The Gist...
Simon-Peter believes that attending a Saturday Vigil mass for the simple sake of conveniences does not fulfill one's Sunday obligation.
"It is not licit to assist at Mass on Saturday to fulfill Sunday just because it is more "convenient" one week (or every week), just because one wants to go the beach, friends are in town, you fancy a lie-in, or you "have plans" etc. This whole concession by the Church is so abused and NO ONE talks about it..."Steve offers this from the CCC.
"Can. 1248 §1 The obligation of assisting at Mass is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a catholic rite either on a holy day itself or on the evening of the previous day."Simon-Peter's most recent comment...
Discuss.In order to understand the law, we have to ask, "why was this change made"? It was made because some Catholics, through no fault of their own, could not assist on Sunday. That is it, end of story.
The provision for Saturday was NOT done to make life convenient, but to make it possible for those who could not assist on Sunday to fulfill their obligation.
If one can assist on Sunday, one has no business going to the Saturday 5.30pm mass and counting it as fulfilling the duty given that your facts and circumstances do not fall within that which was taken cognizance of in the *first* place.
It was only in 1967 that the then-named Sacred Congregation of Rites (existed since 1588, dissolved by the great Pope Paul VI in 1969) gave permission for this, and pastors were told to carefully explain this "change" as not being a blanket permission but only responding to changes in the workforce affecting more and more Catholics who found they could not satisfy their obligation on Sunday.
From Eucharisticum Mysterium, Instruction on Eucharistic Worship Sacred Congregation of Rites.May 25, 1967.
28. Anticipating the Sunday and Feast Day Masses on the Previous Evening: Where permission has been granted by the Apostolic See to fulfill the Sunday obligation on the preceding Saturday evening, pastors should explain the meaning of this permission carefully to the faithful and should ensure that the significance of Sunday is not thereby obscured. ****The purpose of this concession is in fact to enable the Christians of today**** to celebrate more easily the day of the resurrection of the Lord.
THE PURPOSE...a. special hardship cases is what this is referring to, and b. on it's own terms, how, exactly, is it difficult (i.e. not easy) for someone who DOES not have a real impediment to go on Sunday proper? Did I miss something? Is boating a difficulty the Church was thinking about when it said "more easily"? Is a stupid Nascar race? A football game? Friends from out of town? A lazy ass? Simply: the purpose of this law is to help people having difficulty...if you are not having difficulty...it does not apply to you.
If I were a judge, and if you were to bring this issue before me I would look at the law as written, then ask what was the purpose of the law, for whom was it written, to whom does it apply, what did the legislator have in mind, what evil was the law meant to address?
The evil of Catholics being unable to fulfill their obligation due to circumstances beyond their control in the world of "today." Nurses, soldiers, police, doctors and the like whose employment may require them to work some Sundays. The law was written for them, not every Tom, Dick and Harry who just has something else he'd rather be doing.
This is just something else that has fallen between the cracks since 1965...now, do you commit a mortal sin in this? You're asking me? I think you do, the law does not apply to you, you do not fall within its scope, then you are taking advantage for your own comfort a law intended to alleviate the hardship of others: that is, you do not fall into the class of persons to which this kind "exception" was directed, yet you take advantage of it.
I don't know? Has anyone, anywhere, who has standing brought this issue as we are trying to frame it to some sort of ecclesiastical court? Or has anyone submitted a dubium (is that the word) to Rome asking for a ruling in this matter?
28 comments:
Canon Law is pretty staightforward. Despite what you've quoted (which I don't think backed up your point at all), Canon Law stands as it is. The reasoning behind the change really doesn't matter. If it did, there would be a nice list of people who may or may not go to Saturday Vigil Mass. If you don't like it, find yourself a canon lawyer and go at it.
I have a totally unrelated question regarding Saturday vigil for your contemplation:
My church only offers confession directly before the Saturday vigil Mass (which is the only Mass on Saturday.)
If I go to the vigil Mass on Saturday, after confession, and take Communion, and then go to the normal Sunday Mass the next day, is that a sin, since I'm taking Communion twice for the same day?
Is the rule twice in a 24 hour period, for the same obligation, or what?
Mama Says
Simon-Peter, people who go to the Saturday vigil Mass week in and week out without a valid reason are violating the spirit of the law but not the letter of the law. Steve is correct that without grilling people on their way into Mass, we aren't going to know. They will be judged on their actions and I wouldn't want to be in their shoes. But it is what it is.
