When does mass start?

[Bergon]

Because my priest, who is an experienced and orthodox priest who works under the authority of a reverent and orthodox bishop, said so. Read my post a little earlier in this thread.

It’s not my opinion. It’s what the priest says, and I am assuming that he knows a lot more than I do.

What you said in your previous post is hearsay. Unfortunately, that doesn’t provide any answer to my question. I know nothing of your priest and have no cause to question the accuracy of what you report he said. I’m never satisfied with the sort of answer it is so because Father said so. That by no means infers that Father is wrong. We are entitled to learn about our faith in depth and to ask why. You did mention he gave reasons for what he said in his essay. That is the crux of what I’m trying to get at. Not just Mass begins at the Sign of the Cross but rather Mass begins at the Sign of the Cross because …

 

[Phemie]

What you said in your previous post is hearsay. Unfortunately, that doesn’t provide any answer to my question. I know nothing of your priest and have no cause to question the accuracy of what you report he said. I’m never satisfied with the sort of answer it is so because Father said so. That by no means infers that Father is wrong. We are entitled to learn about our faith in depth and to ask why. You did mention he gave reasons for what he said in his essay. That is the crux of what I’m trying to get at. Not just Mass begins at the Sign of the Cross but rather Mass begins at the Sign of the Cross because …

The idea of everyone twisting themselves into knots over this is similar to wanting to know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

The GIRM says this:
28. The Mass consists in some sense of two parts, namely the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist, these being so closely interconnected that they form but one single act of worship.[40] For in the Mass is spread the table both of God’s Word and of the Body of Christ, and from it the faithful are to be instructed and refreshed.[41] There are also certain rites that open and conclude the celebration.

Then goes on to say

III. The Individual Parts of the Mass
A) The Introductory Rites
46. The rites that precede the Liturgy of the Word, namely, the Entrance, the Greeting, the Penitential Act, the Kyrie, the Gloria in excelsis (Glory to God in the highest) and Collect, have the character of a beginning, an introduction, and a preparation.
Their purpose is to ensure that the faithful, who come together as one, establish communion and dispose themselves properly to listen to the Word of God and to celebrate the Eucharist worthily.
In certain celebrations that are combined with Mass according to the norms of the liturgical books, the Introductory Rites are omitted or take place in a particular way.

Nobody argues that the final blessing is not part of Mass because it’s part of the Concluding Rites, why would you argue that something is not part of Mass that belongs in the Introductory Rites?

 

[YoungTradCath]

Those are good points.

As I’ve said my focus is to discover why other people hold their view. I don’t want to set the thread off on a tangent where a discussion starts on what’s the exact start of Mass.

That being said, it wasn’t the music that I had in mind. It was the Entrance Procession itself. There are various options regarding music: sing something, music only but no singing, silence. The priest, deacon and acolytes (ooops slipped into a parallel universe); I mean when the priest and servers walk from the sacristy do the Sanctuary is that Procession part of the Mass? If it is, good because that’s the view I take. If that procession occurs prior to Mass, why is it apart from the Mass?

I’m interested in hearing your views. I just find it difficult to grasp that the procession from Sacristy to Sanctuary, priest and ministers bow to altar, priest kisses altar and the altar is censed it outwith the Mass.

Oh, well, again, I can think of all sorts of juicy ambiguities on which to grasp!

If the procession is “part of Mass” in a very strict, formal sense–like the Gospel, Consecration, or Dismissal–then we have to define when exactly the procession begins.

Does it begin when Father steps out of the sacristy? Does it begin when the cross-bearer crosses the threshold into the body of the church, either from outside or from the sacristy? Does it begin when the bell is rung (if there even is one)? Does it begin when the 20 pre-Mass announcements are over?

I LOVE processions. I am not an anti-procession bigot! But if we want to be precise, we have to be precise.

If the procession is the “beginning of Mass” in a strict sense, does that mean that I have to be at a pew by the time the priest leaves the sacristy? What moment does the procession actually begin?

