S
Saints_Alive
Guest
The notion that one Mass will cover two obligations is absurd.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
MERGED: Immaculate Conception Holy Day in the USA and Obligation
- Status
F
FrDavid96
Guest
OK
I’ll explain.
“2 separate and distinct days…such as a Holy Day on a Wednesday”
means
one Mass on Wednesday (holy day) and the other Mass on Sunday (before or after, makes no difference).
In other words, one cannot “combine” the 2 obligations (Wed and Sunday) into one single Mass.
I do not mean “Christmas on a Sunday” I mean “Christmas on a Wednesday”
Make sense now?
P
Pug
Guest
:newidea: Ah! I get it now. I thought you said something else entirely. Thanks!
M
maddogdm
Guest
Pug gets it now!!
I am not going to ask about Irish ancestry, but this is making for a great Irish joke.
I don’t get it. Do you mean Christmas is not distinct from Sunday? Do you mean that celebrating Christmas overrides the commandment to keep holy the Sabbath?
Lets get this straight now that people are starting to doubt the commandments.
One mass FOR a Christmas that falls on a Sunday satisfies “two obligations”: to sanctify all Christmas days by going to Mass AND to keep holy the Sabbath. One mass satisfies “both obligations”. (There is only one obligation as this example clearly proves: sanctify all holy days of obligation by partipating at any Catholic ritte mass during the prescribed time. The canon states that Sunday is the primary holy day of obligation.
When feasts overlap like Christmas on a Sunday, one Mass during the overlapping time clearly satisfies obligation. You can’t override a commandment.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
First of all, if there are, suppose, four Sundays in an average month, to me it is not obvious whether we must then say “There are four obligations this month: to go to Mass on the 5th, 12th, 19th, and 26th”, or whether it makes more sense to say, “There is one obligation this month, like every other: to go to Mass on every Sunday.” Thus, it is equally unobvious to me whether in the case of this weekend we ought to say, “There are two obligations: to go to Mass on the IC, or the evening before, and to go on Sunday, or the evening before”, or instead, “There is one obligation: to have gone to Mass on the IC or the evening before, as well as on Sunday or the evening before.”
Not only can I not tell which parsing is more “correct,” in fact I think that they are equivalent, and therefore that no practical consequences ought to turn on which phraseology we adopt. You see two narrow, ad-hoc obligations, I see one general obligation. Perhaps that explains why I think in certain cases it can be satisfied, relative to two different days which “overlap” in the manner in question here, by one Mass.
But going to Mass is not a payment. You surprise me with this way of thinking. As I have said previously, the purpose of the Mass obligation is not that the Church has decided that on certain days it is necessary to increase your yearly Mass-count by 1, it is that it is necessary to sanctify those days with participation in the Mass.
Let’s suppose, rather, that you work at this restaurant, and your manager says, “David, each table must be covered with a tablecloth, because we need to present a classy image to our patrons.” You push two tables together to accommodate a large party, and cover them with a single cloth. The manager has not weighed in, but your meddlesome co-worker sidles over and says, “Nuh-uh, David. The two tables are two separate and distinct items, and each one carries its own obligation of a tablecloth. Two tables means two tablecloths. Is that simple? Yes, admittedly. But the mere fact that the logic is simple doesn’t make it wrong either.”
Well, it’s not wrong, exactly, and it would be well within the realm of reason for the boss to decide ultimately that he really does want each table covered separately. But the necessity of the proposition does not follow by logic alone.
For the reasons (I think) I’ve explained before, that lemma is both non-axiomatic and, so far, unproven. Even if it had been, it still would not follow that two obligations could not be satisfied with a single act, much as the body’s distinct needs for food and water can be met by eating a single coconut, and the distinct requirements to attend Mass on Sunday and attend Mass to satisfy the conditions of an indulgence can be met by assisting at a single Mass.
Then again, I would dispute that we should be talking about “either of the obligations,” or at any rate that we ought to make so much depend on this nicety of grammar. In my view, the “mere coincidence” that the Holy Day happens to fall on a day whose evening is the evening before a Sunday does mean that the single obligation of assisting at Mass on any days of obligation, or the preceding evening, can be satisfied in such a circumstance with a Mass that is celebrated on one day itself and on the evening before the other.
