When is Mass Obligation Fulfilled

[Michael_Mayo]

When it is no longer your ‘obligation’, but your ‘joy’. Until then, you still have much work to do.

Concern about obligation really does distract. I remember long ago when I was in college and Mass was an “obligation”. A priest once told me to pray for a love of the mass. That blew my mind: Love the Mass??? So I prayed for a love of the Mass but it lead me to reflect that I didn’t love the Mass because I didn’t really love God, just went through the motions. And I didn’t love God because I didn’t know God. I had been instructed, indoctrinated and initiated and taught about the obligation to attend Sunday Mass under penalty of Mortal Sin. But no one told me to pray to KNOW God. That is what I did. God began to reveal himself to me and I came to know the beauty God and could not help but love God. It was then a short step to love the Mass to the point of going every day. If something comes up on Sunday and I have to miss part or all of Mass I would be less concerned about “obligation” and more concerned about what I missed because of the joy and peace it brings.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

There are many…

This citation is not appropriate to this question…

I know of no Church document that says that being present at anything beyond the principal parts of the Mass is necessary to fulfill one’s obligation. The commonly held view by countless moral theologians, and written in multiple catechisms and moral theologies prior to the Council (with some ecclesiastically approved books and priests holding this view after the Council) has not definitively been declared incorrect, so I see no reason that we cannot hold this belief. The Council and the period after may have tried to stress the importance of the entire Mass, and rightfully so, but they do not say that we must be present for the entire Mass to fulfill our obligation.

Here is something that I found interesting from Jimmy Akin:

Given the lack of guidance on this question and the presence of the pre-Conciliar history of regarding hearing Mass from the Offertory onward as sufficient we AT LEAST have a doubt of whether the law requires us to attend any particular part of the liturgy of the Word in order to fulfill our Sunday obligation.

We therefore have a doubt of law, and the law does not bind unless and until Rome clarifies it. [according to Canon 14]

Until then the faithful are not obligated to hear any part of the liturgy of the word in order to fulfill their Sunday obligation.

That may surprise some folks, but that’s what canon law indicates given the doubt of law situation that unambiguously exists in [the case of the reader that posed the question]. Fulfilling One’s Sunday Obligation

I think this can be applied to our present situation with remaining after the priest’s Communion.

 

[LordHaveMercy]

It’s from Fr. Francis Spirago, a Professor of Theology. He wrote it in a catechism that has an imprimatur from the Archbishop of New York.

Is this “Catechism Explained” you’re talking about? I recently purchased this and have found it so edifying. It’s excellent!

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Is this “Catechism Explained” you’re talking about? I recently purchased this and have found it so edifying. It’s excellent!

Yes, that’s it. I found it very edifying as well, one of my favorite books for sure.

 

[Mintaka]

Wow, this is a thread full of overcorrection and overzealousness.

Ideally, a person attending Mass attends the entire Mass, from beginning to end. And it is praiseworthy and pious to be in church praying before Mass, at least 15 minutes ahead of time; it is also praiseworthy and pious to spend at least five minutes of prayer after Mass, thanking the Lord for His great goodness to us. If you’re living a placid life and the crick doesn’t rise, that shouldn’t be a problem.

HOWEVER.

In the real world, Mother Church gives an extremely generous interpretation of canon law, so that Catholics do not become discouraged and skip Mass altogether if they are a few minutes late to Mass in a strange town, or if the car won’t start on time, or traffic is heavy, or a doctor gets called out of church on an emergency, or their boss insists they work on Sunday, or whatever else happens to happen. In fact, the usual interpretation given to Catholics is actually less generous than the “official” one. (Most people in this country go with the old Irish teaching that you had to be there before the Gospel reading was done. And that’s not a bad rule of thumb, but the teaching in Rome was actually the more generous one. As Father Z once noted, that attendance cutoff was one reason for the ringing of the Offertory bell.)

The Church did not need to make official pronouncements in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or in a papal bull. The ordinary magisterium is more than sufficient for the implementation of canon law and moral law. If it’s good enough for defining murder, it’s good enough for going to Mass. And no, the pre-Vatican II manualists were not dealing with a totally different situation. (If you believe that the Mass is the Mass, that is.) And don’t go looking to our Eastern Catholic brethren for a more severe interpretation in their canon law, because you won’t find it. Their ideas on Mass attendance are also quite generous, partly because their Masses are even longer.

