Saturday evening mass time

[Vico]

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.

Evening is nowhere defined as a particular hour of the day, and we know that evening is before 4PM in some areas in December.

No limit remained for evening times when the instruction was given stating that times are determined by the local ordinary – Eucharisticum Mysterium (May 25, 1967):
28. Anticipating the Sunday and Feast Day Masses on the Previous Evening
…
All concessions and contrary customs notwithstanding, when celebrated on Saturday this Mass may be celebrated only in the evening, at times determined by the local Ordinary.

 

[FrDavid96]

Evening is nowhere defined as a particular hour of the day, and we know that evening is before 4PM in some areas in December.

No limit remained for evening times when the instruction was given stating that times are determined by the local ordinary – Eucharisticum Mysterium (May 25, 1967):
28. Anticipating the Sunday and Feast Day Masses on the Previous Evening
…
All concessions and contrary customs notwithstanding, when celebrated on Saturday this Mass may be celebrated only in the evening, at times determined by the local Ordinary.

“Only in the evening.” Not in the early afternoon. Not anytime after Noon. Not in the morning. Only in the evening.

Not “anytime the bishop determines” either. It’s up to the bishop to determine, but with the express condition that the Mass must still be only in the evening.

Which brings us right back to how the Church has defined “only in the evening” as no earlier than 4:00 PM for the last 70 years—that is, whenever an actual time has indeed been given.

 

[FrDavid96]

Evening is nowhere defined as a particular hour of the day,…

See the quote by Phemie a few posts ago from Christus Dominus 1953. An evening Mass can begin no earlier than 4 PM.

Thus, we have more than 60 years of precedent defining the earliest time for a Mass to satisfy the requirement of “evening” as 4 PM.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

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). …]

To be clearer, the point is not to pull out Lewis and Short and see what “vespere” means in classical or ecclesiastical Latin, divorced from the context of the canon. If the intention of the legislator in using “vespere” was to merely indicate a vague, intentionally unspecified time after midday (and not all “before-4pm-ers” argue for noon; there is at least one other main school saying 2pm), then that the mind of the legislator would indeed determine that, whatever vespere does mean there, it is not going to be determined by figuring out when a Roman centurion believed “evening” to begin. Now, while popes rarely give canonical commentary, the people who wrote the CIC for John Paul II *did * answer the question of their intended meaning - when asked for a clarification from people trying to resolve the issue before us - and it is that intended meaning you dismissed above as mere commentary: “Consulto formula generalis adhibetur ut casuistica et anxietates vitentur.” (Communicationes 15 [1983] 251-252). A “general” (i.e., unspecified) formula is used “intentionally” (consulto). They are not John Paul, whose law it actually is, but they certainly express faithfully the grammatical intention of vespere in the canon. When John Paul refers in Dies Domini to fulfilling the obligation in the “evening,” it should be safe to say that he means by that evening “the time period during which the canons I myself promulgated allow for the fulfillment of the obligation;” but that is a time period that was deliberately NOT specified to begin at 4pm.

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?

The canon allowing fulfillment of the precept on either Sunday OR Saturday modifies the timeframe for fulfillment in two ways. First, it takes what was previously the result of (near-universal?-but-nonetheless-local) indults and made those universal law. So whereas this timeframe used to be, technically, against the canons but allowed as a special favor, the canonical time period itself was modified such that the period covered by the indults now falls within the normative time. Second, it extends the time for fulfilling the precept beyond the course of a single day. It is beyond the course of an ancient Mediterranean day because those run from evening to evening, meaning that logic would exclude Sunday evening Masses (which would belong to Monday). It is beyond the course of a canonical day, which runs from midnight to midnight unless expressly indicated. This expansion beyond the 24-hour period of Sunday (and, indeed, before the 1950s we’re actually talking about more of an 8-hour period when Mass could be said, from roughly 5am-1pm) was enshrined in canon law for the purpose of enabling easier fulfillment of the precept. If a favor is granted, it ought to be interpreted broadly, and though by making this the law itself the indults ceased to be favors, the principle would still seem to hold, especially since the drafters’ intention was non-restrictive.

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.

