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

[Wesrock]

I think the thread creator is asking in good faith. I don’t know . . . It’s a balance between encouraging mercy and more frequent participation versus emphasizing the holy nature of such things. It’d be nice if we could do both. I personally would find the three hour communion fast helpful, as well as additional days of obligation. I suppose I could just do these things myself. It’s just a pickle. I do trust our bishops and recognize their authority. That doesn’t mean we’re forbidden from talking about it.

 

[Wesrock]

I note that the Church has never bothered to get the math right on the 40 days of Lent.

???

Lent is 40 days, not counting Sunday’s, which are mini-Easter’s.

 

[tee_eff_em]

???

Lent is 40 days, not counting Sunday’s, which are mini-Easter’s.

tee

 

[Rosebud77]

Christ said he would vomit the lukewarm Rev 3:16

OT:

I don’t think the church should cut corners, and should keep the liturgical days on the dates, they are there for a reason. Man must conform to the faith, not the other way around.

This is way vespers and vigils have almost been eradicated outside monastic communities. The Church that Christ founded and gave power is more than just a hobby activity to do, instead of watching TV.

He also said time and again DO NOT JUDGE. I went through a small hell here several times as I was not and am not well enough to get to Mass. People judging… Makes lives needlessly hard.

You may be calling folk lukewarm who cannot get to Mass midweek for any of several reasons, Care of children.work etc etc Far better all round if Holy Days are made more accessible… Oh and you can always have your cake and eat it; ie observe the Day AND attach to the nearest Sunday as well, much as Saturday Vigil is done.

NB Anglicans have Evensong. ie an amalgamation of Vespers and Compline and no reason why you cannot pray the Offices at home…

Please do not judge others. Old saying. you cannot know how a man walks until you have walked a mile in his shoes. You are welcome to try mine!!!

 

[Rosebud77]

Yes, they are there for a reason, and that reason is the church chose to put them there and the church is well within its authority to move the observance or even remove it entirely. Part of conforming to the faith is recognizing the church has this authority. Why are you not conforming to it?

 

[Rosebud77]

In Poland some of the Holy Days are actually national holidays or “free days.”

I doubt if they would want to move them to Sundays.

Poland?Where the women took to the streets to demand abortion “rights”? Very holy!!

 

[Rosebud77]

I do not see a problem. If a Feast day has been moved, I can still celebrate and go to Mass on the actual Feast date ,because we have a Mass every day anyway and I do that when I can. But I understand that many people do not have that kind of possibility to take a day or a morning off on a regular work day and it is good for them that they get to celebrate on a Sunday

And no reason why not both as in Vigil Mass on Saturdays… Or read the Mass at home…

 

[thistle]

I know countries are not forced to follow the Vatican’s official list of Holy Days, and some countries have more than others, however I feel like moving a day such as Ascension Thursday to the following Sunday just undermines it in a way. Ascension Day is still a Holy Day in my Arch Diocese, however I have heard only a handful in the United States still require it( mainly Northeastern Arch Dioceses) I know other Holy Days, say if it falls on a Saturday or Monday, the Obligation is met on Sunday. I mean I suppose to a lay Catholic who maybe feels Sunday is enough and the rest is a hassle, it is a good thing, but is that why the Church does it? I feel like conforming to make people’s lives not have to require going to Church as often is not a good trend to follow. From what I have read, we have far fewer Holy Days than we once did, and I believe a Pope drastically cut the number drastically in the early 20th century, but now it’s like, very important days in the Liturgical Year are just moved to Sundays. I don’t know I just feel like it isn’t right, I would love to hear others opinions. I personally try to go to mass as often as I can, and don’t understand why we should move feasts when really we don’t have that many anymore. The official Canon of Holy Days are
1 January: Solemnity of Mary, the Holy Mother of God
6 January: Solemnity of the Epiphany of the Lord
19 March: Solemnity of Saint Joseph, Spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Thursday of the sixth week of Eastertide: Solemnity of the Ascension of the Lord
Thursday after Trinity Sunday: Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ
29 June: Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, Apostles
15 August: Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
1 November: Solemnity of All Saints
8 December: Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary
25 December: Solemnity of the Nativity of the Lord (Christmas)

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.

Not a problem.

 

[HelenRose]

No! There are many people who can not make these Holy Days during the week because they have to work.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Not a problem for me with some moved to Sunday as most go to Mass that day. In the fifties 3 priests to one parish, now there’s a shortage with only one priest. People work long hours and sometimes work late in the evening. Don’t even think the kids in parochial schools get the off anymore, so best to go with your local bishop.

Which raises an interesting question:

My children attended a total of 5 primary and secondary Catholic schools, which held to varying philosophies. Some gave a day off school for a Holy Day (which gives the day an appropriately festive feel). Some held classes as usual, with the exception that the students attended Mass (which ensured they would do so – Those with the day off, perhaps did not).

(And my recollection of my own school days: We would have a half-day, ending with a late morning Mass just prior to the pre-lunch dismissal, which is perhaps the happy medium)

tee

 

[drforjc]

I’d prefer they kept their traditional/actual dates.

