Vigils & Feasts

[Paul_from_MA]

This thread is actually a ‘spin off’ from another topic, but I think the issue is interesting enough in its own right…

 What do we know about, and how do we feel about the practice of celebrating vigil Masses in anticipation of a Feast the following day?  It seems to me that there was a period, even in my lifetime, where the Church insisted that Masses only be said between dawn and noon.  The only exceptions were for Easter and Christmas, when a Mass could be said at midnight.  

  Then came Vatican II :thumbsup: 

  First thing we noticed was that the Triduum was reinstated  -- evening liturgies on Holy Thursday, Good Friday and sundown Holy Saturday.  What a wonderful thing!  Then came the practice of the 4pm Saturday Mass to fulfill the Sunday obligation.  Soon after that we were allowed to fulfill Holy Day obligations on the evening before.  Then people started wanted to have daily Mass at a convenient evening time.  Some people decided that Sunday evening Masses were easier to get to than a Saturday evening Mass....  the chase is on!

 Is this all good?  I'm not sure.  Is it all bad?  Hardly!  My issue about it is that I like to follow the liturgical calendar whether I'm able to make it to Mass or not.  Today, for example, is the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe.  It was too hard for me to get to Mass today so I think of OLG without being able to share in a Mass for her.  It's after sunset where I live, and I wonder whether it's still Our Lady's feast day or whether I should be thinking about the vigil of St. Lucy (another Feast Day I love to think about -- don't scoff, it's just the way I am).  I don't "have" to attend Mass today, I don't "have" to attend tomorrow; but I like to be in tune with the liturgical calendar -- and I like to take time in my day to read the readings of the day.

 If it were up to me, (and it's not -- it's up to people who have to consider lots of considerations besides my preference) each day would be associated with one, and only one liturgical day.  Midnight to midnight.  Christmas and Easter have special vigils with special readings so extra "partial days" would be squeezed in to accomodate them.

 Even though things aren't up to me, I do have a chance to express my opinion every now and then.  I'm on our parish'es Christian Worship Commission, and we recently took up the issue of whether to have Holy Day Masses on "the day" or on "the vigil".  We also have Liturgy Preparation for certian Feast Days, such as the Feast of the Sacred Heart -- when we have that Feast Day I want it celebrated on the Friday -- not on the anticipatory Thursday.

 For me, this isn't an issue (merely) of making a Mass obligation.  It's about being aware, on a consistent basis, of entire Church'es celebration of its calendar.  Does anyone else have feelings about this issue?

 

[jpjd]

Is your point that you think vigil Masses should be done away with?

You know, Mass at any time is a good Mass. The more we can make Mass available to the faithful, that can only be a good thing.

 

[jmcrae]

According to the Liturgy of the Hours, there’s no Vigil for St. Lucy - it’s Our Lady of Guadalupe’s feast day right up until Midnight tonight.

 

[Paul_from_MA]

According to the Liturgy of the Hours, there’s no Vigil for St. Lucy - it’s Our Lady of Guadalupe’s feast day right up until Midnight tonight.

I’m delighted to hear!

This is why I opened the thread. I’m ignorant of this. Where can I find which Feasts and Solemnities have vigils and which do not?

Let’s say it’s the evening of December 7, if there’s a Mass is it for St. Ambrose or for the Immaculate Conception (and keep personal feelings out of it! )

 

[jmcrae]

I’m delighted to hear!

This is why I opened the thread. I’m ignorant of this. Where can I find which Feasts and Solemnities have vigils and which do not?

Just look up the date in your handy St. Joseph’s Guide to Christian Prayer, ($3.00 at your local Catholic book store) and see which Evening Prayer it specifies for the Liturgy of the Hours.

Let’s say it’s the evening of December 7, if there’s a Mass is it for St. Ambrose or for the Immaculate Conception (and keep personal feelings out of it! )

It’s the Vigil of the Immaculate Conception (Solemnity).

 

[tee_eff_em]

According to the Liturgy of the Hours, there’s no Vigil for St. Lucy - it’s Our Lady of Guadalupe’s feast day right up until Midnight tonight.

As a general rule that is true. However:

(You just knew there was going to be a “however” didn’t you? I shall post more about the general case following)

If you reside in a place (country, diocese, parish, other?) under the patronage of St Lucy, her feast may be celebrated with greater solemnity. And if your name is Lucy (or Luke?) or if you otherwise have great devotion to her, you may privately celebrate with greater solemnity. That is why there is an Evening Prayer I associated with all of the Commons of Saints offices.

