From a logical perspective and IMHO…if Saturday was Christmas Day, we would not be having this discussion … not one person would be saying that they would go to Mass on Saturday evening [the Vigil for Sunday December 26] and then return for Sunday morning [Sunday december 26] and say thay had fulfilled their Christmas obligation and their Sunday obligation [someone refered to this as a Two for Two???] by hearing the Sunday December 26th readings … and not one person would jump to the defense of a person who made that argument … thus the same criteria should apply
I have to disagree. If there were masses on Christmas night, they would indeed meet one’s obligation for Christmas, regardless of the readings used. Furthermore, they could be used to meet one’s obligation for Sunday if the Christmas obligation had already been met. However, in general there are no Christmas night masses so the issue doesn’t come up. (
Here’s a page of guidelines for scheduling Christmas masses from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops - I’m not aware of a similar document from the USCCB, but I’ve observed over the last few years that the same principles were followed in the US.)
(Post #148)
I think that there is a distinction between anticipated masses and vigil masses that we are missing here:
An anticipated mass is, I believe, the mass of a certain day said before that day. A mass, with its particular variable parts, said on the day to which these variable parts are proper cannot be an anticipated mass.
That and the rest of your post is exactly how I understand things. Thanks for giving us that explanation, which filled in a few gaps I had forgotten about in my argument above, more clearly than I could have done.
"Verbum Caro:
The obligation to participate in the Mass may be satisfied at any time during the twenty-four hours of the feast day itself, or on the evening before it. . . The precept may be satisfied at any Catholic Mass, i.e., not only when the texts are those of the Sunday or holy day. For example, attendance at a wedding Mass after 4:00 on a Saturday fulfills the Sunday obligation.
Thanks for posting that from the Canon Law Society of America - I’ve thought of buying that book, but it seems to be out of print - maybe they’re preparing a new edition?
Everyone seems to be throwing around canon law for the sake of quoting it.
One could counter that some are throwing around a phone call to the USCCB for the sake of quoting it.
I think we’re all trying to get a firm grip on what the correct answer is to the question, and why there is a contrary view being bandied about. We just happen to disagree as to which is the correct answer.
I’m sorry to be stupid, but which AAA post do you mean? It was because of the AAA that I became confused to begin with, because they said the 5pm Sat vigil does *not *count. In other words, the AAA response I read was consistent with the phone call, not inconsistent.
I see you found the updated AAA post. Yes, CAF appears to have pulled one or more earlier AAA’s that I disagreed with near the start of the thread, and posted a new one which I think is exactly correct. Whether one person was overruled, or more authoritative resources consulted, or simply a more careful examination of the issue was made, who knows. They can be a bit secretive.
I don’t think that it would seriously hurt anyone to go to Mass twice in one week.
That’s a bit of a strawman point - the only time I’ve seen anyone argue against going to mass twice in the coming week was in another thread where someone was told they were excused from their holy day obligation if it was impossible for them to attend a mass before Saturday at 4. It would be unfortunate if people fail to fulfill their holy day obligation because they are erroneously told it’s too late. Obviously a similar argument could be made on the other side for those who attend Saturday night masses to fulfill their obligation if such masses did not meet the obligation.