The Korean War, but who’s counting? Call it more than a tidbit, fine, but this precedent is not finally dispositive. It is readily acknowledged by those who argue for an earlier time, but those individuals then go on to say that the 4pm start time that was firmly set for the first decade or so (1953-1966) was relaxed by the indults granted to Spain and Germany in '66, indults conceded “juxta preces” whose internal logic, it is argued, allows for times earlier than 4:00. And even if one were to reject that reasoning, the next backstop on your decades of precedent would be 1983, when the new CIC deliberately chose (at least according to the men who wrote it) NOT to fix the beginning of evening at 4pm. That makes for 30 years during which “vespere” meant “after 4pm” and now slightly more than 30 years during which it meant “during an evening period whose precise beginning is not set exactly by the law - and thus open to prudential application.”

Again, at the end of the day, I think the proponents of an early start have a heavy burden of proof to justify departing from the original 4pm standard. But I make a point of opposing their arguments to yours because these are not tin-hat loonies. They are respected canonists who are not marginalized within the guild for their views. So rather than throw a tizzy about how they must obviously be idiots who never noticed the word “vespere”, we ought to try to understanding their canonical reasoning.

 

[FrDavid96]

Yet I see a difference between “intentionally vague” on the one hand and then on the other hand expanding the use of evening to begin at an entirely different time of day (namely Noon).

Apparently, I misunderstood what you wrote earlier about “expanding the time.” It seemed to me that you meant expanding the time from 4 PM to an earlier time of Noon.
You meant expanding the entire time for the Sunday obligation, from being just Sunday itself. Fair enough.

That also brings me to the question that I often pose here on CAF rhetorically:
If St John Paul II actually intended for the canon to be interpreted as “anytime after noon” then why did he not simply use those words in the canon?

It seems pretty obvious to me that if he truly intended to say what some people claim he intended to say (and they do say “anytime after Noon”) then he would have just said it.

Admittedly, I was using the longest time period possible. I understand that certain permissions were given during WW II, so my human nature went with the earliest possible time period. Not necessarily the document with the strongest authority.

I do think it’s a stretch to say that just because the canon was left intentionally vague, that means that the application can be expanded beyond the plain meaning of the words given the text and context.

Intentionally vague use of “evening” does not, at least not in my book, justify expanding the time-period beyond evening and into anytime after Noon.

Simply because they choose not to say “4 PM” (or 7 PM or 1 PM or 8 AM, whatever) is still insufficient, in my book, to justify expanding it to earlier than the existing precedent–by itself it doesn’t convince me. I do not see that one necessarily follows from the other. Much less does it justify expanding the time to being earlier than evening and beginning at an entirely different time of day, namely Noon.

It still comes down to the simple “Noon is not evening.”

I have tried to understand the reasoning. Quite frankly, it doesn’t convince me.

The 4 PM start time has been described as “near universal.” This isn’t something I’m simply pulling out of thin air. As far as I can tell, most canonists do agree with the 4 PM time and disagree with the earlier time(s).

I’ll say again what I’ve been saying all along:

I have yet to hear or read anything that actually convinces me that “evening” can begin at Noon. I see the claim made over and over again, yet I see nothing convincing.

 

[ProVobis]

What about the argument that where that where vespers has been accepted as 4pm, it remains so by custom? Just asking.

 

[Vico]

“Only in the evening.” Not in the early afternoon. Not anytime after Noon. Not in the morning. Only in the evening.

Not “anytime the bishop determines” either. It’s up to the bishop to determine, but with the express condition that the Mass must still be only in the evening.

Which brings us right back to how the Church has defined “only in the evening” as no earlier than 4:00 PM for the last 70 years—that is, whenever an actual time has indeed been given.

Once again, it is evening earlier than 4pm in certain places and times.

The previous legislation in Christus Dominus, allowed Mass after midday with a limit of 4pm (in item 12 below) which was abrogated with Eucharisticum Mysterium January 6, 1953 (May 25, 1967). The rules were revised such as celebration on the previous evening for Sundays or holy days of obligation:“All concessions and contrary customs notwithstanding, when celebrated on Saturday this Mass may be celebrated only in the evening, at times determined by the local Ordinary.
…
What has been said above is equally valid for the Mass on holy days of obligation which for the same reason has been transferred to the preceding evening.”
And today we have the seven optional vigil Masses that may be celebrated even before Evening Prayer I.

The abrogated norm:CHRISTUS DOMINUS, January 6, 1953

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,

 

[FrDavid96]

Once again, it is evening earlier than 4pm in certain places and times.