So many contingencies. But the one thing that never changes in the OF is the Sign of the Cross; it is always there and is dependable.

 

[Bergon]

… why would you argue that something is not part of Mass that belongs in the Introductory Rites?

Why would you say I am arguing that the Entrance Procession is not part of Mass when I am not? It is others who are saying the Entrance Procession is not part of the Mass. I am saying it is. I am saying the Entrance procession is part of the Mass and indeed it is part of the Introductory Rites.

 

[Bergon]

Oh, well, again, I can think of all sorts of juicy ambiguities on which to grasp!

If the procession is “part of Mass” in a very strict, formal sense–like the Gospel, Consecration, or Dismissal–then we have to define when exactly the procession begins.

Does it begin when Father steps out of the sacristy? Does it begin when the cross-bearer crosses the threshold into the body of the church, either from outside or from the sacristy? Does it begin when the bell is rung (if there even is one)? Does it begin when the 20 pre-Mass announcements are over?

I LOVE processions. I am not an anti-procession bigot! But if we want to be precise, we have to be precise.

If the procession is the “beginning of Mass” in a strict sense, does that mean that I have to be at a pew by the time the priest leaves the sacristy? What moment does the procession actually begin?

So many contingencies. But the one thing that never changes in the OF is the Sign of the Cross; it is always there and is dependable.

Aren’t we going too far with this precision? It isn’t necessary to mark the start of the procession: ringing the bell, when the first person in the procession starts to move, does he put his left foot forward first, when the procession appears at the sacristry door. That’s getting too pedantic.

Continuing in that vein we could argue does Mass start (as you would have it with the Sign of the Cross) when the priest begins to move his hand towards his head, when his fingers touch his forehead?

That precision isn’t necessary. The Entrance Procession is part of Mass or not. It matters not precisely at which second the procession absolutely starts.

Do you have to be in the pew by the time the priests leaves the sacristry? IMHO yes you do. We should be there before then. I don’t think it respectful or appropriate to be rushing into your pew whilst the priest and servers are making their way from the sacristy to the altar. On the other hand the Church has never said you must be present for the following parts of the Mass: … Rushing into your pew during the Entrance Procession just means one is seconds late for Mass.

 

[Phemie]

Why would you say I am arguing that the Entrance Procession is not part of Mass when I am not? It is others who are saying the Entrance Procession is not part of the Mass. I am saying it is. I am saying the Entrance procession is part of the Mass and indeed it is part of the Introductory Rites.

I’m sorry, that was meant as a general ‘you’. I should probably have written “one would never argue…”

 

[YoungTradCath]

Aren’t we going too far with this precision? It isn’t necessary to mark the start of the procession: ringing the bell, when the first person in the procession starts to move, does he put his left foot forward first, when the procession appears at the sacristry door. That’s getting too pedantic.

I know, which is why I say Sign of the Cross. It offers non-controversial precision where the procession cannot possibly do so.

 

[Bergon]

I know, which is why I say Sign of the Cross. It offers non-controversial precision where the procession cannot possibly do so.

How can the Sign of the Cross be more precise than the Entrance Procession? The absolute beginning of either is immaterial. The Entrance Procession is part of the Mass or not. We can’t say the Entrance Procession is not part of the Mass because we don’t know the exact nanosecond it begins.

 

[Bergon]

I’m sorry, that was meant as a general ‘you’. I should probably have written “one would never argue…”

I should have understood that from the context. It would be so much easier is we had singular and plural forms of the second person, you.

 

[YoungTradCath]

How can the Sign of the Cross be more precise than the Entrance Procession? The absolute beginning of either is immaterial. The Entrance Procession is part of the Mass or not. We can’t say the Entrance Procession is not part of the Mass because we don’t know the exact nanosecond it begins.

I didn’t say it’s not part of Mass, I said it’s unreliable as a demarcation of when Mass begins, and so in situations of confusion, it is probably best to default to the easiest and least-controversial thing, which is the Sign of the Cross.

