Second Sunday of Advent and Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception

[FrDavid96]

Fr. David,

Thanks again for your reply. I can’t say that I am convinced. But, there is no doubt that I would never suggest to anyone that he should only do the minimum and only go to Mass once when there is the opportunity to celebrate these important feasts.

In speaking to a couple of my professors, for what it’s worth, they, like Jimmy Akin seemed to admit, both said that this is an issue with a difference of opinion. One of them directly said “Yes, I think a person can fulfill both obligations with one act.” The other one thinks so, too, but wasn’t quite as direct. Nevertheless, the more common opinion is that you can’t get a two for one special. The bottom line, though, is that this is an opinion “of learned persons” and not a definitive interpretation.

Dan

Dans,
What I would like to know is this: How do they explain arriving at the conclusion that a person could fulfill two obligations to be at two Masses by attending one Mass? Not just the conclusion, but I’d like to know just HOW they arrived at that conclusion.

Thanks.

PS–I’m reading it. What am I chopped liver?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

VC,
Here’s the thing. Somebody has to define it.

What do you think, Father, about the situation I described above where no one applicable has defined it: one attends Saturday Divine Liturgy at 3:45 PM in an Eastern Rite church, which doesn’t recognize anticipated Masses, and thus whose Ordinary hasn’t implemented any such rules as “not before 4:00 PM”. Do you check the Farmer’s Almanac? Or would this be a case of ambiguity such that at the very least, the Mass being “not in the morning” would be technically ok under 1248?

(Father, I think you know, (don’t you? ), that this is purely an academic exercise, and this isn’t about what I believe. I’m just exploring the corners of the argument with you.)

VC

 

[dans0622]

Dans,
What I would like to know is this: How do they explain arriving at the conclusion that a person could fulfill two obligations to be at two Masses by attending one Mass? Not just the conclusion, but I’d like to know just HOW they arrived at that conclusion.

Thanks.

PS–I’m reading it. What am I chopped liver?

No, Father, you are not chopped liver.

The professor didn’t give a real detailed answer. He based it on the principle that we can fulfill more than one obligation with a particular action as well as the canonical principle that “burdens are to be restricted, favors are to be multiplied.” … It was just an e-mail conversation so it was quite brief.

Gotta go to bed.

Dan

 

[Verbum_Caro]

At least someone is reading what I say.

Dan,

C’mon! Fr. David and I both *scour *these posts with a fine-tooth comb!

VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Oh, and Fr. David, your explanation of the Bishop’s authority seems quite sound and makes a great deal of sense.

VC

 

[FrDavid96]

What do you think, Father, about the situation I described above where no one applicable has defined it: one attends Saturday Divine Liturgy at 3:45 PM in an Eastern Rite church, which doesn’t recognize anticipated Masses, and thus whose Ordinary hasn’t implemented any such rules as “not before 4:00 PM”. Do you check the Farmer’s Almanac? Or would this be a case of ambiguity such that at the very least, the Mass being “not in the morning” would be technically ok under 1248?

(Father, I think you know, (don’t you? ), that this is purely an academic exercise, and this isn’t about what I believe. I’m just exploring the corners of the argument with you.)

VC

VC,
I know we’re just conversing here.

I would look at it this way, in the total absence of any legitimate authority defining “evening” a person would look to the prayers being said in that church at that time. If Vespers hasn’t been said yet in that parish, and/or if the text and readings of the Divine Liturgy are those of Saturday not Sunday, then in the “calendar” of that place, the day is still Saturday, and Sunday has not yet begun. That’s at 3:45. If the sun has set, or in the Jewish usage if the stars have appeared (I think that’s what they say, 3 stars for the Sabbath to start, no disrespect to either, but I might be confusing the Jewish and Muslim definitions or they might be the same), if the sun has set, then it is evening by the plain meaning of the word, and a Roman Catholic would be fulfilling the obligation regardless of anything else.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Excellent Father. I think you’ve laid it all out very well, and it seems quite reasonable.

(As an aside, I think your approach mimics the approach that would be taken if this were a civil statute as well – except legislative history would probably also be consulted as a (hopefully) last resort).

Thank you!
VC

 

[FrDavid96]

No, Father, you are not chopped liver.

The professor didn’t give a real detailed answer. He based it on the principle that we can fulfill more than one obligation with a particular action as well as the canonical principle that “burdens are to be restricted, favors are to be multiplied.” … It was just an e-mail conversation so it was quite brief.

Gotta go to bed.

Dan

OK. I can live with a quick explanation–for the time being.

But I would say that if he claims that two obligations can be fulfilled, I think there’s a certain burden of proof to show just how that can be done in this particular case, rather than just a general “burdens are restricted” principle. That might be a valid argument, but I’d like to know how he does it in a case like this one.

