Is Fri. Jan 1 a HDO?

[malphono]

The older feast day is the Circumcision (Jan 1 is after all the 8th day after Christmas)–and in fact, that’s still the gospel for the Solemnity of Mary, even though it’s only the last few lines at the end. In the 1964 Missal, it was/still is the Circumcision.

Didn’t you meant the 1962 Missal?

In any case, yes, in the EF it was and is the Circumcision. It’s also the Octave of Christmas: the Introit is that of the 3rd Mass of Christmas (Puer natus est), and so is the Epistle. The rest of the propers, though, are, well, “proper” and they have an interesting theme, that being the BVM. (That was actually the topic of today’s sermon/homily.) Taking that with the inclusion of the same Gospel passage, it seems safe to say the focus of the feast really didn’t change between the EF and the OF. It was basically the name.

Personally, I suspect that the “name change” in the OF came about because of their (and we all know who “they” are) phobia about Octaves. In their zeal to “reform” the calendar, they (my, but “they” did get around, didn’t they?) killed all the Octaves.This one included.

 

[Chatter163]

Didn’t you meant the 1962 Missal?

In any case, yes, in the EF it was and is the Circumcision. It’s also the Octave of Christmas: the Introit is that of the 3rd Mass of Christmas (Puer natus est), and so is the Epistle. The rest of the propers, though, are, well, “proper” and they have an interesting theme, that being the BVM. (That was actually the topic of today’s sermon/homily.) Taking that with the inclusion of the same Gospel passage, it seems safe to say the focus of the feast really didn’t change between the EF and the OF. It was basically the name.

Personally, I suspect that the “name change” in the OF came about because of their (and we all know who “they” are) phobia about Octaves. In their zeal to “reform” the calendar, they (my, but “they” did get around, didn’t they?) killed all the Octaves.This one included.

Actually, the first of January in the 1962 missal is NOT the feast of the Circumcision; it is the Octave Day of the Nativity. Blessed John XXIII changed the name of the feast from the Circumcision to the Octave Day of the Nativity (which it already was, also) in 1960. So, EF communities today who use the 1962 missal properly celebrate the Octave Day, though it is important to note that there was no change to the Mass propers; it was only the name that was changed. While little direct sources exist, the feeling at the time was that the name change was the result of eumenical dialogue with the Jews, who did not like the name of a Jewish ritual, no longer required for Christians, being used to honor Our Lord. This was the same dialogue that resulted in the dropping of the word perfidious from the Good Friday prayers.

The reversion to honoring Our Lady on that same day came in 1970 with the new kalendar and missal. Of course this had been the most ancient custom, and even when the day was known as the Circuciion and the Octave Day, there was always a Marian element in the prayers, most notably the postcommunion.

 

[malphono]

Actually, the first of January in the 1962 missal is NOT the feast of the Circumcision; it is the Octave Day of the Nativity. Blessed John XXIII changed the name of the feast from the Circumcision to the Octave Day of the Nativity (which it already was, also) in 1960. So, EF communities today who use the 1962 missal properly celebrate the Octave Day, though it is important to note that there was no change to the Mass propers; it was only the name that was changed.

Yes, that’s right. Thanks for pointing it out. I was flipping back and forth between editions and neglected to note the suppression of the one name in 1962. Anyway, since pre-1962 the day had both titles, I stand partially corrected.

 

[mary_bobo]

People need to understand that it is a Holy Day of Obligation in all the dioceses of the United States.

It is a Holy Day of Obligation in every diocese of California.

The bishop of a diocese can dispense from the obligation, but he cannot change the fact that the day itself is still a Holy Day of Obligation.

I sympathize with pnewton’s post–things that we see happening can often cause a lot of confusion (and I’ll leave it at that).

But the reason I keep making the point is that it is important for Catholics to understand that these days are still Holy Days of Obligation. The Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God, is just as important in other dioceses as it is in the dioceses of California (or anywhere else where a dispensation has been granted). Unfortunately, we as Catholics have become so accustomed to certain dispensations and other extra-ordinary relaxations of not only the Church’s laws, but in some cases matter of faith, that many have lost sight of their true value. The confusion we now have with regard to the HDOs is but one expression of how we have lost the value of so much of our faith in recent years.

