Second Sunday of Advent and Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception

[Digitonomy]

For the curious, this article can be found in the Internet Archive.tee

That’s great! All these years I’ve been deleting bookmarks that I thought were lost forever, and almost deleted this one a few weeks ago.

 

[benedictgal]

I called another priest friend of mine to get his take on the Bishop’s memo. He told me that he believes that the bishop left it up to the pastors to decide how they were going to handle Sunday evening. They had the option of either having the Vigil Mass celebrated or mainting the Second Sunday of Advent. Either way, it was not going to be a two-for-one.

 

[AJV]

I know not the rationale I only reported what others have advised.

I know - I was just puzzled as to their rationale.

I skimmed the GILOH, but didn’t find that rubric – Could you be more specific? Thanks.

tee

“If on the same day Vespers of the current office and first vespers of the following day are to be celebrated, the vespers of the day holding the highest rank in the table fo liturgical days tkes precedence; if both days are of the same rank, vespers of the current day takes precedence”

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Fr. David, thanks for the replies. I hope you don’t mind if I continue to plump the depths of the argument.

No, one did not fulfill the Sunday obligation because the bishop determined that the appropriate time had not yet arrived. He has the authority to establish that time.

Ah, but wouldn’t you say, rather, that he doesn’t allow any vigil or anticipated Masses at all?

So, why is it that someone who, say, attended a 5PM Saturday mass would not have fulfilled the obligation? I mean, doesn’t Canon law apply here when it says that the faithful fulfill their obligation if they attend an evening Mass the day before? Certainly a 5PM Mass would have been in the evening the day before – regardless of whether it was a vigil Mass or an anticipated Mass, or a even a permitted Mass, right?

In other words, are you saying that because a Bishop doesn’t allow any Saturday evening Masses that it would somehow abrogate Canon 1248?

Thank you!
VC

 

[Digitonomy]

That is an excellent example for us to study. Say one did go to a Mass at 4:00 PM on Saturday back then. Did you fulfill your Sunday obligation? If so, why? The Archbishop didn’t permit Vigil or anticipated masses, and so also (in accord with your argument) didn’t specify when “evening” began.

So if it fulfilled the Sunday obligation, why? And if it did, would a 3:45 Mass have done so as well?VC

I, having much less training in this area, would nonetheless tend to disagree with FrDavid96. I think in that case, in the absence of a clear ruling from one’s bishop, we are left to our own devices to best determine what our obligation is. In most cases, I think it’s most reasonable to accept the consensus of canon lawyers in this country that 4pm is the start of evening. But that’s simply an advisory opinion from their book, so with good reason an individual may decide that 5pm is a more correct cutoff, or as you said 3:45. Or even 12 noon, if he put stock in the British interpretation.

FrDavid96:

When the bishop says “this is when evening begins” and “this is when you may have a vigil Mass” those 2 sentences mean the same thing, unless the bishop specifies otherwise (and while that’s possible, it is not very likely)

I don’t accept that such a broad assumption can be made. If a bishop rules that no mass may be celebrated before a particular evening hour, I think it’s reasonable to accept that it’s the hour he has determined for evening to begin. But if a bishop sets a time such as 10pm that is clearly night, it would appear to be a way to discourage anticipated masses, not necessarily a means of establishing when evening begins. Even less so would I accept that midnight was the start of evening in Philadelphia, which is clearly contradictory to the meaning of the word in the canon. If I attended say a Maronite or religious order mass at 7pm Saturday, I would feel pretty confident it counts toward my obligation unless my bishop had explicitly instructed that evening begins at 9 or 10.

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr. David, thanks for the replies. I hope you don’t mind if I continue to plump the depths of the argument.

Ah, but wouldn’t you say, rather, that he doesn’t allow any vigil or anticipated Masses at all?

So, why is it that someone who, say, attended a 5PM Saturday mass would not have fulfilled the obligation? I mean, doesn’t Canon law apply here when it says that the faithful fulfill their obligation if they attend an evening Mass the day before? Certainly a 5PM Mass would have been in the evening the day before – regardless of whether it was a vigil Mass or an anticipated Mass, or a even a permitted Mass, right?

In other words, are you saying that because a Bishop doesn’t allow any Saturday evening Masses that it would somehow abrogate Canon 1248?

