Missing Christmas Day Mass

[baltobetsy]

But not to worry, **according to Fr Dave **(whose authority I will yield to unless something to the contrary makes itself available), you can miss mass if you have a valid reason. I, however, will continue to seek a dispensation from my parish priest if I know ahead of time that I can not attend mass because the third commandment doesn’t say to keep holy the Lord’s Day “EXCEPT if you have a valid reason not to” and the authority to bind and loosen was NOT given to individual believers but TO the Church.

That’s very disrespectful. You owe FrDavid96 an apology.

 

[Robbinson]

I know Christmas Day is a Holy Day of Obligation. Does going to a Christmas Eve Mass satisfy the Holy Day of Olbigation requirement (akin to a Saturday vigil for Sunday?)

Blessings (and Merry Christmas)

Brian

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please, everyone remember to be civil. Assume good will and be kind, especially when you believe you are right. We’re all learning here. And be assured that those members who have eccelsial titles are religious. As japhy wrote, we make sure they are religious or they may not use the titles: Fr., Br., Sr., etc. Thank you all.

 

[Sir_Knight]

As opposed to those in this thread who have made up Church rules that don’t exist?

As opposed to those who go by what they hear in the sacrament of confession – when I confessed missing mass for just caused, I was advised that in the future I should ask for a dispensation if I knew ahead of time that I wouldn’t be able to attend mass … that sacramental advise doesn’t exactly jive with the opinions being expressed in this thread – if one can excuse oneself for just cause, why was I advised to ask for a dispensation in the future?

 

[thistle]

I know Christmas Day is a Holy Day of Obligation. ** Does going to a Christmas Eve Mass satisfy the Holy Day of Olbigation requirement (akin to a Saturday vigil for Sunday?)**
Blessings (and Merry Christmas)

Brian

Yes provided its an evening Mass.
Mass on Christmas Eve morning or afternoon would not fulfill the obligation.

 

[Sir_Knight]

That’s very disrespectful. You owe FrDavid96 an apology.

I meant no disrespect to Fr Dave and if I inadvertently offended him with any of my comments, I offer my apologies. As I said, I will not challenge a man of the cloth based on my own OPINION and I do yield to his authority in this matter but I must say that it still leaves me confused – if one can excuse oneself for just cause, why was I advised to seek a dispensation if I knew about it ahead of time?

 

[teadough]

Please, everyone remember to be civil. Assume good will and be kind, especially when you believe you are right. We’re all learning here. And be assured that those members who have eccelsial titles are religious. As japhy wrote, we make sure they are religious or they may not use the titles: Fr., Br., Sr., etc. Thank you all.

Thank you for pointing out, as a Moderator, that CAF goes through a process to ensure that people are who they say they are.

I have been thinking about this thread all day, and came to this conclusion: I am really thankful that CAF tries to look out for others posters in regard to people saying they are Priest,Br,Sr…etc. I had no idea you guys did this. It made me think of something. While all of us are/can be back and forth on certain Catholic issues once in a while, it makes me feel more comfortable, as a Catholic, as to the why I became a Catholic. I find comfort when issues, like the one in this thread, arise because I know TRUTH is being subjected to the pillars of its community. You don’t find that with other Christian sects, because it is too easy for them to just say “well, too many rules and regulation make it obvious that truth is not prevailing”. I stand on the opposite side of that thought. The mere fact that we, as Catholics, are debating on strong issues that the Church stand for is more of a reason to know that I am that much closer to the truth. There is no need to argue on the “faith alone” stance because you have no jurisdiction to take part in your pronouncements because it would be too easy to lay the authority on YOU/ME. Being that we can go back and forth on a subject like this thread helps me to realized that more TRUTH is coming out, and each of us can learn from one another.

does that make sense? Or am I all over the place? I am really trying to understand each and everyone of you. just keep in mind that some of us are on a different path, and come from a different back ground. Us Converts are still “learning the ropes” we believe( at least I do) that we can, at times, have a stronger sense of Faith(no offense. Just saying what I have noticed. Not directed at anyone in this thread). Not the Faith that is structured in Tradition and rules, but the kind of Faith that starts with just that…Faith. We converts are strong believers. Where you can shows us the rules of the Catholic faith, we can show the spirit of Strong Faith. We/I look at Grace in a different light than you may.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I have no idea who Father Dave is, and am not too concerned what he may or may not think about this conversation, because when all is said and done, this is just a message board and there is no way of knowing who anyone really is, or what type of title/position they claim to have in the Catholic Church. No offense to him if he truly be a priest, but I see no reason for you to drag a complete stranger in so as to fill as though the point your making are valid. If anything, you’re are dong nothing but trying to show Father Dave a type of “LOOK AT ME,FATHER…IM DOTTING ALL MY I’s and CROSSING ALL T’s WITH THE RULES OF THE CHURCH…AINT I SWELL?”"

