Saturday evening mass time

[FrDavid96]

Fr. David,

The reason you are finding yourself in disagreement with the canonists is that they are approaching the issue within a broader context with more careful distinctions. [cut to meet the 6000 limit]

I find myself in agreement with many canonists. It is, the “near universal response” as quoted by someone named Ed P. in-turn quoting John H. The idea that evening begins at noon is in the minority.

For instance, the 4pm terminus post quem for evening Masses is a helpful bit of legislation for determining when evening begins, but its original purpose is to govern Masses later than (and not before) the then-permissible timeframe for Mass on a liturgical day. In a separate distinction, the Catholic Eucharistic liturgy used (Latin, Maronite, Byzantine; votive or ritual Mass) is irrelevant for fulfilling my obligation, which demands only that I attend Mass - not Mass with the right readings, etc. So we needn’t concern ourselves with the proper time for First Vespers, and thus the beginning of the liturgical day, because our obligation is not to attend Mass on the liturgical day of Sunday/solemnity but at any time on the calendar day (midnight to midnight) or the evening preceding. This time period doesn’t always correspond exactly to the liturgical day; Saturday or Sunday evening may belong to a different solemnity, but I can still satisfy my Sunday obligation at those times beyond the bounds of liturgical Sunday.

It’s not merely a “helpful bit” but is instead precedent that goes back 70 years.

It need not correspond exactly to the liturgical day–although in an ideal world it would.

The above contradicts what the Legislator of the 1983 Code wrote.

See *Dies Domini *#49.

He specifically says that it is not the “anticipated” Mass
“nonnumquam «praefestivae» appellatae”
and further “dominici diei est” it is the Lord’s Day (a clause left out by the ICEL translator).

This is not some arbitrary decision made by the Church. It is not merely to expand the time for the Sunday obligation for the sake of expanding. It is based on the biblical understanding that the day begins at evening–which was in-fact the Christian understanding all the way to the 14th century. The argument that the Church is “merely expanding” the time is without merit because the same thing cannot happen on the other side of Sunday—meaning that the Church could not extend the obligation into Monday.

Which brings us to one of the strongest pieces of reasoning deployed by advocates of a 12 or 2pm start time for which Masses fulfill the obligation, namely, that permissions were not given simply to fulfill the obligation on Saturday evening, but to “anticipate” the Mass of the day in order to allow people more scope to fulfill their obligation (with a specific eye, in the original experimental permission, toward travelers going out of town for the weekend).

There is no strong piece of reasoning for advocating that evening begins at Noon.

The canon says “evening” therefore the canon means evening. Noon is not evening. No amount of sophistry can make evening begin at Noon. Vespere and Meridiem are two different times of day. Nothing changes that simple fact. Ignoring it does not make it go away. The canon does not read “post meridiem.”

What you wrote above is basically saying that the reason for allowing the Sunday obligation to be fulfilled justifies changing the plain meaning of the word used in the canon.

I cannot see the logic of that.

If the Legislator had meant for the canon to be read as “post meridiem” then he would have used that phrase in the canon itself. I have yet to read a single person who can provide a response to this.

Now consider that if evening Masses are allowed everyday (which, by this point, a bishop had been able to allow for over a decade), and Sunday begins at First Vespers Saturday evening, then no added permission would have been required to celebrate the Mass of Sunday beginning at 4pm. But a favor was indeed granted to allow priests to say Mass of Sunday *before *the proper liturgical time, a Mass that fulfilled the Sunday obligation. This favor - at least as regards the fulfillment of the obligation - was in this reading later made permanent and universal through incorporation into the CIC 1983, and ought to be read in its originally extensive sense.

The fact that what was once done by indult is now done by legislation indicates nothing to justify expanding the time from evening to Noon. It merely makes the indult universal. If anything, that means that we should continue to interpret the current law through the same lens which was used to interpret the indult. Nothing justifies expanding the timeframe----at least not until some future Supreme Legislator does indeed amend the canon and replaces “vespere” with “post meridiem.”

