Saturday evening mass time

[FrDavid96]

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

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

You must have a different definition of “directly” than the one I am accustomed to hearing.

 

[FrDavid96]

…

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.

I understand what you’re saying (at least I think I do). But that raises another problem:

We still have to deal with the question “how early is too early?”

What if I want to say 11 AM is an acceptable time?

What if I want to say that 8 AM on Saturday is an acceptable time?

I don’t mean that to be sarcastic, but truly, saying that the definition is vague is one thing, but that doesn’t mean there is a complete absence of any standard.

If the response is “8 AM is too early because …X…” then whatever “X” might be has therefore become the standard.

What then should the standard be? Because we need some standard. We need something that says “this is acceptable, this is not.”

 

[Vico]

You must have a different definition of “directly” than the one I am accustomed to hearing.

Directly is in a direct manner, adverb meaning, to manage the affairs, course, or action of; guide; conduct; regulate.

There was never an authoritative definition that the evening begins at four o’clock in the afternoon. Evening is the latter part and close of the day and early part of the night, so it begins during the afternoon, but at various times. The statement was made that for the celebration of Mass in the evening, “the Mass shall not begin before four o’clock in the afternoon”, which is a limit within the afternoon. (The four o’clock worked well with the three hour Eucharist fast of that time.)

Reference:Rule VI. If the circumstance calls for it as necessary, We grant to the local Ordinaries the right to permit the celebration of Mass in the evening, as we said, but in such wise that the Mass shall not begin before four o’clock in the afternoon, on holy days of obligation still observed, on those which formerly were observed, on the first Friday of every month, and also on those days on which solemn celebrations are held with a large attendance, and also, in addition to these days, on one day a week; with the requirement that the priest observe a fast of three hours from solid food and alcoholic beverages, and of one hour from non-alcoholic beverages. At these Masses the faithful may approach the Holy Table, observing the same rule as regards the Eucharistic fast, the presumption of Canon 857 remaining in force.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

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.
…]
Another agument would be whether evening prayers would have any meaning if they were to be said at noon, for example?

The relevant legislation did not set a start time for “vespere;” they set an earliest permissible time for “evening Masses”.

As for evening prayers being meaningful at noon, it’s certainly far from ideal but has long been permissible. It was more quite some time allowed to anticipate the celebration of Matins - the middle-of-the-night “hour” of the office - as early as, IIRC, 2pm of the previous day, pretty well exactly reversing the time of the day the hour was meant to be prayed. This permission was still in force in the 1950s when “evening Mass” was first being conceded.

(The four o’clock worked well with the three hour Eucharist fast of that time.)
[/INDENT]

And this is the kicker. The 4pm rule came into effect independently of the question of fulfilling one’s Sunday obligation on Saturday. It has to do with Mass on the evening of the calendar day on which the liturgical day falls, not the evening before (which may or may not also form part of the same liturgical day). 4pm represented the minimal time to observe the (newly-mitigated) Communion fast from the end of the day’s lunch hour. The further reduction of the Eucharistic fast made this concern irrelevant, so Mass can now be celebrated at all hours.

 

[ProVobis]

The relevant legislation did not set a start time for “vespere;” they set an earliest permissible time for “evening Masses”.

Maybe but the arguments so far have been that the Pope set the English definition of evening to 4 pm or later. I don’t know but when I answer a telephone or whatever I would look at the clock first and if it’s after 12:01 pm and before 6pm, my greeting is always “Good afternoon.” Am I wrong to do that? I think even in the English-speaking world, there should be some consistency, no?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Maybe but the arguments so far have been that the Pope set the English definition of evening to 4 pm or later. I don’t know but when I answer a telephone or whatever I would look at the clock first and if it’s after 12:01 pm and before 6pm, my greeting is always “Good afternoon.” Am I wrong to do that? I think even in the English-speaking world, there should be some consistency, no?

The pope most certainly didn’t set any English definitions; canon law is written in Latin and canonical arguments based upon vernacular renderings lack force. But the pope also didn’t set any Latin definitions of “vespere” either. What Christus Dominus and Sacram communionem did in the 50s was to say, essentially, “in addition to the current permissions to celebrate Mass from one hour before dawn to one hour after noon, we are now granting permission to say Mass in the evening.” Together with that broad permission came a qualifier: “evening Mass may not begin before 4 pm.” No logical necessity leads us to conclude that the restriction on when these new evening Masses can begin amounts to a universal, sempiternal determination that, in Latin, the period known as evening begins at 16:00. It’s a rule about what may happen in the evening, not about what the evening itself is.

