Wedding Mass Obligation

[FrDavid96]

Apologies. I was responding to the final words of your post, viz:

which seem to object to the readings.

But enough of that then.

There are legitimate differences of opinion among the competent legislators (ie bishops and canon lawyers) regarding the time of “evening” (vespere). My understanding is that the 4pm-and-later view is prevalent (but not universal) in the US; the noon-and-later view is prevalent (but not universal) in the UK. But Rome has made no definitive pronouncement on this difference (and for all I know, no one has asked her to do so), hence its legitimacy.

But I Am Not A Canon Lawyer, and may well be mistaken.

tee

tee,
Your post appeared while I was typing. Pope John Paul II did indeed define the start of evening as the time of first Vespers in* Dies Domini* that corresponds to 4:00 PM, and this has been the interpretation of the Church since Pius XII in the early 1950s first began allowing Saturday evening Masses.

Noon is not “evening” by any reasonable definition, and words must be interpreted according to their plain meaning and accepted usage.

 

[LindaSK]

Fr. David: “That last point bears repeating: A Mass before 4 PM would not fulfill the Sunday percept, regardless of what readings are used–because it has to be the “evening before” not the afternoon before or the morning before. I think that might be causing some confusion because when people say that a Saturday wedding Mass does not fulfill the Sunday obligation, oftentimes the necessary qualification “as long as it is in the evening (it does)” gets missed in the discussion.”

Thank you for all the information. The above best answers my last question. The posts I cited asking whether a 2 PM or "early afternoon’ wedding would fulfill the Sunday obligation were given the answers, in one case, “Yes” , and, in the other “What is “the evening of the previous day”? …Until Rome makes a definitive ruling on the issue, the only definitivetiming we have for fulfilling the Sunday or holy day obligation on the previous day is afternoon.** You’re free to pick your “expert opinion” as to time in the afternoon,** but the only clear restriction is that a Saturday morning Mass would not fulfill the obligation.” These were posts here on CAF.

I also truly thought that Masses before 4 PM Saturday would not fulfill the Sunday obligation. I wrote the following earlier: Except for Easter Vigil, I thought, as I read in other posts in this thread, that Sunday does not begin until 4 PM Saturday? It seems to me the answer to these 2 questions is wrong because the weddings are too early on Saturday.* A Mass that time of day would use Saturday readings, not Sunday readings, so a Wedding Mass that early should not fulfill a Sunday obligation.** *

What I meant to say, but must have worded poorly, was that, if a church had a Mass scheduled weekly at 2 PM, it would be a Saturday daily Mass using Saturday readings. I was attempting to make the point that if a Wedding Mass were held at 2 PM, then, because of the hour, that Mass would be too early to be considered a Sunday obligation fulfillment. I was commenting on the hour, not the liturgy, in this case.

Fr. David: “I do take issue with the magazine article saying that evening is subject to a personal interpretation. Pope John Paul II himself offered the interpretation, so there is no absence of one, as the article implies.” Again, this was not a magazine article. This is a post here on CAF: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=20461

I really am not trying to be difficult. I see this as an important question. It has appeared here on CAF a number of times, and there does seem to be confusion, not just on my part. Missing Mass on Sunday without very good cause is a mortal sin. If someone is told that here that a 2 PM Saturday Wedding Mass fulfills their Sunday obligation and they do not go to Mass Sunday, who has commited the sin? The individual who was misinformed, or the one who gave out the misinformation, both, neither? I would presume no malice. This was the first post from CAF I cited: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=255508&highlight=saturday+wedding+2+sunday+obligation

Am I right to express concern? I don’t see this as trivial.

In defense of the very first question I posed regarding liturgy, I would choose to go to both the Wedding Mass and a Mass using Sunday’s readings. I do understand your explanations that this would not be required, but, it would still be my choice.

Thank you.

 

[Phemie]

tee,
Your post appeared while I was typing. Pope John Paul II did indeed define the start of evening as the time of first Vespers in* Dies Domini* that corresponds to 4:00 PM, and this has been the interpretation of the Church since Pius XII in the early 1950s first began allowing Saturday evening Masses.

Noon is not “evening” by any reasonable definition, and words must be interpreted according to their plain meaning and accepted usage.

January 6, 1953: The Apostolic Constitution “Christus Dominus” which first allowed evening Masses, strictly restricted their start to after 4 p.m.