 

[FrDavid96]

Excellent Father. I think you’ve laid it all out very well, and it seems quite reasonable.

(As an aside, I think your approach mimics the approach that would be taken if this were a civil statute as well – except legislative history would probably also be consulted as a (hopefully) last resort).

Thank you!
VC

I am consulting legislative history. The Jewish people have a long history of interpreting when the Sabbath begins. We’ve inherited their “common law.” That’s where all of this vigil Mass thing comes from in the first place. Our own Catholic history of vigil Masses goes back to about 1970 (give or take)? So we look to the source of the principle: The Torah and Talmud (Mishna & Gamara).

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Oh OK, Gotcha. I was using “legisilative history” in the technical civil law sense as the record of the discussion of the legislators themselves on the actual law (i.e. it would be what the authors of Canon 1248 actually talked about when they sat down to write that Canon).

Thank you again for such an interesting discussion!

VC

 

[FrDavid96]

Oh OK, Gotcha. I was using “legisilative history” in the technical civil law sense as the record of the discussion of the legislators themselves on the actual law (i.e. it would be what the authors of Canon 1248 actually talked about when they sat down to write that Canon).

Thank you again for such an interesting discussion!

VC

In canon law that’s referred to as the “intent of the lawgiver” since laws today aren’t usually passed by a legislative body, but by a single person, the bishop (local or Pope). In the past the councils and synods issued canons as well, and we would look to the records surrounding the councils to understand the meaning of the decrees.

So yes, “legislative history” is indeed consulted all the time in the Church. To interpret what Pope John Paul II meant by the canons which he promulgated, for example, the Church would look at his writings, his own application of the canon, and the “history” of why he passed that particular canon. Such a history might be to look back at the application of “vigil Masses” before 1982, or to look at the responses the bishops sent to him when he asked “should I make vigil Masses part of the new code?” (assuming he did this of course).

 

[Aramis]

I am consulting legislative history. The Jewish people have a long history of interpreting when the Sabbath begins. We’ve inherited their “common law.” That’s where all of this vigil Mass thing comes from in the first place. Our own Catholic history of vigil Masses goes back to about 1970 (give or take)? So we look to the source of the principle: The Torah and Talmud (Mishna & Gamara).

Actually, it goes back to about the 4th century… in the Byzantine Rite, at least. Certain major feasts had (and still have) Vigil Divine Liturgies to enable the faithful to work the holy day for their pagan superiors.

It’s a case of Byzantification of the Latin Church; the Byzantine precursor providing authentic and ancient grounds for vigil liturgies, which then got put to excessive (but quite welcomed by many) use in the Roman Church, and then feeds back to vigils for Sunday in some of the Byzantine Churches! And the Byzantine justification is indeed the Jewish inheritance. The Byzantine use proves the continuous use within the church of that exception.

 

[MusicMan]

Byzantinification of the Latin Church? If this is the kind of revenge the Byzantines commit, I think they should take revenge a bit more often on us for all of the Latinizations we’ve imposed on them!

 

[tee_eff_em]

But I would say that if he claims that two obligations can be fulfilled, I think there’s a certain burden of proof to show just how that can be done in this particular case, rather than just a general “burdens are restricted” principle. That might be a valid argument, but I’d like to know how he does it in a case like this one.

NB: I do not (currently) hold that two obligations may be fulfilled by one Mass, but I do admit to have wavered on the question (and might yet be persuaded to either side). To repeat the dilemma which causes me to wander:
Suppose that between today, Fri 5-Dec-2008, and Tue 9-Dec-2008, I should attend exactly one Mass in a Catholic rite, during the unobjectionably evening hour of 7:45pm Sun 7-Dec.

If I shall have satisfied only one obligation: Which one is it, and which [missed] obligation shall I need bring to confession? How do you know? How do *I *know?


tee

 

[MusicMan]

In your question, the celebration you attended would be your clue. If you attend only attend a 7:45 pm Sunday Mass over the two liturgical days from Saturday evening through midnight Tuesday morning, and the celebration was Advent II, then you did not fulfill your obligation to attend IC.

That said, if it was your intent to attend IC, but you did not attend another Sunday Mass, then you’ve created a greater pickle for yourself, as regardless of the celebration, you did not make good on your obligation to attend Sunday Mass, and thus have put yourself in a state of mortal sin, compounded by the fact if you received Holy Communion that night, you did so in a state indisposed to do so.

You could, of course, discuss the matter with your confessor and let him decide, rather than debating it on a posting board.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

If I shall have satisfied only one obligation: Which one is it, and which [missed] obligation shall I need bring to confession? How do you know? How do *I *know?

tee_, that made me chuckle. You sure brought up a curious point.

My first impression would be that you fulfill the obligations as they arise. So, since your Sunday obligation is “first in the queue” you fulfill that at 7:45 Sunday (unless you went to Mass earlier on Sunday or even, gasp!, Saturday after 4:00.)