I am becoming less and less impressed with Pope Paul VI, though...
"I am becoming less and less impressed with Pope Paul VI, though..."
Join the club, Lynne.
The law was changed, I gave you the reason, the rationale for the change, and refuge is taken in...pure textualism. This is a legal doctrine that gets people into all kinds of trouble! It certainly does matter why a law exists and to whom it applies! Sola canola :-) is Catholic? The question is, what does the law **mean**? I believe a purely textualist approach to this is actually subverting the very reason for it's existence. If you want to ignore the legislative history, fine. Let's apply this novel idea to absolutely everything.
So: what began as an exeption for hardship cases has now been extended to everyone for any reason or no reason at all and the history behind this law, the promulgation of official documents of the Holy See is NOT incorporated by reference, but actually ignored?
The default rule in matters of superceding legislation is unless specifically stated, the 1983 code of canon law, for instance, does not abrogate prior law, but incorporates it by reference. I would make my appeal to this doctrine and claim that the 1983 code incorporates by reference the document released by the SCR in 1967.
Let me ask it this way:
as intended, for hardship cases, was this done according to the Direct Will of God (not His permissive will), yes, or no? Or was the decision opposed to the Direct Will of God, yes, or no? If it was the Direct Will of God, then this is not a mere matter of people following the letter of the law whilst avoiding the spirit (what do we call these kind of people), if it was not the Direct Will of God, then draw the conclusion.
Anyway, who knows? It is just another example of the faith being attacked...death by a 1000 cuts...the slackers Mass. Just goes to show what happens when you have Popes who won't govern.
I know many are disenchanted with Paul VI but remember he DID give us Humanae Vitae.
Unfortunately, I have to work just about every other Sunday, so on the Sundays I must work, I assist at the the Vigil Mass on Saturday evening. I do this out of necessity, but I would much rather assist on Sunday morning, and even though this concession has been made, I still wonder whether or not it is somehow sinful to work on Sunday [unfortunately, there is nothing I can do about my work schedule].
I absolutely believe that if one attends the Vigil Mass on Saturday out of convenience [i.e. to sleep in, watch a sporting event on television, etc] they are not fulfilling the Sunday obligation according to the concession made in 1967; that was not its purpose.
I deleted the comment - went for a post instead.
Thus spake Simon-Peter: "The default rule in matters of superceding legislation is unless specifically stated, the 1983 code of canon law, for instance, does not abrogate prior law, but incorporates it by reference.".
Precisely. The same applies to the requirement for women to cover their heads at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This immemorial custom predated by 1900 years the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which only affirmed it, rather than creating it as a new law. Canons 23-28 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law recognize immemorial custom as having the force of law, and the new CCL does not abrogate this custom. See the article by Dr. Robert Sunenis at http://tinyurl.com/35f7v5
As Mrs. Simon-Peter once put it, "If it's good enough for the Mother of God, it's good enough for me". Well said!
Wow, talk about unwittingly putting one's foot in one's mouth. I'm the wicked hell bound sinner who dared to assist a Saturday vigil Mass due to a family get together the next morning which required travel during Sunday morning Mass times.
Thank you for the flaming.
As with anything else, if canon law supports it, the bishops approve it, and the pastor doesn't mind, a layman telling all of the above that they're wrong amounts to nothing more than bloody cheek.
Angela: Right on target. If he hadn't held firm against overwhelming odds, we'd be in a far worse position.
Sanctus- no one is flaming you. I just found Simon-Peters comments on the matter interesting, as I had never given it much thought.
I was more interested in discussing the letter v. spirit of the law and welcomed comments of that nature. I specifically left you out of this post, bc it wasn't relevant to the topic. I also did not want to turn this into a post where your specific sin, if one was even committed, was inspected & disected. I did not want you to feel judged, I apologize if you did.
Some of you might want to try reading a little more closely (Mr Nelson, ranting about evil and going to hell along with your buddy Ms Belle on Abbey Roads 2). You could have identifed me, but chose not to, not out of consideration (as you excoriate me by implication) but because you are a brave man and not a Pecksniff.