Thank you!
VC

We’ve got to put it into context. And I just realized what that “context” is. This happened under the old 1917 code of canons, and I’m not sure what the old code had to say on the matter. I just realized that we’re trying to apply the 1982 code to a time before it existed. For whatever canonical reason, he had the authority to do what he did at the time. From what I recall, the Saturday vigil was done by way of some kind of “dispensation” or “indult” from Rome. The bishop of each diocese was free to allow it or not. I don’t remember the exact historical or canonical details–I only remember the simple fact that the Archdiocese was one of the last to allow this. Maybe someone else does.

Let’s get back to the present. What I’m saying is that the bishop determines for his own diocese the definition of “evening” and therefore within that diocese in order for a person to fulfill the Sunday obligation, no matter what the individual person thinks constitutes “evening” only the bishop’s decision counts.

Also, we tend to “think” of 5 PM as evening because in the US it’s so ingrained into our collective consciousness that 5 PM is acceptable. But lets look at the reason why the Church did this in the first place. Biblically, the day begins at sunset. In some places in the US sunset isn’t until 9PM or even later, so we can’t assume that any Mass at 5 is automatically a vigil Mass. Likewise, in northern Alaska, sunset might be at 2 PM certain days of the year. That’s why we have to rely on the bishop’s decision.

We *follow *what the canon says, but the bishop interprets what the canon says, and we must abide by his interpretation instead of trying to replace that with our own, even if we might disagree intellectually (and I know you’re not saying that, we’re just discussing here).

 

[FrDavid96]

I, having much less training in this area, would nonetheless tend to disagree with FrDavid96. I think in the absence of a clear ruling from one’s bishop, we are left to our own devices to best determine what our obligation is.

In the absence of a clear ruling from the bishop, the pastor would make that “clear ruling” for his own parish. In any case, I think (but am not certain) that every diocese in the US has a stated policy on the matter.

As for the rest, see my latest post (just before this one) and I think the whole thing will make much more sense.

 

[tee_eff_em]

When the bishop says “this is when evening begins” and “this is when you may have a vigil Mass” those 2 sentences mean the same thing, unless the bishop specifies otherwise (and while that’s possible, it is not very likely)

This is not an example of placing an additional burden not required by the law, because the canon says that only that the time is “evening”. And the local bishop is competent to define what the canon means by “evening” In that case, I suppose we could say that the Cardinal Archbishop defined evening as “12 midnight.”

I am not sure I agree.

Of course the diocesan bishop has liturgical authority (eg he may legislate that a vigil Mass not begin earlier than 4pm). But does he have *temporal *authority (eg to legislate that “evening” does not begin earlier than 4pm)?

tee

 

[Verbum_Caro]

We’ve got to put it into context.

Thanks Fr. for the note about context. It actually occurred to me too that this instance might have happened under the old code, but I thought we could fudge a little on that, and use it as a hypothetical instance.

Let’s get back to the present. What I’m saying is that the bishop determines for his own diocese the definition of “evening” and therefore within that diocese in order for a person to fulfill the Sunday obligation, no matter what the individual person thinks constitutes “evening” only the bishop’s decision counts.

Fr. David, how confident are you in equating a Bishop’s decision to allow vigils or anticipated Masses at a certain time with it being “de facto” that evening doesn’t begin until that time?

In other words, do you say that *if *a Bishop says “No vigils or anticipated Masses until 8 PM!” that he also must be saying “Evening, for the purposes of Canon Law, does not begin until 8PM in my diocese!”

(I think tee_ might be looking at the same issue, under a different aspect as well.)

VC

 

[Digitonomy]

Of course the diocesan bishop has liturgical authority (eg he may legislate that a vigil Mass not begin earlier than 4pm). But does he have *temporal *authority (eg to legislate that “evening” does not begin earlier than 4pm)?tee

I think this would fall under his authority to interpret and apply canon law. I’m not sure a bishop could contradict canon law and say that a day only lasts from 1 AM to 11 PM, but I see no obstacle to a bishop clarifying a canon which is vague.

Another temporal application of episcopal authority I can imagine in rare instances would be in a part of the world where time is not uniform. If there is government time and locally practiced time, or government time and rebel time, or main street merchants’ time and railroad time, it seems to me a bishop would have the authority to declare which time was applicable to the scheduling of masses, or fulfilling obligations.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Fr., it brings up an interesting point. Have the USCCB or any local Bishops said what constitutes “evening” for the purposes of Canon law? Local ordinaries, following the guidance of the USCCB have certainly said “You can’t have a vigil mass or an anticipated mass before 4PM” but have they said when “evening” starts?

