Not trying to open a can of worms here, but this is an area where the new calendar / ordo would be enriched by taking a page out of the leaf of the older missals (a la Summorum Pontificum) and allow for commemorations where these coincidences occur.
Would this have any bearing on the ridiculous guidance (at least, in the US) that Holy Days of Obligation falling on Saturdays/Mondays are conveniently dispensed?
No, because when the US Bishops passed the norms governing holy days of obligation, the dispensations for Saturdays and Mondays were built in. Immaculate Conception did not get the same dispensation since it is the country's patronal feast day (as well as Christmas for obvious reasons).
Reminds me of a similar situation Jan 1, 2024 when we were dispensed from required Mass attendance for the Feast of Mary the Mother of God. At the time I posted the following on FB: "News Alert: Monday, Jan 1 is NOT a holy day of obligation!!!!! God forbid that we would be required to step one inch outside our bourgeois comfort zone. All you pudgy bishops please take note: stop infantilizing us. We can take it. We can roll out the morning after a party and find a Mass in the area. Step up lads, grow a pair!"
I have a question about that. It's a legitimate question, asked in good faith, that I've been wondering for a long time.
I understand desiring to go to Mass on Mary, Mother of God, and I would go precept or not.
But why is it important to you that the bishops bind other Catholics to attend? I accept that it is, without judgment, I just don't understand how that enriches your spiritual life, and I would like to.
You might be surprised how many Trads are anti-obligation. We are, however, in favor of actual days. No transfers to Sunday for Epiphany and Ascension, and for most of us Corpus Christi.
I think it actually has more to do with confusing trads with conservative Catholics. Trads are focused more on Tradition, while conservative Catholics tend to be more focused on Magisterium, what the current rules are, and swift obedience to authority. Since trads and conservatives tend to swing the same way on doctrine and morals (and therefore also secular politics), the groups tend to get conflated on other issues.
The fact that there really are a lot of trads who want to bring back the old fasting and feasting obligations and other traditional rules just makes non-trads more confused about why. The fact that a fair number of conservative Catholics have moved toward or into traditionalist groups ensures that everyone has a chance to be confused about why.
I feel like none of these responses have answered JD's question. The answers were all about "Trad" identity and the distinctions between trads and conservatives, but the initial question, if I'm reading it correctly, had nothing to do with that. It was simply, "Why is it important to you spiritually (who will choose to attend Mass on these days whether or not they are obligatory) that the authorities formally bind all Catholics to attend through obligation?
Possibly some of us trads are so used to being accused of rigidity and being overly focused on rules and checkboxes and external practices, that any mention of a related subject immediately invokes the association.
It's not the most helpful of associations, and I'm kinda happy to see a discussion in which it has been entirely useless.
This is a perceptive comment. The disjunction between conservative and traditional Catholics is often obscured for the reasons you elaborate. But ask someone's opinion of the title 'John Paul the Great' and you'll know pretty clearly, in my experience.
I think this comes directly from all three charisms the bishop contains…teaching the magisterium concerning days to be kept holy, sanctifying the day with obligation of holy Mass, governing the faithful with pastoral direction. It’s kind of their duty….
Mostly I think it's better for me to be obligated, even if I were to go anyways.
Partially I think it's a path towards being a more holy people, though I understand if the bishops worry about those Catholics who wouldn't have attended anyways committing grave sin because it was obligated.
Despite having an opinion, I'm glad it's not my job to decide how to handle these things.
You might as well ask what the point of having any Holy Days of Obligation is? Or, for that matter, why anyone wants the bishops to bind other Catholics to do anything that goes beyond the absolute minimum from the Apostles. How does making other people fast on Ash Wednesday enrich your spiritual life?
It is certainly traditional to go to Mass on Sunday. Similarly, the octave of Christmas is a feast day going back to at least the 7th century. Note that it is an octave, not a septave. The feast also celebrates the Circumcision of the Lord, the first shedding of His blood, and that was on the eighth day.
The Puritans banned regularly ordained fasts and feasts, even as they engaged in both fasting and feasting irregularly. They wanted those things to fit the events of their lives, not the events of Christ's or the Church's.
