How are readings for Mass selected and how much flexibilty is there?

[FrDavid96]

Isn’t that exactly what you said on this thread?

Also, the 2 quotes you gave from me don’t contradict each other.

The first one said that we cannot add an obligation to the law. We follow what the law says.

The 2nd quote had to do with determining which Mass was being celebrated.

2 entirely different issues.

 

[Digitonomy]

Since 2 different obligations have to be fulfilled, the question would be: which “day” is it on Saturday evening. There, there is about a 6 hour time period in which either Mass for either obligation might be celebrated. The way to answer “which day is it” is to look at the Mass text. A person cannot fulfill 2 obligations by attending 1 Mass.

Depends on the obligation - there are various pious practices or devotions which require a certain number of masses on particular days - I have never heard that if say Friday was a holy day, the holy day mass could not also count toward that devotion. But while it is not explicit in canon law, I agree one cannot fulfill the obligation to attend masses on two holy days by attendance at a single mass.

However, as to what “day” it is, canon law states

202 §1. In law, a day is understood as a period consisting of 24 continuous hours and begins at midnight unless other provision is expressly made

I’m assuming that “other provision” means in canon law. Certainly it is the case that liturgically, a day has a different meaning, but as you already pointed out, the particular liturgy celebrated should not invalidate one’s compliance with canon law, on a Sunday or otherwise.

Canon 1248 then would include the 24 hours of Sunday, plus the 8 hours of Saturday evening. Or for a Saturday holy day, the 24 hours of Saturday plus the 8 hours of Friday evening.

Thus one can fulfill either obligation at a 6 pm mass that overlaps.

FrDavid96:

And the intent of the Church is that a Catholic attend both the Mass of All Saints and the Mass of All Souls….If a person attends a Saturday morning Mass for All Saints and then later attends a Saturday evening Mass (and the text is also All Saints), would that second Mass fulfill the obligation for Sunday? My imaginary conclusion there would be that it does fulfill it, but a person should not do this intentionally. If it happens by accident, then the person would not be obligated to attend a 3rd Mass that weekend. Yet if it is done intentionally then the peson would culpable for missing the Sunday Mass because he had the intention of missing it.

I would counter that clearly the person would not be culpable for missing Sunday mass, based on canon 1248. However, it would be appropriate for a person to try to attend both the Sunday and holy day liturgies, to follow the intent of the Church that you stated above.

Jimmy Akin addressed this issue on his blog a couple of years ago, which I think agrees for the most part with my approach. He also explains why double-dipping doesn’t fly, by appealing to canon 19.

 

[benedictgal]

In the course of this thread, I think that the OP’s original question got lost in the discussion. The Introduction to the Lectionary gives some reasons as to why the readings were chosen in the manner they were chosen:

1. The present Order of Readings for Mass, then, is an arrangement of biblical readings that provides the faithful with a knowledge of the whole of God’s word, in a pattern suited to the purpose. Throughout the liturgical year, but above all during the seasons of Easter, Lent, and Advent, the choice and sequence of readings are aimed at giving Christ’s faithful an ever-deepening perception of the faith they profess and of the history of salvation. [98] Accordingly, the Order of Readings corresponds to the requirements and interests of the Christian people.

1. The celebration of the Liturgy is not in itself simply a form of catechesis, but it does contain an element of teaching. The Lectionary of the Roman Missal brings this out [99] and therefore deserves to be regarded as a pedagogical resource aiding catechesis.

This is so because the Order of Readings for Mass aptly presents from Sacred Scripture the principal deeds and words belonging to the history of salvation. As its many phases and events are recalled in the liturgy of the word, it will become clear to the faithful that the history of salvation is continued here and now in the representation of Christ’s paschal mystery celebrated through the Eucharist.