For my own part, while I am not sure the argument is wholly persuasive it is at the very least plausible, for the crux of the matter is not what the term “vespere” means but instead what the supreme legislator intended to do in modifying the timeframe for fulfilling the obligation (to wit, to give more space for this than previously allowed).

For my own part, I am absolutely convinced that the argument is not at all plausible.

“Vespere begins at meridiem” simply makes no sense.

The crux of the matter is precisely the meaning of the word “vespere” because that is the word used in the canon. How can anyone say otherwise? What about canon 17?

Again, if we want to know what the Legislator intended, read his writing. Read Dies Domini #49 Show me where he says that the time for fulfilling the Sunday obligation begins at noon. Because as I read it, he repeatedly says the time of Vespere.

 

[FrDavid96]

…

For my own part, while I am not sure the argument is wholly persuasive it is at the very least plausible, for the crux of the matter is not what the term “vespere” means but instead what the supreme legislator intended to do in modifying the timeframe for fulfilling the obligation (to wit, to give more space for this than previously allowed).

This, to me, is the real crux of the matter.

The first problem is in saying that it is not the meaning of “vespere.” That is, when it’s all said and done, the very word used in the canon. It is the one-and-only criteria articulated in the canon. It must be “vespere” (at least with regard to Saturday).

The second problem is in speaking of the “intent” of the Legislator. Fair enough. The intent of the Legislator carries quite a bit of weight. So what justifies changing the word “vespere” into “post meridiem” ???

What possible reason is there for the claim that JP2 intended to say “post-meridiem” but what was actually written into the canon was “vespere”?

Other than the possibility that this was a glaring error by some copyist, one which was never caught, what justifies the change?

When did he say he intended to “modify the timeframe” ?? As far as I can tell, he merely wanted to take something that was an indult and make it into universal law. What justification is there for saying that he intended to modify the timeframe?

 

[ccmcmg]

The latest Jimmy Akin blog post I could find basically says that the time at which “evening” starts with regards to liturgical observance has not been defined by Rome.

jimmyakin.org/2004/03/the_liturgical_.html

As nearly as I can tell, “evening” starts no earlier than noon, but other than that it starts when the bishop of your diocese says it starts. In the US, this is usually deemed to be 4 pm, but I have heard of exceptions being granted in cases of liturgical necessity: for instance, in order to offer enough Masses for the faithful to fulfill their obligations without requiring priests to offer an excessive number of Masses in a single calendar day. (I cannot cite a source, but I believe that number to be ideally no more than twice, and not more than three times except in a truly extreme case.)

Which is perhaps why the nearby Cathedral has their first Mass at 2:30 PM on Saturday.

I find it interesting that those arguing against the earlier Mass times have yet to address this fact of the nearby diocese who does this. It’s almost like people don’t want to address the fact of this matter, and would rather argue it to the death.

 

[FrDavid96]

Which is perhaps why the nearby Cathedral has their first Mass at 2:30 PM on Saturday.

I find it interesting that those arguing against the earlier Mass times have yet to address this fact of the nearby diocese who does this. It’s almost like people don’t want to address the fact of this matter, and would rather argue it to the death.

That’s exactly like arguing that the nearby highway does not have a speed limit of 55 MPH (when the law says it is 55) because of the fact that one driver is going 70.

I’m not going to address what happens at a particular Cathedral. I don’t think this is the proper place for such a discussion.

What I am addressing is your method of reasoning. Throwing out the word “fact” does not make something either correct or incorrect.

 

[ccmcmg]

That’s exactly like arguing that the nearby highway does not have a speed limit of 55 MPH (when the law says it is 55) because of the fact that one driver is going 70.

I’m not going to address what happens at a particular Cathedral. I don’t think this is the proper place for such a discussion.

What I am addressing is your method of reasoning. Throwing out the word “fact” does not make something either correct or incorrect.

