago did not allow it. It simply was not possible for many people to come in the way they do on Sunday.

I remember when we went from the way we had done it to having one or two anticipated Masses the night before and then Mass early in the morning, during the day and then again in the evening. Thus up to six Masses between the evening before and the day of…for a diminishing handful at each Mass. The numbers just did not justify it, which led in turn to a shrinkage in the number of Masses being offered. Especially given that we who are priests reach a limit at trinating on a day of obligation…and if I am alone, my limit is the limit.

That which is being demanded has to be proportional to what is reasonable. In former days, one could have the fourth Sunday of Advent (Day of Obligation), followed by Christmas (Day of Obligation), followed by the Sunday (Day of Obligation) and then next the octave of Christmas (Day of Obligation) followed by either Sunday (Day of Obligation) and then Epiphany (Day of Obligation) or the reverse…six Days of Obligation in as little as 13 calendar days. Transferring various days was a matter of practicality and common sense in the face of changes in life.

As a priest, I would rather have a reasonably full church celebrating the Ascension of the Lord on Sunday than have 15-20 people who made it on the Thursday (along with a subsequent line of penitents in the aftermath of the day of obligation…people who forgot – then it is not a sin – or otherwise did not get to Mass).

 

[tee_eff_em]

For others who have posted in the thread, Sundays did not count into the observance of “the 40 days” because Sundays were not days of fast, even though they were called “Sundays of Lent,” according to the old formulation of the fast and abstinence rubrics.

With respectful curiosity: Were “I Class” days, such as 19-March and 25-March, days of fast?

tee

 

[Rosebud77]

**For a sufficient reason, one’s obligation is excused already. **That’s true with Sundays as well.

I don’t see what that has to do with celebrating holy days on their traditional dates.

But there are people who WANT to observe the Holy Day and cannot as they are eg working or have family commitments .

Sad to see them left out for the sake of “tradition” …

 

[drforjc]

But there are people who WANT to observe the Holy Day and cannot as they are eg working or have family commitments .

Sad to see them left out for the sake of “tradition” …

Now, we are at least getting to the crux of the debate! It doesn’t have to do with people missing their obligation, it has to do with what liturgy ought to be celebrated on Sunday.

One could ask if it is more important for them to celebrate the feast than the regular Sunday at the expense of backpedaling and conceding more and more to a culture which is constantly and aggressively encroaching on and competing for whatever time we have that ought to be available for the practice of our faith . At what point is the Sunday obligation itself going to have to be abrogated due to every business "needing"to be open on Sunday?

 

[MadHatter]

It is sad that Holy Days are being transferred to Sundays, i’d love to see them be prominent and punctuating within the realm of secular living. What is sadder still, is that the secular world has changed the way we can practice our faith in, and has the Church adapting to, it.

 

[OraLabora]

For those who want to celebrate these solemnities on their traditional dates, I suggest you check with your local religious orders. Many of them, especially the cloistered orders, do celebrate on the traditional date, as does the abbey I’m attached to as oblate. They are not bound by the secular constraints that most of us have. One can attend their conventual Mass, and also their celebration of the Liturgy oh the Hours on that day.

It’s what I do since I retired. If I can’t make the Mass, I try to make it to Vespers. I can’t think of few better ways to spend one of these solemnities getting to learn about one of the religious orders and their liturgy. I realize it’s not possible for everyone, but it is an option to consider, and those of you in the US are blessed with many choices.

FWIW I agree with and have no issues with the Church moving these days to the closest Sunday, so that the largest possible number of faithful can share, liturgically, in the joy of the Ascension, or the chorus of all the Saints in heaven, or the gift of Grace through the Body and Blood of our Lord in the sacrament of the Eucharist, to name three examples of transferred solemnities. Thee celebrations are ment for all, not just the few who can make it on weekday.

 

[LiamQ]

FWIW I agree with and have no issues with the Church moving these days to the closest Sunday, so that the largest possible number of faithful can share, liturgically, in the joy of the Ascension, or the chorus of all the Saints in heaven, or the gift of Grace through the Body and Blood of our Lord in the sacrament of the Eucharist, to name three examples of transferred solemnities. Thee celebrations are ment for all, not just the few who can make it on weekday.

Thank you, Michel, for helping us to see the positive in what the Bishops do, rather than fostering skepticism and a cynical attitude.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Thank you, Michel, for helping us to see the positive in what the Bishops do, rather than fostering skepticism and a cynical attitude.

:clapping:

 

[OraLabora]

Thank you, Michel, for helping us to see the positive in what the Bishops do, rather than fostering skepticism and a cynical attitude.

And thank you for putting up with my iPad induced typos

 

[sallybutler]

Yes. But I also have a problem with holidays being moved to Mondays.

 

[Rosebud77]

Now, we are at least getting to the crux of the debate! It doesn’t have to do with people missing their obligation, it has to do with what liturgy ought to be celebrated on Sunday.

One could ask if it is more important for them to celebrate the feast than the regular Sunday at the expense of backpedaling and conceding more and more to a culture which is constantly and aggressively encroaching on and competing for whatever time we have that ought to be available for the practice of our faith . At what point is the Sunday obligation itself going to have to be abrogated due to every business "needing"to be open on Sunday?

That was not my point,

You are wrong in making a political issue of this.

Practicising our faith means a great deal more than mass,
WE make the running BUT the world we live in has changed; we are not dinosaurs…

The thing re shops etc being open on Sunday? Does not mean we HAVE to use them…

 

[Rosebud77]

FWIW I agree with and have no issues with the Church moving these days to the closest Sunday, so that the largest possible number of faithful can share, liturgically, in the joy of the Ascension, or the chorus of all the Saints in heaven, or the gift of Grace through the Body and Blood of our Lord in the sacrament of the Eucharist, to name three examples of transferred solemnities. Thee celebrations are ment for all, not just the few who can make it on weekday.

Perfect post. Thank you.