The answer argues that daily Mass is not an entitlement due the people, Which is true. The answer also argues that there may be legitimate circumstances.forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=556418
Answer argues that a mass with a priest and a server would be not justified. This is theologically wrong.
Holy Mass is not a Rabbinic prayer requiring some kind of Minyan!
The preference of the Church is that a priest not say more than one Mass per day unless there is a need (canon 905). A priest might be saying Mass at a local Catholic school, hospital, nursing home, etc. So perhaps he has simply chosen to say only one Mass per day and if he’s saying Mass somewhere else he’s canceling the parish Mass due to low attendence and the fact he only has so much time and energy in a day.Although I don’t think that Canon Law requires a priest to offer Mass every day, I’m not sure why a priest wouldn’t offer Mass due purely to poor turn-out.
It is indeed acceptable to say Mass with just one other person, but its not preferable.And the Roman Missal does give instructions for offering Mass when there is only one other person present. So I’m not sure whether a practice that is given official status can be seen as theologically wrong.
As stated, there could be Masses elswhere that he’s also responsible for. But, as also pointed out, there is no right to daily Mass. Perhaps the priest has hospital duty the two nights per week and has trouble getting back to sleep when he gets called to the hospital at 3am and so he canceled Mass on the mornings after his duty.But I’ve always thought that offering Mass was the greatest commitment a priest could have and that would take priority.
The preference of the Church is that a priest not say more than one Mass per day unless there is a need (canon 905). A priest might be saying Mass at a local Catholic school, hospital, nursing home, etc. So perhaps he has simply chosen to say only one Mass per day and if he’s saying Mass somewhere else he’s canceling the parish Mass due to low attendence and the fact he only has so much time and energy in a day.
It is indeed acceptable to say Mass with just one other person, but its not preferable.
As stated, there could be Masses elswhere that he’s also responsible for. But, as also pointed out, there is no right to daily Mass. Perhaps the priest has hospital duty the two nights per week and has trouble getting back to sleep when he gets called to the hospital at 3am and so he canceled Mass on the mornings after his duty.
I wasn’t attempting to be hostile in the response I posted, in fact I pointed out the encouragement to be charitable in the link that started off this forum. Perhaps assumption of positive intent should work both ways - especially when, as pointed out, laity don’t always know what responsibilities a priest has? Laity aren’t always assuming ill-will on the part of the priest, there is often genuine misunderstanding.I’m glad you pointed this out, especially about the early morning hospital calls. I don’t think most of the laity understand all that priests do. I am alway amazed at the accusatory, almost hostile, tone that some on this board have toward priests; when in reality, they know so little of what goes on in a priest’s day. May I suggest to the laity to assume positive intent when a priest makes a change to the Mass schedule, etc.
the problem is not the lack of faithful. (In that case there would be neither communion service justified).there will now be a Communion service on Mondays and Thursdays instead of a Mass.
Add to this the shut-ins that need visiting, funerals, weddings, counselling, business operations in the parish, hearing confession, dealing with complaints of parishioners that have their dander up about something (if it wasn’t lack of daily mass, they would find something else to complain about), ministerial association meetings, coordination with local charities for food drives, parish council meetings, staff meetings, etc. Among all this, the parish priest must also find time for himself to avoid burn-out. The priest is not an ATM for the Sacraments.I think that possibly, one reason for the attitude displayed by some of the laity is that people in the past were used to having Mass and the Sacraments “on tap”. Now there are fewer priests, and the priests we have are being expected to do more. But the laity don’t always know the extra responsibilities a priest has and just assume that all a priest does all day is celebrate Mass, recite the Divine Office, etc. So they don’t understand when a priest doesn’t say Mass every day or isn’t always available when they want him.
For example, when my church building opened in 1957, there were two parishes in my town with 4 priests. Now those two parishes have merged into one, and there is only one priest covering both. There are still two primary schools, and two centres of worship which he alternates between on weekdays. But there is also a large secondary school and a hospital within the boundaries of the parish. The priest is expected to be actively involved with all 3 schools (on the board of governors of the two primary schools), plus help out as required at the hospital. And yet somebody at my parish said to me last week “What does he actually do all day apart from celebrate Mass and say the Divine Office?” So there is possibly a communication problem regarding the laity’s awareness of what his responsibilities actually are.