On a sociological level, if an organization is to retain group cohesion, it needs to have disciplines. Catholic religious disciplines are oriented toward prayer, fasting, almsgiving, and the Sacramental life. Dropping disciplines because they are very difficult can be considered prudential. Dropping them because they are mildly difficult damages group cohesion, and with it a sense of community - because the community is now made of people who either won't sacrifice for the community, or it has leaders that think that no one should have to. For a Catholic to go to Mass on January 1, which many people have off from work, seems to fall into the "mildly difficult" category, even if they did go to Mass the day before.
On a spiritual level, we are one body, and "If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together." The sanctity and prayer of cloistered nuns and monks is a great support for the Church... and so is the sanctity and prayer of the laity.
I think all of your points are good, but you’re missing one thing: if the bishops declare x is an obligation and y is not, then to be one body, our best and safest course of action is to submit to this. Obviously we may attend Mass on days that are not obligatory (I am ordinarily a daily Mass goer myself), and we may also think the rules for when holy days of obligation are abrogated are confusing/inconsistent/wrong. But the question JD was posing is, “why feel the need to scold at other people who are following the bishops’ instruction to the letter?” and it’s a good question. I don’t know if it comes from a sort of “if I have to suffer, everyone else should too” attitude, or a Workers in the Vineyard attitude (“are you envious because I am generous?”), or if it comes from a place of “ubermensch” Catholicism, trying to flex those muscles of superiority (I knew a couple where one spouse followed the Church’s Lenten guidelines and the other spouse was constantly taking on more and more burdensome ascetical Lenten practices and then guilt-tripping the first spouse for not being disciplined enough—but actually, there is wisdom and humility in doing exactly as the Church prescribes, in my opinion).
I do think it’s good to have a shared culture, holidays, etc., and I do think attending Mass on Mary, Mother of God is a good thing. But strictly speaking, if we obey the bishops, we ARE living as one body.
I did not address that, because it did not seem to be a question or objection raised in this conversation, and I thought the post was long enough already. As I read it, the OP was not scolding people who follow the bishops, it was scolding the bishops for removing requirements, even as we currently have fewer requirements than at any other time in recorded history, in the wealthiest society that has ever existed. And JD was not asking why people felt the need to scold those who follow the rules, but why people feel that the rules should not be relaxed further than they already have been.
I'm certain that there is virtue in obedience to everything the Church requires, and that there is no legal requirement to do anything further. I can't say I've ever thought that there is virtue in refraining from doing anything further, in and of itself. We're supposed to be generously loving, not minimalist or legalist.
I have had Lents in which I went quite above and beyond, and others where I did scarcely anything beyond the minimum. I did not move from one to the other, or back again, on principled grounds of being an ubermensch, or of being precisely obedient to the Church. These things are spiritual disciplines, meant to nourish and develop us. What is appropriate to each of us depends on what else is going on in our lives, our health, our minds, what we are capable of, what our predominate fault is, and which direction our growth is moving along. A good and discerning choice of what we ought to do, requires prayer, humility, and prudence.
I would only add that it requires a spiritual father/spiritual director. It is a rare doctor who can accurately prescribe his own medicine, and who can bear to take it.
Shared holidays form the bedrock of a general culture and marks the participator as distinct from the world. It reinforces and reiterates the communal nature of our faith. There are only a handful of HDO which aren’t already secular holidays, so they should be preserved as the little bits of Catholic distinctiveness we have left. A HDO also means the liturgy will be of a higher order than a standard weekday. Instead of a solo priest with (at best) 1 altar server and a lector, you’ll have several altar servers, choir, deacon, incense, etc. which is edifying in itself. Practically speaking, it is much easier to honor the day if it is a holy day of obligation. Parishes schedule extra masses around normal working hours and it’s much easier to get off work if it’s mandatory. Requirements like HDO solve collective action problems for the faithful.
It’s a prudential decision and if we had medieval levels of holy days that would be way too much for the present time, but we are much closer to zero than to medieval.
I’m interested in binding anyone, except perhaps myself. What I was trying to get at is what seems to be the idea of some churchmen that we, the laity, need relief from any perceived burden. Things which in the past were not viewed as burdens, but just things that set Catholics somewhat apart. Perhaps it’s about “making Catholicism weird again,” which has been a subject of recent talk from various online personalities (most recently by Tracy Rowland over at “What We Need Now). At 80 years perhaps I come across as a little curmudgeonly. I remember lots of things we “just did” which, as a young man, gave me little boost. And probably some unjustified pride.