So, you are saying what the diocese is doing is incorrect?

 

[FrDavid96]

So, you are saying what the diocese is doing is incorrect?

I am saying your method of reasoning is incorrect.

 

[ccmcmg]

The Saturday evening mass fullfils the Sunday obligation. What time would count as “evening”? If the Saturday mass started at 2:00pm or 3:00pm, does it fullfil the Sunday obligation?

This was the initial question to this post. How does that make my reasoning incorrect? We have a number of people on this thread saying it cannot start before 4:00 PM. I show proof that the Cathedral starts at 2:30 PM, and even notes that it meets the obligation according to their bulletin. If people are saying that it cannot start before 4:00 PM, then they are saying it is wrong if it does. A + B = C I’m going to have to go with the Church as a whole here, who does not stop it. If this were the egregious error that some have acted like it is, I doubt that it would be allowed, let alone encouraged.

 

[FrDavid96]

This was the initial question to this post. How does that make my reasoning incorrect? We have a number of people on this thread saying it cannot start before 4:00 PM. I show proof that the Cathedral starts at 2:30 PM, and even notes that it meets the obligation according to their bulletin. If people are saying that it cannot start before 4:00 PM, then they are saying it is wrong if it does. A + B = C I’m going to have to go with the Church as a whole here, who does not stop it. If this were the egregious error that some have acted like it is, I doubt that it would be allowed, let alone encouraged.

Your reasoning is “it says so in the bulletin.”

That does not change what the Code of Canon Law says.

Can. 1248 §1. A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass. vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4N.HTM

According to the canon, in order for the Mass on Saturday to fulfill the Sunday obligation, the Mass must be “in the evening.” Therefore, a Mass that is not “in the evening” does not meet the obligation.

What others are trying to argue is that a Mass does not have to be “in the evening” in order to meet the obligation as defined by the canon. I dispute that.

 

[EasterJoy]

Which is perhaps why the nearby Cathedral has their first Mass at 2:30 PM on Saturday.

I find it interesting that those arguing against the earlier Mass times have yet to address this fact of the nearby diocese who does this. It’s almost like people don’t want to address the fact of this matter, and would rather argue it to the death.

I have heard of places in which an insufficient amount of church space has lead to very early Saturday vigil Masses. If you have a huge influx of Catholics and don’t have new parishes erected to meet the demand, what are you going to do? It is better to have the vigil Masses start earlier than you would like than to have your priests doing too many Masses each on every Sunday. This is especially true when the influx is intermittent, such that starting new parishes is not a realistic option.

For instance, there are places in Spain that I have heard have such an enormous influx of pilgrims during Holy Week that they repeat Triduum liturgies in the same church on the same day. This is something ideally avoided altogether, but what is the alternative? When the number of people you have coming exceeds the capacity of the cities churches by many times over, what choice does that leave you? You can bring more priests in, but the pilgrims will be coming to the churches, not to tents you put up. The bishops do what they can. That doesn’t mean that some other bishop some other place who doesn’t have a problem remotely like this would be able to say, “oh, they do this in Spain, we can do this…”

 

[EasterJoy]

Your reasoning is “it says so in the bulletin.”

That does not change what the Code of Canon Law says.

Can. 1248 §1. A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass. vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4N.HTM

According to the canon, in order for the Mass on Saturday to fulfill the Sunday obligation, the Mass must be “in the evening.” Therefore, a Mass that is not “in the evening” does not meet the obligation.

What others are trying to argue is that a Mass does not have to be “in the evening” in order to meet the obligation as defined by the canon. I dispute that.

Where has Rome defined what the word “evening” means, though? You can’t use the sun as your guide, because there are places in Christendom where the sun doesn’t come above the horizon for the same hours in a day typical of more equatorial regions. Your liturgical schedule would be all over the map as the year turned. Once you have turned yourself loose from defining evening by the time of the sunset, though, life really gets arbitrary! What do you have then? Some hours past the time when the sun hits its highest point that day? How do you decide that?