I am also amazed how the dress police, and watching other people at Mass (are you watching these watchers?) and all manner of things found their way into your post on your blog. You make many assumptions, as many as you obliquely accuse me of (and of holding certain views). In fact, you practice the things you severally condemn. If your post on your blog was meant to be the cure, it is worse than the disease.
These are your accusations, made with absolute assurance by you, speaking of other Catholics (including me) and their attitudes:
1.holier-than-thou.
2.ALWAYS FOCUSED upon correcting other people [my emphasis]
3.members of the liturgy police
4.keep their eyes on the faithful at Mass
5.spiritual pride that seeks to “instruct” the ignorant [non sequitur, irony]
6. ugly, self-righteous, little head
7.uber-Catholics
8.It is so evil...
9.holy of holies [trying to be funny?]
10.she went back to Wicca.
11. The use of John of the Cross.
You are not judgmental hypocrite are you? It is clear that you in no way practice what you "condemn [in] others who do not seem to have the devotion they [you] would like them to have..."
Obviously you have no need to go to confession for detraction or slander as you are in no way a hypocritcal judgmental self-righteous coward accusing Catholics with absolute assurance of the basest of sins.
Comparing (and you know you were) Catholics about whom you know nothing, to a woman who is a witch and has apostasized from the faith is outrageous. Still, it was right up Ms Belle's alley, what did she say? Oh yes "What a thoughtful and well written post Terry. Thank you."
Quite.
BTW: was THIS self-conscious irony? " Recently bloggers have posted about proper attire for Mass, I stepped in to call attention to the fact..." "I stepped in...fact..." LOL.
Then again, like YOU said "knock yourself out - judge your butt off!" LOL. Oh the irony, so thick you could lay bricks.
Your reaction (evil/hell / self-righteous) and that of Ms Belle is childish. Rather than ask "is, is, is it possible? Is there any truth in any of this" you both launch into the transparent defensive mechanisms of accusing the person with whom you disagree of having the basest of motives and end (hell) in view.
As to this vignette (that I mentioned above):
"I once worked next door - the next cubicle - to a traditional Catholic woman, and she insisted she was more Catholic than the Pope. She felt it her duty to set everyone straight about all the rubrics and Papal teachings as well as the Vatican documents. In addition, she never batted an eye when she had to tell someone they were a bad Catholic or that they were going to hell. She has now returned to her former ways however - she went back to Wicca."
What exactly are you attempting to have people infer?
YOU are the ones who raised the issue of hell, abd being bad Catholics, bizarre. Do you all read from the same playbook? I think you do: "holier than thou" is another favourite isn't it? YOU ARE PROJECTING.
This is what I SAID:
"what did the legislator have in mind, what evil was the law meant to address?" and the answer....
"The evil of Catholics being unable to fulfill their obligation due to circumstances beyond their control"
and
"now, do you commit a mortal sin in this? You're asking me? I think you do,"
This last point supposed the person was fully aware of what they were doing and the gravity and not operating under any mental disability. Was that not obvious? Do you even know the requirements for committing a mortal sin?
Furthermore, did I not say:
"you're asking me?"
and:
"I ***think***"
ending with:
"I DON'T KNOW? Has anyone, anywhere, who has standing brought this issue AS WE ARE TRYING to frame it to some sort of ecclesiastical court? Or has anyone submitted a dubium (is that the word) to ROME ASKING FOR A RULING IN THIS MATTER?"
Was it not clear that I am not sure, that this is just my opinion? This is a lively debate? That my opinion may not be consistent with the facts, said facts not determined by other lay Catholics making protestant style arguments viz canon law and the cult of personality viz. priests, Bishops and Popes?
I also said "Anyway, who knows?"
I admit the most offensive thing I said was "the slackers Mass" that is based on my experience.
You have missed the point: which is this; what exactly *is* the law? The fact that we have divergent views, that so many Catholics feel uneasy about this still after 40 years, that much can be said on either side, that we have laws and directives cited and attempts to explain them, ought to indicate that something is up. It's obvious that so far opinion is divided...
If asking for clarification from Rome is being more Catholic than the Pope, I suggest a. you do not know your Church history and b.in recent memory you might want to accuse those who asked for a clarification from Rome about the licitness of kneeling and receiving on the tongue which Rome said is fine despite priests, Bishops, norms and directives and intimidation, and, I suspect, veiled and not-so veiled accusations at the time from certain Catholics.