Think of it this way: what if you are in a Diocese or at a parish that doesn’t have a vigil or an anticipated Mass, and yet has a Mass a Saturday Mass as 5PM. Would that fulfill your Sunday obligation? Why? (Presumably because it fulfills Canon 1248)

So what if, same situation, but the Saturday Mass is at 3:00?

See what I am getting at?
VC

A Saturday afternoon Mass at 3PM cannot not according to the lectionary rules use the Sunday readings. I would think it would be assumed that the Bishops define “evening” by stating when or after what hour “Evening Prayer” may be said, liturgically speaking.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

A Saturday afternoon Mass at 3PM cannot not according to the lectionary rules use the Sunday readings.

But which readings are used would not in itself determine if one had fulfilled the Sunday or Holy Day obligation, correct?

VC

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

But which readings are used would not in itself determine if one had fulfilled the Sunday or Holy Day obligation, correct?

VC

We have been around this merry-go-round so many times. How can one say they attended a Mass for the obligation of the Inncaulate Conception if the readings for the Immaculate Conception are not used? I lean in the direction that you can attend a Mass on Sunday Dec 7th at 6PM that uses the Sunday readings, and it satidfies your Sunday Obligation. A 7PM Mass on Dec 7th using the Immaculate Conception readings and it satisfies your Holy Day Obligation. But you cannot attend the 6pm Mass OR the 7PM Mass and say that it satifies both obligations.

Last post from me on the topic.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

But you cannot attend the 6pm Mass OR the 7PM Mass and say that it satifies both obligations.

That seems clear. Has anyone in this thread suggested a “two-fer?”

We have been around this merry-go-round so many times. How can one say they attended a Mass for the obligation of the Inncaulate Conception if the readings for the Immaculate Conception are not used?

I don’t know, how can one? That is the point of this thread, to find out, right? If in Benedictgal’s diocese a priest could use the Immaculate Conception readings at the regularly scheduled Sunday evening Mass, and someone shows up (as their Sunday custom) to fulfill their Sunday obligation, what happens?

Presumably they fulfill their Sunday obligation, right? Even though the readings were for the IC? Of course they would then have to go to an IC Mass on Monday too.

Last post from me on the topic.

Rich, sincerely sorry to see you go. We could use your (name removed by moderator)ut and expertise. Would you reconsider?

VC

P.S. My question about readings being determinative or not of the status of one’s obligation was a sincere question. I was under the impression one could fulfill one’s Sunday obligation at a 5PM Saturday wedding which used different readings than the Sunday. Right? Wrong?

 

[FrDavid96]

I think this would fall under his authority to interpret and apply canon law. I’m not sure a bishop could contradict canon law and say that a day only lasts from 1 AM to 11 PM, but I see no obstacle to a bishop clarifying a canon which is vague.

Another temporal application of episcopal authority I can imagine in rare instances would be in a part of the world where time is not uniform. If there is government time and locally practiced time, or government time and rebel time, or main street merchants’ time and railroad time, it seems to me a bishop would have the authority to declare which time was applicable to the scheduling of masses, or fulfilling obligations.

Digitonomy and VC
Here’s the thing. The bishop interprets canon law. That’s not to say that he may do so arbitrarily. If a bishop makes a decision that “evening” as the Church intends it to be understood begins in this diocese at 5 PM, then every parish and person in that diocese must abide by his decision. If a bishop were to say that evening begins at 5 AM on Saturday, well that would be the bishop wrongly interpreting the canons because it goes against the plain meaning of the words. Likewise, if a bishop interprets “evening” as say 11 PM–he would be wrongly interpreting them. But in such a case, those living in the diocese would be bound by his decision until such time as he changes it or is overruled by Rome. In other words, they cannot defy the bishop’s decision and his authority to make that decision, even if it turns out to be proven wrong or changed at some later date.

 

[FrDavid96]

That seems clear. Has anyone in this thread suggested a “two-fer?”

I don’t know, how can one? That is the point of this thread, to find out, right? If in Benedictgal’s diocese a priest could use the Immaculate Conception readings at the regularly scheduled Sunday evening Mass, and someone shows up (as their Sunday custom) to fulfill their Sunday obligation, what happens?