The procession is wishy-washy. The Sign of the Cross either “is” or “isn’t,” in terms of absoluteness.

 

[Bergon]

I didn’t say it’s not part of Mass

You have questioned if it’s part of the Mass. You also state Mass begins with the Sign of the Cross which infers it can’t be part of it.

I have no axe to grind so I take no issue with whether you take the view Mass begins with the Process of the Sign of the Cross. What I’m asking of anyone, who says the Entrance Procession isn’t part of the Mass, is to give a reason for their views. I don’t know if they’ll change my mind but I’d like to hear views. Saying that the Procession can’t begin Mass because we don’t exactly when the Procession begins is a weak argument. It doesn’t really offer a clear reason for saying the Entrance Procession doesn’t count as part of the Mass.

 

[porthos11]

While I like what theologians are trying to do, that is to cite the importance of ALL parts of the Mass, for the purpose of obligation, demarcating it is still, I think a good idea. This makes things really clear to everyone.

The rule of thumb was this: Offertory, Consecration, and Communion of the Priest. Attend these three only and you’ve fulfilled your Sunday obligation. Of course this doesn’t mean you’ve gotten the full grace of the Mass if you attended this minimum intentionally, in fact, it could be venially sinful. But you are not guilty of mortal sin for as long as this minimum was met.

A similar rule of thumb was only slightly longer: chalice veil to chalice veil. I think that either of these rules of thumb can still be used for the purposes of “did I meet my obligation?”. They should not be used to come to Mass late or leave early.

 

[Bergon]

The rule of thumb was this: Offertory, Consecration, and Communion of the Priest. Attend these three only and you’ve fulfilled your Sunday obligation.

Where did this “rule of thumb” come from?

I think that either of these rules of thumb can still be used for the purposes of “did I meet my obligation?”.

That would take a very minimalist view to fulfilling your obligation. It would depend on the source of those “rules of thumb”.

They should not be used to come to Mass late or leave early.

 

[porthos11]

Where did this “rule of thumb” come from?

That would take a very minimalist view to fulfilling your obligation. It would depend on the source of those “rules of thumb”.

You won’t really find any; it was pretty much the consensus of moralists back in the day and if you look through the old moral theology manuals, these are pretty much what they say.

Yes, it’s minimalist and yes, it’s a very bad attitude to be minimalist. But still, defining a “point of no return” is actually a good thing for me because it clearly tells a person if he has fulfilled his obligation or not and not leave him wondering. I personally believe that one who sticks to the minimalist view would eventually fall away and stop attending Mass altogether, but for each Mass that he attended with this minimalist mindset, he fulfilled his obligation and was not guilty of mortal sin for each time he did that. However, the constant, unrepented venial sin of his mindset would slowly chip away at him and dispose him more and more to mortal sin.

But yes, clearly defining what is “too late” is overall a good idea and avoids the vagueness of today’s definitions or lack thereof. This thread is a result of that vagueness; the poor OP missed the Entrance (not even the sign of the Cross, for crying out loud!) and he didn’t know anymore whether his obligation was met. Had he had this clear rule of thumb that Offertory was cut-off, the question would never had been raised and he would actually be at peace (especially since he intending to be late out of his own fault).

The Church’s reasoning was pretty much this: if you won’t go to Mass out of love for God, then at least go out of obligation and avoid mortal sin; and to meet your obligation, this is the minimum you must do. I guess the hope was that by attending Mass out of obligation, love for God would ultimately develop.

 

[Bergon]

You won’t really find any; it was pretty much the consensus of moralists back in the day and if you look through the old moral theology manuals, these are pretty much what they say.

Yes, it’s minimalist and yes, it’s a very bad attitude to be minimalist. But still, defining a “point of no return” is actually a good thing for me because it clearly tells a person if he has fulfilled his obligation or not and not leave him wondering. I personally believe that one who sticks to the minimalist view would eventually fall away and stop attending Mass altogether, but for each Mass that he attended with this minimalist mindset, he fulfilled his obligation and was not guilty of mortal sin for each time he did that. However, the constant, unrepented venial sin of his mindset would slowly chip away at him and dispose him more and more to mortal sin.