M
maddogdm
Guest
I think we are still confusing moral, liturgical and canon law obligations.
I have no doubt we have a moral obligation to participate in a mass for EACH feast and as celebrated for the feast, which is clearly the mind of the USCCB, however this moral obligation is not the same as a canonical obligation. The liturgical aspect is reflected in can 1248 §2. *If participation in the eucharistic celebration becomes impossible because of the absence of a sacred minister or for another grave cause, it is **strongly recommended **that the faithful take part in a **liturgy of the word *if such a liturgy is celebrated in a parish church or other sacred place according to the prescripts of the diocesan bishop or that they devote themselves to prayer for a suitable time alone, as a family, or, as the occasion permits, in groups of families.
I actually think this strong recommendation extends to all important feasts (for example the full list in c. 1246, plus other feasts that are important for our particular personal, family and community situation). There is a moral imperative to celebrate them all in community and benefit from the graces on offer.
BUT, canonically, I am scratching my head to see what’s wrong with advising a person with MANY SERIOUS OBLIGATIONS to fulfill, that if going to mass on Saturday vigil is honestly the way to fulfill those obligations without excessive burden and anxiety that would detract from the joy(s) of the feasts, then so be it. I would strongly recommend they still celebrate the Immaculate Conception in the most suitable way possible through prayer and reading of the texts in family or community etc.
I have no doubt we have a moral obligation to participate in a mass for EACH feast and as celebrated for the feast, which is clearly the mind of the USCCB, however this moral obligation is not the same as a canonical obligation. The liturgical aspect is reflected in can 1248 §2. *If participation in the eucharistic celebration becomes impossible because of the absence of a sacred minister or for another grave cause, it is **strongly recommended **that the faithful take part in a **liturgy of the word *if such a liturgy is celebrated in a parish church or other sacred place according to the prescripts of the diocesan bishop or that they devote themselves to prayer for a suitable time alone, as a family, or, as the occasion permits, in groups of families.
I actually think this strong recommendation extends to all important feasts (for example the full list in c. 1246, plus other feasts that are important for our particular personal, family and community situation). There is a moral imperative to celebrate them all in community and benefit from the graces on offer.
BUT, canonically, I am scratching my head to see what’s wrong with advising a person with MANY SERIOUS OBLIGATIONS to fulfill, that if going to mass on Saturday vigil is honestly the way to fulfill those obligations without excessive burden and anxiety that would detract from the joy(s) of the feasts, then so be it. I would strongly recommend they still celebrate the Immaculate Conception in the most suitable way possible through prayer and reading of the texts in family or community etc.
G
GwenL
Guest
I posed these questions to my Bishop this morning, in the sacristy after Mass (I’m a sacristan, we’re at a cathedral, and I ask him liturgy geek questions quite regularly).
I told him about the debate going on on several internet fora. He is a canon lawyer. He is very much a straight-shooter on litiurgical matters.
Me: First, can the faithful fulfill their obligation to attend Mass for both the feast of the Immaculate Conception and the Second Sunday in Advent by attending only one Mass, the Saturday evening Mass of anticipation for the Second Sunday in Advent?
Bishop: Gwen, I’m surprised that people would even ask that. No. You are obligated to attend Mass for the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception, and you are also obligated to attend Mass for the Second Sunday in Advent.
Me: Second, can the faithful fulfill their obligation to attend Mass for the feast of the Immaculate Conception by attending the Saturday evening Mass of anticipation for the Second Sunday in Advent, assuming that they attend another Mass on Sunday to fulfill that obligation?
Bishop: No, they may not. The Church intends, by giving us the obligation to attend Mass on the feast of the Immaculate Conception, that we attend a Mass for the feast of the Immaculate Conception. The obligation is not “to attend Mass on the 8th of December.” The obligation is to attend Mass to celebrate the feast of the Immaculate Conception. You may attend Mass on Friday evening, after first Vespers, a Mass that is the Mass of anticipation of the solemnity. Or you may attend Masses all day Saturday that are for the solemnity, up to the first Vespers for the Second Sunday in Advent.