For me, it’s because going to Mass is good for my soul and the soul of others. It seems when the Church “lightens” a requirement, the outcome is typically less engagement instead of increased participation (e.g. removing meat fast from non-Lenten Fridays-very few people observe a Friday sacrifice outside of Lent). I would also like to see more engagement from Catholics on the feast side of things as we are known for our fasting.
But here is what grinds my gears regarding Jan 1.
-Three holy days of obligation in less than a month (Dec 8, Dec 25, Jan 1) is a lot to plan for logistically…even as someone who goes to Mass 6-7 times a week regularly, obligations mean Masses typically have music that make it an hour instead of half an hour which means it’s harder to go right before work or on a lunch break. When we made the Gregorian calendar and picked feast days, could we have spread these out (asking in good faith)?
-Jan 1 is the day after the one night a year that people purposefully stay out late, yet you have to search very hard to find an evening Mass. I get it Padres, people rarely observe this Holy day of obligation and you want some time off as well after a long Christmas octave…but to not have an evening Mass for this particular solemnity seems absurd when you have evening Masses for every other holy day of obligation
Guessing the frequency of feast days in the winter was a pick-me-up as well as convenient for an agrarian society. Can’t plant, can’t tend, can’t reap, it’s dark and cold a lot. So…gaudete!
There is something particularly offensive about the line of reasoning in regard to dispensing the obligation for holy days on Saturday or Monday, which would seem to be "we can't possibly require people to go to Mass two days in a row." I think the reactions from faithful Catholics against this dispensation are related more to a sense of having been personally insulted, rather than from a desire for someone else to be obligated to attend mass. This is true for me personally, and I also recognize that sometimes it is good for me to be required by the Church to do certain things. For instance, I am grateful that the Church requires me to go to Mass on Sundays.
I am a faithful Catholic, and I don't have that reaction. I guess I have figured that if bishops dispense, they must have a sense that people can't make it to Mass as easily as me, and they don't want to bind them under pain of sin to something onerous.
But I do appreciate your insight. And I agree that it is very good for me when the Church requires me to do things.
This is a problem of the current curial offices not following the traditional practice of dicasteries letting other dicasteries review their documents when competence overlaps or is related. Such confusions are avoided when this is done.
Yes.... This is not a startup[1], after all; they ought to have standards. Normally it seems to me that they would post their pull request to Github (well, the equivalent) and have an adjacent team do a peer review, then after addressing any reviewer comments they could roll out a canary release to their staging environment. Otherwise user-visible outages are likely, resulting in potential loss of trust.
Its the classic case of a medieval court run amok. Courtiers hate each other, and they go behind the back of each other to enact a decree on the kings authority, so they can get all the credit.
An excellent point, Father. My hesitation, though, is whether the dicasteries are staffed with people who are fundamentally on the same page. Interdicasterial review makes sense when everyone's sense of the law aligns and you need to polish the details. When that alignment is imperfect, it seems like a recipe for stasis and endless rounds of internal bickering. In such a case, perhaps a "just do it" logic makes sense.
Puts new light on the question regarding the recent reinstatement of ministerial faculties by +Peña Parra.
Genuine canon law question: does Roche have competence to override the Dicastery for Legislative Texts here? It doesn't seem clear to me which Dicastery should take precedence here, which makes me question one overriding the other without saying outright that's what they're doing
I have some related canonical questions. If canon 16 limits the authentic interpretation of the law to the Pope and the Dicastery for Legislative Texts (is this right?), does any interpretation outside of "authentic interpretations" become merely a canon lawyer's opinion? Or does it have more weight?
Second, it also seems the Dicastery's letter last year made clear the plain meaning of the text, which perhaps is supported by the USCCB Complementary Norm for canon 1246 specifically approving the abrogation of the precept to attend Mass for two other days.
Third, is the Dicastery for Divine Worship claiming that its historical practices are equivalent to law even when not promulgated as law? Or am I misreading the Note? Also, the statement that this matter is not covered by the law seems to be the opposite of what the Dicastery for Legislative Texts says. Very confusing.
There is a section in Canon Law about custom taking precedence over the law under certain circumstance. That is what I though the DDW was alluding to and gave me the impression that this is the principle they were invoking. But I'd like to see what a real Canon lawyer says befoer I jump to any conclusions.