To fulfil the Mass obligation, you have to attend the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Liturgy of the Word part is fulfilled if you get there even as late as the Offertory, that being the end of the Liturgy of the Word. (Yup, you don’t even technically have to be there for the Gospel.) The Liturgy of the Eucharist part is fulfilled by being there until Communion - in fact, until the priest receives Communion. That’s the barest bare bones of Mass, but you can get out of there without any bad conscience if you really have to go.

You can even fulfill the Mass obligation by being present at one part each, divided over two Masses. (In case you get there just in time for the Liturgy of the Eucharist, but can stay for the Liturgy of the Word at the next Mass. Or vice versa, if the day is very weird.)

Obviously, these generous provisions are supposed to be used for emergencies or hardship situations. Obviously some people abuse that generosity; but their lack of generosity to Christ doesn’t mean that the Church needs to tighten up and be mean to the people using them wisely.

Abusing the rules is a loss to the person doing it, and serves as its own punishment. If a person knows that he was late because of laziness and neglect, he knows he’s not prepared for Communion even if he made it on time to hit the obligation. But that’s a Catholic person’s own responsibility to discern, as part of discerning the Body of Christ. It’s not the job of random people to discern that for him. (And if someone is scrupulous, it is really beneficial to have an absolute cutoff.)

Encouraging people to attend Mass fully is one thing. Binding unfair burdens on people’s consciences, or outright lying to them about the extent of their Mass obligation, is quite another. Some people have very tender consciences and are easily depressed and discouraged. Others are not well rooted in the Church or are having significant logistical problems. Without knowing someone personally, you can’t know if they need admonishment or praise for showing up late at Mass. But if someone asks you a question on a thread, you can do them the justice of answering it honestly, not in a weird Pharisaic way.

And yes, I’m one of those Catholics who is not only there every week, but is there really early doing stuff or praying. At my old parish, I often ended up assisting at more than one Mass in the morning as part of helping out with music and other stuff. I’m gung ho about Mass attendance. But I know my rights under canon law, and I respect those of others.

(And if it’s a daily Mass that isn’t for a Holy Day of Obligation, getting there late is not something to fret too much about. Not ideal, not a good plan, but not sinful or bad.)

PS - Father Sean Coyle once pointed out that the Life of St. Anthony the Abbot, father of monasticism, says that he received his vocation one day when he arrived at Sunday Mass in the middle of the Gospel reading, which he heard as personally addressed to him. God is very good.

 

[babochka]

If you’re living a placid life and the crick doesn’t rise, that shouldn’t be a problem.

And if the creek rises and you’re 45 minutes late for Mass, it still isn’t a problem. It has happened to me. The freeway was flooded. We walked in 45 minutes late. God understood and appreciated our efforts, I’m certain. We could have gone home and found a Mass in the evening close to home, but we did not. We stayed, we received Communion, we joined our Church family for lunch after the Divine Liturgy and talked in amazement about the floods all over town.

** In fact, the usual interpretation given to Catholics is actually less generous than the “official” one**. (Most people in this country go with the old Irish teaching that you had to be there before the Gospel reading was done. And that’s not a bad rule of thumb, but the** teaching in Rome** was actually the more generous one.

The Church did not need to make official pronouncements…The ordinary magisterium is more than sufficient for the implementation of canon law and moral law.

You claim that these guidelines are part of the ordinary magesterium of the Church. It seems to me that the Church has never officially spoken on this subject. It seems that moral theologians might have held a general consensus at some point in history, but the general consensus of opinion of theologians does not Church teaching make. Church teaching comes from the bishops in Communion with the Pope. If our bishops wish to give firm guidelines on this subject to the faithful, they can and will. It seems, instead, that they have left these details to individual consciences, and thank God for that.

And don’t go looking to our Eastern Catholic brethren for a more severe interpretation in their canon law, because you won’t find it. Their ideas on Mass attendance are also quite generous, partly because their Masses are even longer.

Would you mind explaining this in further detail, particularly the part about it being because the Divine Liturgy is longer?

Traditionally, we don’t even have the concept of a codified Sunday obligation. but it is completely foreign to Eastern thought to try to pin it down to “what counts.” It strikes me as painfully minimalist. Eastern thought is a different mindset altogether, and is very generous.

