It also can’t be said on Holy Saturday, except for the Easter Vigil Mass (which of course counts as a Sunday Mass.)As far as I know, the only time mass can’t be said is Good Friday.
Provided that the proper texts are said, yes. The only days Mass are not said is Good Friday and Holy Saturday, but a dispensation may be provided by the Vatican in special circumstancesI’ve always seen daily Mass celebrated in the morning or early afternoon, Saturday anticipation Mass and Sunday at the normal times, but, say if a priest (for whatever reason) wanted to celebrate the Mass at, say, 2 AM, is he able to do it, or does the Church restrict the celebration of Mass to certain times?
And which of course, is Easter Sunday at that point.It also can’t be said on Holy Saturday, except for the Easter Vigil Mass (which of course counts as a Sunday Mass.)
Part of the reason many people think this is that prior to the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Masses had to be in the morning hours. I forget exactly how it was written, but they had to end no later than 1 PM (so they could start at 11:30 or 11:45) or something like that. Even before the 1917 Code, there were laws requiring Masses to be in the morning. In the 1983 Code, Mass can be at any hour of the day.I’ve always seen daily Mass celebrated in the morning or early afternoon, Saturday anticipation Mass and Sunday at the normal times, but, say if a priest (for whatever reason) wanted to celebrate the Mass at, say, 2 AM, is he able to do it, or does the Church restrict the celebration of Mass to certain times?
I’m really curious now - does anyone know the reason for this??Part of the reason many people think this is that prior to the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Masses had to be in the morning hours. I forget exactly how it was written, but they had to end no later than 1 PM (so they could start at 11:30 or 11:45) or something like that. Even before the 1917 Code, there were laws requiring Masses to be in the morning…
It seems to be a few reasons all coming together.I’m really curious now - does anyone know the reason for this??
Thank you Fr David!It seems to be a few reasons all coming together.
First, the Christian tradition has always been to associate the Mass with the rising of the sun. Mass is a “morning event.” If one looks at the Liturgy of the Hours, for example, Mass fits in with the rest of the day’s schedule into the morning hours.
Vigil Masses were the exception, but of course they were for exceptional days. Even today, the suggested ideal is that the Vigil Mass of Easter should end just before dawn.
The Communion fast is another reason: when the fast was “beginning at Midnight” it was difficult to have Mass at 7:00 PM and expect people to go all day without food or drink.
We might also say that the Communion Fast owes its origin to the idea that Masses were in the morning. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Historically, the theory is, that the celebration of the Eucharist was preceded by the recital of the psalms and readings of the Old Testament and New Testament called the Mass of the Catechumens. Probably this part of the Mass was the first form of the Divine Office, at the time when the vigils and the Eucharistic Synaxis were one. So that celebration was in the morning.I’m really curious now - does anyone know the reason for this??
Pius XII restored it to midnight. When I was young, the Vigil began at about 11:00 PM with the blessing of the Easter Fire, the Paschal Candle, the water etc. This took about an hour because the very long prayers were chanted in Latin. The Mass of the Faithful began at midnight. I remember one Vigil when the first part of the Vigil only took about fifty or fifty-five minutes and the priest stood at the altar in silence, checking his watch every minute or so until midnight arrived, at which time he continued with the Mass. This would have been right about when the Vatican II changes were occurring. It was only later when the Vigil started to begin at nightfall rather than midnight.Historically, the theory is, that the celebration of the Eucharist was preceded by the recital of the psalms and readings of the Old Testament and New Testament called the Mass of the Catechumens. Probably this part of the Mass was the first form of the Divine Office, at the time when the vigils and the Eucharistic Synaxis were one. So that celebration was in the morning.
The Holy Saturday Vigil used to be all night long following this pattern, and then got moved to Saturday morning (I think by seventh century). Then in 1955 Pope Pius XII restored it to after nightfall on Holy Saturday.
Actually, they began as Masses in the night. That’s what the word “vigil” means, after all.Historically (and not speaking about the Easter Vigil liturgy), vigil Masses were not said the evening before, but the morning before a major feast. These were penitential Masses, said in violet vestments, with different prayers and readings from the next day’s Mass. Fasting occurred during the day, in preparation for the great feast.
What we now often refer to as vigil Masses are actually more properly called anticipated Masses, since the Mass is of the following day (usually a Sunday, but could also be a solemnity). They are not penitential, and thus are a very different bird from traditional vigil Masses.