That constitution was meant to loosen the strict fast before Communion. There is nothing in that document that suggested that an Evening Mass on Saturday could fulfill your Sunday obligation.
You could now celebrate an evening Mass on First Fridays and Holy Days of obligation but unless I’m really missing something there was nothing said about celebrating them the evening before the HDOD.

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr. David: “That last point bears repeating: A Mass before 4 PM would not fulfill the Sunday percept, regardless of what readings are used–because it has to be the “evening before” not the afternoon before or the morning before. I think that might be causing some confusion because when people say that a Saturday wedding Mass does not fulfill the Sunday obligation, oftentimes the necessary qualification “as long as it is in the evening (it does)” gets missed in the discussion.”

Thank you for all the information. The above best answers my last question. The posts I cited asking whether a 2 PM or "early afternoon’ wedding would fulfill the Sunday obligation were given the answers, in one case, “Yes” , and, in the other “What is “the evening of the previous day”? …Until Rome makes a definitive ruling on the issue, the only definitivetiming we have for fulfilling the Sunday or holy day obligation on the previous day is afternoon.** You’re free to pick your “expert opinion” as to time in the afternoon,** but the only clear restriction is that a Saturday morning Mass would not fulfill the obligation.” These were posts here on CAF.

I also truly thought that Masses before 4 PM Saturday would not fulfill the Sunday obligation. I wrote the following earlier: Except for Easter Vigil, I thought, as I read in other posts in this thread, that Sunday does not begin until 4 PM Saturday? It seems to me the answer to these 2 questions is wrong because the weddings are too early on Saturday.* A Mass that time of day would use Saturday readings, not Sunday readings, so a Wedding Mass that early should not fulfill a Sunday obligation.***

What I meant to say, but must have worded poorly, was that, if a church had a Mass scheduled weekly at 2 PM, it would be a Saturday daily Mass using Saturday readings. I was attempting to make the point that if a Wedding Mass were held at 2 PM, then, because of the hour, that Mass would be too early to be considered a Sunday obligation fulfillment. I was commenting on the hour, not the liturgy, in this case.

Fr. David: “I do take issue with the magazine article saying that evening is subject to a personal interpretation. Pope John Paul II himself offered the interpretation, so there is no absence of one, as the article implies.” Again, this was not a magazine article. This is a post here on CAF: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=20461

I really am not trying to be difficult. I see this as an important question. It has appeared here on CAF a number of times, and there does seem to be confusion, not just on my part. Missing Mass on Sunday without very good cause is a mortal sin. If someone is told that here that a 2 PM Saturday Wedding Mass fulfills their Sunday obligation and they do not go to Mass Sunday, who has commited the sin? The individual who was misinformed, or the one who gave out the misinformation, both, neither? I would presume no malice. This was the first post from CAF I cited: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=255508&highlight=saturday+wedding+2+sunday+obligation

Am I right to express concern? I don’t see this as trivial.

In defense of the very first question I posed regarding liturgy, I would choose to go to both the Wedding Mass and a Mass using Sunday’s readings. I do understand your explanations that this would not be required, but, it would still be my choice.

Thank you.

Linda,

As I understand it, the original source of the 2 PM example was from some kind of article, which itself was posted on CAF (the original source was cited). But the opinion of the Pope who promulgated the canon law still carries infinitely more weight and credibility.

The issue of which readings are proclaimed is simply not relevant in this particular context. The issue is relevant in and of itself, but it has nothing whatever to do with fulfilling the Sunday obligation. I seem to detect some thoughts in this thread that one determines fulfilling the Sunday obligation by asking which readings are read. That has nothing to do with the Sunday obligation. A wedding Mass on Sunday might have the wedding readings (assuming everything else is done properly, including the fact that it has to be a Sunday in Ordinal time). There is no “before 4 PM use the wedding readings, after 4 PM use the Sunday readings” requirement. This may indeed be a pastorally sound decicision on the part of the priest-celebrant and/or it may be particular law for some dioceses, but it has no bearing on the Sunday obligation. That’s a concern of mine here–that people think that the Sunday obligation is only fulfilled if the Sunday readings are proclaimed. Whether or not the Sunday precept has been met has everything to do with the time of the Mass.

If the wedding Mass you’re asking about is before 4 PM, then there’s no question: It would not fulfill the Sunday obligation. I think the only way that it might would be some highly unusual circumstances such as being in a part of the world where the sun has already set and therefore it’s nighttime. It might make an interresting discussion/debate, but I rather doubt that’s what you’re talking about.