Anyways, I am heading to a.m Mass. Being that I work a swing shift, I still have plenty of days where I am off during the week, and normally I attend a/m Mass at 6:45. I love it!! But guess what? All my friends and family are working and will be off the weekends, so I do the best with what I can in regard to attending Mass and spending time with Our Lord.

I wasn’t looking for some sort of “effect”, so I have no idea what you mean, but will take to heart that you’re looking out for my best intentions, and I will be sure to reflec in future comments t that I was not meaning any harm by questioning if anyone is a Priest or not. It was only a comment directed at someone else who felt the need to push a complete stranger on me whether I know who they are or not. If that makes any sense.

The “complete stranger” that I was “pushing” on you was AGREEING with your position and I acknowldged that I was yielding to his position – I thought you would have taken comfort in knowing that you were correct.

True, but my comments were directed at someone(not Fr. David) who felt the need to take it upon themselves to show how knowledgeable they were about Catholic rules and regulations. Their comments had zero charity, and were aimed to show that they were “in the know” with Canon law and point out the flaws of a struggling Catholic(shouldn’t matter if one is Catholic, I was made in Gods image too, and am trying to figure out this thing called life and try to live in harmony with my fellow humans) who is only trying their best to be what they think God may wants them to be. If I am out of bounds by saying this is the case, then I am truly sorry how my comments have come to light. Fanatical Protestants and Fanatical Catholics are one of the same. Both are finger pointers, and both care not of what is truly best for the individual they are “trying” to counsel. Both only want to leave the discussion as being Right and point out the sin in one of their brethren.

This entire matter was resolved before you made your first post in this thread. Fr. David had stated the church’s position and I was NOT disagreeing it. What was the point in chastising me after the fact and after I yielded to Fr. David’s position? How much “charity” did that display?

PS-Pray for all of us. Especially me, as I will you and for each person in this thread.

Thank you for your prayers and be assured of mine for you. From scrutiny comes understanding and without debate, without criticism, scrutiny is not possible.

That said, Fr. David, do you have any Church documentation on this matter? I’m not saying that you are wrong but I am having trouble reconciling your position with the advise that I received in the confessional to obtain a dispensation in the future if I knew ahead of time that I could not attend mass. Why was I told to seek a dispensation if I could excuse myself from the obligation for just cause?

 

[FrDavid96]

But not to worry, …you can miss mass if you have a valid reason. I, however, will continue to seek a dispensation from my parish priest if I know ahead of time that I can not attend mass because the third commandment doesn’t say to keep holy the Lord’s Day “EXCEPT if you have a valid reason not to” and the authority to bind and loosen was NOT given to individual believers but TO the Church.

Sir Knight,
Please allow me to explain something. If the situation is such that it is physically or morally impossible for one to attend Mass, the obligation is lifted. As I’ve said before, it’s not always easy to determine what is or is not “impossible.”

Dispensations from the obligation are given (by bishops, pastors, or other priests as applicable) when people are in a position where they might be able to get to Mass if they make some changes, but those changes would cause hardship. Some examples: cancel the vacation, quit the job, walk 10 miles to the nearest Mass, etc. It isn’t completely impossible (like a person in a nursing home who is bedridden, or an inmate in prison).

Sometimes situations stradle the line between these two. How much hardship is enough to define “physically or morally impossible”? If parishioners just aren’t sure whether or not it’s impossible, they can request a dispensation.

Oftentimes, it comes down to how we ask the question. “Do I have a good reason?” is usually not the right question. On the other hand “Is it impossible (within reason) for me to get to Mass?” is the better question.

Perhaps I should put it this way: if you say “I have a good reason to miss Mass” then that’s the time to request a dispensation. If you say “it’s impossible for me to get to Mass” then a dispensation isn’t needed.

The purpose of dispensations is to satisfy those questionable situations. Sometimes these are known ahead of time, like a planned vacation, and sometimes they’re not planned, like the recent snowstorms. Sometimes dispensations are given when they aren’t technically needed. Again, the snowstorm example. Many people in the affected dioceses found it completely impossible to get to Mass (especially the elderly), yet the bishops dispensed everyone. In other words, he didn’t say “anyone under 60 is dispensed, anyone over 60 doesn’t need a dispensation.” Doing it that way avoids the situation where the little-old-lady who drives herself to Mass doesn’t feel any guilt at having missed Mass, even though if she tried to get there, she might have harmed herself or someone else. She didn’t need a dispensation, but by dispensing the entire diocese, the bishop eased the consciences of everyone.

