Mass start times

[FrDavid96]

Historically noon meant the ninth hour (3pm if the day was 12 hours and sunrise was 6am). Today it has a different meaning.

My comments about “noon” were made in the present-tense. I specifically mentioned that the author is using the modern-day system.

In English, “noon” means the middle of the day; and in a modern context it means specifically 12:00 PM (and it’s that modern context to which the author refers).

The position (which I disagree) holds that “vespere” begins either at 12:00 PM or immediately after 12:00 PM on the modern-day clock. Hence, my use of the word “noon.”

 

[FrDavid96]

I would genuinely like to know: what is the reason why people feel that a Mass beginning (anytime after) 12:00 Noon on the calendar day before a solemnity can satisfy the Mass obligation (c. 1247) per canon 1248.

The only justification I’ve seen (so far) has taken the form of “so-and-so says that it does” whoever that might be. And no, I don’t mean that in any derogatory way. The point is that all I see is a repetition of that line of reasoning that it’s true because the claim was made in some place or by some person; without any actual explanation of the reasoning.

What I would like to read for myself is the actual reason why people think that a Mass beginning (after) 12:00 Noon, according to the modern clock, satisfies the canonical standard of “vespere.”

I would like to know exactly how one arrives at the conclusion that the Latin word “vespere” refers to a time-of-day that can begin at 12:00 Noon (or immediately thereafter).

What is the logic involved? What are the premises that lead to the conclusion?

I look forward to reading the responses. Thank you.

 

[FrDavid96]

I want to keep the following separate from my post of a moment ago…

Years ago, I did read the commentary from Great Britain that attempts to make the point. That commentary relies on (1) interpreting a translation of the canon in the vernacular and then (2) applying a slang use of the translation “evening” to the canon. This has several obvious problems which I’ve mentioned many times already. It also relies on the fact that other (non-English) translations of canon 1248 use vernacular words which can indeed mean “anytime after noon.” This does not convince me because the canons have authority only in Latin, while the translations are merely intended to be a guide (albeit very useful and helpful and usually reliable sources).

 

[ProVobis]

Fr. David,

I understand it was prohibited to translate the 1917 Code of Canon Law for that reason. That it would create “confusion and conflicts of application.” It’s interesting to note, however, that now those translations are starting to appear, even though the 1917 code is no longer used.

canonlaw.info/review_piocode.htm

 

[tee_eff_em]

I would like to know exactly how one arrives at the conclusion that the Latin word “vespere” refers to a time-of-day that can begin at 12:00 Noon (or immediately thereafter).

What is the logic involved? What are the premises that lead to the conclusion?

I look forward to reading the responses. Thank you.

You may have to wait until the author(s) of such opinions register and post to this forum.

For myself, I can only say that reputable experts disagree about the interpretation, and I cannot resolve that disagreement by a continuous refrain of *“you;re wrong, you’re wrong, you’re wrong” *-- I do not have the expertise to make such opposition (nor does it seem that those who do have the expertise have taken such a tack).

If the noon-beginning could be officially discredited, would that give support to the “some commentators” cited who interpret evening as beginning at 1400?

And I still do not understand how any of this is appeal to a “slang” definition of evening? Especially as I know very few people outside debates of such Catholic minutiae who would place the beginning of evening at 1600 (4pm). To me, and to most people I know 4pm is “afternoon” – “Late afternoon” perhaps, but definitely not evening.

How is the 4pm interpretation any less of an appeal to “slang”?

tee
With all due respect. I Am Not A Canon Lawyer

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr. David,

I understand it was prohibited to translate the 1917 Code of Canon Law for that reason. That it would create “confusion and conflicts of application.” It’s interesting to note, however, that now those translations are starting to appear, even though the 1917 code is no longer used.

canonlaw.info/review_piocode.htm

That’s what genuinely troubles me about the topic at hand. What I see are arguments (and I mean that in the discussion sense, not the sense of confrontation) based on the canon as it was translated into the vernacular. Surely, we can discuss the canons in translation. However, when we have a situation where the vernacular translation gives an entirely different meaning to the canon, and then that different meaning is presented to the Catholic public as authoritative, the end result is problematic indeed.

