Going to a "house" Mass

[malphono]

if you are going to question Masses at private homes, you should also question Papal Masses at sports stadiums and large open fields, also places that are not Sacred

The two have nothing in common. Yes, the law allows exception for “necessity” but a social gathering where the sponsoring group wants to have some sort of Mass as part of it is not a “necessity” by any stretch of the imagination. It reminds me of the “frat masses” of the late 1960s-early 1970s: the whole idea sends chills up my spine.

 

[floresco]

Listen to Choy. The difference in wording is crucial.
I would recommend not presuming ill will on the part of those who are hosting this gathering.

The hosts are lovely, well-meaning people. They also think that things like Canon Law are silly and irrelevant. Any concerns that I express about this are likely to be dismissed a legalism.

 

[corsair]

My only concern would be the priest. I would need to know whether he was from an accepted Order, Fraternity, and whether he gave full obedience to the Pope. In other words, not a sedevacantist such as SSPV, CMRI, or just an independent.

Folks can voice all the opinions in the world about whether or not you can have a Mass outside of a church or not, but it boils down to; its done all the time and with the approval of the local Bishop.

Choy has it right.

 

[floresco]

Exactly. I can recall some weekend retreats and camping trips in college where a priest was present. We would have Mass on a picnic table (for the camping trips) or in whatever room of the retreat center would be designated for that purpose (for the retreats). It’s not a grave situation, but when one is in those types of situations, it is necessary to have Mass outside of a church building if one is to have it at all.

But in this case, it is not necessary to have Mass outside of a church building if one is to have it at all. They are five minutes away from a church and it would be a minor inconvenience for everyone to go there for the Mass. They are doing this because they want to.

 

[MarkThompson]

I tend to agree with Choy and Corsair. For what it’s worth, Redemptionis Sacramentum says,
108. “The celebration of the Eucharist is to be carried out in a sacred place, unless in a particular case necessity requires otherwise. In this case the celebration must be in a decent place.”[197] The diocesan Bishop shall be the judge for his diocese concerning this necessity, on a case-by-case basis.
The important thing to remember, I think, is that “necessity” doesn’t mean the world will end unless it happens. It’s tough to imagine any circumstance, ever, in which it has been, strictly speaking, necessary to have Mass. So that’s a bit of a red herring. Ultimately, it’s up to the bishop, though the canon certainly suggests some greater degree of justification is required than “Well, we wanted a change of scenery.”

 

[MarkThompson]

But in this case, it is not necessary to have Mass outside of a church building if one is to have it at all. They are five minutes away from a church and it would be a minor inconvenience for everyone to go there for the Mass. They are doing this because they want to.

And any priest can just walk into any church at whatever time of the day with a group of people, set up shop, and start celebrating Mass? If it were that simple, your point would have more merit, but if you think about it for a moment you’ll realize that the reality is somewhat different.

 

[Joe_5859]

The hosts are lovely, well-meaning people. They also think that things like Canon Law are silly and irrelevant. Any concerns that I express about this are likely to be dismissed a legalism.

I see. Do you know who the priest is that will be saying Mass? Even if the hosts are dismissive of Canon Law, the priest should know better! I would ask him about it rather than the hosts.

 

[Joe_5859]

I tend to agree with Choy and Corsair. For what it’s worth, Redemptionis Sacramentum says,
108. “The celebration of the Eucharist is to be carried out in a sacred place, unless in a particular case necessity requires otherwise. In this case the celebration must be in a decent place.”[197] The diocesan Bishop shall be the judge for his diocese concerning this necessity, on a case-by-case basis.
The important thing to remember, I think, is that “necessity” doesn’t mean the world will end unless it happens. It’s tough to imagine any circumstance, ever, in which it has been, strictly speaking, necessary to have Mass. So that’s a bit of a red herring. Ultimately, it’s up to the bishop, though the canon certainly suggests some greater degree of justification is required than “Well, we wanted a change of scenery.”

