D
diggerdomer
Guest
japhy understood my post. See his message and my reply. If I can clarify further please let me know. Thanks.
- Status
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Perhaps I should have been more clear. I’m not asking you to explain Japhy’s posts. I’m asking you to explain your posts.
I have asked you to clarify it further (this is my second attempt), and I’m waiting patiently for you to do so.
Please explain how you reconcile your words:
To the words in the GIRM
254. Mass should not be celebrated without a minister or at least one of the faithful, except for a just and reasonable cause. In this case, the greetings, the introductory or explanatory remarks (monitiones), and the blessing at the end of Mass are omitted.
I don’t see it, so I’m asking you to point it out to me and anyone else who can’t see it.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Well, sorry for any confusion, but this seems totally redundant to the good point japhy made, and my response. He pointed out, correctly, the one exception to what I was saying. But if you missed that, here goes again.
So, what is a reasonable and just cause, in your experience, that would allow (routinely or otherwise) a priest to celebrate Mass without another minister present as required/suggested by the GIRM?
Thanks so much for your patience, sorry to try it so.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
The “point Japhy made” was that you were wrong.
You answered the OPs question without knowing the answer. You responded with what you thought should be the answer rather than what was the correct answer.
You weren’t so quick to answer my question, though. I’m still waiting. You can’t be “redundant” because you’ve never answered the question; not even once–you’ve just avoided the question by claiming to have answered it, and playing word games.
Your “one exception” is quite common.
Here are plenty of just causes:
Two priests at one parish. One says the public Mass, another says a private Mass.
The priest’s day off, and no Mass is scheduled in the bulletin.
The priest is on vacation. (example: he’s gone on a 4 day camping trip alone.)
The priest is travelling for some reason, and doesn’t know anyone who is available at the same time he is.
The priest gets a phone call that a relative/friend had died and walks to the Church to say a private Mass
The priest schedules a daily Mass, but no one shows up (happens a lot in small parishes)
The priest is ill and can’t celebrate a public Mass. Happens a lot in hospitals, nursing homes, and priest retirement homes.
The priest is retired, has no parish, and yet still says a private Mass every day.
The altar boy who was supposed to serve never shows up for some reason.
The priest is unable to attend a community Mass (like a priest retreat or a community Mass in a religious house), and says a private Mass at his own convenience.
The priest asks around, but no one is available to be there when he says Mass–happens a lot at places like chanceries and large parishes where there are already many Masses happening that day.
A priest who doesn’t speak the “local” language–like a Spanish speaking priest who is “in residence” at an English speaking parish but covers the Spanish Masses in another town on Sundays, and says a private Mass in Spanish on the weekdays.
A priest who wants to say a Mass for a deceased relative, and wants a little “privacy” at the moment.
Priests in a seminary, where all the seminarians are required to attend the community Mass, but the priests not celebrating that Mass each say a private Mass while the students are in class.
The priest doesn’t feel like attending the parish daily Mass because the other priest preaches too long. He says a private Mass instead, but avoids scandal by not telling anyone else.
If you need some more examples of a just cause, I’ll be happy to provide them from actual real-life experience, in contrast to merely guessing and getting it wrong.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Wow.
I don’t know what else to say.
Have you talked to your parish priest about your concerns?
J
japhy
Guest
No, I don’t personally have examples*, but I’m sure priests (such as Fr. David) do. I also don’t understand why “a just and reasonable cause” is necessarily a “seeming rare exception”. Why are just and reasonable causes, in your estimation, rare?
- Actually, an example that comes to mind is a priest celebrating a private Mass if he has a personal devotion to daily Mass and is unable to otherwise attend or celebrate one.
Z
zab
Guest
Do you have any examples of when a priest should not say Mass?
J
japhy
Guest
Is there ever a reason not to offer Holy Mass?
But I would imagine that a priest who has already celebrated a Mass with a congregation on a weekday should not then celebrate a “private” Mass without a congregation unless a serious and pressing need or intention arises.