I would submit that we have no universally proper vocabulary for our now-regular Saturday-evening-Masses-with-Sunday-formularies, since both vigil and anticipated fail in certain respects. On the one hand, a vigil Mass is supposed to have different Mass propers from the Mass of the liturgical day itself - the Missal provides 8 of these vigils (though all but the Easter Vigil are for optional use). So viewed from this aspect our Sunday-Mass-on-Saturday is certainly not a vigil. But neither is it (normally) anticipated, if we consider that the liturgical Sunday usually begins with its first Vespers Saturday evening. That being said, there are occasional instances in which these Saturday non-vigil Masses are indeed anticipatory, such as in November 2014 when All Souls fell on a Sunday. The instructions from our diocesan worship office were that Masses on the evening of Saturday, Nov 1, were to use the texts of All Souls, since the role of that regularly occurring Mass time was that of, in their terms, anticipated Mass. The liturgical day was All Saints, but we said Mass of All Souls.Actually, they began as Masses in the night. That’s what the word “vigil” means, after all.
What happened was that the vigil Masses were pushed earlier and earlier until they began happening in the morning of the day before the Feast. What we have now is really a restoration of the original intent and use by having them in the evening or (better yet) during the night.
They’re not “properly” called anticipated Masses. That’s actually the word that’s improperly used.
We don’t have a universal vocabulary for the evening-before-feastday Masses, but that’s not exactly what I was addressing. I was explaining that the original idea of a vigil Mass was not a Mass in the morning—that came later, as the true vigil Masses were moved earlier and earlier throughout the centuries until finally they became morning Masses. It was not the case that the vigil Masses began as morning Masses.I would submit that we have no universally proper vocabulary for our now-regular Saturday-evening-Masses-with-Sunday-formularies, since both vigil and anticipated fail in certain respects. On the one hand, a vigil Mass is supposed to have different Mass propers from the Mass of the liturgical day itself - the Missal provides 8 of these vigils (though all but the Easter Vigil are for optional use). So viewed from this aspect our Sunday-Mass-on-Saturday is certainly not a vigil. But neither is it (normally) anticipated, if we consider that the liturgical Sunday usually begins with its first Vespers Saturday evening. That being said, there are occasional instances in which these Saturday non-vigil Masses are indeed anticipatory, such as in November 2014 when All Souls fell on a Sunday. The instructions from our diocesan worship office were that Masses on the evening of Saturday, Nov 1, were to use the texts of All Souls, since the role of that regularly occurring Mass time was that of, in their terms, anticipated Mass. The liturgical day was All Saints, but we said Mass of All Souls.
Back to the original question–Masses may not normally be said between the Mass of the Lord’s Supper on Holy Thursday until the Easter Vigil, excepting for dispensations that might be given by the Holy See or perhaps a local bishop, due to grave situations.We don’t have a universal vocabulary for the evening-before-feastday Masses, but that’s not exactly what I was addressing. I was explaining that the original idea of a vigil Mass was not a Mass in the morning—that came later, as the true vigil Masses were moved earlier and earlier throughout the centuries until finally they became morning Masses. It was not the case that the vigil Masses began as morning Masses.
We don’t have “anticipated” Masses–that’s a holdover from an outdated vocabulary. The word “anticipated” implies that there is something not-quite-right about a Mass in the evening before. It means that we are not actually celebrating the feast day, but instead we’re merely anticipating celebrating it.
You know I’m fond of quoting Dies Domini 49
Ad liturgicam consuetudinem enim dies festus incipit eiusmodi Sacris Vespertinis.(88) Propterea Missae liturgia nonnumquam «praefestivae» appellatae, quae vero reapse pleno iure «festiva» est, dominici diei est, instante etiam celebrantis officio ut homiliam sacram habeat et cum fidelibus precationem universalem absolvat.
If we are told not to call it “praefestivae” in Latin then neither should we call it “anticipated” in English.
a. “Grave necessity” means time of war, persecution, or natural disaster (sometimes famine, if it doesn’t already come under one of the above), or other situations as dire as those.Back to the original question–Masses may not normally be said between the Mass of the Lord’s Supper on Holy Thursday until the Easter Vigil, excepting for dispensations that might be given by the Holy See or perhaps a local bishop, due to grave situations.
a) what kind of grave situation would that be? Are we talking about giving Catholics who rarely even see a priest the opportunity to attend Mass at the only time available? Are we talking about situations that come about due to persecution or the threat of war? The concept of “grave” is notoriously hard to pin down, except for people who are familiar for the past situations when it has been done–that is, those who “know grave when they see it.”
b) Is there any time other than that sort “suspended time” during which we observe Triduum when Mass may not be said? (I mean other than situations when a particular priest or a particular sacred space is limited.)
c) what about situations when the Mass is normally not celebrated? For instance, isn’t it true that nuptial Masses are normally not celebrated when the marriage required a dispensation for disparity of cult? Is that a “normally is not” or a “is not allowed” situation?