Vigils & Feasts

[AJV]

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.

We all like to be pendants or go after a particular topic for no good reason other than curiosity. At least, I do.

The Ordo from Rome seems a pretty authoratative source to me and that was what he asked for.

 

[jmcrae]

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.

It was pointed out on another Forum that I go to that not everyone who does this is necessarily “pedantic.”

An example given would be of a pious Catholic whose family is anti-religion. For the sake of peace, she is with her family during the period from December 24-25, however, she must rely on a ride from a family member (who is anti-religious and thinks she is by far very stupid and superstitious, if not totally brainwashed, for wanting to go to Church) to get to Church.

Rather than inconvenience her family member on both Sunday and Monday morning, she chooses to attend the evening Mass on Sunday, thus fulfilling both obligations at the same time, while also maintaining charity and peace in her family (which is another of our Catholic obligations - our practice of religion must never become a stumbling-block to our unbelieving relatives - while we are meant to be a courageous witness, we aren’t actually supposed to frighten our family members away from the Church with our zeal).

In this case, the “pedantic, legalistic” solution is also the loving, open-to-family solution.

However, if the whole family is Catholic, or if your non-Catholic family members are accustomed to seeing you practice your faith, then there is no reason not to go at least twice, if not three times, over the period of the two days.

 

[AlexV]

There is no exercise of charity in missing Mass because it might run the risk of offending an anti-religious relative.

That’s called false charity.

Good thing the martyrs listened to Christ’s words about division in families because of His Name.

 

[jmcrae]

There is no exercise of charity in missing Mass because it might run the risk of offending an anti-religious relative.

That’s called false charity.

Not going to Mass at all out of deference for their feelings would be false charity.

I was forbidden to become Catholic without my husband’s permission, because the Church places family unity even above membership in the Church. If he had said “no” then I would have had to wait for his death before becoming Catholic.

It was actually that attitude of the Church of placing him ahead of Herself, and asking me to put him first in my life, that persuaded him to say “Yes” - there is a method in the “madness.” He is also now not as hostile to the Church as he used to be, and in my case, I will be attending Mass three times next weekend.

The martyrs weren’t martyred by their family members, by the way - and not every Catholic is called to be a martyr, anyway.

 

[AlexV]

We are ALL called to be martyrs, if the need should arise. And some family members HAVE martyred other members. St. Dymphna’s father killed her.

The Church has no teaching that a person cannot or should not become Catholic because a relative, even a spouse, objects.

We are to put NOTHING before Christ. Nothing.

 

[jmcrae]

We are ALL called to be martyrs, if the need should arise.

What the church permits, a person can use, if they need to. It’s not up to the Church to cause people to become martyred.

The Church has no teaching that a person cannot or should not become Catholic because a relative, even a spouse, objects.

Not that they can’t, ever - and in danger of death, they would suspend the rule, of course - but that Inquirers must wait until either the objections have been resolved, or the objector has died. You cannot enter the Catechesis period of formation if your spouse is objecting strenuously to your conversion to the Catholic faith - that comes directly from the Marriage Tribunal’s Interview for RCIA Inquirers.

 

[AlexV]

The RCIA isn’t the be all and end all of Catholic doctrine on the necessity of the Church for salvation.

Clare didn’t have parental support to join the Franciscans.

And religious life isn’t necessary for salvation.

 

[jmcrae]

The bottom line is that we are not required to force our relatives to sin.

What gain would it have been to anyone, for me to have forced my husband into a corner where he had no choice other than to either divorce me or else murder me? It’s much better that he had a say in the decision-making.

And there is also no merit in a 93 year old woman forcing her relatives to “martyr” her throughout the Christmas season because of her “overzealous” Christian beliefs - it is a perfectly legitimate choice for her to have peace in her family, and the Church permits her to do that.

None of us have the right to come along and tell her that she is “pedantic” and “legalistic” for taking that perfectly legitimate choice, given her situation. At the same time, those of us who can do better than that, ought to do better than that - the minimums of the Church are exactly that - minimums. We are free to add grace upon grace, and we certainly should when there’s no reason not to.

 

[AlexV]

Nobody “forces” anybody to sin. An important lesson of moral theology. You can’t force anybody to sin. Sin is a free act of the will. You can’t be compelled to sin.

Fulfilling the Mass obligation is NOT “overzealous”.

As for peace, there is true peace and there is false peace.

 

[jmcrae]

Nobody “forces” anybody to sin. An important lesson of moral theology. You can’t force anybody to sin. Sin is a free act of the will. You can’t be compelled to sin.

Alex, if your wife suddenly changes religions on you without asking for your (name removed by moderator)ut on the issue, do you think that you will have any kind of realistic option to carry on as normal? One can be “compelled” to act a certain way by circumstances created by other people.

Fulfilling the Mass obligation is NOT “overzealous”.

Where did I say that anyone should not fulfill the Mass obligation?

By the way, the priest who gave the opinion that the woman in this situation could attend the minimum number of Masses was a very traditional, very orthodox priest from Rome.

As for peace, there is true peace and there is false peace.

And as for martyrdom, there is playing stupid, and there is the genuine thing. It is not “martyrdom” to create the situation yourself - that’s called “suicide,” and last I checked it’s a mortal sin if done deliberately.

 

[AlexV]

Nobody can be compelled to commit sin. That’s a rather elementary fact of moral theology. Nobody can be so compelled so as to commit sin. Sin is a free act of the will, not an act of compulsion.