Can. 905 §1 Apart from those cases in which the law allows him to celebrate or concelebrate the Eucharist a number of times on the same day, a priest may not celebrate more than once a day.
§2 If there is a scarcity of priests, the local Ordinary may for a good reason allow priests to celebrate twice in one day or even, if pastoral need requires it, three times on Sundays or holydays of obligation.
J
japhy
Guest
I wonder how many times a scheduled Mass is not celebrated for this very reason… because no one showed up. The priest was there, the saints and angels were there, God Himself was there… but the priest didn’t offer Mass. Most scheduled Masses have intentions that people have requested… it seems that their request – and almighty God – should be honored.
A
AJV
Guest
It isn’t actually a rare exception.
Under the former Code of Canon Law, it was a rare exception. The wording there forbade the priest to celebrate without someone to make the responses without a “grave cause”. The “grave cause” was defined in 1949 (I think- might be off on the date) to encompass 4 main cases. Apart from these, a Papal indult was required.
However, the current Code says a “just cause”. A “just cause” is, canonically, a somewhat liberal permission. For example, it allows the priest to celebrate Mass by himself only, solely out of personal devotion, which he could not do under the former Code.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Good question. I take it you mean a private Mass, right?
I think what it would come down to would be something like “if he does so for some wrong reason”
Some examples might be if a priest has people available to attend (who might even want to be there) but he actively avoids having a congregation. I can imagine something like this happening, but I’ve never seen it done this way. Failing to invite people is one thing, but actively avoiding a congregation is different.
I have seen some priests (on very very rare occasions) who have a private Mass for no reason other than to consecrate more Hosts for the tabernacle. I think this would be a “wrong reason” but only if done intentionally.
Another inappropriate time would be if he already had a public Mass that day, and the private Mass would be second or even third (or more in a large parish). If he has a good reason to say a second private Mass, I wouldn’t say it’s wrong; but it would have to be a compelling reason (like learning of the death of a relative for example). If a priest has already celebrated Mass at least once that day, there’s no legitimate reason for him to say another (the 2nd w/o a congregation) unless there’s some out of the ordinary circumstances.
Of course, we can always say that everything else would have to be appropriate. We can come up with all kinds of examples of inappropriate times or settings for Mass. One example that just pops into my head is a priest saying Mass in the car while someone else drives–I can come up with “silly” examples all day long, but that wouldn’t help the conversation.
Like I said at the start here, I think your question would best be answered with a simple “if he does so for some wrong reason.”
F
FrDavid96
Guest
It’s hard to say, because of course since the priest himself is the only person in the building, there’s no one else to keep count.
From both personal experience, and from what I know of other priests, if the Mass is scheduled but no one shows up, the priest will say the Mass. The sort of priest who would just walk away w/o offering Mass would be the sort who would look at the parish, realize that something like this might happen (small parish, scarce daily Mass crowd) and simply not schedule daily Masses in the first place. I know that for some readers here it is hard to imagine scheduled daily Masses but no one comes–the readers who live in Catholic areas or in big cities–but in small towns, especially places where Catholics are rare, this can happen quite frequently.
As for the Mass intention, if the priest does cancel the Mass, he still has an obligation to say that Mass, so it simply gets re-scheduled. The Mass intention will still be offered one way or another.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Canon 906 reads “Nisi iusta et rationabii de causa…” except for a just and reasonable/rational cause.
That’s interresting because of the addition “and reasonable” Usually we see simply “except for a just cause” which is the lowest standard in canon law. In the “heirarchy of standards” (to coin a phrase) in canon law, just cause is at the very bottom of the list.
Adding that “and reasonable” means that the bar has been raised somewhat from being the lowest standard to something which requires more justification. How much more is very subjective, but still it raises the standard.
Personal devotion would satisfy the “iusta causa” but there would have to be a little more to satisfy the “rationabii cuasa” In other words more than just “I like to do it this way” sort of reasoning.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Excellent and very informative analysis.