If the wedding Mass you attend is before 4, then you still need to attend a Sunday Mass. If, on the other hand, the Mass is 4 PM or later, then the obligation itself has been met. If you feel you want to go to a second Mass that day, by all means attend. I’m not trying to discourage you or anyone else from attending a second Mass, but I am concerned if people are under the impression that somehow the readings affect whether or not the obligation has been met.

I agree with your concerns at the end of your post. I don’t think anyone should be telling people that a 2 PM Saturday Mass fulfills the Sunday obligation.

 

[FrDavid96]

January 6, 1953: The Apostolic Constitution “Christus Dominus” which first allowed evening Masses, strictly restricted their start to after 4 p.m.

That constitution was meant to loosen the strict fast before Communion. There is nothing in that document that suggested that an Evening Mass on Saturday could fulfill your Sunday obligation.
You could now celebrate an evening Mass on First Fridays and Holy Days of obligation but unless I’m really missing something there was nothing said about celebrating them the evening before the HDOD.

Phemie,

That’s why I specifically avoided mentioning Christus Dominus, and only gave a vague reference to the time-period.

In another earlier thread, I cited it incorrectly (might have even been you who corrected me) and didn’t want to repeat my mistake. The indult to allow for the Sunday precept to be fulfilled by a Saturday evening Mass was at about the same time, but not the same document. I don’t recall (and can’t find) the specific document, so I was unable to provide a reference.

 

[tee_eff_em]

But I Am Not A Canon Lawyer, and may well be mistaken.

As noted above, I am not qualified to argue the point – But I *am *open to the opinions of those who *are *qualified and whom I have otherwise found to be trustworthy.

Time period for fulfilling the "Sunday obligation"

tee

 

[Digitonomy]

Time period for fulfilling the "Sunday obligation"tee

Unhelpfully, the author of the linked blog dodges the question of what justification there is for the noon cutoff:
Edward Peters:

For reasons that go beyond what I can present in a blog post, I hold the British-Irish position on this point

We’ve seen the historical explanation for the 4 pm cutoff that is championed by the American canon law commentary, but I have yet to see the same for the noon interpretation.

 

[FrDavid96]

As noted above, I am not qualified to argue the point – But I *am *open to the opinions of those who *are *qualified and whom I have otherwise found to be trustworthy.

Time period for fulfilling the "Sunday obligation"

tee

Well, that presents us with a question. Who do we trust?

On the one hand we have an article from a scholarly journal which says that evening begins at noon. I am willing to accept this position when every English language dictionary in the world corrects its definition of the word “evening” Because in no way can the time of noon be described as “evening” unless we re-define the word. Perhaps the author (no doubt a learned expert) is not familiar with canon 17 which says that canons are to be interpreted according to the plain meaning of the words: “the proper meaning of the words in their text and context” So to accept this author’s position, we need to either revise canon law, revise our dictionaries, or perhaps both.

On the other hand, we have the opinion of Pope John Paul II. Recall that he was the lawgiver who promulgated the code of canon law in the first place. He says that evening begins at the time of first vespers on Saturday evening, not 12 noon.

So my question is this:

Do you trust the Pope who promulgated the law, or do you trust an author of a scholarly journal who re-defines the words used in the canon? One can’t trust both, so which would it be?

I realize that in your post you say that you are “open” to the interpretation. However, if someone had to re-define a word in order to justify his interpretation, I rather think that the matter of “trust” has been lost here. It’s not as if the word “evening” were some obscure canonical term, or some scientific term which most people do not understand. It’s a word in everyone’s everyday vocabulary. Common sense alone tells us that noon is not evening.

If someone begins by saying “12 noon is evening” I cannot, in good conscience, accept the conclusion which follows from that. How could anyone?

 

[tee_eff_em]

Well, that presents us with a question. Who do we trust?

A final (I hope) clarification: I am not advocating that evening begins at noon, nor at any other specific time.

What I am saying (or trying to say): When Dr Peters (among others) tells me that the question *What time period constitutes evening? *has a range of orthodox answers [which] is … wider than [some would seem] to realize, I believe him.

I cannot say when canonical *evening *begins because there appears to be legitimate disagreement among canonists (who are far more qualified than I to answer the question).

tee

 

[FrDavid96]

A final (I hope) clarification: I am not advocating that evening begins at noon, nor at any other specific time.