In some cultures, it is quite common for people to wander in (and out) throughout the Divine Liturgy, but that should not be interpreted to mean that it is perfectly acceptable. Matins is prayed immediately prior to the Divine Liturgy and the two sort of run together. I’ve heard a good number of frustrated priests exhort that "the Divine Liturgy begins with the words ‘Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’ and ends with the final ‘Amen.’

The Byzantine equivalent to the offertory, the Proskomedia, occurs before the Divine Liturgy begins. So, if a Latin Rite Catholic attends the Divine Liturgy, he or she had better be there quite early, if they must be present for the offertory.

To fulfil the Mass obligation, you have to attend the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Liturgy of the Word part is fulfilled if you get there even as late as the Offertory, that being the end of the Liturgy of the Word.

Not according to the USCCB:

The Liturgy of the Eucharist begins with the preparation of the gifts and the altar. As the ministers prepare the altar, representatives of the people bring forward the bread and wine that will become the Body and Blood of Christ. The celebrant blesses and praises God for these gifts and places them on the altar, the place of the Eucharistic sacrifice. In addition to the bread and wine, monetary gifts for the support of the Church and the care of the poor may be brought forward. The Prayer over the Offerings concludes this preparation and disposes all for the Eucharistic Prayer.

Obviously, these generous provisions are supposed to be used for emergencies or hardship situations.

Encouraging people to attend Mass fully is one thing. Binding unfair burdens on people’s consciences, or outright lying to them about the extent of their Mass obligation, is quite another. Some people have very tender consciences and are easily depressed and discouraged. Others are not well rooted in the Church or are having significant logistical problems. Without knowing someone personally, you can’t know if they need admonishment or praise for showing up late at Mass. But if someone asks you a question on a thread, you can do them the justice of answering it honestly, not in a weird Pharisaic way.

With this, I completely agree with you.

I’m just not sold on the idea that the Church has given “official” guidelines as to what “counts” as Mass attendance. I believe that the Church gives guidelines as to what relieves a person of the Sunday obligation. If you arrive late or must leave early through no fault of your own, then you are not obligated to stay. God rewards your efforts to be there at all. For example, if I spend 90% of the Mass outside with a screaming baby, I have not attended Mass, even though I have been present at the Church. But I am not obligated to attend Mass because circumstances have prevented me from doing so.

And yes, I’m one of those Catholics who is not only there every week, but is there really early doing stuff or praying. At my old parish, I often ended up assisting at more than one Mass in the morning as part of helping out with music and other stuff. I’m gung ho about Mass attendance.** But I know my rights under canon law, and I respect those of others.**

Does canon law address the topic of what “counts” for fulfilling the obligation?

 

[otjm]

Concern about obligation really does distract. I remember long ago when I was in college and Mass was an “obligation”. A priest once told me to pray for a love of the mass. That blew my mind: Love the Mass??? So I prayed for a love of the Mass but it lead me to reflect that I didn’t love the Mass because I didn’t really love God, just went through the motions. And I didn’t love God because I didn’t know God. I had been instructed, indoctrinated and initiated and taught about the obligation to attend Sunday Mass under penalty of Mortal Sin. But no one told me to pray to KNOW God. That is what I did. God began to reveal himself to me and I came to know the beauty God and could not help but love God. It was then a short step to love the Mass to the point of going every day. If something comes up on Sunday and I have to miss part or all of Mass I would be less concerned about “obligation” and more concerned about what I missed because of the joy and peace it brings.

That is one of the most cogent and well-written answers I have ever seen on the matter.

I have an intense dislike for the use of the word “obligation” in regards to Mass. It comes across to me as nearly identical to an “obligation” to go to dinner at one’s mother-in-law’s house (an image that should be understandable even to those who have never had a mother-in-law, given the number of jokes in regards to them). It gives an image of wishing and desiring to be anywhere else at all, but present simply to go through the motions in order to keep peace in the family. Use of the word “obligation” bespeaks an attitude of something significantly removed from an intimate, loving relationship with God.

 

[Reuben_J]

Wow, this is a thread full of overcorrection and overzealousness.

Ideally, a person attending Mass attends the entire Mass, from beginning to end. And it is praiseworthy and pious to be in church praying before Mass, at least 15 minutes ahead of time; it is also praiseworthy and pious to spend at least five minutes of prayer after Mass, thanking the Lord for His great goodness to us. If you’re living a placid life and the crick doesn’t rise, that shouldn’t be a problem.

HOWEVER.