And this goes back to your personal practice on the telephone. If you really believed that the pope had defined evening as a period beginning at 4pm, I would think you might have a troubled conscience about telling people “Good afternoon” from 4-6pm. But you seem to be quite comfortable living in a world wherein the same time of day can receive different names depending upon the purpose/context of the naming - the “evening” during which one fulfills one’s obligation begins in what is “afternoon” for many/most other peoples intents and purposes. If that targeted canonical “evening” begins in what we already agree to be the afternoon, and “the Vatican,” when queried, has refused to trot out 4pm as a magic number, then why should we summarily dismiss claims that even more of the afternoon might be included in this canonical-but-to-our-eyes-fictive “evening”? The term is already being used in a forced/stretched way; perhaps it admits of further stretching.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Let’s do a thought experiment. Say the pope, instead of allowing evening Masses anytime after 4pm (for he doesn’t set a latest permissible hour), had instead in the 1950s given permission for evening Masses to be celebrated between 6:30 and 8:00pm. Would anyone say that in doing so the pope had defined the period known as “evening” to fall exclusively between those two points on the clock? Or would we rather not say, whenever else evening may be, we know that 6:30-8 falls within those bounds?

 

[ProVobis]

Let’s do a thought experiment. Say the pope, instead of allowing evening Masses anytime after 4pm (for he doesn’t set a latest permissible hour), had instead in the 1950s given permission for evening Masses to be celebrated between 6:30 and 8:00pm. Would anyone say that in doing so the pope had defined the period known as “evening” to fall exclusively between those two points on the clock? Or would we rather not say, whenever else evening may be, we know that 6:30-8 falls within those bounds?

I think you’re missing the point. You prefer to use “evening” throughout your posts rather than the Latin “vespere” which is translated as evening but it isn’t quite the same thing. I made this point earlier.about convenience. In any event I think this thread is going nowhere so I will bow out of further discussion here.I don’t see this as a major problem within the Church.

 

[Vico]

Those in Las Vegas, Nevada, may participate in a Saturday Vigil Mass at any of three times, as early as 2:30 pm, in accordance with the 1983 canon law, the purpose of which was expressed in Eucharisticum Mysterium, 1967:“The purpose of this concession is in fact to enable the Christians of today to celebrate more easily the day of the resurrection of the Lord.”

*Guardian Angels Cathedral *

MASSES

**Saturday: **Vigil 2:30 p.m., 4:00 p.m., 5:30 p.m.
**Sunday: **8:00 a.m., 9:30 a.m., 11:00 a.m.,
12:30 p.m., 5:00 p.m.
**Weekdays: **Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m., 12:10 p.m.
Saturday: 12:10 p.m. Daily Mass
Holy Day Vigil: 5:00 p.m.,
Holy Day 8:00 a.m., 12:10 p.m., 5:00 p.m.
Please note some holy days are not observed in Nevada…
for example, if it falls on a Monday or a Saturday

 

[Elizium23]

Sorry. I searched for a :deadhorse: emoticon but I didn’t find it.

 

[dans0622]

Those in Las Vegas, Nevada, may participate in a Saturday Vigil Mass at any of three times, as early as 2:30 pm, in accordance with the 1983 canon law…

Yes, we all know that, in Vegas, the day is far spent and is drawing to a close at 2:30…A.M., … maybe…

Dan

 

[Vico]

Yes, we all know that, in Vegas, the day is far spent and is drawing to a close at 2:30…A.M., … maybe…

Dan

Not because the day is coming to a close but as stated:

“The purpose of this concession is in fact to enable the Christians of today to celebrate more easily the day of the resurrection of the Lord.”

 

[FrDavid96]

Yes, we all know that, in Vegas, the day is far spent and is drawing to a close at 2:30…A.M., … maybe…

Dan

Not because the day is coming to a close but as stated:

“The purpose of this concession is in fact to enable the Christians of today to celebrate more easily the day of the resurrection of the Lord.”

The post by dans0622 is what is known as “humor.”