Gee, when St. Christina was told by her father (a silversmith) not to keep smashing the images of false gods he made to sell, and she kept smashing them and ended up tied up and thrown in Lake Bolsena, I guess she didn’t benefit from the wisdom of the modern world. She’s venerated as a martyr…not a suicide.

Though, incidentally, St. Pelagia of Antioch threw herself out a window rather than be compelled to marry a pagan. Chrysostom judged her action worthy of the title martyrdom.

 

[jmcrae]

Alex, it’s wonderful that you would do everything up above and beyond the call of duty, even in the face of death. Not everyone is “there,” yet, though. The Church in Her wisdom makes provision for that.

Sure, maybe I’d be in Heaven now if I had forced my husband to murder me for the Catholic faith. And that 93 year old woman would probably go straight to Heaven after freezing to death in the snow on Christmas Eve (although she would still not make it to the Mass of the Day on Christmas Day, so maybe she would go to Hell, in your view, for having the very audacity not to survive the cold long enough to get there).

But the Church permits us to have peace with our families, and it’s not a sin, as you make it out to be, to take advantage of the Church’s provisions.

 

[AlexV]

First off, despite your repeated efforts to assert otherwise, nobody can be forced to commit sin. I suggest you read that carefully and closely before making assumptions, either about your husband being “forced” to commit murder (which is absurd and un-Catholic), or a person freezing to death and going to hell for missing Mass (another patently absurd remark that is not supported by ANYTHING I said).

The Church doesn’t make neat little “provisions” that specify, please feel at peace if you miss Mass on Sunday and Christmas together because your family wouldn’t tolerate 2 Masses in a row.

 

[jmcrae]

Alex, you are even more demanding than the most demanding priest in Rome, so there isn’t much point in continuing this discussion.

And by the way, my husband isn’t Catholic - he’s Irish Protestant - so it would be perfectly within character for him to do something “un-catholic.”

 

[AlexV]

Yeah, I’m so demanding. I think people should go to Mass on Sunday AND on Christmas, and not double dip.

I also think people can’t be forced into committing sin.

I also think people don’t sin if they freeze to death and therefore miss Mass.

I also think people should convert to Catholicism if they feel called to do so, even if their spouse opposes it.

Yeah, I’m so demanding.

 

[jmcrae]

Yeah, I’m so demanding. I think people should go to Mass on Sunday AND on Christmas, and not double dip.

I do, too, but I was just pointing out that there are legitimate circumstances where someone might do that, and Father Zulsdorf has written that it is pastorally acceptable IN THAT SITUATION.

I also think people can’t be forced into committing sin.

When it’s the only rational option left to them, and they have no good reason not to, they will.

I also think people don’t sin if they freeze to death and therefore miss Mass.

But you think it’s okay for them to get thrown out of the house into the snow, rather than take the option of not annoying their relatives more than is strictly necessary or absolutely required.

I also think people should convert to Catholicism if they feel called to do so, even if their spouse opposes it.

Negotiating worked. I’m Catholic, and he’s happy. Win-win.

I don’t think it’s always necessary to deliberately piss people off, when a legitimate option exists to evangelize them, instead.

 

[AlexV]

This is such an inane discussion. I can’t believe anyone would actually consider murder a “rational option”. Or, better yet, the “only rational option left to them.”

Again, Moral Theology 101. Nobody can be compelled to commit sin.

As for the tedious question of requirements, nowhere does the Church scrupulously spell out that yes, you may indeed “double dip” on Sunday night and “technically” cover both obligations. Nowhere does she scrupulously spell out that you may not, either.

Not everything is meticulously spelled out for document checkers.

 

[jmcrae]

This is such an inane discussion. I can’t believe anyone would actually consider murder a “rational option”. Or, better yet, the “only rational option left to them.”

Divorce is against his religion, and equally so is being married to a Catholic. You tell me: where would that have left him, if he hadn’t been given the option to say “no”?

Making it his decision, and emphasizing that I would abide by his choice was the only way out of that corner - I’m glad I followed my priest’s advice to do that.

 

[Marian_Carroll]

**and the topic is:

Vigils & Feasts - Is It Tomorrow Yet?**

 

[Vox_Borealis]

An example given would be of a pious Catholic whose family is anti-religion. For the sake of peace, she is with her family during the period from December 24-25, however, she must rely on a ride from a family member (who is anti-religious and thinks she is by far very stupid and superstitious, if not totally brainwashed, for wanting to go to Church) to get to Church.

Rather than inconvenience her family member on both Sunday and Monday morning, she chooses to attend the evening Mass on Sunday, thus fulfilling both obligations at the same time…

This is a bogus example. If the piou Catholic were truly dependent on the family for a ride, and they would not provide one, then the obligation would be removed (see CCC 2181). But in reality, there would many solutions to this problem, including, say, calling someone else for a ride to mass. So, we can try to concoct some bizarre, highly improbably circumstance in which one would have to do double-duty with a single mass, but these don’t really further the discussion in any practical way.

As for the OP’s actual question. I think that the evening vigil is generally a good thing. My parents used to tell me about how local parishes would have “working mans” masses very early in the mornig, for those coming off third shift, or for those who had to work early at the plant. The Church has a long tradition of making the mass available to the laity, so extending this practice to Saturday evening makes sense.

The problem I have is when Holy Days that fall in the week are ‘transferred’ to Sunday. In this case, the Church is not making mass more conventient (for example, putting a Holy Day mass at 8:00 pm so someone can attend after work), but is essentially eliminating it (or eliminating Sunday; in either case the net result is fewer masses).