MERGED: Immaculate Conception Holy Day in the USA and Obligation

  • Thread starter Thread starter MissRose73
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fone_Bone_2001 said:
…

You can indeed receive Holy Communion at both. Vico, I’m sure, will have the citation here for you soon, but until he does, I’ll explain:

Canon law says that one can receive Holy Communion for a second time in one day, if one does so in the context of full participation in a Mass.

Since your second Holy Communion tomorrow will be during a Saturday evening anticipatory Mass for the Second Sunday of Advent, in which you’ll be fully participating, you’re therefore perfectly entitled to receive Holy Communion again. 🙂
Click to expand...
CIC Can. 917 One who has received the blessed Eucharist may receive it again on the same day only within a eucharistic celebration in which that person participates, without prejudice to the provision of can. 921 §2.

CIC Can. 923 Christ’s faithful may participate in the eucharistic Sacrifice and receive holy communion in any catholic rite, without prejudice to the provisions of can. 844.

There are no equivalents to CIC canon 917 in the CCEO (eastern Catholic) so there is no limit for them. Canon 923 is specifically general so it apply to Latin and easten Catholics.

Sometimes disputes occur over double reception in a day, disputing midnight to midnight vs Vesper to Vesper.

Eastern Catholics have a different set of holydays. For example, for the Ukrainian Catholics, the Immaculate Conception is not obligatory. But the tradition celebrated on December 9 (some such as the Byzantine Catholic Church, on December 8) is The Conception of the Most Holy and Immaculate Theotokos By Saint Anne.
 
I am actually going to get back into this one.

I was concerned earlier that the direction of the discussion was headed into the realm of “my bishop says this…are you telling me the bishop is wrong?” as sometimes happens on these threads. That did not happen (thankfully) and please let us keep it that way.

Sometimes these threads take on a life of their own. That’s why I would like to put my earlier posts into a certain context. Back in post #44 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10075304&postcount=44 I offered a 2-part post. The first part dealt with what the Church’s laws have to say (canon & liturgical). The second was the pastoral application of part 1. My distinction between “law” and “opinion” would have been better stated as one between “law” and “pastoral application of the law.”

I would like to quote myself here in an attempt to get back on the original track.

A person who attends only the Saturday evening Mass knowing that the Mass will be both for the 2nd Sunday of Advent and on the 2nd Sunday of Advent has not met the obligation for the Immaculate Conception.

However, a person who unknowingly or unwittingly attends the Mass on Saturday evening in an attempt to fulfill the Immaculate Conception obligation would not be at fault for missing Mass on the Holy Day. This might happen if the priest errs in the Mass schedule and celebrates the wrong Mass in the evening—the fault is that of the priest, not the attendee. Such a person would fulfill the Sunday obligation, but not the Holy Day obligation, but without fault.
[Not included in the original text: in other words, “but without fault” because a person could sincerely invoke c. 1248]

If it is physically or morally impossible to attend Mass from Friday evening to Saturday afternoon, yet one is able (and does) attend Mass on Saturday evening and Sunday morning, that person would be excused from the Immaculate Conception obligation but fulfill the Sunday obligation.

Having followed the discussion here I would like to expand on that part.

On day one of “canon law 101” our professor make a point to us, over and over again. That point was this: always remember that the purpose of canon law is “the good of souls” That point was made again and again, not just on day one, but always. That oh-so-important value is often overlooked in forum discussions that deal with issues when we make reference to the Code.

Now, back to the original point.

My pastoral application of the law (since that was the original question which prompted this entire thread) is that a person who attends the Saturday evening Mass, knowingly and intentionally, in an attempt to fulfill the obligation for the Immaculate Conception has not actually met that obligation. I would ask readers to re-read the part I just quoted above, from my post #44.

