Ordination Mass on Saturday in regards to Sunday Obligation

[Don_Ruggero]

When I go to First Saturday Masses, we are always reminded that the morning Mass does not meet Sunday obligation at all.

While one can legitimately dispute and debate when evening begins and what is meant by “evening” among various languages and cultures, I don’t know of any thesis that would advance that “morning” can in any way be understood as “evening.”

 

[FrDavid96]

While one can legitimately dispute and debate when evening begins and what is meant by “evening” among various languages and cultures, I don’t know of any thesis that would advance that “morning” can in any way be understood as “evening.”

Yes, that’t true. But it makes no difference how other cultures define “evening.”

What matters is what the Latin word “vespere” (evening) means in Latin, and in the context of canon law.* Vernacular translations of the code are not authoritative. They’re merely useful guides. They are extremely useful, but still lack any authority.

The fact that in some languages, it’s either difficult or impossible to distinguish between evening and afternoon using a single word (rather than something like “after such-and-such an hour of the clock”) does not mean that the the nearest-equivalent word in that vernacular can be used as a complete replacement for the precept defined in the canon.

In Latin, just as in English, evening and noon are entirely different times of day.

I simply cannot accept the notion that the canon says one thing (vespere) but actually intends to say something entirely different (post meridien). If the intent of the canon were truly to be “anytime after noon” then the canon would have been written that way. Plainly, it was not.

This is the near universal interpretation of canonists. Evening means evening. Vespere means vespere.

---

*I mention this for the sake of other readers here who might be familiar with the Latin word, or the way that canons are interpreted.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Yes, that’t true. But it makes no difference how other cultures define “evening.”

What matters is what the Latin word “vespere” (evening) means in Latin, and in the context of canon law.* Vernacular translations of the code are not authoritative. They’re merely useful guides. They are extremely useful, but still lack any authority.

The fact that in some languages, it’s either difficult or impossible to distinguish between evening and afternoon using a single word (rather than something like “after such-and-such an hour of the clock”) does not mean that the the nearest-equivalent word in that vernacular can be used as a complete replacement for the precept defined in the canon.

In Latin, just as in English, evening and noon are entirely different times of day.

I simply cannot accept the notion that the canon says one thing (vespere) but actually intends to say something entirely different (post meridien). If the intent of the canon were truly to be “anytime after noon” then the canon would have been written that way. Plainly, it was not.

This is the near universal interpretation of canonists. Evening means evening. Vespere means vespere.

---

*I mention this for the sake of other readers here who might be familiar with the Latin word, or the way that canons are interpreted.

Father:

By God’s good grace, this is not a decision I have to make. Personally, I implement what has been decided by the bishop – and, I assure you, I have done so without the slightest qualm of conscience. If there is an issue, then it is for the Holy See to resolve and not for me to second guess

Should I have had occasion to visit either the cathedral of Las Vegas or of Kansas City and be invited to preside or concelebrate their 2.30 anticipatory Mass or in Cincinnati at 3.00, I would have done so without the least concern

I am happy to quote here, in full, the position advanced by the American canonist who
sums the case well, from my perspective:

A question on Mass-start times that warrants attention
December 8, 2014

Recalling, in the wake of some recent discussions of Mass obligations, that I had promised some time ago to set out some materials for use in reasoning through another Mass attendance question, I offer some of that now.

This question concerns, What is the earliest a Mass on the ‘evening of the preceding day’ (c. 1248 § 1) can start and still satisfy one’s Sunday or holy day Mass attendance obligation? This question is not another aspect of the ‘two-for-one’ Mass idea or what texts and readings need to be used for Mass to satisfy an attendance obligation. It is simply, What is the earliest Mass may start on the day previous to an attendance-obligation day and still count toward one’s obligation for that next day?

Now, it is very common, at least in English-speaking North America, to answer that question with “Four PM”, meaning that, only a Mass beginning after 4 PM on the day preceding that for which one is obligated to attend satisfies one’s Mass attendance obligation. The reason for this near ‘universal’ response is “Dr. John Huels says so.” And indeed he does: “‘Evening’ should be understood as anytime from 4:00 pm onward. The legislator uses the word ‘evening’ (vesper) not ‘afternoon’ (post meridiem); in keeping with the proper meaning of the word (cf. c. 17) an afternoon Mass before 4:00 pm is not an evening Mass and does not satisfy the [attendance] obligation.” CLSA New Comm (2001) 1445.

When Huels talks liturgy, people listen. And they should. But what qualifies as a ‘universal’ response in canon law goes considerably beyond what English-speaking North America might hold (even if it is held for very good reasons). Consider these overseas canonical commentaries, three of which hold for a noon start-time and one of which holds for a 2:00 pm start time (my emphasis in each).

From Spain: [A]s far as the [understanding of the previous] day is concerned [c. 1248 § 1] expands the schedule to twelve on the eve of the feast day.” Exegetical Comm III/2 (2004): 1901.

From Great Britain and Ireland: What is the ‘evening of the previous day’? Despite the view of some commentators that this [phrase] should be interpreted beginning only at 1400 hours (2 pm) on that day, it is the firm view of this commentary that the evening of the previous day begins at midday (12 noon) on that day itself. GB&I Comm (1985) 702.