A
AJV
Guest
My apologies for being vague - by personal devotion, I meant the spirituality of the celebrant rooted in the practice of daily Mass, as opposed to an arbitary preference on the part of a celebrant to be alone in a room because the presence of people is too distracting, annoying, etc. I was referring to the 1949 circumstances, where in query to the Sacred Congregation, the personal devotion of a celebrant (in the sense I mentioned) was explicitly excluded as a sufficient reason. Certainly, if the celebrant had the option of celebrating with a server but refused it would not be licit.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
This can be difficult to define. Certainly, a priest who says Mass everyday because of personal devotion is a good thing. I think what we’re saying here is that the devotion part is the fact of saying Mass, and not the fact of being the only one there. To put it into other words, if the priest says to himself “my style of spirituality is to be alone at Mass” that would not be just and reasonable; however if he were to say “my spirituality is to say Mass everyday even if no one else happens to be there” would be a good reason.
The question here is how to determine someone’s motivation; that’s the part which is hard to define because practically speaking the end result is the same. Of course, we as third parties don’t determine someone’s motivation–I’m speaking in general terms here.
M
malphono
Guest
Perhaps this was already mentioned and I missed it, and if so I apologize, but it seems to me that the norms of the OF Missal do not differ substantially from those of the EF Missal with regard to “private” Masses.
In pre-conciliar days, while “private Mass” was common, it was normally (read: almost always) offered with one server. If an adult server was not available, I recall that altar boys would be assigned from the roster, and if it was during school hours, were excused from class for that period of time (about 45 minutes all told).
The strictures of the 1917 canon (and the 1949 dubium) would seem not to substantially conflict with the 1983 canon, except (as has already been pointed out) that the latter gives a bit more leeway. Perhaps one reason is because there are fewer servers (adult or otherwise) available now than there were in the “old” days? Anyway, it’s just a thought.
In pre-conciliar days, while “private Mass” was common, it was normally (read: almost always) offered with one server. If an adult server was not available, I recall that altar boys would be assigned from the roster, and if it was during school hours, were excused from class for that period of time (about 45 minutes all told).
The strictures of the 1917 canon (and the 1949 dubium) would seem not to substantially conflict with the 1983 canon, except (as has already been pointed out) that the latter gives a bit more leeway. Perhaps one reason is because there are fewer servers (adult or otherwise) available now than there were in the “old” days? Anyway, it’s just a thought.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I too recall reading some commentary not too long ago (maybe even right here on CAF?) that the 1983 code actually relaxed the standard for a private Masss. I’d also agree that it might be because of a lack of people available to be there to serve, or perhaps because the new order of Mass is a bit easier for the priest to say w/o one. We no longer have the prayers at the foot of the altar, for example, which is a dialogue. It might also be nothing more than a simple matter of editing the code without any further motivation–in other words, the powers that be just said “let’s phrase this differently this time” to better reflect the real-life experience of “private” Masses.
On the other hand, we’ve also seem some movement in the other direction. The original GIRM for the novus ordo used to have a section called “Mass without a Congregation” (literally Mass without people) but that title has been changed to “Mass at which only one minister participates” (or similar wording).
D
diggerdomer
Guest
If the canon says a “just cause” then yes, I would tend to agree with you, it can be interpreted broadly (whether liberal or conservative). As restrictions in canon law should be. I was just wondering what the actual frequency of such Masses were, and why. I know a LOT of priests, there are an abundance of Catholic parishes where I live (fortunately), and none of them celebrate Mass this way, so I’m curious as to others’ experience. Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
A good thing for whom, or what?
On one hand, certainly, any celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy is “good.” But if an individual priest is taking time out of his day to do this all by himself…given our current lamentable situation of the shortage of priests, closing of parishes, etc…I can’t help but wonder what the greater good is.
If it’s just about the priest and his personal spirituality, that is of course important. But liturgy is not a private thing to Catholics.
- Status