If you were, for example, in St Lucy Parish, the pastor would be perfectly within his rights, I believe, to celebrate a 12-Dec evening Mass in anticipation of the solemn celebration of St Lucy. (Often, when I have been in attendance at such a celebration, the saint of the day has still been recalled in the Eucharistic Prayer, which I think is a nice touch)

Happy St Lucy Day
tee

 

[tee_eff_em]

I shall post more about the general case following

In general, only solemn celebrations (ie Solemnities) begin with a vigil on the evening of the preceding day. Also included are Feasts of the Lord when they fall on Sunday (on other days of the week they are celebrated as Feasts, without Evening Prayer I). As I wrote above, some celebrations that are ordinarily of lesser solemnity may be elevated by local circumstance.

Sometimes there may be a conflict. If two celebrations are of equal precedence, I believe it is “celebrant’s choice” (local patronage may sway him one way or the other, I suppose). An example would be the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart, which in 2006 fell on Fri 23-Jun, the day before the Solemnity of the Nativity of St John the Baptist. Other things being equal, I believe Friday evening may celebrate either feast.

Sometimes, even when there is a conflict, one celebration may precede the other. Even if you are in the parish of St Ambrose, I believe the evening of 7-Dec should celebrate the Immaculate Conception.

I base these judgements on the Table of Liturgical Days, which shows equal precedence in the first case (both feasts fall under #3), whereas in the second the Solemnity of the BVM in the General Calendar (#3) precedes the Solemnity of a principal patron (#4).

tee

 

[AlexV]

In the Novus Ordo Sacred Heart always trumps John, since the one is of the Lord, and the other isn’t. There’s no option; the priest must celebrate Sacred Heart on the Friday night.

The old liturgy doesn’t have these problems, because it actually allows commemorations of everything.

 

[tee_eff_em]

In the Novus Ordo Sacred Heart always trumps John, since the one is of the Lord, and the other isn’t. There’s no option; the priest must celebrate Sacred Heart on the Friday night.

The old liturgy doesn’t have these problems, because it actually allows commemorations of everything.

Are you sure? The table I referred to above does not seem to distinguish:

1. Solemnities of the Lord, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and saints listed in the General Calendar.

Or do you think it gives a partial ordering, even within #3?

I am sure you are correct, when it comes to them coinciding completely, as they will on Friday 24-Jun-2022, but in that case, I believe the Nativity of John the Baptist will be translated to Saturday 25-Jun*, and we will be back to a similar situation as 2006.

(* And the Memorial of the Immaculate Heart of Mary will lose precedence to John the Baptist)

tee

 

[AlexV]

Solemnities of the Lord come first; there is no confusion.

 

[Melchior]

This thread is actually a ‘spin off’ from another topic, but I think the issue is interesting enough in its own right…

 What do we know about, and how do we feel about the practice of celebrating vigil Masses in anticipation of a Feast the following day?  It seems to me that there was a period, even in my lifetime, where the Church insisted that Masses only be said between dawn and noon.  The only exceptions were for Easter and Christmas, when a Mass could be said at midnight.  

  Then came Vatican II :thumbsup: 

  First thing we noticed was that the Triduum was reinstated  -- evening liturgies on Holy Thursday, Good Friday and sundown Holy Saturday.  What a wonderful thing!  Then came the practice of the 4pm Saturday Mass to fulfill the Sunday obligation.  Soon after that we were allowed to fulfill Holy Day obligations on the evening before.  Then people started wanted to have daily Mass at a convenient evening time.  Some people decided that Sunday evening Masses were easier to get to than a Saturday evening Mass....  the chase is on!

 Is this all good?  I'm not sure.  Is it all bad?  Hardly!  My issue about it is that I like to follow the liturgical calendar whether I'm able to make it to Mass or not.  Today, for example, is the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe.  It was too hard for me to get to Mass today so I think of OLG without being able to share in a Mass for her.  It's after sunset where I live, and I wonder whether it's still Our Lady's feast day or whether I should be thinking about the vigil of St. Lucy (another Feast Day I love to think about -- don't scoff, it's just the way I am).  I don't "have" to attend Mass today, I don't "have" to attend tomorrow; but I like to be in tune with the liturgical calendar -- and I like to take time in my day to read the readings of the day.

 If it were up to me, (and it's not -- it's up to people who have to consider lots of considerations besides my preference) each day would be associated with one, and only one liturgical day.  Midnight to midnight.  Christmas and Easter have special vigils with special readings so extra "partial days" would be squeezed in to accomodate them.

 Even though things aren't up to me, I do have a chance to express my opinion every now and then.  I'm on our parish'es Christian Worship Commission, and we recently took up the issue of whether to have Holy Day Masses on "the day" or on "the vigil".  We also have Liturgy Preparation for certian Feast Days, such as the Feast of the Sacred Heart -- when we have that Feast Day I want it celebrated on the Friday -- not on the anticipatory Thursday.

 For me, this isn't an issue (merely) of making a Mass obligation.  It's about being aware, on a consistent basis, of entire Church'es celebration of its calendar.  Does anyone else have feelings about this issue?