We have to remember that the law is intended for the good of souls. On the one hand, the Church, in Her wisdom, wants to ease the burden (don’t read too much into that word) of meeting the Mass-obligation, and make fulfilling that obligation as easy as possible for the people of God. That’s why canon 1248 is intentionally broad. The Church places no further restrictions beyond the minimum. There is no (absolutely none) provision that the readings must be such-and-such or the preface must match the liturgical calendar, or any other criteria beyond simply that of attending Mass on the liturgical observance of a given Sunday or other solemnity–not even the liturgical family (“rite” or “church sui iuris”) is relevant.

At the same time though, we do need to put things into reverse, so to speak. Let us not look only at the letter of the law, but let’s keep in mind the intent of the law. The intent is to define for God’s people how to meet the obligation of celebrating a Solemnity (Sunday or other obligatory feast). That means that we FIRST need to keep in mind that the intent is to celebrate the important event which is the Immaculate Conception.

Because of size-limits, continued in next post…
 
Now, in more practical terms.

A person who attends Mass only on Saturday evening (let’s forget about Sunday for the moment), has met the criteria, as defined by canon 1248, and fulfilled the obligation to attend Mass for the Immaculate Conception.

But wait…many of you are probably thinking “didn’t he just repeat himself and say that the obligation was not met?” First, he says it’s not met, then he says it was fulfilled. Yes. True. Allow me to explain.

While intentionally and knowingly attending Mass only on Saturday evening to fulfill the Immaculate Conception allows one to satisfy canon 1248 to attend Mass, such a person has not met the spiritual and moral obligation to actually celebrate the great event of the Immaculate Conception. The law has been satisfied, but the good of souls has not. I say that because in that situation, a person is taking advantage of the law (c. 1248) by intentionally omitting from his spiritual life the celebration of the Immaculate Conception. Such a person is using the letter of the law in a way that the law does not intend. Yes, the law is intended to be broad. However, c. 1248 was not intended to address specifically the situation of two days of obligation one-after-the-other. I say it was not intended to specifically address that very narrow question. Such a person would not be in violation of the canon, but would be morally culpable nonetheless.

To put that another way, from a pastoral perspective, I see things like this:

If a person were to say to me “Father, on Friday evening and Saturday during the day, I decided my time was better spent watching the games on TV than going to Mass. I looked at canon law and 1248 says that I meet the obligation by attending Mass on Saturday at 7 PM. I know that Mass was the Second Sunday of Advent, but I am invoking canon 1248. By the way, I also went to Mass Sunday at 10 AM”

My response would be “yes, you have met the letter of the law, but you have still failed to observe the Immaculate Conception. You are not at-fault for violating the canon, but you are at-fault because in reality, you still omitted the Immaculate Conception from your spiritual life.”

On the other hand, a person who genuinely and sincerely intends to celebrate the Immaculate Conception and attends Mass on Saturday evening, not knowing that the Mass texts will be Advent 2, has sincerely attempted to celebrate the Feast, and in such a situation, a person could indeed invoke canon 1248, and do so in good conscience.

Here’s hoping that we can get back to the original discussion…
 
One needs to remember that Canon Law does not have all the answers to tricky Liturgical questions, in fact:
Can. 2 For the most part the Code does not define the rites which must be observed in celebrating liturgical actions. Therefore, liturgical laws in force until now retain their force unless one of them is contrary to the canons of the Code.
Click to expand...
Here and elsewhere, Canon Law keeps referring to approved Liturgical Norms and Texts.

And in fact, Canon Law only addresses Solemnities as entities by themselves. It does not answer specifically any questions about back-to-back Solemnities. But Liturgical Law specifically does.

Thus, we should do what Canon Law says: defer to the Liturgical Law in place. And Liturgical Law makes clear that the Vespers I of a Sunday in Advent trumps the Vespers II of a Solemnity:
  1. If the same day were to call for celebration of Evening Prayer of that day’s office and Evening Prayer I of the following day, Evening Prayer of the day with the higher rank in the Table of Liturgical Days takes precedence; in cases of equal rank, Evening Prayer of the actual day takes precedence. -* General Norms for the Liturgical Year and the Calendar*
Click to expand...
The larger problem which seems to bog people down is that these laws are indeed overly complicated and confusing. In 2013, IC will be celebrated on a Monday (being transferred from Sunday) and not be a Holy Day of Obligation. In the very next year in 2014, it will fall on a Monday naturally and will indeed be a Holy Day of Obligation. So… Monday on one year and not obligatory and Monday the next year and be obligatory. Very confusing and worthy to be revisited and revised by Rome and the US Conference of Bishops.