I think faith should inform culture rather than having the faith endlessly compromise because of secularism constantly pushing it out of the way.

 

[ProVobis]

No! There are many people who can not make these Holy Days during the week because they have to work.

Not to mention many of the local parishes have only one or two Masses on those days.

 

[Usige]

I don’t like it, its cutting a corner and encouraging lukewarmness. Offering an evening or vigil Mass allows for people who work to attend.

My wife and I were talking about how we had a single 9am Mass offered on the Solemnity of Mary Mother of God this year. This is despite the fact that we have 6 Masses on Sundays and have 5 masses/services on Ash Wednesday. Even the regular daily mass is offered at 7am so those that work have an opportunity to attend. It wasn’t for lack of clergy either since we had 3 priests concelebrating and 4 deacons. So even when it wasn’t abrogated or transferred there was no effort made to make it as convenient as possible for the faithful to fulfill their obligation.

Personally I would like the Solemnities to remain fixed rather than transferred or abrogated. It always seems silly to celebrate Christ’s Ascension with readings from Acts that talk about his ascending 40 days after Easter and the fact that it is 43 days after Easter. But the Bishops never asked my opinion, so …

 

[Usige]

I think the thread creator is asking in good faith. I don’t know . . . It’s a balance between encouraging mercy and more frequent participation versus emphasizing the holy nature of such things.

I can understand that, but then why have Holy Days beyond Sundays anyway? Some people don’t like going to Mass on Sundays, so wouldn’t it be merciful to simply say that you can show up when you feel like it? I am not trying to be flippant, but really thinking that when we bow to conform practice to society we risk loosing the very reason those norms existed in the first place. If mercy is just saying “do what you would have done anyway” then it seems to remove the whole purpose of setting aside days for specific rememberances.

 

[TK421]

There is no such thing as a correct day for a feast day. They are man-made dates of celebration, which have behind them the authority of the Church, and so by default the authority of God, but they can still be freely changed by the Church and have been freely changed by the Church many times. Even the Sabbath itself is to an extent manmade (though having its origins in the Creation narrative), since it was culturally regarded as holy by the Israelite people prior to the Ten Commandments, and then - and only then - it had the more official authority of the Levite priests, who were the closest equivalent to the Magisterium at the time.

So a ‘problem’? Not really. Not unless I were to have a problem with any number of other changes to the calendar.

 

[otjm]

???

Lent is 40 days, not counting Sunday’s, which are mini-Easter’s.

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.

 

[pnewton]

???

Lent is 40 days, not counting Sunday’s, which are mini-Easter’s.

tee

LOL I guess I should have expected it. Okay, Wesrock, if that is what you believe. Maybe we can cover this next year…

… again. Here is the gist.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=101317

jimmyakin.org/2004/03/the_length_of_l.html

 

[tee_eff_em]

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.

Or, add 6 Sundays back into either of those numbers – It still won’t be 40.

And :twocents: it is just stoopid to say *“Sundays aren’t part of Lent”. * I don’t know about where you live, but in my neck of the woods the calendar says, eg, "Third Sunday

of

Lent", not "Third Sunday *

surrounded by

*Lent" and the priest wears purple – It is Sunday, and it is Lent – at the same time! (Whether it is appropriate to fast is a separate question)
Either that, or you will also need subtract the Solemnity of Joseph, husband of Mary (19-Mar (next year translated to 20th by collision with Third Sunday of Lent)) and the Solemnity of the Annunciation (25-Mar) as “not part of Lent”.

tl;dr: :twocents: ;

tee
Armchair Liturgical Calendar Nerd

 

[Bran_Stark]

I’m only a Protestant so I suppose I have no right to stick my nose into your affairs, but I think the current practice of moving holy days to Sunday is very sad. There’s so much symbolism and history associated with Epiphany being twelve days after Christmas and Ascension Day forty days after Easter. And moving All Saints to the nearest Sunday would result in the bizarre situation of having All Hallows’ Eve and Halloween on separate days…

I’m not entirely opposed to transferring feasts, but the Old Rite had a much nicer way of going about it: If two important feasts fall on the same day, the greater one is celebrated on that day, and the lesser one is bumped ahead to the next open day. From that point of view, the modern practice is saying “Thursday, Friday, and Saturday in the sixth week of Easter outrank the Ascension.”

 

[dans0622]

I’m only a Protestant so I suppose I have no right to stick my nose into your affairs, but I think the current practice of moving holy days to Sunday is very sad. There’s so much symbolism and history associated with Epiphany being twelve days after Christmas and Ascension Day forty days after Easter. And moving All Saints to the nearest Sunday would result in the bizarre situation of having All Hallows’ Eve and Halloween on separate days…

I’m not entirely opposed to transferring feasts, but the Old Rite had a much nicer way of going about it: If two important feasts fall on the same day, the greater one is celebrated on that day, and the lesser one is bumped ahead to the next open day. From that point of view, the modern practice is saying “Thursday, Friday, and Saturday in the sixth week of Easter outrank the Ascension.”

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.

Dan