I do not know how the ancient concept of “vespere” can be translated into the modern day clock. I don’t think it’s possible to reconcile these two systems. All we can do is approximate and rely on authoritative (ie papal) precedent. Yet, we aren’t doing that when someone effectively says “cross out vespere and replace it with post meridiem.”

 

[dans0622]

…And I still do not understand how any of this is appeal to a “slang” definition of evening? Especially as I know very few people outside debates of such Catholic minutiae who would place the beginning of evening at 1600 (4pm). To me, and to most people I know 4pm is “afternoon” – “Late afternoon” perhaps, but definitely not evening.

How is the 4pm interpretation any less of an appeal to “slang”? …

Hello,

To me, also, 4pm is not evening. But, it was Pius XII who permitted the allowance of “evening” Mass and said that such a Mass could not start before 4:00 pm. So, that’s where the “evening starts at 4pm” idea began.

I think I said this before but will say it again: since the drafters of this canon wanted it to have flexibility in application, I doubt we will see an authentic interpretation that makes it crystal clear. To me, “evening” is sufficiently elastic without making it mean “any time after noon.” That’s a bit much and so I will go along with Pius XII’s generosity in saying evening starts at 4.

Dan

 

[dans0622]

Fr. David,

I understand it was prohibited to translate the 1917 Code of Canon Law for that reason. …

Hello,

Translations, strictly speaking, were not allowed. Nevertheless, there were “paraphrases” of the Code, along with commentary, in various languages. There were at least three major ones in English.

Dan

 

[ProVobis]

I think I said this before but will say it again: since the drafters of this canon wanted it to have flexibility in application,

That would make sense. I once stood up for a wedding which was supposed to start at 3pm but you know weddings. But this one started very late, so late that when someone asked if they had to go to Mass again, the priest said no, this could count towards meeting the obligation. It could have very well been after 4 pm, I wasn’t checking my watch and I don’t know if the priest was either.

 

[ProVobis]

Hello,

Translations, strictly speaking, were not allowed. Nevertheless, there were “paraphrases” of the Code, along with commentary, in various languages. There were at least three major ones in English.

Dan

But the point was that, just as the various English handmissal translations of the Mass and the Bible, there was no “official” one which was authoritative. Even some, if not many, take those “paraphrases” and analyze every English word and sentence as gospel truth. Their rationale for that is that people need to read things in the vernacular, never mind that’s it’s at best an approximation to the source. As I’ve said before, you take ten different translators and you get ten different translations. Even the google translator isn’t consistent.

 

[FrDavid96]

You may have to wait until the author(s) of such opinions register and post to this forum.

For myself, I can only say that reputable experts disagree about the interpretation, and I cannot resolve that disagreement by a continuous refrain of *“you;re wrong, you’re wrong, you’re wrong” *-- I do not have the expertise to make such opposition (nor does it seem that those who do have the expertise have taken such a tack).

If the noon-beginning could be officially discredited, would that give support to the “some commentators” cited who interpret evening as beginning at 1400?

And I still do not understand how any of this is appeal to a “slang” definition of evening? Especially as I know very few people outside debates of such Catholic minutiae who would place the beginning of evening at 1600 (4pm). To me, and to most people I know 4pm is “afternoon” – “Late afternoon” perhaps, but definitely not evening.

How is the 4pm interpretation any less of an appeal to “slang”?

tee
With all due respect. I Am Not A Canon Lawyer

It’s the same answer I’ve been giving over and over again.

The author of the commentary appeals to an American slang use of the word “evening.” It’s in the text of the commentary itself. I do not have it, or I would type it out for you. The last time I read it was a few years back and I no longer have the text.

What you wrote above shows that “evening” does not mean “after 12 noon” in standard English. Yes, most people consider evening to begin at 6 PM (maybe 5 PM sometimes). Most people consider 4 PM as afternoon, not evening. That’s exactly my point. People who speak the English language do not use the word “evening” to mean “after 12:00.” The very few who do are using the word in a colloquial sense (ie slang), and even that use is dwindling to the point where hardly anyone who speaks English considers evening to mean after 12.