But because they are confusing and sometimes even contradictory (as noted by the many questions asked of the Congregation of Divine Worship), people say, “Surely, it can not be the case!” But it is.

The best case scenario is to go with another principle of Canon Law, namely, dubious laws are not binding. IOW, if it there is confusion and debate over the right interpretation of the Law, then people are free to do what they their conscience tells them. If you want to say that a Saturday evening Mass this year counts for IC, go ahead. There’s enough doubt to justify that position. But liturgists will tell you otherwise.
 
O_Moriah said:
One needs to remember that Canon Law does not have all the answers to tricky Liturgical questions, in fact:

Here and elsewhere, Canon Law keeps referring to approved Liturgical Norms and Texts.

And in fact, Canon Law only addresses Solemnities as entities by themselves. It does not answer specifically any questions about back-to-back Solemnities. But Liturgical Law specifically does.

Thus, we should do what Canon Law says: defer to the Liturgical Law in place. And Liturgical Law makes clear that the Vespers I of a Sunday in Advent trumps the Vespers II of a Solemnity:

The larger problem which seems to bog people down is that these laws are indeed overly complicated and confusing. In 2013, IC will be celebrated on a Monday (being transferred from Sunday) and not be a Holy Day of Obligation. In the very next year in 2014, it will fall on a Monday naturally and will indeed be a Holy Day of Obligation. So… Monday on one year and not obligatory and Monday the next year and be obligatory. Very confusing and worthy to be revisited and revised by Rome and the US Conference of Bishops.

But because they are confusing and sometimes even contradictory (as noted by the many questions asked of the Congregation of Divine Worship), people say, “Surely, it can not be the case!” But it is.

The best case scenario is to go with another principle of Canon Law, namely, dubious laws are not binding. IOW, if it there is confusion and debate over the right interpretation of the Law, then people are free to do what they their conscience tells them. If you want to say that a Saturday evening Mass this year counts for IC, go ahead. There’s enough doubt to justify that position. But liturgists will tell you otherwise.
Click to expand...
I often read that sentiment here on CAF “dubious laws are not binding” but we need to keep in mind that doubt about the law does not refer to doubt which exists only on internet forums.

To address your first issue:
When the observance of the Immaculate Conception is transferred to Monday December 9, there is no obligation because that would indeed cause confusion. On the other hand, when it happens on its proper day, December 8 which happens to be a Monday, the obligation to attend Mass remains because the Solemnity is not changed (ie moved) in any way. That’s why Monday one year is treated differently than Monday another year.
 
FrDavid96 said:
Now, in more practical terms.

A person who attends Mass only on Saturday evening (let’s forget about Sunday for the moment), has met the criteria, as defined by canon 1248, and fulfilled the obligation to attend Mass for the Immaculate Conception.

But wait…many of you are probably thinking “didn’t he just repeat himself and say that the obligation was not met?” First, he says it’s not met, then he says it was fulfilled. Yes. True. Allow me to explain.

While intentionally and knowingly attending Mass only on Saturday evening to fulfill the Immaculate Conception allows one to satisfy canon 1248 to attend Mass, such a person has not met the spiritual and moral obligation to actually celebrate the great event of the Immaculate Conception. The law has been satisfied, but the good of souls has not. I say that because in that situation, a person is taking advantage of the law (c. 1248) by intentionally omitting from his spiritual life the celebration of the Immaculate Conception. Such a person is using the letter of the law in a way that the law does not intend. Yes, the law is intended to be broad. However, c. 1248 was not intended to address specifically the situation of two days of obligation one-after-the-other. I say it was not intended to specifically address that very narrow question. Such a person would not be in violation of the canon, but would be morally culpable nonetheless.