In the real world, Mother Church gives an extremely generous interpretation of canon law, so that Catholics do not become discouraged and skip Mass altogether if they are a few minutes late to Mass in a strange town, or if the car won’t start on time, or traffic is heavy, or a doctor gets called out of church on an emergency, or their boss insists they work on Sunday, or whatever else happens to happen. In fact, the usual interpretation given to Catholics is actually less generous than the “official” one. (Most people in this country go with the old Irish teaching that you had to be there before the Gospel reading was done. And that’s not a bad rule of thumb, but the teaching in Rome was actually the more generous one. As Father Z once noted, that attendance cutoff was one reason for the ringing of the Offertory bell.)

The Church did not need to make official pronouncements in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or in a papal bull. The ordinary magisterium is more than sufficient for the implementation of canon law and moral law. If it’s good enough for defining murder, it’s good enough for going to Mass. And no, the pre-Vatican II manualists were not dealing with a totally different situation. (If you believe that the Mass is the Mass, that is.) And don’t go looking to our Eastern Catholic brethren for a more severe interpretation in their canon law, because you won’t find it. Their ideas on Mass attendance are also quite generous, partly because their Masses are even longer.

To fulfil the Mass obligation, you have to attend the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Liturgy of the Word part is fulfilled if you get there even as late as the Offertory, that being the end of the Liturgy of the Word. (Yup, you don’t even technically have to be there for the Gospel.) The Liturgy of the Eucharist part is fulfilled by being there until Communion - in fact, until the priest receives Communion. That’s the barest bare bones of Mass, but you can get out of there without any bad conscience if you really have to go.

You can even fulfill the Mass obligation by being present at one part each, divided over two Masses. (In case you get there just in time for the Liturgy of the Eucharist, but can stay for the Liturgy of the Word at the next Mass. Or vice versa, if the day is very weird.)

Obviously, these generous provisions are supposed to be used for emergencies or hardship situations. Obviously some people abuse that generosity; but their lack of generosity to Christ doesn’t mean that the Church needs to tighten up and be mean to the people using them wisely.

Abusing the rules is a loss to the person doing it, and serves as its own punishment. If a person knows that he was late because of laziness and neglect, he knows he’s not prepared for Communion even if he made it on time to hit the obligation. But that’s a Catholic person’s own responsibility to discern, as part of discerning the Body of Christ. It’s not the job of random people to discern that for him.

…

And yes, I’m one of those Catholics who is not only there every week, but is there really early doing stuff or praying. At my old parish, I often ended up assisting at more than one Mass in the morning as part of helping out with music and other stuff. I’m gung ho about Mass attendance. But I know my rights under canon law, and I respect those of others.

(And if it’s a daily Mass that isn’t for a Holy Day of Obligation, getting there late is not something to fret too much about. Not ideal, not a good plan, but not sinful or bad.)

Thank you for this interesting post. I like the way you present it. You sounds very confident.

I would tend to agree with you though I still listen to what is being said in this thread.

I would see anything to do with the mass from an eye of compassion and deep in my heart would plead for leniency and compassion. Many times I did not prepare or participate in the mass meaningfully and I feel terribly bad about it.

Generally I make it a point to come at least fifteen minutes or more before mass and to leave at least five minutes after the concluding hymn so that I have time for personal prayers in thanking God for being able just to partake in his sacrifice.

My own referral point - if I arrive after the Gospel, I would consider it as not being fulfilled. I would not receive Holy Communion and have to attend another mass (to fulfill the day of obligation). On leaving, it is easier since I am already in the church. I would allow myself to leave during the concluding hymn if the children keep on pulling my hands because they were hungry (no breakfast yet) and looking forward for the brunch.

Nobody tells me those guideline of course but still, hearing a compassionate and flexible rendition of when a mass is fulfilled is always heartening to me.

God bless.

 

[jmcrae]

It’s from Fr. Francis Spirago, a Professor of Theology. He wrote it in a catechism that has an imprimatur from the Archbishop of New York.

In what year? This may be an old rule that applied to the Tridentine Mass prior to 1973.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

That is one of the most cogent and well-written answers I have ever seen on the matter.

I have an intense dislike for the use of the word “obligation” in regards to Mass. It comes across to me as nearly identical to an “obligation” to go to dinner at one’s mother-in-law’s house (an image that should be understandable even to those who have never had a mother-in-law, given the number of jokes in regards to them). It gives an image of wishing and desiring to be anywhere else at all, but present simply to go through the motions in order to keep peace in the family. Use of the word “obligation” bespeaks an attitude of something significantly removed from an intimate, loving relationship with God.