The previous legislation in Christus Dominus, allowed Mass after midday with a limit of 4pm (in item 12 below) which was abrogated with Eucharisticum Mysterium January 6, 1953 (May 25, 1967). The rules were revised such as celebration on the previous evening for Sundays or holy days of obligation:"All concessions and contrary customs notwithstanding, when celebrated on Saturday this Mass may be celebrated only in the evening, at times determined by the local Ordinary.
…

It still says “only in the evening.” It did not say that the 4 PM time was abrogated.
Noon is still not evening. They are 2 different times of day.

What has been said above is equally valid for the Mass on holy days of obligation which for the same reason has been transferred to the preceding evening."
And today we have the seven optional vigil Masses that may be celebrated even before Evening Prayer I.

Neither does that change the time for fulfilling the Sunday obligation.

The abrogated norm:CHRISTUS DOMINUS, January 6, 1953

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,

You keep posting the same quotes over and over again. It does not make your position any stronger. It only shows the futility of it.

Show me where the requirement of no earlier than 4 o’clock (which has been the official interpretation since 1953) has actually been changed.

 

[Vico]

It still says “only in the evening.” It did not say that the 4 PM time was abrogated.
Noon is still not evening. They are 2 different times of day.

Neither does that change the time for fulfilling the Sunday obligation.

You keep posting the same quotes over and over again. It does not make your position any stronger. It only shows the futility of it.

Show me where the requirement of no earlier than 4 o’clock (which has been the official interpretation since 1953) has actually been changed.

You keep saying noon is still not evening, yet I have not been saying that, so why?

It is abrogated because it states so in *Eucharisticum Mysterium *(May 25, 1967):All concessions and contrary customs notwithstanding

and

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Christus Dominus (January 6, 1953) which specified a earliest time and specific days (shown below) was replaced with Eucharisticum Mysterium, allowing only Sunday and holy days of obligation (corresponding to Christus Dominus 12a) and “…in the evening, at times determined by the local Ordinary” allowing choice of evening time without specifying an earliest time.

Christus Dominus
12. Such Masses, however, may not be said before four o’clock in the afternoon, and may be celebrated only on the following definitely stated days. These are:

a. Holy days of obligation according to the rule of Canon 1247, # 1;
b. Feasts which were formerly holy days of obligation but which now are not. These are listed in the index published by the Sacred Congregation of the Council on December 28, 1919.[28]
c. First Fridays of the month.
d. Other solemn occasions which are celebrated with great gatherings of the people.
e. On one day of the week other than those enumerated above, if the good of special classes of persons should demand it.

​

1917 CIC Can. 1247 #1 Feast days under precept in the whole Church are only: all and every [Sunday], the Feast of the Nativity, Circumcision, Epiphany, Ascension, and the Most Holy Body of Christ, Immaculate Conception, and Assumption of Mary the Mother of God, of Saint Joseph her spouse, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and of All the Saints.

 

[FrDavid96]

You keep saying noon is still not evening, yet I have not been saying that, so why?

No, you haven’t said it. I’ve noticed that. You do seem to be defending the position, however.

It is abrogated because it states so in *Eucharisticum Mysterium *(May 25, 1967):

All concessions and contrary customs notwithstanding
​

and

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.
…

I don’t see the time-of-day as being “contrary” in the 2 documents. I don’t read anything that abrogates the principle that the earliest time for an evening Mass is 4 PM.

The fact that the later document does not address the issue (of time-of-day) directly leads one to believe that it has not changed.

“Only in the evening” means the same thing in 1967 that it meant in 1953.​

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Intentionally vague use of “evening” does not, at least not in my book, justify expanding the time-period beyond evening and into anytime after Noon.

Noon is not evening. Fair enough. I don’t really know the linguistic or historical grounds upon which people argue for noon, so why don’t we agree to drop that. What about, instead, focusing solely on the hours from 2-4pm? You argue from commonsensical grounds: afternoon is not evening. But evening is a subjectively defined period that hinges on the time of sunset - the weather and color of the sky begin to change as sunset nears, and by an hour or so after sunset when twilight has given way to darkness we find ourselves in the “night.” In Edinburgh in January, however, the sun sets before 4pm, which means that evening - not fictive, legalistic evening but true evening - must be beginning an hour or possibly even more before that time of sunset. Edinburgh is fairly far toward the pole but not extreme by any means, so there is a significant segment of the world in which a 3pm Mass, at least during winter, would take place during visibly perceptible evening. Truly evening. Before 4pm. In accord with both the letter and spirit of the canon.

