Looking at it from the grammatical perspective, since it’s in the genitive case (locative perhaps?), it seems to refer all the way back to Missae. So it would be the Mass of the Lord’s Day IMO. The “quae” clause just seems to give it the force of law. (It may be the reason “festiva” is not in the genitive case.)I do have a question:
How do you interpret the clause “dominici diei est” in the context of the sentence:
Propterea Missae liturgia nonnumquam “praefestivae” appellatae, quae vero reapse pleno iure “festiva” est, dominici diei est,…
I won’t quote the whole paragraph since it’s been quoted and re-quoted enough. But again, within the context of that paragraph, how do you interpret the words:
dominici diei est?
Which is probably why they’ve removed the obligation from those (but not all) Holy Days which fall on a Saturday or Monday.There may be time in some dioceses, where between noon and midnight, there are two masses, one that is using the Saturday readings and another using the Sunday readings, where either would fulfill the Sunday mass obligation.
Well then, what’s the issue? If it’s the “Mass of the Lord’s Day” then it’s the Mass of the Lord’s day–which we also call Sunday. Therefore it’s the Sunday Mass.Looking at it from the grammatical perspective, since it’s in the genitive case (locative perhaps?), it seems to refer all the way back to Missae. So it would be the Mass of the Lord’s Day IMO. The “quae” clause just seems to give it the force of law. (It may be the reason “festiva” is not in the genitive case.)
Thank you! I go almost exclusively to Saturday nightWell then, what’s the issue? If it’s the “Mass of the Lord’s Day” then it’s the Mass of the Lord’s day–which we also call Sunday. Therefore it’s the Sunday Mass.
This is what I’ve been trying to say for years here on CAF. The Saturday evening Mass is the Mass of Sunday. We can play around with the words all day long. We can say “Sunday Mass” or “Mass of Sunday” or “Mass of Sunday celebrated on Saturday evening” etc. etc.
That’s what I’m trying to get across here. The exact word choice matters little in the end. While we should use proper and appropriate vocabulary, the final result is that the Mass on Saturday evening is the Sunday Mass.
The (USA) Saturday Immaculate Conception (2012) is an example where two obligations remained, but that was not true with the Sunday Immaculate Conception (2013) where the observance was transferred to Monday (but without obligation).Which is probably why they’ve removed the obligation from those (but not all) Holy Days which fall on a Saturday or Monday.
What about Saturday December 25? Would not a Mass that evening need be a Mass of the Nativity, even though it could fulfill one’s obligation for the Feast of the Holy Family on the Subsequent Sunday?The exact word choice matters little in the end. While we should use proper and appropriate vocabulary, the final result is that the Mass on Saturday evening is the Sunday Mass.
Yes, it would need to be a Nativity Mass. Or, to put that another way, the priest is obligated on the evening of Saturday December 25 to celebrate the Nativity/Christmas Mass and not use the Sunday Mass text.What about Saturday December 25? Would not a Mass that evening need be a Mass of the Nativity, even though it could fulfill one’s obligation for the Feast of the Holy Family on the Subsequent Sunday?
tee
Because of this, the Mass liturgy sometimes is called “prefestive,” which however, really it is a full right “fest,” it is of the Lord’s day, …There’s really nothing confusing about it. For liturgical purposes (all liturgical purposes) the liturgical day of solemnities begins on the evening before the calendar day. It’s how all the ancient Judaeo-Christian and even pagan calendars operated for much of history. It’s how all the Eastern Christian calendars still operate to this day. It’s more our modern concept that the day begins at midnight which is less consistent with a biblical and historical understanding of the day.
I would say that people put too much emphasis on the clause “the observance of.” Since we must be consistent. If it is indeed the observance, then everything else follows. If the Cardinal Deacon in Rome announces that “Easter will be observed on April 25” does that mean that it isn’t really Easter, it’s only the observance of it? Now, I don’t recall what exact words he uses, nevertheless it makes the point that the “observance of” a particular time in the Church means that it is indeed that time.
I do have a question:
How do you interpret the clause “dominici diei est” in the context of the sentence:
Propterea Missae liturgia nonnumquam “praefestivae” appellatae, quae vero reapse pleno iure “festiva” est, dominici diei est,…
I won’t quote the whole paragraph since it’s been quoted and re-quoted enough. But again, within the context of that paragraph, how do you interpret the words:
dominici diei est?