Now, regarding the actual selections, this is how the Introduction explains it:

1. The following are features proper to the readings for Sundays and festive days:

1. Each Mass has three readings: the first from the Old Testament, the second from an Apostle (that is, either from a Letter or from the Book of Revelation, depending on the season), and the third from the Gospels. This arrangement brings out the unity of the Old and New Testaments and of the history of salvation, in which Christ is the central figure, commemorated in his paschal mystery.
2. A more varied and richer reading of Sacred Scripture on Sundays and festive days results from the three-year cycle provided for these days, in that the same texts are read only every fourth year. [102]
3. The principles governing the Order of Readings for Sundays and festive days are called the principles of “harmony” and of “semicontinuous reading.” One or the other applies according to the different seasons of the year and the distinctive character of the particular liturgical season.
4. The best instance of harmony between the Old and New Testament readings occurs when it is one that Scripture itself suggests. This is the case when the doctrine and events recounted in texts of the New Testament bear a more or less explicit relationship to the doctrine and events of the Old Testament. The present Order of Readings selects Old Testament texts mainly because of their correlation with New Testament texts read in the same Mass, and particularly with the Gospel text.

Harmony of another kind exists between texts of the readings for each Mass during Advent, Lent, and Easter, the seasons that have a distinctive importance or character.

In contrast, the Sundays in Ordinary Time do not have a distinctive character. Thus the text of both the apostolic and Gospel readings are arranged in order of semicontinuous reading, whereas the Old Testament reading is harmonized with the Gospel.

1. The decision was made not to extend to Sundays the arrangement suited to the liturgical seasons mentioned, that is, not to have an organic harmony of themes devised with a view to facilitating homiletic instruction. Such an arrangement would be in conflict with the genuine conception of liturgical celebration, which is always the celebration of the mystery of Christ and which by its own tradition makes use of the word of God not only at the prompting of logical or extrinsic concerns but spurred by the desire to proclaim the Gospel and to lead those who believe to the fullness of truth.

I hope this gives the OP a better understanding as to why the Church does what she does.

 

[FrDavid96]

whew…I’m fastening my safery belt here.

Depends on the obligation - there are various pious practices or devotions which require a certain number of masses on particular days - I have never heard that if say Friday was a holy day, the holy day mass could not also count toward that devotion. But while it is not explicit in canon law, I agree one cannot fulfill the obligation to attend masses on two holy days by attendance at a single mass.

As for canon 1248, I was simply making the point that we cannot add a condition to fulfilling an obligation if the canon itself (or another canon) does not add such a condition. To make an analogy, if the law says that I owe a person five dollars, I am not obligated to give him six dollars. Or maybe it’s better to say that if I owe him five dollars, it makes no difference if I give him five ones or fin.

First Friday (and similar) is an obligation which we take upon ourselves, not one defines by the Church as is the Sunday obligation.

But that’s an interresting point about pious practices requiring several Masses on a single day? I’ve never heard of anything like that. Did I read that right? I think I’m misunderstanding something there.

However, as to what “day” it is, canon law states I’m assuming that “other provision” means in canon law. Certainly it is the case that liturgically, a day has a different meaning, but as you already pointed out, the particular liturgy celebrated should not invalidate one’s compliance with canon law, on a Sunday or otherwise.

Canon 1248 then would include the 24 hours of Sunday, plus the 8 hours of Saturday evening. Or for a Saturday holy day, the 24 hours of Saturday plus the 8 hours of Friday evening.

Thus one can fulfill either obligation at a 6 pm mass that overlaps.

Well, I’d agree, but I’d still say that the person has a serious moral obligation to attend the Mass that applies for the day which he intends to fulfill his obligation. If he shows up at the Saturday evening Mass, thinking it’s a Sunday Mass because that’s how it’s always done in his parish at that particular time, but finds out after the Mass starts, that it’s in fact the Saturday Mass, I wouldn’t expect him to go back on Sunday morning for a third Mass that weekend (assuming he went earlier on Saturday). On the other hand, if he goes on Saturday morning, and then again on Saturday evening, knowing full well that the evening Mass is for Saturday, I would say he is intentionally missing the Sunday Mass.