Really, when was the last time someone heard another English speaking person refer to 12:30 PM as “evening”???

If I answer a phone call at the parish office at 12:30 PM and I say “Good evening, Saint Fiacre parish…” the caller would probably ask “Father, have you been into the altar wine?”

The question “when does evening begin?” is actually a rather common one in our secular lives. Do an internet search for that phrase. It can make for some interesting light reading.

People are actually discussing this question online for a variety of reasons, most of them social:
When do I say good evening instead of good afternoon?
How do I phrase my wedding invitation, should I say afternoon or evening?
I’m going on a cruise what is evening dress?
What is a white evening mess uniform?

I cannot find any examples of people advocating the idea that evening begins at (or immediately after) 12:00 noon. It is simply not the way we use the word “evening” in standard English.

 

[otjm]

It would seem, once again, that we have proof that Rome does not micro manage the Church, as we have two Canonical Societies with two different interpretations of a passage in Canon law.

If one were saying Mass across the puddle, one would not be violating Canon law by taking a less wide reading of what constitutes “evening” by starting a Mass on Saturday evening at or after 4 p.m.

The question may turn on what reliance one can put in a Canon lawyer’s opinion, or greater, upon the Society’s interpretation. Unless and until either the Rota makes a decision (not likely in this matter) or the proper dicastery steps in, what we have is a conflict of opinion that Rome sees fit not to amend, modify, correct or otherwise speak on.

On an unrelated matter (except that it had to do with interpretation of Canon law), there was a very lively discussion, at least partly publicly made, concerning whether or not married men ordained to the deaconate had to practice continence.

It appeared, from reading the discussion, that the Canon was fairly clear, if not directly requiring it (and that was argued), that it most definitely implied that deacons were required to be continent.

Rome finally stepped in: the answer was “Nope.” Well, the answer was a bit longer than that, but that was the substance of it. Pretty much ended the conversation.

That is not to say that Rome would decide that noon is the marking point in time for Mass; but only to say that what is on the books is not always how Rome sees the matter.

 

[Digitonomy]

The author of the commentary appeals to an American slang use of the word “evening.” It’s in the text of the commentary itself. I do not have it, or I would type it out for you. The last time I read it was a few years back and I no longer have the text.

Assuming you’re talking about the commentary by the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland, that is simply not true. And I’ve pointed this out to you before, and typed out the text [toward bottom of first post].

I do not know where this southern slang explanation you’ve described comes from, but it is definitely not found in the commentary.

 

[FrDavid96]

Assuming you’re talking about the commentary by the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland, that is simply not true. And I’ve pointed this out to you before, and typed out the text [toward bottom of first post].

I do not know where this southern slang explanation you’ve described comes from, but it is definitely not found in the commentary.

No, you have not “pointed it out” you’ve simply repeated the post from Michelle Arnold here on CAF that’s been re-posted over and over again. Nothing new.

What is the basis for the position? A link that does nothing more than repeat what’s been posted here over and over again (ie, the conclusion that says “evening begins at noon”) does not prove anything.

It says nothing more than “it is the firm view of this commentary that the evening of the previous day begins at midday (12 noon) on that day itself.”

That’s not a reason.

Not one single reason is given for why anyone should think that evening begins at noon.

Why should anyone think evening begins at noon?

When (in what other context) does anyone say that evening begins at noon? When? Where? How?

And most of all, if the legislator intended for the time to begin at noon, why oh why did he not just use the Latin word for noon (meridiem) in the canon in the first place, but instead chose the word vespere???

Not a single one of those questions I just posted ever get an an actual answer. The only answer is “see the commentary that says evening begins at noon.”

 

[FrDavid96]

…

I do not know where this southern slang explanation you’ve described comes from, but it is definitely not found in the commentary.

I sorely wish that I knew the answer to that myself. Somewhere, way back when, here on CAF someone posted a link to the original text (whatever it was). It wasn’t just a snippet, but the full text. It was also a rather lengthy piece, not just a paragraph or two.

Believe me that I’ve been searching for it, but I cannot find it.