To put that another way, from a pastoral perspective, I see things like this:

If a person were to say to me “Father, on Friday evening and Saturday during the day, I decided my time was better spent watching the games on TV than going to Mass. I looked at canon law and 1248 says that I meet the obligation by attending Mass on Saturday at 7 PM. I know that Mass was the Second Sunday of Advent, but I am invoking canon 1248. By the way, I also went to Mass Sunday at 10 AM”

My response would be “yes, you have met the letter of the law, but you have still failed to observe the Immaculate Conception. You are not at-fault for violating the canon, but you are at-fault because in reality, you still omitted the Immaculate Conception from your spiritual life.”

On the other hand, a person who genuinely and sincerely intends to celebrate the Immaculate Conception and attends Mass on Saturday evening, not knowing that the Mass texts will be Advent 2, has sincerely attempted to celebrate the Feast, and in such a situation, a person could indeed invoke canon 1248, and do so in good conscience.

Here’s hoping that we can get back to the original discussion…
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I tried to say and have done a rather poor job articulating.
 
From Fr Z
A priest to Card Burke:* "…Fr. Z says one Mass in the evening could count for both.” He said Burke responded, “Fr. Zuhlsdorf is generally very good, but here he’s just plain wrong.”

Card. Burke said that, in this matter, I am “just plain wrong”.
Well. There it is. Card. Burke’s response is not the equivalent of an authentic interpretation of the canon as issued by the proper dicastery of the Holy See, but it ain’t chopped liver either. All along I have said that I defer to proper authority on this one. I still don’t see the logic, but when I find I disagree with Dr. Peters AND Card. Burke, I start to question my ability to reason. In the meantime, as I continue to scratch my head,"*

This is really getting interesting. Look’s like I will have to consider insisting my charges attend enough of two back to back masses for tonight’s vigil if necessary, though preferably attending at other times if this is not more onerous.

I will also take back my charge of Irish logic, It was the Irish who gained parts of Europe for Christ in the first millenium and the parts of the rest of the world in the second. They also influenced the change in practice of the Sacrament of Penance from public to private. However, they *also *introduced manuals about calculating how many acts were required to satisfy the penance required for particular sins. We have moved away from this because of the issue of casuistry and anxiety, and I am sure the Cardinal and Dr Peters have as well. I will defer to their expertise till the matter is decided more formally, or involves a closer consideration of the passage cited from Communicationes XV.

A bit of old fashioned casuistry: A charge of mine steals $1000, confesses it and is told to pay it back, but doesn’t get around to it. He steals another thousand (not to pay back the first, that would really make an Irish joke) confesses and is told the same reparation… No, I don’t think he only has to pay back $1000 on one occasion …two separate satisfactions are required here! Happy feasts and don’t forget your “obligation(s)” to celebrate in general, not just by participating at Masses.
 
FrDavid96 said:
My response would be “yes, you have met the letter of the law, but you have still failed to observe the Immaculate Conception. You are not at-fault for violating the canon, but you are at-fault because in reality, you still omitted the Immaculate Conception from your spiritual life.”
Click to expand...
It seems to me the same could be said for any approved mass, not matching the holy day of obligation.

“Yes, you have met the letter of the law, but you have still failed to observe the 14th Sunday in Ordinary Time because you attended an ordination mass instead.”
 
Ed_Peters said:
MarkT, that was a little ipse-dixit-y of me to simply assert it, and my guilty conscience got to me, so I posted evidence for my position in my second blog post. Perhaps you did not see it. I did point out, wryly I thought, that your position would require us to hold that some Masses are “Super Masses” based on what hour they are celebrated, but, well, we’re going in circles here.

That said, there’s no “doubt of law” in regard to whether two Masses are required for two obligations under the current law. I’ve found no published canonical opinions supporting that view. Contrary views among others does not amount to “doubt of law” among canonists. K?