But I think we also need to take your commonsensical approach in the other direction. I believe you’re the one who pointed out that the General Instruction of the LOTH, by quoting the Eastern prayer, links the celebration of Vespers to the setting of the sun. Here in Durham, NC, the sun sets after 6pm 8 months out of the year. In fact, for more than 6 of those months the sun sets after 7. I submit, and I mean this quite seriously, that during that full half of the calendar year in Durham, NC, 4pm is almost certainly not an evening hour . . . unless 3pm is also an evening hour whenever the sun is setting before 6pm. I grew up in Indiana where, a few hundred miles north of my current home and on the trailing edge of the time zone, the sun doesn’t set until 9pm in the summer. When I discovered the LOTH in college I was truly surprised to find that “evening prayer” could be celebrated at such a ridiculously early hour as 4pm. If we are simply going by proximity to sunset, noon is a more plausible evening hour in Edinburgh winter than 4pm is in Indiana summer, so I submit that you can’t have your cake and eat it, too. You think the “early starters” are pressing “vespere” beyond believable bounds, but unless you are willing to agree that 4pm is somewhat in-credibly allowed in many places throughout much of the year then you yourself are falling back on a legally fictive “evening” that has little to do with the actual condition of the day/night.

 

[dans0622]

What “evening” means, and when it starts, depends on the sun. I think we’d all agree on that.

So, it seems to me that we will never have an authoritative interpretation of what “evening” means: it depends where a person is, and when a person is. As “Andreas Hofer” just said, evening is variable. Where I grew up, the sun set at 4:25 in the dead of winter and 8:55 in the middle of summer. But, churches are never going to make such drastic changes in their Mass schedule over the course of the year–people would never keep up with it. So, I don’t think an interpretation based only on when the sun sets would be practical–evening starts 30 minutes before sunset, for example.

Since the sun sets at vastly different times within the same time zone, an interpretation could also not be something like “evening starts at 5 pm local time.” 5 pm in the northern portion of a time zone could be pitch black but the sun could still be up down south.

We will just have to be content with some variability. I think 4 pm is a good “ballpark” time.

And now, we have certainly discussed this topic more than it has been discussed in all canon law schools over the course of the last 30 years.

Dan

 

[FrDavid96]

Noon is not evening. Fair enough. I don’t really know the linguistic or historical grounds upon which people argue for noon, so why don’t we agree to drop that.

Because that’s the very point that I am disputing: “evening begins at noon.” (ok, technically they say after Noon, but I’m sure we can agree not to nitpick that point).

I don’t see how we can just agree to drop it when it is the entire point of the conversation.

What about, instead, focusing solely on the hours from 2-4pm? You argue from commonsensical grounds: afternoon is not evening. But evening is a subjectively defined period that hinges on the time of sunset - the weather and color of the sky begin to change as sunset nears, and by an hour or so after sunset when twilight has given way to darkness we find ourselves in the “night.” In Edinburgh in January, however, the sun sets before 4pm, which means that evening - not fictive, legalistic evening but true evening - must be beginning an hour or possibly even more before that time of sunset. Edinburgh is fairly far toward the pole but not extreme by any means, so there is a significant segment of the world in which a 3pm Mass, at least during winter, would take place during visibly perceptible evening. Truly evening. Before 4pm. In accord with both the letter and spirit of the canon.

I have in fact posted many times in similar threads that in particular circumstances, if the sun has indeed set, I would not hesitate in calling it an evening Mass.

See here, for example (so that you know I’m not making this up)

I can understand that “vespere” can have some flexibility.

If I were in Norway or Alaska today (late December) and a Mass started after sunset, I would be perfectly content to look at the sun (or lack thereof), while ignoring the clock, and have no problem, no hesitation, that a Mass after sunset would fulfill the obligation for tomorrow (let’s say, for discussion sake, that today is Saturday).

I can also understand a pastoral response from a bishop in one of those places who wishes to avoid confusion in the Mass schedules, and who permits the time of sunset in winter to be applied throughout the year. I don’t know if this happens in reality, I’m simply saying that I respect the bishop’s authority to interpret for his diocese.

I can understand some flexibility and the value of avoiding anxiety.