As I recall, I may be wrong though, the reason for vigils relates to the way the Jews saw days as beginning at sundown of the previous day. Jesus three days in the tomb reflects this sundown to sundown concept of a day.

Mel (who is from your neck of the woods)

 

[tee_eff_em]

Solemnities of the Lord come first; there is no confusion.

It’s very assertive of you to say so, but apparently there is confusion (namely: me).

Is there something more authoritative you can point to?

tee
Proud to be a liturgical calendar nerd and alway eager to learn more

 

[AJV]

In general, only solemn celebrations (ie Solemnities) begin with a vigil on the evening of the preceding day. Also included are Feasts of the Lord when they fall on Sunday (on other days of the week they are celebrated as Feasts, without Evening Prayer I). As I wrote above, some celebrations that are ordinarily of lesser solemnity may be elevated by local circumstance…

The liturgical books after 1955 don’t really show it because they were revamped. The custom can be seen in the older Roman breviary. The thing is that there are usually two time methods overlapping in the breviary. There is the original sunset to sunset, and there is the midnight to midnight introduced in medieval times. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia in its article on Sunday:

As with the Jewish Sabbath, the observance of the Christian Sunday began with sundown on Saturday and lasted till the same time on Sunday. Until quite recent times some theologians taught that there was an obligation under pain of venial sin of assisting at vespers as well as of hearing Mass, but the opinion rests on no certain foundation and is now commonly abandoned. The common opinion maintains that, while it is highly becoming to be present at Vespers on Sunday, there is no strict obligation to be present. The method of reckoning the Sunday from sunset to sunset continued in some places down to the seventeenth century, but in general since the Middle Ages the reckoning from midnight to midnight has been followed.

Traditionally the day, the seasons, the use of a certain liturgical colour all were reckoned from First Vespers. The old Roman breviary indicates this older schema of the day (from sunset to sunset) with its feasts. If you look at the basic rank of feasts- the simple feasts- all of them commence at Vespers of the previous day and end at None of the day. Likewise for those commemorations on the calendar and the Office of St. Mary on Saturday

It is because every feast had First Vespers that the Roman breviary that there was concurrence (i.e. the overlapping of First Vespers and Second Vespers)- nowadays not much of an issue- but prior to the revision of the liturgical books, it affected the majority of days in the year.

Again, the division of the day can be seen even in feasts with Second Vespers- preference is always given to the First Vespers. This is when there are two/three feasts of the same rank (e.g. two doubles) and dignity. As an example: November 14-16 on the Traditional calendar is Ss. Josaphat, Albert and Gertrude all Doubles, and of equal dignity. So the way it goes is:
Nov 13 :First Vespers of St. Josaphat
Nov 14: First Vespers of St. Albert, Commemoration of St. Josaphat (because he is entitled to Second Vespers)
Nov 15: First Vespers of St. Gertrude, Commemoration of St. Albert

The feast of and above the rank of semidouble were supposed originally to be the great (and occasional) feasts of the Church as so we given the same extension as Sunday in Second Vespers, hence the somewhat secondary nature of the Second Vespers. In the older and mediaeval Offices, it was First Vespers which the solemn one- frequently Second Vespers were said with an antiphon taken from the common whereas First Vespers had special antiphons and occasionally a special psalm.

However, after 1955, all feasts had Second Vespers and only the special ones had First Vespers- the reversal of prior practice- and this is what is observed in the LOTH today.

There was also in the older calendar days called Vigils (17 of different ranks), but just as Octaves were the highly solemn celebrations of the feast for 8 days, so these days marked as Vigils were the extra solemn preparation for the feast by having a Mass, and an extended Office.

To round up this convuluted post and come to the point: basically Sunday exists from First Vespers to Second Vespers- and that I suppose was the logic behind the Vigil Mass. In ancient times, Vespers and Matins was the means of preparation for a highly solemn feast, and it was preceded by a Mass of the saint.

 

[AJV]

It’s very assertive of you to say so, but apparently there is confusion (namely: me).

Is there something more authoritative you can point to?

tee
Proud to be a liturgical calendar nerd and alway eager to learn more

I know that in the (yes again, I’m going to mention it )Traditional calendar, things are usually measured by the person’s dignity when of equal rank: Christ, BVM, Holy Angels, St. John the Baptist, St. Joseph, etc., etc. and I always assumed that it was the same in the modern calendar. But a re-reading of the norms for occurence and concurrence only refer to the “relative positions of the celebrations in the above table” and it seems that unless one takes it as an order of precedence within no.3 of the table, one should follow the instriction “where however, both celebrations are of the same rank in the above table, Evening Prayer of the day is said, not the Evening Prayer I of the following day” Normally the celndar does (rightfully) rank feasts of Christ above those of saints:could one say that since they did not just say “Solemnities” a certain order was intended within no. 3?

 

[AlexV]

“Authoritative”?