Me: What about a different case, for example, a funeral on Sunday? Does attending a funeral Mass on Sunday fulfill the obligation to attend Mass on Sunday?
Bishop: This is why funerals on Sunday must use the readings and propers for that Sunday, and not different readings selected for the funeral. Yes, a funeral on Sunday is also a Mass for Sunday, and uses the readings and propers for Sunday.
Me : what about weddings on Sunday?
Bishop: most, or all, dioceses in the U.S. do not permit nuptial Masses on Sunday. If there were to be a nuptial Mass on Sunday, it must also use the Sunday readings and propers.
I think he put it very well, both spiritually and canonically. Our obligation is not to “attend Mass on Sunday” or “attend four Sunday Masses this month” or “attend Mass on the 8th of December.” Our obligation is to “attend Mass on the Second Sunday in Advent” or “attend Mass on the 23rd Sunday in ordinary Time” or “attend Mass on the solemnity of the Immaculate Conception.” If you look at it like that, it’s pretty obvious that this is not an obligation to be inside the church when Mass is happening, sometime during that day.
For Immaculate Conception, the obligation is for the feast, not for the 8th of December. Spiritually, this seems right to me also. Holy Mother Church is asking us to celebrate an incredible event in salvation history, and meditate on how that event affects our own lives and salvation.
I told him about the debate going on on several internet fora. He is a canon lawyer. He is very much a straight-shooter on litiurgical matters.
Me: First, can the faithful fulfill their obligation to attend Mass for both the feast of the Immaculate Conception and the Second Sunday in Advent by attending only one Mass, the Saturday evening Mass of anticipation for the Second Sunday in Advent?
Bishop: Gwen, I’m surprised that people would even ask that. No. You are obligated to attend Mass for the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception, and you are also obligated to attend Mass for the Second Sunday in Advent.
Me: Second, can the faithful fulfill their obligation to attend Mass for the feast of the Immaculate Conception by attending the Saturday evening Mass of anticipation for the Second Sunday in Advent, assuming that they attend another Mass on Sunday to fulfill that obligation?
Bishop: No, they may not. The Church intends, by giving us the obligation to attend Mass on the feast of the Immaculate Conception, that we attend a Mass for the feast of the Immaculate Conception. The obligation is not “to attend Mass on the 8th of December.” The obligation is to attend Mass to celebrate the feast of the Immaculate Conception. You may attend Mass on Friday evening, after first Vespers, a Mass that is the Mass of anticipation of the solemnity. Or you may attend Masses all day Saturday that are for the solemnity, up to the first Vespers for the Second Sunday in Advent.
Me: What about a different case, for example, a funeral on Sunday? Does attending a funeral Mass on Sunday fulfill the obligation to attend Mass on Sunday?
Bishop: This is why funerals on Sunday must use the readings and propers for that Sunday, and not different readings selected for the funeral. Yes, a funeral on Sunday is also a Mass for Sunday, and uses the readings and propers for Sunday.
Me : what about weddings on Sunday?
Bishop: most, or all, dioceses in the U.S. do not permit nuptial Masses on Sunday. If there were to be a nuptial Mass on Sunday, it must also use the Sunday readings and propers.
I think he put it very well, both spiritually and canonically. Our obligation is not to “attend Mass on Sunday” or “attend four Sunday Masses this month” or “attend Mass on the 8th of December.” Our obligation is to “attend Mass on the Second Sunday in Advent” or “attend Mass on the 23rd Sunday in ordinary Time” or “attend Mass on the solemnity of the Immaculate Conception.” If you look at it like that, it’s pretty obvious that this is not an obligation to be inside the church when Mass is happening, sometime during that day.
For Immaculate Conception, the obligation is for the feast, not for the 8th of December. Spiritually, this seems right to me also. Holy Mother Church is asking us to celebrate an incredible event in salvation history, and meditate on how that event affects our own lives and salvation.