That just leaves the Holy Day obligation. So, until the liturgical day ends at 12:00 midnight on Monday, you wouldn’t have missed any obligation since you go to Mass (even a “private” one) up until midnight and fulfill it.

Sounds to me when the clock strikes 12 on Monday night (Tuesday morning), you’ve missed your Holy Day obligation.

What do you think?
VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

That said, if it was your intent to attend IC, but you did not attend another Sunday Mass, then you’ve created a greater pickle for yourself, as regardless of the celebration, you did not make good on your obligation to attend Sunday Mass

MusicMan,

That’s a good point, and one I think merits some more thought on my part. But, wouldn’t the intent to miss Sunday Mass give rise to culpability at the moment of the efficacious intent?

But, that, in itself, although sinful would not be the same as actually missing Sunday Mass if you later went.

So, in tee_'s hypothetical, he didn’t mention intending missing Sunday Mass, just that he went to the (presumably) last Mass offered on Sunday (which also happened to be the IC “vigil”). So he at least fulfilled his *Sunday *obligation no matter how you slice it, right?

VC

 

[Digitonomy]

My first impression would be that you fulfill the obligations as they arise. So, since your Sunday obligation is “first in the queue” you fulfill that at 7:45 Sunday (unless you went to Mass earlier on Sunday or even, gasp!, Saturday after 4:00.)

That just leaves the Holy Day obligation. So, until the liturgical day ends at 12:00 midnight on Monday, you wouldn’t have missed any obligation since you go to Mass (even a “private” one) up until midnight and fulfill it.

I agree completely. As to intending to go to the IC mass, but not intending to miss the Sunday mass, I can imagine a situation where a person intended to go to the 7:45 IC mass, and assumed there would be another later mass using the Sunday readings, or perhaps even forgot it was Sunday. That he can find none does not in most cases mean he’s failed to meet any obligation - yet.

If we interpret it any way other than what Verbum Caro has stated, there would be no point (canonically, at least) in tee attending a second mass, on Monday the 8th, since that obligation has been fulfilled, and he can’t get back in time to fulfill the Sunday obligation. That doesn’t seem correct to me.

Let me throw another theoretical wrinkle into this discussion - it all seems pretty clear-cut because the holy day and Sunday obligations are equivalent, and they can be equally fulfilled by any mass. What if that were not the case? Has there ever been a time when there was a graver obligation to attend one holy day than another? If the IC obligation were more serious than the Sunday, could we automatically assume the obligations were fulfilled by the first mass in queue, which could mean the graver obligation was not met in case tee failed to attend two masses? Or would it be proper to assume that when he attended Sunday night (especially if it were an IC mass) he at least met his more serious IC obligation. And if he attended another IC mass the next day, then the IC obligation was fulfilled on Monday, while the Sunday night mass actually counted toward Sunday. This would also mean we could not say whether tee met his Sunday obligation until the end of Monday.uch:

 

[dans0622]

Let me throw another theoretical wrinkle into this discussion - it all seems pretty clear-cut because the holy day and Sunday obligations are equivalent, and they can be equally fulfilled by any mass. What if that were not the case? Has there ever been a time when there was a graver obligation to attend one holy day than another? If the IC obligation were more serious than the Sunday, could we automatically assume the obligations were fulfilled by the first mass in queue, which could mean the graver obligation was not met in case tee failed to attend two masses? Or would it be proper to assume that when he attended Sunday night (especially if it were an IC mass) he at least met his more serious IC obligation. And if he attended another IC mass the next day, then the IC obligation was fulfilled on Monday, while the Sunday night mass actually counted toward Sunday. This would also mean we could not say whether tee met his Sunday obligation until the end of Monday.uch:

Good questions. I am not sure that we can say, though, that the two obligations are equivalent. In a way, they are. But, one (Sunday) is more of a divine obligation than the Immaculate Conception. That makes me wonder about those times when a Holy Day of Obligation falls on a Sunday.

Let’s say the Assumption falls on a Sunday. We celebrate the Assumption and no one says that it was “abrogated” like when it falls on a Saturday or Monday. But then, how can this ecclesiastical feast day trump a day of divine precept? It can’t. We must still fulfill the Sunday obligation and we do, by also fulfilling the Assumption obligation.

What am I missing? I admit, my gray matter is probably a little bit dim these days after exams…

Dan

 

[dans0622]

You can fill two different obligations with one act. It’s two occurrences of the same obligation that you cannot fulfill with one act.

Musicman,

Why can’t a person fulfill “two occurences of the same obligation” with one act? Is that a principle of law? Maybe you can give me some examples, other than the one we are talking about, where it will be obvious that this principle is true.

And, what makes these two obligations “the same” while the example of two retreats is an instance of different obligations?

Thanks for your time.

Dan