What I cannot understand is "how can one say that vespere begins at meridiem?"
…

But I think we also need to take your commonsensical approach in the other direction. I believe you’re the one who pointed out that the General Instruction of the LOTH, by quoting the Eastern prayer, links the celebration of Vespers to the setting of the sun. Here in Durham, NC, the sun sets after 6pm 8 months out of the year. In fact, for more than 6 of those months the sun sets after 7. I submit, and I mean this quite seriously, that during that full half of the calendar year in Durham, NC, 4pm is almost certainly not an evening hour . . . unless 3pm is also an evening hour whenever the sun is setting before 6pm. I grew up in Indiana where, a few hundred miles north of my current home and on the trailing edge of the time zone, the sun doesn’t set until 9pm in the summer. When I discovered the LOTH in college I was truly surprised to find that “evening prayer” could be celebrated at such a ridiculously early hour as 4pm. If we are simply going by proximity to sunset, noon is a more plausible evening hour in Edinburgh winter than 4pm is in Indiana summer, so I submit that you can’t have your cake and eat it, too. You think the “early starters” are pressing “vespere” beyond believable bounds, but unless you are willing to agree that 4pm is somewhat in-credibly allowed in many places throughout much of the year then you yourself are falling back on a legally fictive “evening” that has little to do with the actual condition of the day/night.

I agree. I do personally feel that 4 PM is too early (that’s a purely emotional statement). I merely trust the decisions made by the popes on this. Is that an argument from authority? Perhaps yes. It is a weak argument to make, so it won’t get me any points for the debate team, but if the pope tells a priest (by telling everyone) that an evening Mass can begin at 4 I’m not about to disagree with that.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Because that’s the very point that I am disputing: “evening begins at noon.” (ok, technically they say after Noon, but I’m sure we can agree not to nitpick that point).

I don’t see how we can just agree to drop it when it is the entire point of the conversation.

Here I thought the entire point of the conversation was whether evening could begin before 4pm. The OP asks whether a Mass at 2 or 3pm can fulfill the obligation, and 2pm is the point in time chosen by certain canonists. Are you saying you don’t disagree with those canonists, only those who say evening begins at noon?

We can’t simply use time before sunset; the 5-6 hour window granted by a 4pm start in Indiana summer would push evening well before noon as we approach the poles in winter, and evening must, I think we could reasonably agree, occur in the *latter *half of the day. Meaning the midpoint, noon, is also reasonably off limits. But afternoon, even 12:15 or 12:30pm, will be more truly - astronomically, meteorologically - evening at certain places and seasons than 4pm in other places and seasons. So who is doing more injustice to the word “vespere” - the one who says we can reasonably peg it to the transition between day and night even when this doesn’t correspond to our notions of clock time, or the one who claims it begins at 4pm regardless of any factual connection to the transition from day to the night? To say it was evening at 4pm where I grew up was flatly absurd . . . and also, for canonical purposes, true. We ought, then, to eliminate questions such as “how/why could the Church say X:YZpm can be evening?” The better question is to simply determine, “*does *she say it can be evening?”

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

… if the pope tells a priest (by telling everyone) that an evening Mass can begin at 4 I’m not about to disagree with that.

And arguing about the meaning of the canon is about determining what the pope actually told everyone. We know what Pius XII said - 4pm. But what did John Paul II say in laying down the law that actually binds us in the here and now? He didn’t say 4pm, hence the debate.

 

[FrDavid96]

Here I thought the entire point of the conversation was whether evening could begin before 4pm. The OP asks whether a Mass at 2 or 3pm can fulfill the obligation, and 2pm is the point in time chosen by certain canonists. Are you saying you don’t disagree with those canonists, only those who say evening begins at noon?

I am saying that I disagree with both.

Here on CAF the claim “evening begins at Noon” is the typical response—or some say that it begins at Noon in certain places.

We can’t simply use time before sunset; the 5-6 hour window granted by a 4pm start in Indiana summer would push evening well before noon as we approach the poles in winter, and evening must, I think we could reasonably agree, occur in the *latter *half of the day. Meaning the midpoint, noon, is also reasonably off limits. But afternoon, even 12:15 or 12:30pm, will be more truly - astronomically, meteorologically - evening at certain places and seasons than 4pm in other places and seasons. So who is doing more injustice to the word “vespere” - the one who says we can reasonably peg it to the transition between day and night even when this doesn’t correspond to our notions of clock time, or the one who claims it begins at 4pm regardless of any factual connection to the transition from day to the night? To say it was evening at 4pm where I grew up was flatly absurd . . . and also, for canonical purposes, true. We ought, then, to eliminate questions such as “how/why could the Church say X:YZpm can be evening?” The better question is to simply determine, “*does *she say it can be evening?”

I don’t think there is an answer to that. We are, after all, trying to translate a concept of hours that simply does not apply anymore. There is no way to reconcile the two clocks.