O
O_Moriah
Guest
If a person has a serious reason for not fulfilling the obligation (the ill, travelers, workers working double shifts or two jobs, etc…), then the obligation is considered dispensed. For that person, if they want to, they may optionally chose to attend some other Mass or devotion to ‘make up’ for what they couldn’t attend, but it’s not obligatory. It would be wrong to suggest that they must make up for the obligation with some other Mass – it would be just an advisement, as you suggest, which would be appropriate.
M
maddogdm
Guest
Fantastic, so next question is why is it not an obligation (canonically, not morally, spiritually and liturgically) next year?
Answer: because we want to keep canonical obligations simple to avoid anxieties and excessive burdens that detract from the joy of the feast(s) - see Communicationes 15 and previous posts. That’s why if you couldn’t go during the day to a mass celebrating the Immaculate Conception on Sat Dec 8 it might be better to spend your energy celebrating the Immaculate Conception some other way than notching up a mass count of two by going to two Second Sunday of Advent masses.
I think the code is really well worded to express this, and I think it is good that we have the option of going to a Saturday vigil Mass to celbrate Sunday.
B
bilop
Guest
This is not true.
In the NY Archdiocese, Sunday wedding Masses are common, and they are not required to use the Sunday readings. My wedding was on a Sunday, and we were allowed to use nuptial readings.
God Bless
O
O_Moriah
Guest
Holy Mother Church is asking the national conferences of bishops to decide if IC:
- Is celebrated as a Holy Day of Obligation and if yes, under what circumstances;
- Is moved to a Sunday (since the IC can’t bump a Sunday of Advent, it would have to be moved to some Sunday of Ordinary time, most likely the Sunday before Christ the King).
- Is not celebrated as a Holy Day of Obligation.
The way the U.S. deals with the 10 days are…
1 & 2. Two of the days have their obligation suppressed: St. Joseph and Ss. Peter-and-Paul.
3 & 4. Two – Epiphany and Body and Blood of Christ – are moved to Sundays (which very sadly causes Baptism of the Lord to be bumped to a Monday three out of seven years on average – though, pastors can bump Feasts of the Lord to the next Sunday as a ordinary privilege according to liturgical law and push Baptism of the Lord to the next weekend when that happens).
5, 6, & 7. Three of them have their own unique rules for determining how their status as Obligatory is determined:
- Christmas is always obligatory.
- Ascension Thursday, by Province, a decision is made to keep it on Thursday or move it to replace the 7th Sunday of Easter.
- IC is always obligatory except when if falls on Sundays, where it gets bumped to Monday losing it’s status as a Solemnity and a Holy Day of Obligation.
Everyone should tell your bishops that the Obligatory status of these days needs to be revisited and revised for a simpler and more consistent determination to avoid confusion.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Oh. I thought this was the view we had finally come to a general consensus was wrong: the question Prof. Peters says “does not even seem close. I haven’t found any published canonist who holds that Mass at, say, 8 pm on Saturday would not count for Immaculate Conception if that is what how the individual wished to apply it. If you’ve got a CLD X: 190, you can check out a 1971 reply to this effect by Cong. Clergy for yourself.”
After all, the requirement stated in the CIC is that one “assist] at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite” (assistit ubicumque celebratur ritu catholico). The notion that a particular liturgy must be used is nowhere reflected in the code.
The bishop’s position would also present, for example, a difficulty for people who (1) live in a diocese where the Ascension is transferred to Sunday, and (2) go the TLM. Under this line of thinking, since the Ascension has precedence over the Sunday liturgy, the requirement in such a diocese on that day must be to attend a Mass to attend a liturgy for the Ascension. But at the Latin-Mass church they celebrated the Ascension three days ago and are now celebrating Sunday Within the Octave of the Ascension. Indeed, under your bishop’s view a person must attend a Novus Ordo Mass that day, since they won’t have an Ascension liturgy anywhere else.
V
Vico
Guest
It is interesting that the bishop has said that, especially since the canon law specifies that the day is midnight to midnight (which in this case is the 8th of December), and that the obligation may be fulfilled on that day or the evening of the previous day. The liturgical norms also define the liturgical day as midnight to midnight. Since CIC Can. 1248 §1 law grants the ability, how can the bishop remove that on his own? It is the Episcopal Conference that may supress or transfer to Sunday but there is no canonical mention of a specific power to change the limits of Can. 1248 §1.