What I am saying (or trying to say): When Dr Peters (among others) tells me that the question *What time period constitutes evening? *has a range of orthodox answers [which] is … wider than [some would seem] to realize, I believe him.

I cannot say when canonical *evening *begins because there appears to be legitimate disagreement among canonists (who are far more qualified than I to answer the question).

tee

tee,
What I’m trying to express here is that there is no legitimate disagreement. I realize you’re not advocating it. When canonists have an opinion that conflicts with the Pope’s own interpretation, it’s hard to call such disagreement “legitimate.”

What I cannot understand here is how one could dismiss the interpretation of the Pope himself? Where is the legitimacy in that?

Yes, there is disagreement, but no it isn’t legitimate.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Can. 14 Laws, even invalidating and disqualifying ones, do not oblige when there is a doubt about the law. When there is a doubt about a fact, however, ordinaries can dispense from laws provided that, if it concerns a reserved dispensation, the authority to whom it is reserved usually grants it.

---

So the question becomes whether there is a doubt about what “evening” means in canon 1248. Objectively speaking, there is such a doubt, as no two canon law commentaries manage to come to the same answer.

Now someone holding to the 4pm answer can say that their answer is obviously correct, so that the other answers are obviously wrong, and everyone should adhere to the 4pm cutoff. However, canon 14 addresses doubt of law, not whether one side of the debate feels that their side is obviously correct.

Now, since John Paul II deliberately put canon 14 into the code, I don’t see any justification for ignoring it so as to be “more Catholic than the Pope”. Canon 14 is a legitimate loophole that applies in this case, even for people who abhor loopholes in the law.

 

[FrDavid96]

Can. 14 Laws, even invalidating and disqualifying ones, do not oblige when there is a doubt about the law. When there is a doubt about a fact, however, ordinaries can dispense from laws provided that, if it concerns a reserved dispensation, the authority to whom it is reserved usually grants it.

---

So the question becomes whether there is a doubt about what “evening” means in canon 1248. Objectively speaking, there is such a doubt, as no two canon law commentaries manage to come to the same answer.

Now someone holding to the 4pm answer can say that their answer is obviously correct, so that the other answers are obviously wrong, and everyone should adhere to the 4pm cutoff. However, canon 14 addresses doubt of law, not whether one side of the debate feels that their side is obviously correct.

Now, since John Paul II deliberately put canon 14 into the code, I don’t see any justification for ignoring it so as to be “more Catholic than the Pope”. Canon 14 is a legitimate loophole that applies in this case, even for people who abhor loopholes in the law.

No, there is no legitimate doubt.

As I’ve said many times here, 12 noon is not evening. Tuesday is not Sunday. A dog is not a cat. An apple is not an orange. No one can say with any credibility that noon is evening. It’s simple common sense. It’s the definition of the word.

Canon law addresses this

Can. 17 Ecclesiastical laws must be understood in accord with the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places, if there are such, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.

Again, evening is evening. Noon is noon. Noon is not the “proper meaning of the word” evening.

Let’s look at the “mind of the legislator” clause. The legislator of the 1983 code of canon law was Pope John Paul II. It’s hardly being “more Catholic than the Pope” to repeat the Pope’s own words that the start-time for the evening Masses is the time of first Vespers on Saturday–that’s 4:00 PM.

Since there is no legitimate doubt, canon 14 does not apply.

Canon law must be interpreted with common sense. A word means what a word means. People cannot simply come along and change the definition of a word, then later claim that based on their own newly-minted definition of that word, a loophole has been created.

Try that in a civil courthouse in front of a judge and see where it gets you.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Canon law addresses this

Can. 17 Ecclesiastical laws must be understood in accord with the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places, if there are such, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.

Can. 18 Laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation.

According to canon 18, the concept of non-evening (which establishes the penalty) in canon 1248 must be interpreted strictly, so therefore the concept of evening must be given the broadest definition possible.

Since there is no legitimate doubt, canon 14 does not apply.

Canon 14 does not contain the word “legitimate” as far as I can see (in the English translation), so I’m finding it difficult to reconcile your utter insistence on the proper interpretation of words in canons with your addition of an extra word to canon 14 as written by John Paul II.