I have my opinion, and will argue it, but that is all it is, my opinion. I would be more than happy to submit the issue to Rome.
As to this nonsense that keeps appearing about "being more Catholic than the Pope", if you mean juridicially, then no. But the measure of a Catholic is not, nor has it ever been, the heir of Peter in and of himself. You will note how few Popes have been canonized compared to lay Catholics? How many bad Popes has the Church suffered through?
The roots of this silly "more Catholic than the Pope" put-down is legal positivism and is turning into a parody of itself, ending up being the very thing protestants erroneously claim Catholics do believe of the Vicar of Christ.
The Church in her human elements makes mistakes; they can do imprudent things relating to order and discipline, the pastoral aspects of the Church.
We can have an amicable discussion on the law of the church, hopefully.
There is an art to debate and we must be sure to employ a calm logic and rhetoric with such matters if we hope to not have valid points get lost in venomous verbiage. When name calling begins, credibility is gone.
Moving on....
Ray from MN posed some interesting questions that was going to be my next comment...
"But, being a constitutional conservative and legal literalist, there is a problem with the argument used to justify the vigil Masses.
Reverting to the pre-wristwatch days of the Old and New Testament, the canon lawyers have determined that the “day” lasts from Sundown to Sundown and accordingly, “Saturday at Sundown” is legally “Sunday.”
I won’t quibble about the 4:00 and 5:00 p.m. vigil Masses that take place long before Sundown, especially in the Summer months under Daylight Savings Time.
What I do wonder about are all those 5:00, 6:00, 6:30, 7:30 and 9:00 p.m. (in the Twin Cities) Masses that take place on Sunday Evenings.
Especially in the winter months here, aren’t those times legally “Monday?”
It seems to me that a strict interpretation of the Saturday Vigil Mass rule would declare that all of those who attend Sunday Evening Masses have missed their Sunday Mass Obligation."
Angela, you're correct. I read somewhere that Humanae Vitae was in fact written by Cardinal Wojtyla...
And thank goodness, although Cardinal Bugnini want to change the Rosary, in addition to the Mass, the Pope refused to change it.
But he (Pope Paul VI) is still not on my list of favorite popes.
protestant style arguments viz canon law and the cult of personality viz. priests, Bishops and Popes?
Pot meet kettle.
There are a lot of statements with a 'I I I me me me' tone to them backed with a healthy dose of your interpretation of policy. Now that's protestant. Seems the Church has enough combox theologians, at some point obedience to Catholic practice (regardless of your approval) is called for.
You just do not get it do you?
Steve: Bravo!
Simon-Peter: No, I'm afraid I don't.
I think the argument is simple enough for a Catholic to understand.
I believe that not a single person has attempted to deal with the issue of communion kneeling and in the hand.
In fact, no one has treated any point whatsoever, except to say "deal with it" or "X is a rotten person".
It is clear no debate is to be permitted, that the issue is closed. This is how many Novus Ordo Catholics operate.
However...
Catholics who do not believe the current practice conforms with the law have a right, a duty, to petition Rome to settle the matter. Those accused of disobediance to authority appeal to that authority to setlle a contoversy.
Those Catholics who petitioned Rome for clarification about communion kneeling (after 40 years of so-called practice) should have just kept their mouths shut. Piests and Bishops and Popes are never wrong, never violate Church law or the rights of Catholics, never exchange the law of God for the traditions of men. BTW: Do you KNOW there was a condition attatched to the indult granted by Paul VI for communion in the hand? Or is it only -- what was it? -- people who are more Catholic than the Pope who actually bother to read what they say? Here IS the condition -- not a CHANCE of scandalizing someones faith.
Those Catholics who appeal to Rome claiming the condition has been more than satisfied (or violated if you prefer) and communion in the hand should be forbidden desoite current practice are being "disobediant" and not Catholic in so doing?
Those Catholics who petitioned Rome for clarification of the duties of Catholics to avoid vaccines that are derived from aborted fetal cell lines should also have kept their mouths shut.
Those Catholics, who petition Rome to enforce canon law against priests and Bishops who - following current practice - give the Son of God to public abortionists should also keep their mouth shut.
Those Catholics who petition Rome, Cardinal Arinze specifically, to enforce the law viz so-called liturgical dancers should also keep quiet.
