Sunday evening mass

[Petergee]

If he didn’t know any better and was mislead. Say, after visiting a certain forum

But, you also ignored the fact that I actually asked a canon lawyer and his answer was that there are 2 obligations (ie, no twofer). His specific answer was actually that a Saturday evening Mass would generally be for those who were unable to attend the Vigil (his phrasing) or the morning Mass. He went on to say that “The Lord’s Day retains its own special centrality in our faith journey.” I see you on the other hand do not have the opinion of a canon lawyer behind yours (I’ll PM you who I’ve got).

So why do you think that your canon lawyer mate has any special authority which makes his opinions overrule the opinions of all other canon lawyers?

I repeat I certainly do not encourage anyone to aim for a “twofer” Mass obligation. But I certainly wouldn’t tell anybody who attended only a “twofer” evening Mass on a weekend that he was breaking the precept of the Church to attend Mass on all Sundays and HDOs.

 

[curlycool89]

Hello curlycool89,

Perhaps “Petergee” didn’t drop any names or say that he asked a particular canon lawyer but there are certainly those who would agree with him. The majority of canon lawyers, I suspect, have probably not even formed an opinion on this question. It’s not exactly a pressing topic at canon law schools. Anyway, my unscientific survey suggests to me that the majority opinion agrees with your position. A reasonable argument can be made on the other side as well.

Thanks for your time.
Dan

I’m sorry, but that’s a logical fallacy. Just because something can happen doesn’t mean it actually does. That’s not a proper conclusion, it’s an attempt to persuade someone to drop their point without having to prove yours (“lazy arguing”).

If there are canon lawyers who agree with him, then let us see them. Canon lawyers are real people, so if there are canon lawyers who agree with this point you should be able to find them.

Especially since we’re discussing canon law, we should stick to the basis of proof legally used (for example, if there’s no complaining witness/evidence, then there’s no crime. It doesn’t matter if you think there’s a crime, it doesn’t matter if there was a crime. No evidence or witness, then legally speaking it didn’t happen. If you can’t prove it, then it doesn’t exist).

 

[dans0622]

I’m sorry, but that’s a logical fallacy. Just because something can happen doesn’t mean it actually does. That’s not a proper conclusion, it’s an attempt to persuade someone to drop their point without having to prove yours (“lazy arguing”).

If there are canon lawyers who agree with him, then let us see them. Canon lawyers are real people, so if there are canon lawyers who agree with this point you should be able to find them. …

Hello again,

Ok. Well, as I noted in my first post in this thread, there were two canon lawyers who wrote opinions in CLSA’s “Roman Replies and Advisory Opinions” in 2008. They took opposite sides. Another canon lawyer, a noted expert in general norms and liturgical law, published an opinion in 1989 that concurs with “Petergee.” He holds to the same opinion as of last year.

If that is not enough for you, I found another canon lawyer who agrees with “Petergee.” He was looking at me in the mirror this morning. But, he is basically on the fence and admits that he is moving to the other side.

Thanks for your time.
Dan

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I still think you can’t have a twofer. It is was possible why have the bishops relaxed the obligations? Why get rid of obligations that we didn’t have to fill in the first place?

 

[Petergee]

I’m sorry, but that’s a logical fallacy. Just because something can happen doesn’t mean it actually does. That’s not a proper conclusion, it’s an attempt to persuade someone to drop their point without having to prove yours (“lazy arguing”).

If there are canon lawyers who agree with him, then let us see them. Canon lawyers are real people, so if there are canon lawyers who agree with this point you should be able to find them.

Especially since we’re discussing canon law, we should stick to the basis of proof legally used (for example, if there’s no complaining witness/evidence, then there’s no crime. It doesn’t matter if you think there’s a crime, it doesn’t matter if there was a crime. No evidence or witness, then legally speaking it didn’t happen. If you can’t prove it, then it doesn’t exist).

And what “evidence” have you presented? Merely that you have demanded that we take your word for it that some anonymous canon lawyer has told you that your opinion is right. You then say that this makes your opinion a “fact”.

Yet dans0622 had provided a specific, checkable reference to a written opinion by a canon lawyer which says that your opinion is wrong. You call this “no evidence”. I can see that you are not a lawyer of any kind.