Having said all that, for the benefit of our other readers:
I was answering a relatively simple question that the original poster had. The question was essentially, since a Saturday evening Mass might be either All Saints or All Souls, how do I know which obligation I’m fulfilling? Answer: look at the text and not the time. It wasn’t a legal answer per se, just one meant to help him discern which celebration he should plan to attend. I thought that the discussion of the time-of-day was distracting from the real issue.

I would counter that clearly the person would not be culpable for missing Sunday mass, based on canon 1248. However, it would be appropriate for a person to try to attend both the Sunday and holy day liturgies, to follow the intent of the Church that you stated above.

Actually, remember that in that other post, the poster is in Scotland, where All Saints is a Holy Day, even though it’s a Saturday. So it would not only be appropriate, it would be an obligation.

Jimmy Akin addressed this issue on his blog a couple of years ago, which I think agrees for the most part with my approach. He also explains why double-dipping doesn’t fly, by appealing to canon 19.

I’d take a much simpler approach and go with canon 17.

Now, let’s say that Christmas is a Monday. I go to the 10:00 AM Mass on Christmas morning. I also went to the Midnight Mass on Sunday night.
Did the night Mass count for my Sunday obligation?

 

[FrDavid96]

In the course of this thread, I think that the OP’s original question got lost in the discussion. The Introduction to the Lectionary gives some reasons as to why the readings were chosen in the manner they were chosen:

Now, regarding the actual selections, this is how the Introduction explains it:

I hope this gives the OP a better understanding as to why the Church does what she does.

Yes, I agree. We’ve gone off topic. And I’m very much to blame. Sorry.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea typographical culpa

Back to the original question:

The GIRM answers it in #358
In Masses with special groups, the priest is allowed to choose texts more suited to the particular celebration, provided they are taken from the texts of an approved lectionary.

I think that’s the mose clear and direct answer we can give to the question.

 

[Digitonomy]

First Friday (and similar) is an obligation which we take upon ourselves, not one defines by the Church as is the Sunday obligation.

But that’s an interresting point about pious practices requiring several Masses on a single day? I’ve never heard of anything like that. Did I read that right? I think I’m misunderstanding something there.

My point was that if one had taken on a personal obligation to attend say First Fridays, I have not heard anyone claim that he would be required to attend a separate mass to meet both his personal obligation, and a holy day obligation that Friday.

FrDavid96:

Actually, remember that in that other post, the poster is in Scotland, where All Saints is a Holy Day, even though it’s a Saturday. So it would not only be appropriate, it would be an obligation.

Again, I would differ and say that per canon 1248, any mass on that holy day would meet his obligation, not just one with the readings specific to that day.

FrDavid96:

Now, let’s say that Christmas is a Monday. I go to the 10:00 AM Mass on Christmas morning. I also went to the Midnight Mass on Sunday night.
Did the night Mass count for my Sunday obligation?

If it was indeed a midnight mass, the answer is no, since it occurred after Sunday. On the other hand, if it took place on Sunday, then you are in the clear. Is that the best approach, all things being equal? Probably not. But it does technically fulfill your obligation.

 

[FrDavid96]

My point was that if one had taken on a personal obligation to attend say First Fridays, I have not heard anyone claim that he would be required to attend a separate mass to meet both his personal obligation, and a holy day obligation that Friday.

Again, I would differ and say that per canon 1248, any mass on that holy day would meet his obligation, not just one with the readings specific to that day.

I wasn’t differing with you, I was agreeing.

If it was indeed a midnight mass, the answer is no, since it occurred after Sunday. On the other hand, if it took place on Sunday, then you are in the clear. Is that the best approach, all things being equal? Probably not. But it does technically fulfill your obligation.

Trick question, just seeing if you were still awake.

In any case, I’m going to refrain from posting anything more in this thread unless it goes directly to the question that was originally asked.

This is my second apology for going off post. I’ll try not to give reason for a third.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Yep. I’ve been thinking about exactly that. Nice catch there (or should I say interception?)