Best, edp.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your response, Professor Peters. Yes, I hadn’t seen your subsequent post. And I’ve been away from the keyboard for a bit, but just to check (in the event you’re still following along), is your statement here that you’d found “no published canonical opinions supporting that view” now superseded by the admission in your December 6 blog post that you have come across “one canonist (Waters) who says Yes . . . and one canonist (Huels) who says Maybe”?

But really, I’m not so much interested in turning an ipse dixit into an ille dixit. That is to say, aside from “counting noses” pro and contra, what is the argument for your position? Perhaps this would be obvious if I had access to your sources, which I don’t. I have yet to see from anybody any actual argument for your position on this question, other than (1) naked appeals to authority (most of them not ones with literal authority, though), and (2) conclusory, hand-waving statements of the “but 1 + 1 = 2, not 1” sort. Thus, for instance, on December 6 you promise “reasons” for your position (“and then some”), with links to the two posts previous, but on clicking through those reasons turn out to have been nothing more sophisticated than one naked appeal to authority (Dec. 4; “Happy to oblige: GB & I Comm. at 702.”) and one conclusory, hand-waving statement (Dec. 2; “Two Mass obligations require two Mass satisfactions. Period.”).

Incidentally, I wonder if too much hay is not being made out of the “two obligations” line of thinking. Suppose that a teacher says at the beginning of the year, “You must put your name at the top of every homework assignment you turn in so that I know whose it is; failure to do so will result in an F”, and that your have fifty homework assignments that year. Is it correct to say that there is one “obligation,” then, or fifty? Ought very much to turn on this question of how we parse it? To give a concrete case, if you are sick and later turn in two assignments at once, stapled together, but put your name only on the topmost sheet of the stack, do you deserve an F on the second assignment (for failure to meet your “obligation” relative to that assignment), or not (because in this case a single name satisfied the purpose relative to two assignments at once)?

Pardon a somewhat juvenile analogy, but in this case I think it apt.
 
FrDavid96 said:
When the observance of the Immaculate Conception is transferred to Monday December 9, there is no obligation because that would indeed cause confusion. On the other hand, when it happens on its proper day, December 8 which happens to be a Monday, the obligation to attend Mass remains because the Solemnity is not changed (ie moved) in any way. That’s why Monday one year is treated differently than Monday another year.
Click to expand...
Thanks for all your posts. However, the reason is that Dec 8 is what you call the proper day, and it is its liturgical celebration is transferred. On Dec 8 next year, one Mass satisfies the obligation to observe both feasts. The USCCB says that the obligation is abrogated, which is an interesting use of the term instead of suppressed .
 
ChibiViolet said:
This doesn’t sound right to me. The Saturday vigil Masses are for Sunday.
Click to expand...
Yes, but have you read through the thread? Canon law clearly stipulates that it doesn’t matter what the Masses are “for” as long as one goes on the holy day itself.

Just as a wedding Mass on Sunday or Saturday evening fulfills one’s obligation, even though the Mass is in no sense for that particular Sunday and may not even have the Sunday readings, so too going to Mass this evening can fulfill the Immaculate Conception obligation (the jury appears to be out as to whether it would count for both or just one of the two).
 
FrDavid96 said:
I often read that sentiment here on CAF “dubious laws are not binding” but we need to keep in mind that doubt about the law does not refer to doubt which exists only on internet forums.
Click to expand...
That’s true. But certainty over a law’s interpretation doesn’t come from one canonist’s blog post, either.

The USCCB and many diocesan web sites convey the interpretation of US bishops and their liturgical offices and their canonists, which disagrees with the oft-quoted canonist’s post. If anything, there is more certitude on the side of the Church in praxis that:
  1. You have to go twice this weekend this year; and,
  2. Saturday night ‘counts’ only for the Sunday vigil.
The fact that you can find many contravening practices in individual parishes and some diocesan web sites would indicate widespread confusion. Also, it has not been unknown for some canons to be considered so ill-defined that they were later refined to avoid confusion or expunged.
 