The question of canon 14 is does there exist a doubt of law, period. And I think it has been demonstrated objectively that such a doubt does exist. I understand that you personally disapprove of the manner in which that doubt was born, but I don’t see how such disapproval in any way affects the operation of canon 14.

Canon law must be interpreted with common sense.

I don’t see any of the introductory canons that state this idea. Anyway, common sense is relative. Isn’t it common sense to assume that if John Paul explicitly put a loophole in the code of canon law, then that loophole is just as valid as the rest of canon law.

Additionally, canon law gives weight to the opinions expressed in canon law commentaries:

Can. 19 If a custom or an express prescript of universal or particular law is lacking in a certain matter, a case, unless it is penal, must be resolved in light of laws issued in similar matters, general principles of law applied with canonical equity, the jurisprudence and practice of the Roman Curia, and the common and constant opinion of learned persons.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Genesis 1:5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” Thus evening came, and morning followed–the first day. (Catholic translation, see here.)

---

Thus God divided the day into two periods - morning and evening, i.e., before noon and after noon.

I don’t have any idea if this has anything to do with the canonical arguments on canon 1248, but I find the Biblical usage interesting.

 

[FrDavid96]

Can. 18 Laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation.

According to canon 18, the concept of non-evening (which establishes the penalty) in canon 1248 must be interpreted strictly, so therefore the concept of evening must be given the broadest definition possible.

Canon 14 does not contain the word “legitimate” as far as I can see (in the English translation), so I’m finding it difficult to reconcile your utter insistence on the proper interpretation of words in canons with your addition of an extra word to canon 14 as written by John Paul II.

The question of canon 14 is does there exist a doubt of law, period. And I think it has been demonstrated objectively that such a doubt does exist. I understand that you personally disapprove of the manner in which that doubt was born, but I don’t see how such disapproval in any way affects the operation of canon 14.

I don’t see any of the introductory canons that state this idea. Anyway, common sense is relative. Isn’t it common sense to assume that if John Paul explicitly put a loophole in the code of canon law, then that loophole is just as valid as the rest of canon law.

Additionally, canon law gives weight to the opinions expressed in canon law commentaries:

Can. 19 If a custom or an express prescript of universal or particular law is lacking in a certain matter, a case, unless it is penal, must be resolved in light of laws issued in similar matters, general principles of law applied with canonical equity, the jurisprudence and practice of the Roman Curia, and the common and constant opinion of learned persons.

You’re conveniently ignoring the fact that the legislator himself, Pope John Paul II has defined for us what the canon means. That removes any possible doubt.

See again canon 17

Can. 17 Ecclesiastical laws must be understood in accord with the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places, if there are such, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.

 

[Just_Lurking]

You’re conveniently ignoring the fact that the legislator himself, Pope John Paul II has defined for us what the canon means.

I’m not ignoring that fact. I’m deeming that fact irrelevant to the operation of canon 14, based upon my analysis of the words contained in canon 14 and their proper meaning.

That removes any possible doubt.

You can argue that it should have removed any possible doubt, but in actual, objective fact, it did not remove doubt. Therefore canon 14 applies.

I see a similar mistake made in some people’s application of the ordinary Magisterium, basing it off of what the bishops were supposed to be teaching instead of what they actually taught.

In summary, objective doubt of law exists. Canon 14 applies in all such cases, without any exception for whether you or anyone else thinks that the objective doubt is valid or not.

 

[LindaSK]

If I am following all of this correctly, then, as I originally believed, the 2 posts I cited earlier that appeared here on CAF as well as the following: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=233283 gave incorrect answers.

• Apr 14, '08, 6:42 pm
  Thaddeus Thaddeus is offline
  Junior Member Book Club Member

Join Date: March 10, 2007
Posts: 120
Religion: Catholic
Default Does a Saturday evening wedding Mass fulfill the Sunday obligation?
My family and I recently attended a Saturday evening (6 PM) wedding Mass.** My wife said that this fulfilled our Sunday obligation since it was on Saturday and after 5. ** I told her it did not, since the readings were not the Sunday readings but were specific for the wedding vows.

Who’s right?