Is that explaining it a little better, or just more confusing?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

As opposed to those who go by what they hear in the sacrament of confession – when I confessed missing mass for just caused, I was advised that in the future I should ask for a dispensation if I knew ahead of time that I wouldn’t be able to attend mass … that sacramental advise doesn’t exactly jive with the opinions being expressed in this thread – if one can excuse oneself for just cause, why was I advised to ask for a dispensation in the future?

I can’t explain why the priest in confession would say that. However you should have prefaced your post with “A priest once told me…” Without that it came across as if you knew for a fact what the “rules” were in this regard. What you have is what someone told you and not actual knowledge of the “rules.” This is especially problematic since the OP was obviously in turmoil about their situation.

And you weren’t the only one. For some reason other people on here were claiming that attending a vigil mass does not fulfill the obligation when it most certainly does and the Church states as much in no uncertain terms.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Yes provided its an evening Mass.
Mass on Christmas Eve morning or afternoon would not fulfill the obligation.

Greeting thistle. It has been a while since our paths have crossed. I hope that all is well and would like to extend to you a Merry Christmas and joyous New Year fill with many blessings.

Getting back to the topic of this thread … our Parish has Christmas Eve masses starting at 4pm and the church bulletin says that it does fulfill our Christmas mass obligation.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Sir Knight,
Please allow me to explain something. If the situation is such that it is physically or morally impossible for one to attend Mass, the obligation is lifted. As I’ve said before, it’s not always easy to determine what is or is not “impossible.”

Dispensations from the obligation are given (by bishops, pastors, or other priests as applicable) when people are in a position where they might be able to get to Mass if they make some changes, but those changes would cause hardship. Some examples: cancel the vacation, quit the job, walk 10 miles to the nearest Mass, etc. It isn’t completely impossible (like a person in a nursing home who is bedridden, or an inmate in prison).

Sometimes situations stradle the line between these two. How much hardship is enough to define “physically or morally impossible”? If parishioners just aren’t sure whether or not it’s impossible, they can request a dispensation.

Oftentimes, it comes down to how we ask the question. “Do I have a good reason?” is usually not the right question. On the other hand “Is it impossible (within reason) for me to get to Mass?” is the better question.

Perhaps I should put it this way: if you say “I have a good reason to miss Mass” then that’s the time to request a dispensation. If you say “it’s impossible for me to get to Mass” then a dispensation isn’t needed.

The purpose of dispensations is to satisfy those questionable situations. Sometimes these are known ahead of time, like a planned vacation, and sometimes they’re not planned, like the recent snowstorms. Sometimes dispensations are given when they aren’t technically needed. Again, the snowstorm example. Many people in the affected dioceses found it completely impossible to get to Mass (especially the elderly), yet the bishops dispensed everyone. In other words, he didn’t say “anyone under 60 is dispensed, anyone over 60 doesn’t need a dispensation.” Doing it that way avoids the situation where the little-old-lady who drives herself to Mass doesn’t feel any guilt at having missed Mass, even though if she tried to get there, she might have harmed herself or someone else. She didn’t need a dispensation, but by dispensing the entire diocese, the bishop eased the consciences of everyone.

Is that explaining it a little better, or just more confusing?

Thank you Father. It does clear thing up a bit more. It still isn’t crystal clear …

*Dispensations from the obligation are given (by bishops, pastors, or other priests as applicable) when people are in a position where they might be able to get to Mass if they make some changes, but those changes would cause hardship. Some examples: cancel the vacation, quit the job, walk 10 miles to the nearest Mass, etc. It isn’t completely impossible (like a person in a nursing home who is bedridden, or an inmate in prison). *

• Sometimes situations stradle the line between these two. How much hardship is enough to define “physically or morally impossible”? If parishioners just aren’t sure whether or not it’s impossible, they can request a dispensation.*

… but it is clearer than it was before. Thank you. And, once again, I would like to extend my apologizes to you if I caused any offense. I meant no disrespect.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I can’t explain why the priest in confession would say that. However you should have prefaced your post with “A priest once told me…” Without that it came across as if you knew for a fact what the “rules” were in this regard. What you have is what someone told you and not actual knowledge of the “rules.” This is especially problematic since the OP was obviously in turmoil about their situation.