Presumably they fulfill their Sunday obligation, right? Even though the readings were for the IC? Of course they would then have to go to an IC Mass on Monday too

Rich, sincerely sorry to see you go. We could use your (name removed by moderator)ut and expertise. Would you reconsider?

VC

P.S. My question about readings being determinative or not of the status of one’s obligation was a sincere question. I was under the impression one could fulfill one’s Sunday obligation at a 5PM Saturday wedding which used different readings than the Sunday. Right? Wrong?

Canon 1248 says that a Catholic fulfills the obligation by attending ANY Mass on a given day. There is no such stipulation or requirement that the readings be those of the day, or the Mass text be that of the day. There are plenty of very obvious examples of situations when the readings and Mass text both are not for that given Sunday, but no reasonable person would say that a Catholic has not fulfilled the Sunday obligation.

The “requirement” for the readings to be those of the Sunday Mass is an additional burden placed on people by liturgists, which is not found in the canon law, nor supported by it. 1248 has no such requirement, no such stipulation, and in fact is quite broad. Liturgists cannot overrule canon law.

I think it’s safe to say that sadly, we’re not going to hear from Br Rich again on this topic. It’s too bad we won’t have the benefit of his posts. We’ll see him elsewhere though.

 

[benedictgal]

I apologize if anything was said to alienate Brother Rich. He offers valuable insights, especially in these matters.

My PV also gave me a quizzical look regarding the Bishop’s memorandum. I don’t think that our pastor will be substituting anything on Sunday and it will be the usual Advent Mass.

I can understand my local Ordinary trying to be pastoral for those who might be unable to make morning ot noon Mass on the Holy Day of Obligation, but, this begs a deeper question.

Have we become so lazy that we cannot even find time to give God one extra hour a week? Where are our priorities? We find time to take the kids to soccer, ballet, karate, band, basketball and all of these other things? Mind you,I am not saying that these things are bad, in and of themselves, but, I think that the signal we are sending to these kids is that this stuff is important, but, the spiritual things are not. Have we become too busy with the non-essentials that we think that shopping, going to the gym or attending a sporting event is more important than giving God that extra hour?

I wonder if the Church 40-45 years ago,had this problem or if people showed up for Mass on Holy Days of Obligation? I guess what I am getting at is that it’s more of a symptom of changing priorities than anything else.

 

[FrDavid96]

I apologize if anything was said to alienate Brother Rich. He offers valuable insights, especially in these matters.

My PV also gave me a quizzical look regarding the Bishop’s memorandum. I don’t think that our pastor will be substituting anything on Sunday and it will be the usual Advent Mass.

I can understand my local Ordinary trying to be pastoral for those who might be unable to make morning ot noon Mass on the Holy Day of Obligation, but, this begs a deeper question.

Have we become so lazy that we cannot even find time to give God one extra hour a week? Where are our priorities? We find time to take the kids to soccer, ballet, karate, band, basketball and all of these other things? Mind you,I am not saying that these things are bad, in and of themselves, but, I think that the signal we are sending to these kids is that this stuff is important, but, the spiritual things are not. Have we become too busy with the non-essentials that we think that shopping, going to the gym or attending a sporting event is more important than giving God that extra hour?

I wonder if the Church 40-45 years ago,had this problem or if people showed up for Mass on Holy Days of Obligation? I guess what I am getting at is that it’s more of a symptom of changing priorities than anything else.

When I was growing up, on Holy Days of Obligation, many small businesses were closed, and all employers allowed workers the opportunity to get to Mass during the day. Times have changed, and in this particular case, not for the better.

I can see the benefit of evening Masses for those unable to get away from work on Monday during the day. My solution was relatively simple. All Sunday Masses will be on Sunday morning.
All Immaculate Conception Masses will be on Monday day or evening. That way, there’s no possibility of confusion or of someone trying to get away with a two-fer. Of course, I don’t have Sunday evening Masses anyway, so I don’t have the problem that some other parishes are experiencing this weekend.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Canon 1248 says that a Catholic fulfills the obligation by attending ANY Mass on a given day. There is no such stipulation or requirement that the readings be those of the day, or the Mass text be that of the day. There are plenty of very obvious examples of situations when the readings and Mass text both are not for that given Sunday, but no reasonable person would say that a Catholic has not fulfilled the Sunday obligation.

Thanks Fr. David, that is what I thought.