It seems very much like a question that has different answers in different situations. Yes, though–to the extent that it is possible, a more common-sense definition of evening that accords with what locals mean when they say “evening” seems the ideal. It is worth defending the ideal even when the ideal cannot be followed everywhere and every time.

 

[ccmcmg]

From the Ask an Apologist forum:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=961847

Canon Law is not infallible because it’s not teaching about faith and morals. Canon Law is the structure of the administration of the Church and sacraments. Canon Law is the prudential judgment of the Church.

 

[Vico]

Thank you. So that gives us the meaning of “evening” in our context.

Also, the intention of the 1983 canon law was to not make the time precise, per the Exegetical Commentary of 2004.

dans6022 wrote in 2010:
“the “Exegetical Commentary” (a Spanish production) also adopts the idea that “evening” begins at noon. It doesn’t cite anything authoritative to support this except a comment made by those who wrote the canon that the wording is “intentionally ‘general in order to avoid casuist situations and anxieties.’” The citation is to Communicationes 15, pp. 251-253.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=492772

 

[FrDavid96]

Where has Rome defined what the word “evening” means, though? You can’t use the sun as your guide, because there are places in Christendom where the sun doesn’t come above the horizon for the same hours in a day typical of more equatorial regions. Your liturgical schedule would be all over the map as the year turned. Once you have turned yourself loose from defining evening by the time of the sunset, though, life really gets arbitrary! What do you have then? Some hours past the time when the sun hits its highest point that day? How do you decide that?

It seems very much like a question that has different answers in different situations. Yes, though–to the extent that it is possible, a more common-sense definition of evening that accords with what locals mean when they say “evening” seems the ideal. It is worth defending the ideal even when the ideal cannot be followed everywhere and every time.

It has been defined as 4 PM since World War II.

That is exactly why canonists take the position of 4 PM. It wasn’t something just pulled out of thin air. We have 70 years of precedent.

 

[FrDavid96]

I have heard of places in which an insufficient amount of church space has lead to very early Saturday vigil Masses. If you have a huge influx of Catholics and don’t have new parishes erected to meet the demand, what are you going to do? It is better to have the vigil Masses start earlier than you would like than to have your priests doing too many Masses each on every Sunday. This is especially true when the influx is intermittent, such that starting new parishes is not a realistic option.

For instance, there are places in Spain that I have heard have such an enormous influx of pilgrims during Holy Week that they repeat Triduum liturgies in the same church on the same day. This is something ideally avoided altogether, but what is the alternative? When the number of people you have coming exceeds the capacity of the cities churches by many times over, what choice does that leave you? You can bring more priests in, but the pilgrims will be coming to the churches, not to tents you put up. The bishops do what they can. That doesn’t mean that some other bishop some other place who doesn’t have a problem remotely like this would be able to say, “oh, they do this in Spain, we can do this…”

OK. Once again, it’s necessary to actually look at what canon law says:

Can. 1248 §1. A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.

The canon does not say that the obligation is fulfilled depending on the seating capacity of the building, or depending on how many Masses any priest is saying on Sunday.

The criteria in the canon is that the Mass must be in the evening of Saturday (or on Sunday, of course)

The canon says “evening.”

 

[FrDavid96]

Also, the intention of the 1983 canon law was to not make the time precise, per the Exegetical Commentary of 2004.

dans6022 wrote in 2010:
“the “Exegetical Commentary” (a Spanish production) also adopts the idea that “evening” begins at noon. It doesn’t cite anything authoritative to support this except a comment made by those who wrote the canon that the wording is “intentionally ‘general in order to avoid casuist situations and anxieties.’” The citation is to Communicationes 15, pp. 251-253.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=492772

Once again, nothing that has been posted here changes what the canon says. In order to fulfill the criteria defined in the canon, the Mass must be in the evening.