I think that possibly, one reason for the attitude displayed by some of the laity is that people in the past were used to having Mass and the Sacraments “on tap”. Now there are fewer priests, and the priests we have are being expected to do more. But the laity don’t always know the extra responsibilities a priest has and just assume that all a priest does all day is celebrate Mass, recite the Divine Office, etc. So they don’t understand when a priest doesn’t say Mass every day or isn’t always available when they want him.
For example, when my church building opened in 1957, there were two parishes in my town with 4 priests. Now those two parishes have merged into one, and there is only one priest covering both. There are still two primary schools, and two centres of worship which he alternates between on weekdays. But there is also a large secondary school and a hospital within the boundaries of the parish. The priest is expected to be actively involved with all 3 schools (on the board of governors of the two primary schools), plus help out as required at the hospital. And yet somebody at my parish said to me last week “What does he actually do all day apart from celebrate Mass and say the Divine Office?” So there is possibly a communication problem regarding the laity’s awareness of what his responsibilities actually are.
It is for this reason that my parish has a business manager, but at the same time even with this position, many things still must be approved by him.The increased workload is an unfortunate thing. The problem is, that in many parishes priest became business executives (without expertize) and abandon the priestly responsibilities for the earthly things. Laity can run the parish as business under the centralized supervision of the diocese, also laity can organize the various (non sacramental) ministries. No one but the priest can administer sacraments, most importantly the mass and confessions.
This is the reason why we would need many deacons (and with the approval of the Church) deaconesses, and lay experts as leaders of the non sacramental aspect of the Church; to free up the priests to the sacred things.
That was indeed a possibility, but neither the question asked nor the answer given indicate any need for priest to say mass elsewhere.The preference of the Church is that a priest not say more than one Mass per day unless there is a need (canon 905). A priest might be saying Mass at a local Catholic school, hospital, nursing home, etc. So perhaps he has simply chosen to say only one Mass per day and if he’s saying Mass somewhere else he’s canceling the parish Mass due to low attendence and the fact he only has so much time and energy in a day.
My problem was only with fact that first “legitimate circumstance” coming to mind to the apologist was small mass attendance those days.The answer argues that daily Mass is not an entitlement due the people, Which is true. The answer also argues that there may be legitimate circumstances.
OK. Extra responsibilities.Now there are fewer priests, and the priests we have are being expected to do more. But the laity don’t always know the extra responsibilities a priest has and just assume that all a priest does all day is celebrate Mass, recite the Divine Office, etc. So they don’t understand when a priest doesn’t say Mass every day or isn’t always available when they want him.
Actually, the original question is silent on whether or not the priest has other responsibilities on those days.That was indeed a possibility, but neither the question asked nor the answer given indicate any need for priest to say mass elsewhere.
Latin Rite priests are not obligated to say mass once per day. Don’t get me wrong, its highly encouraged and recommended but its not an obligation.I also think Latin priests are usually obliged to say one mass per day, which Oriental priests are not.
That has nothing to do with the issue at hand.The rule forbidding a priest to say more than one mass obviously does not apply Dec 25, when he has a right to say three (Midnight, Aurora, Day) and I think there is a similar rule for Easter.
There’s a couple of situations that would come into play with regards to Mass attendance. If only a handful of people attend and the priest has, let’s say, hospital duty on Tuesday night into Wednesday morning, then it might be easier to say “let’s cancel the Wed Mass” as opposed to if it was standing room only.My problem was only with fact that first “legitimate circumstance” coming to mind to the apologist was small mass attendance those days.
Most Churches have business managers, but they are usually volunteer advisers only. The resolution would be independent managers, supervised by the diocese, so the pastor would be freed for the souls.It is for this reason that my parish has a business manager, but at the same time even with this position, many things still must be approved by him.
ours is paid, but there are certain things he still has to sign off on.Most Churches have business managers, but they are usually volunteer advisers only. The resolution would be independent managers, supervised by the diocese, so the pastor would be freed for the souls.