From Spain: En cuanto a la expressión ‘el día anterior por la tarde’, oficialmente se aclaró: ‘Expresamente se utiliza una fórmula general para evitar casuismos y ansiedades. Con todo certeza se cumple el precepto mediante la participación en cualquier Misa del sábado por la tarde’. Código edición comentada (1985) 594.

From Italy: La celebrazione, però, della domenica e delle solennità inizia dai vespri del giorno precedente … ossia, secondo una fondata interpretazione, ab hora secunda post meridiem. Chiappetta II (2011): 522.

evening would be properly used in Italy."]

Plainly, these scholarly authorities hold for a start-time much earlier than is argued for by Huels. But, even if these overseas authors are not correct (and Huels has some good arguments besides Canon 17 on his side, though, frankly, so do the others), they constitute, I think, a large enough school of thought to allow for doubt of law considerations to enter this discussion in support of Catholics who hold any Mass attended beginning at 12:00 noon of the day previous as satisfying their next-day attendance obligation.

Bottom line, this very practical question /…/ needs to be investigated more fully, and settled authoritatively.

canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/12/08/a-question-on-mass-start-times-that-warrants-attention/

 

[FrDavid96]

Father:

By God’s good grace, this is not a decision I have to make. Personally, I implement what has been decided by the bishop – and, I assure you, I have done so without the slightest qualm of conscience. If there is an issue, then it is for the Holy See to resolve and not for me to second guess
…

I understand what you’re saying, and I think that the above paragraph is truly the salient issue–if the ordinary interprets the canon for his diocese, that’s his decision.

My participation here is for the sake of discussion, not (by any means) to address a particular bishop’s interpretation nor how he implements the canons in his own diocese.

I do take issue with the application of the canon that claims “evening begins at noon.”

I have yet to see a single, reasonable and logical explanation for why someone should believe that “evening begins at noon.” Most of all, the profoundly simple logic of Dr. H—* that reminds us that evening is evening and noon is noon; as well as the quite obvious logic that if the legislator actually intended to say noon rather than evening, then (as we say in America “well, duhhh…”) he would have used that word in the canon, rather than a word that (clearly in Latin) refers to an entirely different time of day.

The position of “evening begins at noon because the commentary says so” just is not sufficient in my eyes. I have yet to see anything which I find remotely convincing.

I just cannot see how the reasoning behind “evening begins at noon” would be any different from someone who would claim that “Thursday means Tuesday” or “July means March” or “thirty means twenty” or even “a cat is a frog.”

I do understand that in some vernaculars, there is no equivalent of “evening” but rather words that combine evening and afternoon together. That’s fine. I accept it. However, that should not lead us to a conclusion that alters the meaning of the canon. After all, as we both know (and I mention for the sake of those who might not), the canons are not to be interpreted in the vernacular (other than as a matter of convenience when speaking or writing). Only the Latin original is authoritative.

After all, under the 1917 Code, Masses had to be in the morning. I rather doubt that anyone tried to make the argument that just because an Italian might say “good morning” at 4 PM, that meant that a 4 PM Mass was a morning Mass. Why should that reasoning be applied to “evening?”

The issues that I have are these:

1. The canons are not to be interpreted (authoritatively) in the vernaculars. Surely we can make good use of the translations for practical purposes, however the vernaculars do not have any authority, plain and simple.
2. The canon certainly says “vespere” which is an entirely different time-of-day from “post meridien.” Even if we cannot define “vespere” in a precise way (since we no longer tell time by the sun itself) there is still no reasonable way of claiming that those two different times-of-day are the same.

(Aside: yes, we could, in theory, use sunset as the standard, but saving the Easter Vigil Mass, I think there’s universal consensus against doing so).

1. There is ample precedent for saying that evening begins at 4 PM. This is the weakest point, I admit, but sill only weak in comparison. The precedent is certainly there, but it is not iron-clad. Even if we were to set aside 4 PM as a hard-and-fast interpretation (which I am quite willing to do), that still does not mean that evening begins at noon.
2. Commentaries are just that. They have no authority, other than quoting the law itself.
   I take issue with comments I read here on CAF that imply that because the commentary for one region or another claims that evening begins at noon, then one should conclude that the the law is different for different countries. There are universal laws and there are particular laws. Many posters confuse this by thinking that a commentary constitutes particular law for that territory. That’s what happens when people who do not understand the law, nor understand how the law works, attempt to make comments. It is especially problematic when posters employ the method of doing internet searches and then merely cut-and-paste a sentence or two from some webpage without any comprehension of ecclesiastical laws or how they are interpreted and applied (we see quite a bit of that on CAF).

**The entire position (argument in the debate sense of the word) for claiming that “evening begins at noon” rests almost entirely on using the vernacular translation of the canon while (quite frankly) nearly ignoring the authoritative Latin text and the “proper meaning of the words” (canon 17).

If someone can show me otherwise, I would like to see it. I would very much like to see it. **

I put that last paragraph in bold not to “shout” but for brevity. I’ve been coming-and-going from this post for a few hours now as I do other things, and that can cause me to ramble on. If anyone can address that paragraph (in a logical and civil manner), I would welcome any responses. Yet I also ask anyone responding to please refrain from a simple “because so-and-so says so.” Unless it’s an authoritative interpretation, that position will carry absolutely no weight with me—it’s been tried before.

Again, I welcome any reasonable comments.

---

• It’s my practice not to use proper names of people who aren’t participating, in a context such as this.