But yes, clearly defining what is “too late” is overall a good idea and avoids the vagueness of today’s definitions or lack thereof. This thread is a result of that vagueness; the poor OP missed the Entrance (not even the sign of the Cross, for crying out loud!) and he didn’t know anymore whether his obligation was met. Had he had this clear rule of thumb that Offertory was cut-off, the question would never had been raised and he would actually be at peace (especially since he intending to be late out of his own fault).

The Church’s reasoning was pretty much this: if you won’t go to Mass out of love for God, then at least go out of obligation and avoid mortal sin; and to meet your obligation, this is the minimum you must do. I guess the hope was that by attending Mass out of obligation, love for God would ultimately develop.

Thanks for that it was interesting to read. I asked because as you point out there is no guidance given these days. I wonder if that’s because people would all start arriving at the cut-off point and leaving as soon as possible after the latest point they had to be there.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

I agree with Porthos11. Actually, I learned the same rule of thumb the other year… in seminary. The reason why people are not taught this is because back in the day, when people actually knew it, you would have people standing outside the Churches smoking and chatting until the Offertory bell (or so I have been told). We don’t want minimalists in regards to loving God. I believe at one point Fr. Z on his blog www.wdtprs.com/blog answered the question from a person like this (paraphrasing a lot): “No, you fulfilled your Mass obligation. And no, I am not telling you when that obligation actually begins.”
The only reason I am willing to write this is because of the OP’s scruples. It is a secret guarded because we want people to attend the entire Mass. Even the Liturgy of the Word is part of the Sacrifice of the Mass for it is a sacrifice of praise as well as reparation. I don’t believe any Priest would tell you that you missed your Mass obligation. Was the OP late for the beginning of Mass? I would say that the rubrics are too ambiguous for me to answer that. May God have mercy on me if anyone uses this as a means to feel no guilt for being late to Mass!

GO TO THE ENTIRE MASS!!! IF YOU ARE LATE, BEFORE THE OFFERTORY, MAKE REPARATION TO OUR LOVING GOD! IF YOU ARRIVE AFTER THE BEGINNING OF THE OFFERTORY, GO TO ANOTHER MASS! IT IS THE LORD’S DAY AFTERALL!

 

[jimrob]

In the pre-Vatican 2 days, I was taught that to fulfil the Sunday precept, you had to be part of the congregation at the Offertory, Consecration and Priest’s Communion. However, I understand that version has been defined as a misunderstanding.

Arriving late and leaving early is a symptom of the “I go to Mass so I don’t burn in Hell” mentality. If you love the liturgy and want to praise God, you should arrive well before there is any activity on the Sanctuary and stay for a while afterwards.

My wife (an English Baptist) claims she can always tell a Catholic Church because the late arrivals overlap with the early leavers.

 

[Bergon]

My mother has told me on a number of occasions that latecomers weren’t admitted to the church. She said this was before her time so I don’t know how far back she’s going. Apparently, though, once Mass had started no one who was late was admiited to the church.

I can understand why the Church won’t say what the minimum is. If she did people would turn up just in time for the earliest part they had to be there for and start leaving once the Mass reached the point when you could leave. That might be as has been posted: from the Offertory to the Priest’s Communion.

IMHO it would be far better catechesis to encourage the faithful to arrive before Mass starts to spiritually prepare themselves for Mass. This catechesis should include you stay right to then end then remain to make your tahnksgiving for Mass.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

IMHO it would be far better catechesis to encourage the faithful to arrive before Mass starts to spiritually prepare themselves for Mass. This catechesis should include you stay right to then end then remain to make your tahnksgiving for Mass.

HEAR HEAR!!!

 

[wcknight]

The best guide I’ve heard is that the priest should be the last one in and the first one out…

BUT the OP definitely fulfilled his obligation even though he missed a very minute portion of the mass.