Thanks for that reference.

I can think of one diocese off the top of my head where the bishop is pretty strict on not having Mass outside of a church building (as is his prerogative), but many bishops are not so strict. It’s really their judgment call.

 

[floresco]

Seems to me you answered your own question. From the description, it sounds like a recipe for a disastrous mess. Were it me, I might go to the social part, (if I otherwise got along with the people), but would politely but firmly decline the invitation to service part. If the two can’t be separated, then I’d decline the whole thing. Been there, done that, and even if it was ages ago, it was a ghastly experience never to be repeated.

You’re right. Even if somebody were to make a good case that this Mass were in compliance with Canon Law (which has not happened yet - only unsupported assertions) I would not want to go. These people like “creative” liturgy. I would be distressed, if not horrified, by attending. That just isn’t an option. But there is still the question of what I am going to say about it to them. So I am still interested in understanding what the canon about Mass in sacred places means. I hope that somebody who understands this will give a proper explanation that includes supporting evidence.

 

[floresco]

And any priest can just walk into any church at whatever time of the day with a group of people, set up shop, and start celebrating Mass? If it were that simple, your point would have more merit, but if you think about it for a moment you’ll realize that the reality is somewhat different.

Of course, they can’t just walk in. They would have to arrange it with the pastor in advance. There is no reason to think that the priest would not allow this. If they asked him and he said no, then I could see a claim that this was a necessity. But I don’t expect them to even consider asking. Nor do I expect them to ask the bishop for permission. These people think that rules are a bad thing. These see rules as interfering with with people’s relationships with God. They are pretty much antinomialists.

 

[floresco]

I see. Do you know who the priest is that will be saying Mass? Even if the hosts are dismissive of Canon Law, the priest should know better! I would ask him about it rather than the hosts.

From what I can tell, the priests associated with this group have the same attitude as the hosts of the party.

 

[floresco]

For what it’s worth, Redemptionis Sacramentum says,
108. “The celebration of the Eucharist is to be carried out in a sacred place, unless in a particular case necessity requires otherwise. In this case the celebration must be in a decent place.”[197] The diocesan Bishop shall be the judge for his diocese concerning this necessity, on a case-by-case basis.

My comment about “no supporting evidence” was written before I saw this, although it appeared after, making it seem that I did not not appreciate what a helpful quote this is.

I don’t have a problem with them having a house Mass if they have permission from the bishop, but I will be very surprised if they do. Anyhow, now I know what to say to them. Thank you.

 

[malphono]

You’re right. Even if somebody were to make a good case that this Mass were in compliance with Canon Law (which has not happened yet - only unsupported assertions) I would not want to go. These people like “creative” liturgy. I would be distressed, if not horrified, by attending. That just isn’t an option. But there is still the question of what I am going to say about it to them. So I am still interested in understanding what the canon about Mass in sacred places means. I hope that somebody who understands this will give a proper explanation that includes supporting evidence.

Earlier you said “I would not really want to go to a Mass with them even if it were in a church since they usually disregard the rubrics” and, I think you may have answered your own question again. Given the mindset involved, any interpretation of a canon other than what they want will get a laugh and little more. The canon gives a little “wiggle-room” but trying to fit this situation into it is kind of like trying to get an elephant into an old cinquecento.

If it were me, I would simply tell them politely but firmly that I won’t be attending the service. If they insist on an explanation, it would be the truth: I find “unstructured liturgy” (boy, isn’t that a euphemism ) to be a detriment to my spiritual well-being. Beyond that, it’s not their business. Oh sure, they’d probably talk about me behind my back (and maybe laugh in my face) until the cows came home, but who cares?

 

[rwoehmke]

Exactly. I can recall some weekend retreats and camping trips in college where a priest was present. We would have Mass on a picnic table (for the camping trips) or in whatever room of the retreat center would be designated for that purpose (for the retreats). It’s not a grave situation, but when one is in those types of situations, it is necessary to have Mass outside of a church building if one is to have it at all.

