Mass on January 1

  • Thread starter Thread starter ajac
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No. Just like you cannot satisfy Sunday, Dec 24th and Christmas with one Mass, you cannot do that for Jan 1st.

HOWEVER, in the United States, when Jan 1st falls on a Monday or Saturday, the obligation is abrogated.

So this year, there is no obligation for Jan 1st, so if you attended the vigil on Dec 31st, you would be meeting your Sunday obligation and since the Jan 1st obligation (in the US only) is abrogated this year, you would be OK.

Holy day of obligation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
1ke said:
40.png
Gorgias:
Nope
Click to expand...
I don’t know what you mean by “nope”.
Click to expand...
1ke said:
You cannot fulfill two obligations with one mass.

You will need to attend one mass for Sunday and one mass for the holy day.
Click to expand...
Nope, as in, “nope, @ajac doesn’t necessarily have two obligations (due to the possibility that 1/1 is a holy day of obligation where @ajac finds him/herself that day)”.
 
midori said:
Interesting.

I’m in the Diocese of Fort Worth. Here’s a chart of our Holy Days of Obligation. It says:
January 1st (Mary, Mother of God), August 15th (Assumption of Mary), and November 1st (All Saints) are Holy Days of Obligation unless they fall on Saturday or Monday. In this case, in the diocese of the United States, the Obligation is dispensed.
Click to expand...
I wish this was something the American bishops would stop doing for these three Holy Days, because it confuses people when it comes to Christmas and the Immaculate Conception.
Click to expand...
 
It is in my Archdiocese. And the same rule applies to anuary 1 as to Christmas; go to Sunday Mass (which is 8 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. in my parish) and anything from 5 p.m. children’s Christmas Mass, * p.m., Midnight Mass, or 9 a.m. on Christmas morning.

No two for one’s. Or more appropriately, no one for two’s.
 
So this tells me I’ve been attending at All Saints (in Canada) for all these years without obligation? Felt like “heaps of coal on my head” every time the dear Father said thank you for coming. Now I”ll have to maintain my piety by continuing. 😂 😇
 
1ke said:
40.png
Gorgias:
Nope
Click to expand...
I don’t know what you mean by “nope”.
Click to expand...
If the obligation to attend Mass on January 1 is lifted, then there is no 2nd obligation. It’s not a 2-for-1 situation.

You’re right that that if there are 2 obligations, that means 2 Masses. However this year that doesn’t apply (in the US) because Jan. 1 is a Monday.
 
I didn’t say there was an obligation. I said he needed to check where he would be regarding the obligation.

He lives in Canada and was asking about Mexico, and in both cases it is an obligation.

My second paragraph was contingent on the obligation— if there is one, you can’t fulfill both with one mass. I thought that I was being clear.
 
Gorgias said:
…
So, if 1/1 is a holy day of obligation at home, then it’s an obligation where @ajac finds him/herself that day. If it is not, then it’s not an obligation where @ajac happens to be that day. …
Click to expand...
No. That is not how the law sees things.

If Joe Traveler is from the US (where Jan. 1 is a day of Obligation) but he travels to another country where Jan. 1 is exempt from the obligation, then he is likewise exempt. He does not follow the law of his home territory.
Canon 12 §2. All who are actually present in a certain territory, however, are exempted from universal laws which are not in force in that territory.
Click to expand...
If a person is dispensed from a universal law in his home territory, then he is likewise dispensed when he travels to another place where the universal law is still in effect.

We say that the traveler “takes the dispensation with him.”

So if Joe Traveler is from the U.S. where St Joseph Day is not a day of obligation (meaning the obligation is there from the start but it has been dispensed) but he travels to some place where St Joseph Day remains a day of obligation, he is not bound by the obligation.
 
1ke said:
I didn’t say there was an obligation. I said he needed to check where he would be regarding the obligation.

He lives in Canada and was asking about Mexico, and in both cases it is an obligation.

My second paragraph was contingent on the obligation— if there is one, you can’t fulfill both with one mass. I thought that I was being clear.
Click to expand...
I’m trying to agree with you here; to reinforce what you’re writing.

Not every response is a disagreement.
 
Thx for the clarification I didn’t think my post was ambiguous but then again who knows!
 
FrDavid96 said:
No. That is not how the law sees things.

If Joe Traveler is from the US (where Jan. 1 is a day of Obligation) but he travels to another country where Jan. 1 is exempt from the obligation, then he is likewise exempt. He does not follow the law of his home territory.
Click to expand...
I’ll let you and Cathy Caridi over at the “Canon Law Made Easy” site fight it out:

So what is a Catholic American required to do, when visiting a country where their holydays of obligation do not accord with our own? … The answer is found in canon 12.3… which establishes a general principle. It states that laws enacted for a particular territory bind those for whom they were enacted and who have a domicile or quasi-domicile in that territory and are actually residing in it.
FrDavid96 said:
We say that the traveler “takes the dispensation with him.”
Click to expand...
Psst… that’s what I said. You seem to be disagreeing with something I didn’t say. 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
 
What Cathy Caridi said about “Thomas” (when he is on a vacation of less than three months) appears to miss the part of canon 12.3 that says “and are actually residing in it.” When you’re on vacation, you’re not “actually residing in” the place where you have domicile, where the bishops have established those laws. Besides that, canon 13 is worth considering when we talk about travelers and their obligations (as c. 12 makes clear with its “without prejudice to c. 13” caveat).

Ok, back to the doldrums of nullity files…

Dan
 
Last edited:
You’re so right, Boy, I owe Him too much to skip a Mass!

Stuart
 
Gorgias said:
So, if 1/1 is a holy day of obligation at home, then it’s an obligation where ajac finds him/herself that day.
Click to expand...
No.

When someone travels, it is not enough to say that if it’s a day-of-obligation at home, it’s a day-of-obligation when one travels.

That’s not how it works.

The day has to be a HDO in both the home and the visited place. If either place is exempt, then the traveller is exempt.
 
acanonlawyer said:
What Cathy Caridi said about “Thomas” (when he is on a vacation of less than three months) appears to miss the part of canon 12.3 that says “and are actually residing in it.” When you’re on vacation, you’re not “actually residing in” the place where you have domicile, where the bishops have established those laws. Besides that, canon 13 is worth considering when we talk about travelers and their obligations (as c. 12 makes clear with its “without prejudice to c. 13” caveat).

Ok, back to the doldrums of nullity files…

Dan
Click to expand...
Yes. The blog got that part wrong. Now I see how @Gorgias got the idea.

It’s actually canon 12 §2 (not §3) that addresses the issue. Travelers are exempt from laws not-in-force in the place where they visit.

I don’t have a membership there or I would post a comment asking for a correction.

For reference, here is canon
12 §2. All who are actually present in a certain territory, however, are exempted from universal laws which are not in force in that territory.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top