---

No Mary, no Jesus. Know Mary, know Jesus.
Last edited by Michelle Arnold; Apr 14, '08 at 6:59 pm.
Thaddeus
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Thaddeus
Find all posts by Thaddeus
Add Thaddeus to Your Contacts
#2 Report this Post to the Moderator
Old Apr 14, '08, 7:03 pm
Michelle Arnold Michelle Arnold is offline
Catholic Answers Apologist

Join Date: May 3, 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,461
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Does a Saturday evening wedding Mass fulfill the Sunday obligation?
Neither of you, although your wife is only partially incorrect. She is correct that the nuptial Mass fulfilled the Sunday obligation but she is incorrect about the timing issue.** Any Mass on a Saturday afternoon – meaning after noon – fulfills the Sunday obligation. **The readings of the Mass do not determine whether the Mass fulfills the obligation. For more information, see the link below.

Recommended reading:

Does a nuptial Mass fulfill the Sunday obligation? *

Since the Wedding Mass in this question was at 6PM Saturday- after 4PM - it fulfills the Sunday obligation. What seems wrong to me is this statement by the CAF apologist: ]Any Mass on a Saturday afternoon – meaning after noon – fulfills the Sunday obligation.

This post was also referenced from a more recent post asking about a 3PM wedding: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=366373. According to this apologist, then, a 3PM Wedding Mass would fulfill the Sunday obligation. That would seem to be misinformation, that, if followed, would have caused the individual posing the question to have not fulfilled his Sunday obligation on that occasion. Because he was misinformed, he would not have committed a mortal sin, correct? But what about the apologist who gave out wrong information? This post was viewed, as of the time of this writing, 337 times. Therefore, potentially 337 people were misinformed unless they questioned it further. I don’t mean to be cynical, but, I am sure some would be pleased to know that if they went to a Wedding Mass at 2PM(from one of the first posts I cited) or 3PM on a Saturday, their Sunday obligation was already fulfilled and they wouldn’t have to go to Mass again on Sunday. Some may choose not to question any further. They got the answer they wanted, even if it was incorrect. Do you get my point? I see this as a serious matter.

Thank you.

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m not ignoring that fact. I’m deeming that fact irrelevant to the operation of canon 14, based upon my analysis of the words contained in canon 14 and their proper meaning.

You can argue that it should have removed any possible doubt, but in actual, objective fact, it did not remove doubt. Therefore canon 14 applies.

I see a similar mistake made in some people’s application of the ordinary Magisterium, basing it off of what the bishops were supposed to be teaching instead of what they actually taught.

In summary, objective doubt of law exists. Canon 14 applies in all such cases, without any exception for whether you or anyone else thinks that the objective doubt is valid or not.

Sorry, but you can’t create your own doubt (or use someone else’s creative creation) and then use canon 14 to justify it.

Since there’s no objective doubt, there is likewise no recourse to canon 14.

Pope John Paul II removed any possibity of doubt when the lawgiver explained the intent of the law–a fact which you persistently ignore. Just because you yourself choose to ignore a fact does not make it go away.

 

[LindaSK]

Genesis 1:5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” Thus evening came, and morning followed–the first day. (Catholic translation, see here.)

---

Thus God divided the day into two periods - morning and evening, i.e., before noon and after noon.

I don’t have any idea if this has anything to do with the canonical arguments on canon 1248, but I find the Biblical usage interesting.

I don’t see how you derived " i.e., before noon and after noon" from " God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”" I see sunrise and sunset as the natural ‘dividing line’ between the light and the darkness. Not to presume for God, but, since noon is in the middle of our period of light, I am not convinced He would have considered noon to be the boundary between light and darkness!

You mention evening. John Paul II in ‘Dies Domini’, paragraph 49 states:* “Because the faithful are obliged to attend Mass unless there is a grave impediment, Pastors have the corresponding duty to offer to everyone the real possibility of fulfilling the precept. The provisions of Church law move in this direction, as for example in the faculty granted to priests, with the prior authorization of the diocesan Bishop, to celebrate more than one Mass on Sundays and holy days,(85) the institution of evening Masses(86) and the provision which allows the obligation to be fulfilled from Saturday evening onwards, starting at the time of First Vespers of Sunday.(87) From a liturgical point of view, in fact, holy days begin with First Vespers.(88) Consequently, the liturgy of what is sometimes called the “Vigil Mass” is in effect the “festive” Mass of Sunday, at which the celebrant is required to preach the homily and recite the Prayer of the Faithful.”*

Every source I have read defines First Vespers as starting at 4PM, not at Noon.

 

[tee_eff_em]

[thread=293697]We have been down this road before[/thread].

I have no reason to believe the destination will differ this trip.

tee