My sincere thanks for this post. We need more like this.

 

[5Loaves]

Yes, that’s right. Thanks for pointing it out. I was flipping back and forth between editions and neglected to note the suppression of the one name in 1962. Anyway, since pre-1962 the day had both titles, I stand partially corrected.

Aren’t we grateful, malphono, we did have the Circumcision of our Lord on 1/1 and are looking forward to a joyous Theophany on Wednesday, and the Magi still take 12 days to reach our Lord?

I have more than once in midweek RCIA in my Latin parish said something about “Today is the Feast of ___” and someone replied, “That was on Sunday” .

 

[MatthewBerkeley]

So why are dispensations sought and granted for certain countries and states?

 

[tee_eff_em]

My understanding is that the bishops, recognizing that the faithful do not attend mid-week holy days in the same numbers as Sundays, remove the occasion of sin by translating or suppressing the days.

Whether this (if true) is a wiser course than improved catechesis is a topic for another thread.

tee

 

[FrDavid96]

So why are dispensations sought and granted for certain countries and states?

2 different answers.

As for countries, each conference of bishops can make some changes to the universal Holy Days of Obligation with the prior approval of the Holy See. They do this because some feasts are more-or-less important in different countries, so it’s a way of making the calendar more accommodating to the culture (not in any negative way, just more appropriate). For countries, it’s not a matter of a dispensation, but it’s a matter of the universal calendar itself being changed by Rome for that particular place.

Even though we keep reading “in California” the state itself doesn’t have any dispensations. Each bishop decides for his own diocese to grant the dispensation. It just happens to be that all the bishops in California came to the same conclusion–although it’s possible that once most of them did it, the rest followed for the sake of uniformity, and it’s customary for the suffragan dioceses to follow what the Archdiocese does. Any one of the California bishops can decide not to grant the dispensation as he sees fit.

Hawaii is unique only because of its location. Even though it’s a US state, and part of the US bishop’s conference, geographically it’s located among the Pacific islands, so Rome granted them a special dispensation to follow the Island calendar rather than the US one.

So both states are just a matter of coincidences.

 

[stinkcat_14]

So, the next question in my mind is: If live in say, Detroit where the obligation exists, and I take a vacation in Hawaii over the next new year, am I obligated to go to mass on January 1?

 

[SMHW]

So, the next question in my mind is: If live in say, Detroit where the obligation exists, and I take a vacation in Hawaii over the next new year, am I obligated to go to mass on January 1?

It is my understanding that travelers are entitled to take the least stringent set of rules for Mass attendance, whether that means the rules of their home diocese or those of the diocese visited.

Of course travelers are certainly free to and encouraged to attend Mass in locations they visit…

 

[blaskoman]

So the Detroit catholic who misses Mass on Jan 1 has a mortal sin to confess, while the catholic living in Los Angeles could watch every all 5 college bowl games guilt free. --doesnt make any sense!

 

[tee_eff_em]

So the Detroit citizen who fails to pay taxes to the state of Michigan is liable to prosecution, while the citizen living in Los Angeles could earn as much as he likes and not pay a dime to the state of Michigan --doesn’t make any sense!



tee

 

[blaskoman]

Isnt the Catholic Church supposed to have uniformity in its doctrines and practices/observances? Why should the diocese of LA be more liberal than the diocese of Detroit? still makes no sense to me.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Isnt the Catholic Church supposed to have uniformity in its doctrines and practices/observances? Why should the diocese of LA be more liberal than the diocese of Detroit? still makes no sense to me.

It is the prerogative of every ordinary to dispense his subjects of the obligation to assist at Mass on 1-Jan – Is this not uniform?

tee

 

[SMHW]

Isnt the Catholic Church supposed to have uniformity in its doctrines and practices/observances?

Actually there have long been some major differences based on rites and geography. But it does feel unfair. Apparently the bishops do not consider my feelings of fairness (sufficiently) relevant in this situation.

Why should the diocese of LA be more liberal than the diocese of Detroit? still makes no sense to me.

It “makes sense” in as much as that the bishops have the authority to dispense from the obligation to attend Mass in their dioceses --for a good reason. We don’t know the reason(s) for this decision in the affected dioceses nor do we get to decide what exactly constitutes ‘a good reason’.