Fone_Bone_2001 said:
… (the jury appears to be out as to whether it would count for both or just one of the two).
Click to expand...
No. The jury is not out on that point. There’s no question that attending one single Mass does not count for both the Immaculate Conception and for Sunday.
 
MarkThompson said:
Thanks for your response, Professor Peters. Yes, I hadn’t seen your subsequent post. And I’ve been away from the keyboard for a bit, but just to check (in the event you’re still following along), is your statement here that you’d found “no published canonical opinions supporting that view” now superseded by the admission in your December 6 blog post that you have come across “one canonist (Waters) who says Yes . . . and one canonist (Huels) who says Maybe”?

But really, I’m not so much interested in turning an ipse dixit into an ille dixit. That is to say, aside from “counting noses” pro and contra, what is the argument for your position? Perhaps this would be obvious if I had access to your sources, which I don’t. I have yet to see from anybody any actual argument for your position on this question, other than (1) naked appeals to authority (most of them not ones with literal authority, though), and (2) conclusory, hand-waving statements of the “but 1 + 1 = 2, not 1” sort. Thus, for instance, on December 6 you promise “reasons” for your position (“and then some”), with links to the two posts previous, but on clicking through those reasons turn out to have been nothing more sophisticated than one naked appeal to authority (Dec. 4; “Happy to oblige: GB & I Comm. at 702.”) and one conclusory, hand-waving statement (Dec. 2; “Two Mass obligations require two Mass satisfactions. Period.”).

Incidentally, I wonder if too much hay is not being made out of the “two obligations” line of thinking. Suppose that a teacher says at the beginning of the year, “You must put your name at the top of every homework assignment you turn in so that I know whose it is; failure to do so will result in an F”, and that your have fifty homework assignments that year. Is it correct to say that there is one “obligation,” then, or fifty? Ought very much to turn on this question of how we parse it? To give a concrete case, if you are sick and later turn in two assignments at once, stapled together, but put your name only on the topmost sheet of the stack, do you deserve an F on the second assignment (for failure to meet your “obligation” relative to that assignment), or not (because in this case a single name satisfied the purpose relative to two assignments at once)?

Pardon a somewhat juvenile analogy, but in this case I think it apt.
Click to expand...
Mark,

Though not directed at me, I’d like to respond.

I understand what you’re saying there, but what I do not see is why there is any problem with the position that “two obligations means two Masses.” Is that simple? Yes, admittedly. But the mere fact that the logic is simple doesn’t make it wrong either.

I know I’ve posted this analogy before, but I’ll repeat it anyway. If I go to a fast food restaurant and I ask for “two burgers,” I receive 2 burgers, and the menu board says “burgers $1” I owe the restaurant $2. I cannot hand over a single dollar bill and say “that pays for the first one and I want you to apply it to the second one at the same time.” Of course, you know it just doesn’t work that way. The two burgers are two separate and distinct items, and each one carries its own obligation of payment. With regard to the Mass obligation, if there are 2 separate and distinct days-of-obligation, then there are likewise 2 obligations, one for each day. If the holy day were to occur on a Wednesday, there would be no question that attendance at 2 Masses would be required. I’m sure you would agree with me that someone who says “I went to Mass on Wednesday, therefore I have fulfilled my Sunday obligation” would be in the wrong. The mere coincidence that the Holy Day happens to fall on a Saturday does not take away either of the obligations.

I see where you’re going with the example of the teacher and the homework.
A few points:
  1. The teacher is the legislator. The teacher has full authority over the law requiring a name on the top of each paper. As the source of the law, the teacher can also dispense from the law. The teacher could also choose not to dispense from it. Likewise, the Church can (and sometimes does) dispense us from an obligation to attend Mass–but that’s not happening in the case at hand.
  2. The student might make a plea for mercy or an exception to the policy, and indeed such might be given—however that doesn’t actually remove the student’s obligation. What you’re doing there is attempting to apply the end-result (the teacher’s dispensation from the law, in allowing the student to “get away with it”) as if it were the law itself. The fact that the student might be forgiven is not the same thing as saying that the obligation (“write your name on every paper”) doesn’t exist–it still does, and it exists 50 times. If I run a stop-sign but I never get a ticket, that doesn’t mean that the law obligating me to stop doesn’t exist; it only means that I didn’t get caught.
  3. At the end of your post you say this: “in this case a single name satisfied the purpose relative to two assignments at once.” Think about it. While it may satisfy the “purpose of” the law, it still does not satisfy the obligation. From the student’s perspective, it doesn’t matter “why” the teacher made the requirement; all that matters is the obligation to obey the requirement. Frankly, the student does indeed deserve an “F” for failing to meet the requirement on page 2. However, the teacher can decide to forgive the omission. Not the same thing though as saying that the obligation is not there.
Thoughts?
 