Yes, you are correct. I should have prefaced it. I drew a conclusion, perhaps an incorrect one, based on advise given to me from a priest. The priest did not give me the “rule” – just the advise from which I drew my conclusion.

Although, objectively speaking, it’s hard for me to draw any other conclusion from the advise offered but Father David’s comments do help make all of this less confusing.

 

[FrDavid96]

That said, Fr. David, do you have any Church documentation on this matter? I’m not saying that you are wrong but I am having trouble reconciling your position with the advise that I received in the confessional to obtain a dispensation in the future if I knew ahead of time that I could not attend mass. Why was I told to seek a dispensation if I could excuse myself from the obligation for just cause?

It appears we posted at the same time.

To go more directly to that question. It’s not a matter of saying that one may excuse himself–I think that’s the sticking-point here. One doesn’t “excuse himself” but instead makes an honest determination as to whether or not it is reasonably possible to get to Mass. That’s a subtle difference, but an important one.

In the situation you described (which belongs in the internal forum, but I’ll address it in a general way), the priest was explaining to you that it might be possible for you to get to Mass, and therefore you should request a dispensation ahead of time. But that doesn’t necessarily apply to everyone all the time. It only applied for your particular situation.

 

[teadough]

Is that explaining it a little better, or just more confusing?

actually, you summed it up quite well. Sometimes it boils down to “common sense”(even though the Church doesn’t like to use that term )

thanks, T

 

[marleelynn]

Right. Just to clarify, the Christmas Vigil Mass is of course a true vigil with different readings and propers. Uniquely, in fact, there are four Christmas Masses - Vigil, Midnight, Dawn, and Day, each with different propers (and each fulfilling the Christmas obligation).

A few other solemnities have true Vigils as well. Of course there’s the Easter Vigil which is completely unique. Pentecost, Nativity of St. John the Baptist, Sts. Peter & Paul, and Assumption all have vigils.

I would guess that the vigils that aren’t Holy Days of Obligation or Sundays don’t get used much.

I was going to say the same as the quoted post… the Vigil Mass, Midnight Mass, Mass at Dawn on Christmas, and Christmas Mass during the day each have separate Readings.

 

[teadough]

I can’t explain why the priest in confession would say that. However you should have prefaced your post with “A priest once told me…” Without that it came across as if you knew for a fact what the “rules” were in this regard. What you have is what someone told you and not actual knowledge of the “rules.” This is especially problematic since the OP was obviously in turmoil about their situation.

And you weren’t the only one. For some reason other people on here were claiming that attending a vigil mass does not fulfill the obligation when it most certainly does and the Church states as much in no uncertain terms.

BINGO!!! Glad someone understands what I was trying to prevail.

 

[teadough]

our Parish has Christmas Eve masses starting at 4pm and the church bulletin says that it does fulfill our Christmas mass obligation.

so, in your opinion, the Church bulletin has authority?

Zing!! I couldn’t resist! Im a joker and that one fell into my lap.

Peace Be with You!!!

 

[Sir_Knight]

It appears we posted at the same time.

To go more directly to that question. It’s not a matter of saying that one may excuse himself–I think that’s the sticking-point here. One doesn’t “excuse himself” but instead makes an honest determination as to whether or not it is reasonably possible to get to Mass. That’s a subtle difference, but an important one.

In the situation you described (which belongs in the internal forum, but I’ll address it in a general way), the priest was explaining to you that it might be possible for you to get to Mass, and therefore you should request a dispensation ahead of time. But that doesn’t necessarily apply to everyone all the time. It only applied for your particular situation.

But wouldn’t a priest not grant a dispensation if a person did not have a valid reason? And, if the reason is valid, then a dispensation isn’t needed anyway? This is getting confusing again.

Should I be running to my priest asking for dispensations from mass due to work reasons? I work Saturdays from 3-9pm (no opportunity for a vigil mass) and sometimes I am “asked” to work on Sundays. Those who are not “flexible” with their work schedule are normally the first ones to be let go when lay-offs occur. For this reason, I don’t like to say “no”.

This would appear to fall under your first example … Dispensations from the obligation are given (by bishops, pastors, or other priests as applicable) when people are in a position where they might be able to get to Mass if they make some changes, but those changes would cause hardship. Some examples: cancel the vacation, quit the job, walk 10 miles to the nearest Mass, etc.

 

[Sir_Knight]

so, in your opinion, the Church bulletin has authority?

The Monsignor who authors the church bulletin has authority – assuming he is not acting in contradiction to our bishop.