I think the difference is that in the other thread I was addressing the issue of having 2 different days of obligation one right after the other, since that was the question at hand.

Since 2 different obligations have to be fulfilled, the question would be: which “day” is it on Saturday evening. There, there is about a 6 hour time period in which either Mass for either obligation might be celebrated. The way to answer “which day is it” is to look at the Mass text. A person cannot fulfill 2 obligations by attending 1 Mass. And the intent of the Church is that a Catholic attend both the Mass of All Saints and the Mass of All Souls. In the other thread, I was trying to provide the original poster with some guidance on how he should go about determining which Mass satisfied which obligation (since that was his question). My response was essentially to say that it’s not a matter of the time-of-day that the Mass is celebrated, but a matter of “which” Mass is being celebrated. My concern was that other posters were concentrating only on the time-of-day question without addressing the matter of the Mass text, and I felt that I should clarify it.

In this thead here, we’re only talking about fulfilling 1 obligation, Sunday. That obligation is fulfilled by attending 1 Mass (a 2nd Mass on the same liturgical day is not required).

I’ve also been thinking about a twist on that. If a person attends a Saturday morning Mass for All Saints and then later attends a Saturday evening Mass (and the text is also All Saints), would that second Mass fulfill the obligation for Sunday? My imaginary conclusion there would be that it does fulfill it, but a person should not do this intentionally. If it happens by accident, then the person would not be obligated to attend a 3rd Mass that weekend. Yet if it is done intentionally then the peson would culpable for missing the Sunday Mass because he had the intention of missing it.

I have always said that I understood that if a Mass was celebrated on Saturday evening or Sunday evening (afternoon), a special Mass. That you had to use the specified readings for that Sunday based on the Lectionary rules. I now think otherwise based on the article that a special Mass using other readings, can be celebrated but because it would be a different Mass Form (different readings, different prayers, different Order) that it would not satisfy the Sunday Obligation.

 

[FrDavid96]

I have always said that I understood that if a Mass was celebrated on Saturday evening or Sunday evening (afternoon), a special Mass. That you had to use the specified readings for that Sunday based on the Lectionary rules. I now think otherwise based on the article that a special Mass using other readings, can be celebrated but because it would be a different Mass Form (different readings, different prayers, different Order) that it would not satisfy the Sunday Obligation.

Please ignore that little aside I had with another poster (not to be rude to him, but because I steered us off topic).

Br Rich,
I understand where you’re coming from; if the Mass is not intended to be a Sunday Mass, per se, then the Mass does not fulfill the Sunday obligation. While I would agree in saying that the priest does not intend for it to fulfill the obligation in some cases (like a wedding Mass on late Sat. afternoon), at the same time, I can see cases where the priest might intend just that (such as a Mass for pilgrims or retreatants like in the OP).

Here’s where I have to disagree on the acutal fact of fulfilling the obligation, though. We (clergy, religious, canonists, catechists, lay leaders, etc. etc.) can never place a canonical burden on people if the law itself does not place that burden. I made an analogy in another post that was lost in my ramblings. If the law says that “Joe customer” owes a store five hundred dollars, it is not for anyone else to place an additional burden on Joe by saying that the debt must be paid in five hundreds, or it hasn’t been satisfied. If Joe gives 50,000 pennies, that might not be “proper” but the debt has been satisfied.

Likewise with canon law. If the law says that “any Mass” fulfills the Sunday obligation, then any Mass fulfills the Sunday obligation. It is not for “us” to place additional qualifications on the law, if those qualifications have not been put there by the law itself, or by the legislator himself. Therefore I would say that unless the law itself specifies that the Mass celebrated within the time frame of the liturgical definition of Sunday must be the propers for that day, no one is competent to add that clause to the law. That’s what I see happening here. The law doesn’t add the qualifying clause, therefore no one else may add it.