Thank you. “Obligation” leads us to legal minimalism. Like what is the least I have to do. So unlike Jesus.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Thank you. “Obligation” leads us to legal minimalism. Like what is the least I have to do. So unlike Jesus.

In point of fact, you are exactly correct with the evocation of legal minimalism. Which is why I find the position of those who look to some of the old moral theology manuals and the manualists as bizarre. That one would postulate arriving at the offertory and leaving as soon as the Priest consumed the consecrated elements…this could involve less than 10 minutes…and claim thereby that one had “fulfilled” the Mass obligation was actually an impetus, among many others, for the needed reform of the liturgy.

(I should add that there were many things, particularly in the moral theology manuals, that we found bizarre then, too…which is why the manuals fell into such disuse and disfavour. I still have near at hand my old worn copies of Ott and Tanqueray as they were and are splendid reference books.)

 

[Don_Ruggero]

From “Dies Domini” the apostolic letter of St John Paul II
*39. As in every Eucharistic celebration, the Risen Lord is encountered in the Sunday assembly at the twofold table of the word and of the Bread of Life. The table of the word offers the same understanding of the history of salvation and especially of the Paschal Mystery which the Risen Jesus himself gave to his disciples: it is Christ who speaks, present as he is in his word “when Sacred Scripture is read in the Church”. At the table of the Bread of Life, the Risen Lord becomes really, substantially and enduringly present through the memorial of his Passion and Resurrection, and the Bread of Life is offered as a pledge of future glory. The Second Vatican Council recalled that “the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist are so closely joined together that they form a single act of worship”. The Council also urged that “the table of the word of God be more lavishly prepared for the faithful, opening to them more abundantly the treasures of the Bible” /…/ These timely decrees were faithfully embodied in the liturgical reform /…/

1. /…/ At the level of celebration, the fact that the Council made it possible to proclaim the word of God in the language of the community taking part in the celebration must awaken a new sense of responsibility towards the word, allowing “the distinctive character of the sacred text” to shine forth “even in the mode of reading or singing”. At the level of personal appropriation, the hearing of the word of God proclaimed must be well prepared in the souls of the faithful /…/
2. It should also be borne in mind that the liturgical proclamation of the word of God, especially in the Eucharistic assembly, is not so much a time for meditation and catechesis as a dialogue between God and his People, a dialogue in which the wonders of salvation are proclaimed and the demands of the Covenant are continually restated /…/ so that what we hear may involve us at the deepest level

The table of the Body of Christ

1. The table of the word leads naturally to the table of the Eucharistic Bread and prepares the community to live its many aspects, which in the Sunday Eucharist assume an especially solemn character. As the whole community gathers to celebrate “the Lord’s Day”, the Eucharist appears more clearly than on other days as the great “thanksgiving” in which the Spirit-filled Church turns to the Father, becoming one with Christ /…/
2. /…/ It is also important to be ever mindful that communion with Christ is deeply tied to communion with our brothers and sisters. The Sunday Eucharistic gathering is an experience of brotherhood /…/ The sign of peace — in the Roman Rite significantly placed before Eucharistic communion — is a particularly expressive gesture which the faithful are invited to make /…/

The Sunday obligation

1. Since the Eucharist is the very heart of Sunday, it is clear why, from the earliest centuries, the Pastors of the Church have not ceased to remind the faithful of the need to take part in the liturgical assembly. “Leave everything on the Lord’s Day”, urges the third century text known as the Didascalia, “and run diligently to your assembly, because it is your praise of God. Otherwise, what excuse will they make to God, those who do not come together on the Lord’s Day to hear the word of life and feed on the divine nourishment which lasts forever?”. The faithful have generally accepted this call of the Pastors with conviction of soul and, although there have been times and situations when this duty has not been perfectly met, one should never forget the genuine heroism of priests and faithful who have fulfilled this obligation even when faced with danger and the denial of religious freedom, as can be documented from the first centuries of Christianity up to our own time