Those Catholics who petition Rome to enforce the law viz the abusive use of extra-ordinary ministers (after priests and bishops being warned again and again) of Holy Communion should stay silent and move on.
Those Catholics who petitioned Rome to enforce the law viz proper vessels for consecration should have remained silent and just gone along with the practices in their respective dioceses.
Those Catholics who in anyway try to make their spiritual needs known, as they have a right under canon law, by petitioning the local ordinary to permit (LOL) the Latin Mass, should also keep their mouths shut...local ordinaries who flout the desires of the late Pope.
Those Catholics who petition Rome to reverse the decision taken per indult by, for instance, certain dioceses "of" the USCCB to shift Ascension Thursday to Sunday should say nothing.
Those Catholics who having read Sacramentum Caritatis (those Catholics who are more Catholic than the Pope) and appealed to Archbishop Pietro Sambini Papal Nuncio to the US, and appealed to Cardinal Bertone SOS in Rome to fix the defective English translation of SC should have just remained silent as the USCCB rode roughshod over them using a defective text behaving in a similar manner to what happened in 2004 with Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's letter viz abortion politicians?
Those Catholics who for years have petitioned Rome to do something about pro multis (and were proven right...again, see communion kneeling, vaccine cell lines) and to reform the appallingly bad mass texts should have said nothing at all.
Too many view the Church as just the last few years, the latest trend, the current Pope or Bishop.
True, the Church is not a democracy, but in avoiding one error do not swerve into another: that the Church is subject to rule by fiat, that the Pope and any Bishop under him is in some way a King of absolute right where their will is law, or, rather, praxis.
Altar girls? The Pope says no, no way. You cheer.
Altar girls? The Pope reverses himself and permits it. You cheer.
Catholics petition Rome to return to tradition you boo.
The next Pope or the next does so reverse altar girls, and you cheer.
Those Catholics who petition Rome to reverse this unheard-of novelty should just get with the program?
Catholics petition Rome to forbid anyone but a priest giving communion to altar boys but they should just accept current practice? Why? Who made YOU "to Rome you shall go"?
The Pope can do no wrong. Neither can any Bishop, or priest, or any number of them. They never make mistakes, never lead the flock down dead ends. The history of the Church teaches something quite different.
Sensus Catholicus?
Servile Catholicus.
Bravo!!
So NC Trad: do you like my new symbolic persona?
;-)
S-P.
Batshit crazy can come from both directions.
That's right Jeffrey, out of both sides of your mouth.
Please accept my apology for all this. I am a poor sinner, pray for me.
First, I'm grateful that Simon-Peter brought up something that I was unaware of, regarding the reasoning behind the permission for fulfilling the Sunday obligation on Saturday evening. It actually makes sense.
Please consider that when the Anglicans permitted contraception in exceptional cases, it rapidly became the norm rather than the exception, and it would appear that a similar "devolution" of understanding has occurred in this context. I believe that S-P has brought up an opportunity to examine our own conscience, and while grateful for that, I am sorry that discussion devolved as it did.
CC wrote:
Reverting to the pre-wristwatch days of the Old and New Testament, the canon lawyers have determined that the “day” lasts from Sundown to Sundown and accordingly, “Saturday at Sundown” is legally “Sunday.”
I recall reading one Vatican citation which explained with a bit of firmness that the approval of Saturday evening mass for meeting the Sunday obligation has absolutely nothing to do with the traditional Jewish understanding of the day's beginning and end, rather it is a concession, an indult strictly per se. So the above is not germain, but a common error which I once held because someone told me it was so; it is and error easily made by associating current practice with historical practice witnessed by scripture. It's just not true.
Rembering that our relationship by baptism is closer than blood, our goal is One and let us press on to the goal as one, and for His sake, fill up what is lacking in the suffering of Christ.
Mark- thank you for your comment. I agree that what Simon-peter brought to the table was an example for us to examine our conscience. I stated this at Terry's blog as well.
Now that we have this background information about the Saturday vigil, we have to ask ourselves what we paln to do with this information. For some the answer is 'nothing'. It is not our responsibilty what others do and for us to judge. Our responibility is to ourselves and our relationship with Christ.
Isnt it interesting how things started only for 'exceptional' cases have quickly become the norm... EMHC, holy days of obligation.
It is apparent giving an inch is only the beginning of the slippery slope.
Post a Comment