My thoughts on this are that the Church has done Her best to try to find some solution to reconcile the two–to make some effort. As I see it, the results of that effort was that, in 1953, the decision was made “no earlier than 4 PM.” I simply accept that. Even if it seems early to me, I just accept it.

What I am saying is that there is no other precedent and no clear and direct changes to the law which would warrant changing that understanding (that “compromise” position to reconcile two irreconcilable clocks).

As I see things, there is an absence of anything that should cause us to say, without hesitation, that the previous definition of the earliest time is 4 PM.

In the absence of any changes, we should follow what has already been established.

We have the precedent.

I am waiting for someone to show me, in a logical and convincing way, that the precedent (the custom–although I don’t like using that word on CAF because it’s more often than not misunderstood) has indeed been changed. So far, I have not seen anything.

 

[FrDavid96]

And arguing about the meaning of the canon is about determining what the pope actually told everyone. We know what Pius XII said - 4pm. But what did John Paul II say in laying down the law that actually binds us in the here and now? He didn’t say 4pm, hence the debate.

That’s my point. JP2 did not say anything.

Therefore, in the absence of him (or any other Supreme Legislator) outright saying that something should change, then my position is that it should not change.

As I see it, there are 2 possible outcomes of “he did not say anything definitive.”

1. That means we keep things as they are.
2. It means we’re free to interpret things differently now than before.
   (I mean #2 as a summary, not a strawman).

My position is that I disagree with #2.

To expand upon that:
The arguments in favor of changing the time are, quite frankly, very weak ones. No, that doesn’t mean I think the people making them are idiots. It means that I find their arguments weak on this specific point.

The bulk of the arguments presented are based on how the translators rendered the canon into various vernaculars. That sends up a huge red “STOP!” sign in my book.

I cannot accept a line of reasoning that says basically “the precedent changes because the translator decided to use a certain word.”

 

[EasterJoy]

.

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.

Well, yes, I meant that Rome would definitively define the concept, not the English word. As it is, while the canon law regarding anticipatory Masses came out of the Vatican, from what I can gather the Vatican has declined to tie the concept of “evening” to a time on a clock. I highly doubt this is because no one has ever asked them the question, because there are bloggers on the internet who are foaming at the mouth to find some time carved in stone, to no avail.

I am told that Masses offered on Saturday in anticipation of Sunday at the Vatican are typically started at 5 pm. Since the Vatican has not made any universal declarations, each Pope has presumably been content to define the concept according to the local sense, allowing local definitions in other places.

The Church is truly universal, so perhaps the Church is not inclined to define a particular time of day as the “earliest beginning of evening” that would be many hours before or after civil twilight falls in someplace like Barrow, Alaska. Besides, even the definition of how the local time is related to the movement of the sun is outside the control of the Church. A secular government can legally define what we consider to be 2 pm to be noon, and who could do a thing about it? Better to just give the general concept and deal with any abuses on a case-by-case basis without setting up one answer that has to apply everywhere and at all times.

 

[ProVobis]

from what I can gather the Vatican has declined to tie the concept of “evening” to a time on a clock. I highly doubt this is because no one has ever asked them the question, because there are bloggers on the internet who are foaming at the mouth to find some time carved in stone, to no avail.

It seems that way. In 1953, as Fr. David has repeatedly informed us, vespere was set at 4pm local time. Keep in mind the priests were basically the only ones involved in saying of the Divinum Officium, with some exceptions I’m sure. But the point is that they would have probably the ones who cared about the time. As the Divinum Officium expanded to the laity gradually (and the allowance was made to recite it in vernacular) and more got involved, the “custom” was that vespers (translated as evening prayer) would start at 4pm (or later) for anyone interested in this Divinum Officium. In other words, it became the accepted custom for that particular prayer. Thus my earlier argument. Another agument would be whether evening prayers would have any meaning if they were to be said at noon, for example?

 

[Vico]

No, you haven’t said it. I’ve noticed that. You do seem to be defending the position, however.

I don’t see the time-of-day as being “contrary” in the 2 documents. I don’t read anything that abrogates the principle that the earliest time for an evening Mass is 4 PM.

The fact that the later document does not address the issue (of time-of-day) directly leads one to believe that it has not changed.

“Only in the evening” means the same thing in 1967 that it meant in 1953.

The latter document does address the time of day directly, it states:

“in the evening, at times determined by the local Ordinary”.