Can anyone tell us whether John Paul II said Mass for the group of young people he traveled/camped with as a priest in Poland?

 

[GIR]

The OP said the group was very liberal.

I think this actually stems from the rejection of popular devotions post VII. Mass is the greatest thing we can do, but it is by no means the only thing we can do as a group. There’s the rosary, the divine office, and any number of other things.

I think, “because we feel like it” doesn’t count. Since a church is so close, there’s no reason to have it elsewhere.

Although I do agree that very small masses can be very impactful (if that’s a word). I think the smallest masses I’ve been to were the byzantine liturgies held at the maronite church in Austin. Probably less then 10 people including myself were in attendance. These liturgies, however, were held in a chapel.

 

[GIR]

Can anyone tell us whether John Paul II said Mass for the group of young people he traveled/camped with as a priest in Poland?

Yes, I recall seeing a biography of him.

i think he actually used an overturned canoe as an altar, and used the paddles to form a cross. (I’m sure he brought the other nesecities though.

 

[Orogeny]

Exactly. I can recall some weekend retreats and camping trips in college where a priest was present. We would have Mass on a picnic table (for the camping trips) or in whatever room of the retreat center would be designated for that purpose (for the retreats).

Interestingly, Fr. Karol Wojtyła was on a kayaking trip with friends when he got word that he had been summoned to his Cardinal. When he arrived, he found out that he had been named auxilary bishop of Krakow by Pope Pius XII. Once informed, he asked permission to have a couple of days off because he had to return to his friends so that he could celebrate Mass with them in the wilderness.

I guess that since Mass in a place other than a church was ok with the future Pope John Paul II, it is ok by me.

Peace

Tim

 

[floresco]

I guess that since Mass in a place other than a church was ok with the future Pope John Paul II, it is ok by me.

I am ok with Mass in a place other than a church, too, when it does not involve breaking Canon Law. I am not ok with people disregarding Canon Law, even future popes. However, there is no reason to assume that this is what was happening in the incident you describe. Neither the current Code of Canon Law nor Redemptionis Sacramentum had been written then. It is quite possible that he was following the rules as they were then.

 

[floresco]

If it were me, I would simply tell them politely but firmly that I won’t be attending the service. If they insist on an explanation, it would be the truth: I find “unstructured liturgy” (boy, isn’t that a euphemism ) to be a detriment to my spiritual well-being. Beyond that, it’s not their business. Oh sure, they’d probably talk about me behind my back (and maybe laugh in my face) until the cows came home, but who cares?

First I am going to find out if they have permission from the bishop. If, as I suspect, they do not, I am going to explain that they are breaking Canon Law. It is possible that they are acting in ignorance so they need to find out. I don’t expect this to leave any room for talking about what I think of their approach to liturgy. If it turns out the location of the Mass was approved by the bishop, then I can explain why I feel unable to attend Mass with them.

 

[choy]

The OP said the group was very liberal.

I think this actually stems from the rejection of popular devotions post VII. Mass is the greatest thing we can do, but it is by no means the only thing we can do as a group. There’s the rosary, the divine office, and any number of other things.

I think, “because we feel like it” doesn’t count. Since a church is so close, there’s no reason to have it elsewhere.

Although I do agree that very small masses can be very impactful (if that’s a word). I think the smallest masses I’ve been to were the byzantine liturgies held at the maronite church in Austin. Probably less then 10 people including myself were in attendance. These liturgies, however, were held in a chapel.

and by identifying the gourp as liberal, thats where the objectiveness in analyzing the situation ended

we shouldn’t be basing whether they can celebrate Mass elsewhere or not on the merit that they are labeled “liberal”. and that word is thrown around in these forums so freely that anyone who doesn’t attend a TLM can be branded a liberal

we should look at the situation and discuss it for what it is. assuming that they are the evil kind of liberal, that still doesn’t end their rights within the Church to do something the Church would allow.