FrDavid96 said:
With regard to the Mass obligation, if there are 2 separate and distinct days-of-obligation, then there are likewise 2 obligations, one for each day. If the holy day were to occur on a Wednesday, there would be no question that attendance at 2 Masses would be required.
Click to expand...
I question that, perhaps I don’t understand what you are saying or that you are using precise words like “days” and such that mean official things. If two holy days were left on the same day, with no precedence thing bumping one day to a different day, I’d figure one mass on the one day would suffice to sanctify that day. That twenty-four hour period would be sanctified.

I don’t know, sort of like Christmas on Sunday. Just one mass. Maybe I’ve always thought of it as both the Lord’s Day and Christmas when that happens.
 
Pug said:
I question that, perhaps I don’t understand what you are saying or that you are using precise words like “days” and such that mean official things. If two holy days were left on the same day, with no precedence thing bumping one day to a different day, I’d figure one mass on the one day would suffice to sanctify that day. That twenty-four hour period would be sanctified.

I don’t know, sort of like Christmas on Sunday. Just one mass. Maybe I’ve always thought of it as both the Lord’s Day and Christmas when that happens.
Click to expand...
Question all you like, but the Diocese of New York, Diocese of Brooklyn, and the Dioceses on Long Island have all determined that this year (2012) one must attend either Mass either on the Vigil of the Feast of the Immaculate Conception (Dec., 7th) or on the Holy Day itself (Dec.,8 ), In addition one must attend either the Vigil Mass for Sunday, Dec., 9thor on Sunday itself.
One cannot attend the evening Vigil Mass on Dec. 8th and have it count for both obligations. Attendance at the Dec. 8th will account for either obligation but not both. Each individual in all of the Dioceses mentioned are obligated to attend two Masses that weekend.
 
George_Stegmeir said:
Question all you like, but the Diocese of New York, Diocese of Brooklyn, and the Dioceses on Long Island have all determined that this year (2012) one must attend either Mass either on the Vigil of the Feast of the Immaculate Conception (Dec., 7th) or on the Holy Day itself (Dec.,8 ), In addition one must attend either the Vigil Mass for Sunday, Dec., 9thor on Sunday itself.
One cannot attend the evening Vigil Mass on Dec. 8th and have it count for both obligations. Attendance at the Dec. 8th will account for either obligation but not both. Each individual in all of the Dioceses mentioned are obligated to attend two Masses that weekend.
Click to expand...
If it were somehow humanly possible to untangle this thread at this point, which now consists of perhaps 5 different original threads combined into one, you would not assume I (who started one of them) is or was considering or talking about or questioning whether or not I can pull a two for one on Sat eve for the IC and Sunday simultaneously in the year 2012. I stated in the first post and several thereafter that I was not. I am still, unsurprisingly, not.

In the particular post of mine you quote, I was responding to a poster who seemed to be hypothesizing about a new scenario, say on a Wednesday or something, where two holy days both fell smack dab on a Wednesday, and he appeared to think it obvious that this meant one had to go to mass twice on the day of Wednesday itself. That is not the same scenario as two holy day following one after the other, one on Saturday and one on Sunday. I allowed that I perhaps did not understand his point, but if I did, I didn’t think it *obvious *that this meant one had to go to mass twice on that one Wednesday. I said one reason why in my post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top