It’s right there in the rubric. The solemnities of the Lord are listed first because (common sense) they ALWAYS outrank solemnities of Mary and the other saints.

There’s no issue here. In the Novus Ordo, Sacred Heart trumps John in case of overlap.

The older liturgy is far more complicated.

 

[Digitonomy]

The solemnities of the Lord are listed first because (common sense) they ALWAYS outrank solemnities of Mary and the other saints.

Common sense, perhaps. However, if they wanted to state this, they could easily have written it similar to 5:

1. Solemnities of the Lord
2. Solemnities of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and saints listed in the General Calendar.
   All Souls.

Alternatively, they could have dispensed with numbers, and made one long run-on paragraph list, with each day outranking the one after it, and being of less importance than the one it follows:

Weekdays of Holy Week from Monday to Thursday inclusive, Days within the octave of Easter, Solemnities of the Lord, Solemnities of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Solemnities of saints listed in the General Calendar, All Souls, Solemnity of the principal patron of the place, that is, the city or state, Solemnity of the dedication of a particular church and the anniversary…

That they instead chose to list several solemnities as 3 logically suggests a parity between them.

It’s possible that you are correct, and there is a different level of importance for each of the items of the third rank, but if so I would hope there is a commentary somewhere to clarify it.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I preface here that I have every intention of assisting at least two Masses next weekend – Call this merely a question of curiousity.

I held off posting on this particular topic, hoping that my diocesan paper might shed some light this week, but it failed to do so. While it did publish a note that any Masses sufficiently late next Sunday must celebrate the Christmas Vigil, not the Fourth Sunday of Advent, and similarly that late Masses the following weekend must celebrate the Holy Family, and *not *the anticipation of the (non-obligatory in the US) Solemnity of Mary, the note failed to elucidate the question of Sunday and holyday obligation in light of the Christmas Vigil Masses.

So my question (previously asked in other areas of the forum) remains: Is it possible to satisfy both the Sunday obligation and the Christmas obligation by attending a Christmas vigil Mass? If not, why not?

tee

 

[AlexV]

Oh, this tiresome, tedious question. It’s really not that complicated. Here goes, yet again.

Mass on the evening of December 24 is for Christmas. It is already Christmas.

If you want to be a legalistic pedant, yes, you could go to a Mass on Sunday night, = Christmas, and say you fulfilled your Sunday obligation.

You’d be displaying about zero liturgical sensitivity, but yes, it would be “legal” in that sort of pedantic one some people seem to thrive on.

And, of course, in that legalistic way some people seem to love, yes, it’s also Christmas, and Christmas runs from the night before all through the next day, so yes, you went on Christmas.

Lucky you.

Ever hear of the spirit of the law? Ever hear of the liturgical calendar? Ever wonder about how EXCEEDINGLY FEW “extra” days are required for Mass?

So just do yourself a favor. Go to the Fourth Sunday of Advent from Saturday evening through midafternoon Sunday. Then go to Christmas from Sunday evening through any hour of the day Monday.

Stop being a loophole legalist of a pedant, and just do what is OBVIOUSLY the intent of the law.

As for the tedious question that still is surfacing of order of precedence of solemnities, no, there isn’t a pedantic commentary to clarify precisely what is, in fact, both common sense AND the rubric (i.e., Solemnities of the Lord trump all others)…but for anyone who still has those pedantic doubts, just buy the yearly Ordo from Rome. It will support my comments on which solemnity is observed.

 

[AJV]

Oh, this tiresome, tedious question. It’s really not that complicated. Here goes, yet again.

Mass on the evening of December 24 is for Christmas. It is already Christmas.
…

As for the tedious question that still is surfacing of order of precedence of solemnities, no, there isn’t a pedantic commentary to clarify precisely what is, in fact, both common sense AND the rubric (i.e., Solemnities of the Lord trump all others)…but for anyone who still has those pedantic doubts, just buy the yearly Ordo from Rome. It will support my comments on which solemnity is observed.

I *think *tee_eff_emm wanted to know from an informative point of view.

 

[AlexV]

I answered the question about order of solemnity precedence. It’s right there in the rubrics, and, while I agree that like many Novus Ordo rubrics there are some possible questions that might arise, the Ordo settles all questions when it clearly lists that, e.g., Sacred Heart trumps the Baptist.

As for Christmas, if a priest offered Mass on the evening of December 24th he couldn’t use the Mass of the Fourth Sunday of Advent…Advent ends with the midafternoon and Christmas begins.

It’s true Canon Law speaks of an obligation to attend on Sundays and doesn’t get into the specificities of those (very few) occasions where the Sunday liturgy is overtaken by something like Christmas Eve.

Again, I stand by my statement. Only legalists, pedants, and loophole-seekers worry about this.

Just go for the Advent Sunday, go for Christmas, and be done with it.