Commentaries cannot change what the canons say.

 

[Vico]

Once again, nothing that has been posted here changes what the canon says. In order to fulfill the criteria defined in the canon, the Mass must be in the evening.

Commentaries cannot change what the canons say.

No, they do not change what the canons say, and the canons do not give a fixed hour. We know that evening occurs at a different hour in different timezones and latitudes.

 

[ProVobis]

Where has Rome defined what the word “evening” means, though? You can’t use the sun as your guide, because there are places in Christendom where the sun doesn’t come above the horizon for the same hours in a day typical of more equatorial regions. Your liturgical schedule would be all over the map as the year turned. Once you have turned yourself loose from defining evening by the time of the sunset, though, life really gets arbitrary! What do you have then? Some hours past the time when the sun hits its highest point that day? How do you decide that?

It seems very much like a question that has different answers in different situations. Yes, though–to the extent that it is possible, a more common-sense definition of evening that accords with what locals mean when they say “evening” seems the ideal. It is worth defending the ideal even when the ideal cannot be followed everywhere and every time.

.

Evening is an English term without the same meaning for all Anglophones. Not only that English is not the official language of Rome. It is posted on the Vatican site for convenience, however, nothing more. It is somewhat unfair to ask Rome to define English terms for each English speaking country.

You could ask them to define vespere, though.

 

[Phemie]

No, they do not change what the canons say, and the canons do not give a fixed hour. We know that evening occurs at a different hour in different timezones and latitudes.

The time of 4 p.m. when an “Evening Mass” can start was defined back in 1953 by Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution “Christus Dominus.” No document since has changed that and, in fact, every document since that refers to 4 p.m. references that same Apostolic Constitution. Why are people twisting themselves into pretzels to justify an earlier time?
With Reference to Evening Masses
(Constitution, Rule VI)
By the force of the Constitution the Ordinaries of places[27] have the faculty of permitting the saying of evening Masses in their own territory, should circumstances render this necessary. This holds true despite the command of canon 821, # 1. The common good sometimes demands the saying of Mass after midday: For example, for the workers in some industries who work their shifts even on feast days, for those categories of workers who must be on the job during the morning hours of feast days, like dock workers, and likewise for those who have come in great numbers and from considerable distances for some religious or social celebration, etc.

1. Such Masses, however, may not be said before four o’clock in the afternoon,

 

[Phemie]

This was the initial question to this post. How does that make my reasoning incorrect? We have a number of people on this thread saying it cannot start before 4:00 PM. I show proof that the Cathedral starts at 2:30 PM, and even notes that it meets the obligation according to their bulletin. If people are saying that it cannot start before 4:00 PM, then they are saying it is wrong if it does. A + B = C I’m going to have to go with the Church as a whole here, who does not stop it. If this were the egregious error that some have acted like it is, I doubt that it would be allowed, let alone encouraged.

How many Saturday “evening” Masses are celebrated at that Cathedral?

For the record, it wouldn’t be the first time that a priest or Bishop has made a blatantly wrong decision. One of our Archbishops once gave Communion to our Evangelical Protestant Prime Minister, knowing full well who he was. This was not a case of a the PM presenting himself in the Communion line when he shouldn’t have but of the Archbishop going down to the pew and giving him Communion at a state funeral.

 

[FrDavid96]

No, they do not change what the canons say, and the canons do not give a fixed hour. We know that evening occurs at a different hour in different timezones and latitudes.

Well then, if the canon does not give a fixed hour, then why should anyone believe that Noon is the fixed hour?

Noon is not evening. Vespere is not meridiem. The simple fact is that they are 2 entirely different times of day.

The criteria is still evening.

Can. 17 Ecclesiastical laws must be understood in accord with the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places, if there are such, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.

Since the legislation defining an evening Mass has consistently used 4:00 PM as the earliest time, and no legislation has ever contradicted this, there is no reason to think that anything has changed.