In his first Apology addressed to the Emperor Antoninus and the Senate, Saint Justin proudly described the Christian practice of the Sunday assembly, which gathered in one place Christians from both the city and the countryside. When, during the persecution of Diocletian, their assemblies were banned with the greatest severity, many were courageous enough to defy the imperial decree and accepted death rather than miss the Sunday Eucharist. This was the case of the martyrs of Abitina, in Proconsular Africa, who replied to their accusers: “Without fear of any kind we have celebrated the Lord’s Supper, because it cannot be missed; that is our law”; “We cannot live without the Lord’s Supper” /…/

1. Even if in the earliest times it was not judged necessary to be prescriptive, the Church has not ceased to confirm this obligation of conscience, which rises from the inner need felt so strongly by the Christians of the first centuries. It was only later, faced with the half-heartedness or negligence of some, that the Church had to make explicit the duty to attend Sunday Mass: more often than not, this was done in the form of exhortation, but at times the Church had to resort to specific canonical precepts /…/

The Code of Canon Law of 1917 for the first time gathered this tradition into a universal law. The present Code reiterates this, saying that “on Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to attend Mass”. This legislation has normally been understood as entailing a grave obligation: this is the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and it is easy to understand why if we keep in mind how vital Sunday is for the Christian life

1. /…/ This is why they must be convinced that it is crucially important for the life of faith that they should come together with others on Sundays to celebrate the Passover of the Lord in the sacrament of the New Covenant /…/*
   w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1998/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_05071998_dies-domini.html

 

[Don_Ruggero]

You claim that these guidelines are part of the ordinary magesterium of the Church. It seems to me that the Church has never officially spoken on this subject. It seems that moral theologians might have held a general consensus at some point in history, but the general consensus of opinion of theologians does not Church teaching make. Church teaching comes from the bishops in Communion with the Pope. If our bishops wish to give firm guidelines on this subject to the faithful, they can and will. It seems, instead, that they have left these details to individual consciences, and thank God for that.

/…/

I’m just not sold on the idea that the Church has given “official” guidelines as to what “counts” as Mass attendance. I believe that the Church gives guidelines as to what relieves a person of the Sunday obligation. If you arrive late or must leave early through no fault of your own, then you are not obligated to stay. God rewards your efforts to be there at all. For example, if I spend 90% of the Mass outside with a screaming baby, I have not attended Mass, even though I have been present at the Church. But I am not obligated to attend Mass because circumstances have prevented me from doing so.

Does canon law address the topic of what “counts” for fulfilling the obligation?

Your first paragraph above is correct…although consensus could be generous.

As for the last, Canon Law does not go into specificity on this issue. Commentary from theologians and canonists is essentially derived from Sacrosanctum Concilium.
56. The two parts which, in a certain sense, go to make up the Mass, namely, the liturgy of the word and the eucharistic liturgy, are so closely connected with each other that they form but one single act of worship. Accordingly this sacred Synod strongly urges pastors of souls that, when instructing the faithful, they insistently teach them to take their part in the entire Mass, especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation.
This is the heart of the matter of why those with the cura animarum as well as theologians and canonists are nothing short of loath to try to articulate an “obligation” that falls short of what the Pope with the College of Bishops collectively decreed in the above statement.

That is also why commentary today…be it theologians, be it canonists, or be it the diocesan liturgical offices and other liturgists…do precisely what you did in your second paragraph and what other select posters are doing – one assesses the extent to which one can fulfill…or be excused from…the obligation to attend the Sunday or Holy Day Mass rather than looking to carve out what can be said to be the minimum aspects of the Mass that the obligation requires presence at.

There is an interesting commentary on this by a rather prominent American canonist:
canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/how-much-of-mass-can-i-miss-you-know-and-it-still-counts/
As for the old manualists, I mentioned this thread to an old colleague for a trip down Memory Lane about the manuals. It turned out, he used a different exemplar of those old manuals when he was lecturing in moral theology than the one I used in my lecture and, of all things, he remembered enough of a passage that, with the Jesuit’s name, he found part of it on the Internet…with an interesting remark about it, both of which he sent to me and both of which I pass on:
*Finally, you asked about the old “definition” of Mass as consisting of the time from the Gospel to Communion. This widespread rumor arose because many old moral theology manuals identified some parts of the Mass as absolutely essential and others as less important, yet required. Some people, sad to say, took this to mean that they could fulfill the legal obligation by attending only the “essential” parts. This was never the case.