But this brings me full circle, in a way, to some of what I was trying to get at regarding your argument about a Bishop prohibiting pre-4PM anticipated Masses. The Canon does say attending any Mass in the evening the previous day. And this presumably includes Masses of different rites, such as a Chaldean or Maronite.

So, what happens when one attends a 3:45 Chaldean Rite Mass on Saturday? If a Bishop has said that none of his parishes should have an anticipated Mass before 4 – this wouldn’t apply to a Saturday (not anticipated or vigil) Chaldean Rite Mass? So then would attending one fulfill the Canon?

In other words, is it possible that a Mass of another rite, within the diocese, would a)not run afoul of a Bishops prohibition on pre-4 anticipated Masses (because this one isn’t) and b)fulfill the Canon because it is on the “evening” of the previous day? I mean, why would a Bishop who sets limits on when an anticipated Mass can be lawfully celebrated control what “evening” is across the board?

How confident are you in equating a Bishop’s decision to allow vigils or anticipated Masses at a certain time with it being “de facto” that evening doesn’t begin until that time?

Of course, I might be way off base in regard to the Bishops relationship to other Rites in his diocese. . . so I hope you can shed some light on that.

I think it’s safe to say that sadly, we’re not going to hear from Br Rich again on this topic. It’s too bad we won’t have the benefit of his posts.

As to Br. Rich, I’m sad to see him go, and I’m not sure why he decided to leave. I share benedictgal’s sentiments and hope nothing alienated or offended him.

 

[FrDavid96]

Thanks Fr. David, that is what I thought.

But this brings me full circle, in a way, to some of what I was trying to get at regarding your argument about a Bishop prohibiting pre-4PM anticipated Masses. The Canon does say attending any Mass in the evening the previous day. And this presumably includes Masses of different rites, such as a Chaldean or Maronite.

So, what happens when one attends a 3:45 Chaldean Rite Mass on Saturday? If a Bishop has said that none of his parishes should have an anticipated Mass before 4 – this wouldn’t apply to a Saturday (not anticipated or vigil) Chaldean Rite Mass? So then would attending one fulfill the Canon?

In other words, is it possible that a Mass of another rite, within the diocese, would a)not run afoul of a Bishops prohibition on pre-4 anticipated Masses (because this one isn’t) and b)fulfill the Canon because it is on the “evening” of the previous day? I mean, why would a Bishop who sets limits on when an anticipated Mass can be lawfully celebrated control what “evening” is across the board?

How confident are you in equating a Bishop’s decision to allow vigils or anticipated Masses at a certain time with it being “de facto” that evening doesn’t begin until that time?

Of course, I might be way off base in regard to the Bishops relationship to other Rites in his diocese. . . so I hope you can shed some light on that.

As to Br. Rich, I’m sad to see him go, and I’m not sure why he decided to leave. I share benedictgal’s sentiments and hope nothing alienated or offended him.

VC,
This is going to sound a bit “legalistic” but bear with me.
The moment the Roman Catholic steps foot into the Eastern church-building, he has enterred the territory of the Eastern bishop, and therefore is attending a Sunday Mass (properly Divine Liturgy) because the bishop of that territory has permitted the Liturgy at that particular time. The Sunday obligation is thereby fulfilled. It would be the same thing as if one were to travel to another diocese–the decision of that local bishop of the place where he is visiting would determine whether or not the vigil Mass could occur. Going to an Eastern Divine Liturgy would be no more defying the bishop than it would be to go to an earlier Mass in a neighboring diocese. The Roman bishop has no authority to regulate the Eastern parishes, so likewise there is no disobedience if that parish has a Liturgy too early for the local Roman diocese, but permitted by the appropriate Eastern Eparchy.

Please understand (and I tried to explain this in a recent post) that I am not saying that the bishop may define what is meant by evening arbitrarily. He has an obligation to set the “start time” for the vigil Mass by interpreting the law, rather than by violating the meaning and intent of the law.
We are not so much deferring to the bishop’s definition of “evening” as such, but we are deferring to the bishops definition of “evening” as it applies to the liturgical laws. He doesn’t get to decide when evening starts (the sun does that), but he does get to decide what the Church means when the Church says “evening.”

To your final question, I’m very certain that the bishop is competent to interpret the canons and apply them for his own diocese. No question about it. If he’s wrong, that’s up to Rome to decide.