CIC Can. 1246 §2 However, the Episcopal Conference may, with the prior approval of the Apostolic See, suppress certain holydays of obligation or transfer them to a Sunday.
CIC Can. 1248 §1 The obligation of assisting at Mass is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a catholic rite either on a holyday itself or on the evening of the previous day.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
Update: My husband didn’t go on either day.
G
GwenL
Guest
Mark, as you well know, “consensus” really has little meaning in the Church.
I told my bishop about the interpretation of Dr. Ed Peters, and the bishop said, “I’m surprised that he said that.” My bishop has a canon law degree from the Angelicum, so he’s hardly an amateur at this.
The quote from CIC is instructive. It does not say “assist at a Mass celebrated that day.” It says “assist at a Mass celebrated.” As my bishop said, the obligation concerns the solemnity of the Immaculate Conception. The obligation is not to attend a Mass that day, but to attend a Mass on the solemnity of the Immaculate Conception.
I’m going to bet that people who attend the TLM and have slightly different days upon which solemnities are observed work that out with their ordinary. If the bishop has approved a community (e.g. FSSP) that worships under the rubrics of the Usus Antiquor, wouldn’t that approval also extend to the calendar, the rubrics, and the liturgical norms in place in (I think it’s) 1962?
G
GwenL
Guest
Vico, the obligation to attend Mass is not an obligation to attend Mass “that day.” It’s an obligation to attend Mass for the solemnity of the Immaculate Conception.
I asked this same question of our Cathedral rector, a very knowledgeable and quite brilliant Franciscan friar. Same answer, and same surprise that someone would even ask this question. “The only reason for the obligation is for the solemnity of the Immaculate Conception. Why would anyone think that you could fulfill the obligation by attending Mass for some other holy day?”
Our rector has told me that there is a document from the Congregation of Rites (the former title of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments) that clarifies this. I’ve been searching, and it’s Sunday, so the rector is a bit busy…
M
maddogdm
Guest
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE LAW SAYS - CATHOLIC RITE MASS
Give up and leave it to the professionals, your bishop has the grace and authority to guide your diocese. Don’t bother your poor rector with this stuff. Leave it up to our bishops (and Rome) and professional canonists for the rest of us please.
G
GwenL
Guest
Pardon me, “maddogdm” for adding my opinion, and the interpretation of two men far more qualified that you or I will ever be, to this debate.
And excuse me for talking to my rector, who happens to be a close personal friend. I’ll bother him with anything I see fit, thank you very much. I don’t need your advice in this matter.
It is my bishop who said that one may not fulfill their obligation for the solemnity of the Immaculate Conception by attending the (Saturday evening) anticipation Mass of the second Sunday in Advent. Well, my bishop is also a canon lawyer, former president of the Canon Law Society of America. So, you tell me to leave it up to our bishops (he is one) and professional canonists (he is one), yet you disagree with him? You can’t have it both ways.
V
Vico
Guest
That is easy to answer and is twofold. The first part of the answer is about time. The canon law defines the day as midnight to midnight, and the canon explicitly states “The obligation of assisting at Mass is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a catholic rite either on a holyday itself or on the evening of the previous day.” The solemnity of the Immaculate Conception is defined as December 8 (midnight to midnight) and the previous evening of December 7 is the previous day anticipated liturgy of the Immaculate Conception. The second part of the answer is about which liturgical rite. The canons allow use of any Catholic rite. The liturgical rite on the previous evening may not be a celebration of the Immaculate Conception. Note also that the general liturgical norms also define the liturgical day as midnight to midnight. (Anticipated celebrations for the next day, are on the previous evening.) The reason for this time extension is “In order for the Christian faithful to fulfill this obligation more easily”. (CCEO 881.2)
G
GwenL
Guest
Can you show me this, please? Where is the citation for this–that the solemnity of the Immaculate Conception is defined as midnight to midnight? Not for general “days,” but for the solemnity of the Immaculate Conception.
This year, the solemnity ends at Vespers on Saturday evening.
- Status