Father Henry Davis, S.J., who wrote the classic four-volume manual Moral and Pastoral Theology in 1943, provided a detailed calibration of every piece of the Mass, but prefaced his “rankings” by stating: “Bodily presence must be continuous during the Mass from the beginning to the last Gospel exclusively. The faithful are obliged to hear the whole Mass, without even the smallest omission.”*
The quote even captures well the extremes of expression one could encounter in the manualists.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

In what year? This may be an old rule that applied to the Tridentine Mass prior to 1973.

I’ll supply the answer for you.

I had encountered this reference before…here on the Catholic Answers Forum. It was a bit perplexing to me as I did not recognise the name – especially to have been a professor of theology, published in the area of catechetics. I am, as the saying goes, no “spring chicken” since I am now emeritus myself.

Well there is reason the dear Father and I had no one in common, even at my age. Father was born in 1862. My grandparents are from the 19th century…but not that far back.

In any event, in answer to your direct question, the book was published in 1899, in the reign of Leo XIII. I think Father may have issued another edition/printing after the dawn of the 20th century but I didn’t pursue the investigation further.

 

[LordHaveMercy]

Father Henry Davis, S.J., who wrote the classic four-volume manual Moral and Pastoral Theology in 1943, provided a detailed calibration of every piece of the Mass, but prefaced his “rankings” by stating: “Bodily presence must be continuous during the Mass from the beginning to the last Gospel exclusively. The faithful are obliged to hear the whole Mass, without even the smallest omission.”[/INDENT]

The quote even captures well the extremes of expression one could encounter in the manualists.

This is what our Priest has told us. We are to attend the complete Mass start to finish. The rankings of the different parts relative to each other was obviously confirmed a few years later when many parts were dropped (Judica Me Deus, Last Gospel, etc.) but we are to attend the rite start to finish. It’s hard to imagine one of our beloved Saints taking a smoke break during the gradual.

 

[jmcrae]

I’ll supply the answer for you.

I had encountered this reference before…here on the Catholic Answers Forum. It was a bit perplexing to me as I did not recognise the name – especially to have been a professor of theology, published in the area of catechetics. I am, as the saying goes, no “spring chicken” since I am now emeritus myself.

Well there is reason the dear Father and I had no one in common, even at my age. Father was born in 1862. My grandparents are from the 19th century…but not that far back.

In any event, in answer to your direct question, the book was published in 1899, in the reign of Leo XIII. I think Father may have issued another edition/printing after the dawn of the 20th century but I didn’t pursue the investigation further.

He is old enough to have taught Sunday School to my great grandfather.

 

[Rosebud77]

irresistibly reminds me of folk diving out of the cinema to avoid the National Anthem in my childhood. I have no idea why they do it, any more than why they leave Mass early here. My first Mass in Ireland; when I tried to enter the Church, I had to stay in the porch as it was crowded… wow I thought… All older men, chatting and even chewing… When the time came for communion, I had to fight against the tide of these men rushing out of the door…

Then I found that the front six pews were empty… chatted with the priest after and he said there was no way they could persuade the men to come in … in another church there was a sign in the porch DO NOT LEAN AGAINST THE WALLS which had been newly painted.

On that first day, my landlady explained that all these older men had been ordered by Mammy to go to Mass… Mammy had been in the graveyard many years but they still went. And paid little attention and raced out as soon as they could.

Not my way. I used to love it when after Mass they turned the lights down and peace flowed down and silence.

I suppose that is OBLIGATION, a word I have always detested. Give all, always give all.

 

[jediliz]

I’ve always been told that the obligation is fulfilled once communion begins and you can leave if needed at that time. Is this true?

No. You should stay until the priest has processed out. Mass is not over until then. Leaving after Communion is what Judas Iscariot did.

 

[Della]

No. You should stay until the priest has processed out. Mass is not over until then. Leaving after Communion is what Judas Iscariot did.

Well, not quite.

Dismissal:

Deacon or Priest: Go in the peace of Christ.
or The Mass is ended, go in peace.
or Go in peace to love and serve the Lord.
All: Thanks be to God!

[Recessional and Closing Song]:

[Although it is traditional in many countries and many parishes to sing a final song or to have some instrumental music played as the priest and ministers process out of the church, this is not prescribed in the Order of Mass.]

Not that people should leave before the recessional, still the Mass has formally ended before it–the priest didn’t /doesn’t always process up an aisle or recess down one. He simply came in/can come in from the vestry. I wouldn’t equate leaving after communion with being a Judas, although doing so for any reasons other than serious necessity ought to be discouraged.