Just off the top of my head, I can think of a number of examples of a Mass that might be celebrated on a Sunday (let’s say a Sunday in Ordinary Time to keep it simple) which would definately not employ the propers of that Sunday, yet at the same time, no reasonable person would deny that attending such a Mass would fulfill the obligation. Here’s just a few:
An Ordination Mass
Solemn Profession of Vows
A Canonization or Beatification Mass
The Consecration of a new church
Confirmation Mass

Answer me this, if you would. Let’s say that the local Cardinal of city X has been delegated by the Pope to beatify someone who was a native of his diocese long ago. The cardinal decides on his own (not by order of the Pope) that Mass be celebrated on a Sunday in O.T. Since the person died a martyr, the cardinal uses the readings from the common of martyrs.
If a person came up to you and asked “if I go to the beatification Mass, does that count toward my Sunday obligation?” would you actually say to that person “no, it doesn’t” ??? Or would you think to yourself “that was a silly question, why even ask that?”

Again my point. If the law itself does not place an additional burden, specifying that the Mass must have the readings proper to that Sunday, then why would anyone else have the authority to place that additional burden? That’s what I just can’t see. I see the thinking behind it (no doubt) but I don’t see the canonical justification for it. Can you quote me the actual canon or liturgical law that says the obligation is fulfilled only if the readings are proper to the day? Not interpretation, but the law itself. I’m listening, and I’m willing to be convinced, but I just can’t see it.

Thanks.

 

[Brendan]

I have always said that I understood that if a Mass was celebrated on Saturday evening or Sunday evening (afternoon), a special Mass. That you had to use the specified readings for that Sunday based on the Lectionary rules. I now think otherwise based on the article that a special Mass using other readings, can be celebrated but because it would be a different Mass Form (different readings, different prayers, different Order) that it would not satisfy the Sunday Obligation.

Br. Rich,

Fr. David is correct on this, all the Canon requires it that one attends a Mass in communion with Rome on the Day of Obligation or the vigil therof.

The Canon does not place any limits on what Readings are required.

Certainly, using different readings would generally be illict, but an illict act does not render the Mass invalid, and thus the Canon is fulfilled.

This actually came up once. A Cousin was getting married, and the Nuptiual Mass was on a Saturday evening (7:00pm). The celebrant mentioned that this would fulfill the Sunday obligation.

I was a little skeptical, so I did go to Mass the next day. I later ran it past my Canon Law professor at the seminary. This is a man I trust explcitly on these types of issues.

He confirmed what the priest said. It’s certainly not the ideal, and is more of a ‘minimalist’ attitude towards Mass, but the obligation WOULD be fulfilled and thus no sin would be incurred.

 

[FrDavid96]

Br. Rich,

Fr. David is correct on this, all the Canon requires it that one attends a Mass in communion with Rome on the Day of Obligation or the vigil therof.

To go even further, there are other laws (which are binding) that expand upon the canon and say that if a Catholic attends any Mass/Divine Liturgy celebrated by a validly ordained priest (Orthodox, Polish Nat’l Catholic,) that likewise fulfills the obligation.

The Canon does not place any limits on what Readings are required.

Certainly, using different readings would generally be illict, but an illict act does not render the Mass invalid, and thus the Canon is fulfilled.

Actually, in certain circumstances, it would not even be illicit. See my earlier post where I quote the GIRM, which specifically allows the priest to choose other readings from an approved lectionary. The priest should exercise restraint and caution, but the GIRM says that it’s licit.

This actually came up once. A Cousin was getting married, and the Nuptiual Mass was on a Saturday evening (7:00pm). The celebrant mentioned that this would fulfill the Sunday obligation.

I was a little skeptical, so I did go to Mass the next day. I later ran it past my Canon Law professor at the seminary. This is a man I trust explcitly on these types of issues.

He confirmed what the priest said. It’s certainly not the ideal, and is more of a ‘minimalist’ attitude towards Mass, but the obligation WOULD be fulfilled and thus no sin would be incurred.

I concur. It should not be done, but the obligation is still fulfilled.