 

[Vico]

Oslo, Norway, Dec 19, 2014 sunrise 9:17 AM, sunset at 3:11 PM.

 

[Vico]

Can 1199

Quaedam disideratur clarificatio circa locutionem “vespere diei praecedentis”. Significat quod praeceptum Missae dominicalis adimpleri potest per particpationem ad quamlibet Missam die sabbati horis vespertinis? Aut significat quod semper requiritur? (Pater quidam)

*R. Consulto formula generalis adhibetur ut casuistica et anxietates vitentur. Certissime adiempletur praeceptum per particpationem ad quamlibet Missam die sabbati horis vespertinis.

*Communicationes, Navarre Commentary, 1983, pp. 251-252

 

[dans0622]

… It says nothing more than “it is the firm view of this commentary that the evening of the previous day begins at midday (12 noon) on that day itself.”

That’s not a reason. …

Hello,

That is certainly true. The CLSGBI commentator does not present any reason for his “firm view.”

The Exegetical Commentary’s reason for supporting the “evening begins at noon” position is that this canon was constructed to avoid anxieties and casuistry. That’s at least a rationale I can follow and respect…although it seems to me that the response is more about what Mass fulfills the obligation (any Mass does) than about the time of the Mass.

Chiappetta, I suspect, may base his interpretation on what I understand is the typical Italian practice of saying “good evening” at any time after 2 pm.

I know that the Philippines, in 1967, was granted the faculty of fulfilling the Sunday obligation in the afternoon of Saturday. That, to me, only has pertinence in that it shows that the Holy See has been generous, not that it has said evening starts at noon. If that was the case, the response would have been: “No faculty is needed, since “evening” is to understood as beginning at noon.”

Dan

 

[FrDavid96]

I can understand that “vespere” can have some flexibility.

If I were in Norway or Alaska today (late December) and a Mass started after sunset, I would be perfectly content to look at the sun (or lack thereof), while ignoring the clock, and have no problem, no hesitation, that a Mass after sunset would fulfill the obligation for tomorrow (let’s say, for discussion sake, that today is Saturday).

I can also understand a pastoral response from a bishop in one of those places who wishes to avoid confusion in the Mass schedules, and who permits the time of sunset in winter to be applied throughout the year. I don’t know if this happens in reality, I’m simply saying that I respect the bishop’s authority to interpret for his diocese.

I can understand some flexibility and the value of avoiding anxiety.

What I cannot understand is "how can one say that vespere begins at meridiem?"

I have not seen any actual answers to that question.

I’ve seen answers based on the word “evening” in English. I’ve seen answers that quote non-English commentaries and/or translations that use words which may mean anytime after noon in those languages. I remain unconvinced by these positions, given the reasons I’ve repeated here often enough.

Thus far, I have not seen any actual explanation, nor any actual reasons why the Latin word “vespere” can mean “the evening of the previous day begins at midday (12 noon).”

Starting with Pope Pius XII in Christus Dominus (1953) papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12CHDOM.HTM we have a precedent that an evening Mass cannot begin before 4 PM (see Rule VI) Even though Pope Pius was addressing a Mass on the same calendar day, (not an evening-before), there’s no ambiguity with regard to 4 o’clock. Given a solid precedent like this, quite frankly, I feel that someone who advocates that “evening begins at midday” should provide some actual reason, some convincing premises, for arriving at that conclusion. Pius XII himself even tells us that 4 o’clock is early evening (if evening did begin at noon, then 4 would be the opposite, late evening).

The mere statement “the evening of the previous day begins at midday” is not enough to convince me.

The only explanation that I have seen was referenced here on CAF many years back. I cannot find it, though I’ve looked. It referred a writing by someone in the U.K. who based the reason on a Southern US slang use of evening. Was that the GB&I Commentary? At times, I thought it was, but maybe it is not. I don’t have the printed text. It may have been a different source. What I do remember is that it was a lengthy piece, as opposed to just a paragraph or two.

So, again, I will ask "how does vespere begin at meridiem?"

 

[Elizium23]

It does in Bizarro World, Father. Only in Bizarro World.