I appreciate the existence of the Latin Church's legal code. It guards against scruples, particularly when the law doesn't bind me to do something I normally do. For instance, I've been tempted to view the breviary as an obligation for me, because it's very useful to me. Knowing that Mass attendance is an obligation on Sundays, and the breviary does not bind laymen, is very helpful.
The way the Vatican writes new laws and interprets existing ones lately, however, seems very capricious (e.g. this article) and sometimes even vicious (e.g. Traditionis custodes).
I'm just being facetious here... I too appreciate our legal code, especially for that reason, that it helps people avoid scrupulosity.
But, imagine how embarrassing this is for a priest: "Hey guys, the USCCB didn't actually have authority to cancel the obligation for [insert Saturday or Monday Solemnity], so you all need to be here tomorrow for Mass... Oh, actually, the bishops were right and Rome was wrong, so you didn't have to be here after all."
Makes it tough to appeal to Church Law when it comes to things like the proper celebration of the Sacred Liturgy...
On this one, I feel more like the rulers are incompetent than that I'm being tooled with. Which is also somewhat uncomfortable.
From what I've heard, after the Novus Ordo was promulgated the Vatican published reams of documents giving instruction on how to celebrate it, with many reverses, clarifications, additions, permissions... too much for anyone to keep up with. Therefore they did not. So I think your reference to Church law and the proper celebration of the Liturgy is entirely apropos.
Isn't there some canon law principles regarding the necessity for a law to be promulgated, communicated, and received, in order for it to be binding?
Who cares? The bishops in their blindness, and since they rarely actually speak with the laity about our lives, particular blue collar lay people, are totally oblivious that in the past generation a major social change has occurred without any notice or commentary by them. A quarter of the US workforce now works on weekends. For blue collar workers it is a third. The idea that Sunday is a day of rest is going the way of the dodo bird.
The longstanding allowance of Saturday vigil masses ought to be remedial for these conditions, if parishes can get away from always offering them at 4:30 pm. I think late evening Sunday (or Saturday) masses (like, 7pm or even later) need to become much more common
Although, thinking of the ways you emphasize the social justice teaching of the church, Kurt, I see a deficiency in my earlier comment. The onus on the church is not just to totally shape itself to the schedules that its parishioners are pushed to adopt, but also to stand up, where fruitful, against business interests that would take from the worker his day of rest.
While the Pope's mind and cognitive abilities are quite impressive for a man as old as he is, its clear his poor physical health is impeding his governance. He's always struggled to get ahold of events outside of Rome, but now he can't even govern inside of Rome. Dicasteries make decisions in the popes authority on their own accord, with zero conslutation of others, even when its obviously needed. This is the kind of situation where a leader is needed to restore order and coordination. Yet in addition to being unable to celebrate Mass, he is now unable to see or speak to people save for a very small window of time because he's either hurt or fatigued from the lightest of work. (Yet he's still doing a full travel schedule.)
This wasn't a big issue when it was a few hundred thousand trads, or the CDF issuing a declaration so absurd everyone promptly ignored it. We now have real question over when someone going to Mass has satisfied a sunday obligation, exposing us to untold amounts of legalism and pharisaism.
Nothing will change, it will only get more chaotic in these final days. People may hate it, but this is exactly why Benedict believed in abdication, where a pope, in humility, spares the harm inflicted on the faithful by his decline in ability.
I scanned the comments to see if anybody had already brought this up, but the Church has been around for 20000 years and this has never happened before? No precedent for a regularly scheduled holy day falling on a Sunday? Help me out here...
No it's definitely happened before. The reason it became an issue this year is that the Vatican told the US bishops that their longstanding practice (declaring that the Immaculate Conception was not a Holy Day of Obligation when bumped to Monday) was not in accordance with the law.
That said, it hasn't been happening for very long because prior to Vatican II the calendar allowed solemnities to co-occur. i.e you could celebrate both the IC and Advent II on the Sunday on which they both fall
In 1962 the Immaculate Conception superseded the Second Sunday of Advent in case of conflict. There is a special entry for it in the table of precedence, just to make sure it doesn't get shifted like a first class feast typically would if it occurred on a first class Sunday (in the 1962 rubrics at least).
I don't want to read through all the comments, so I don't know of the following observation came up. In my area, New Orleans, it was made clear enough maybe that the obligation to go to Mass had transferred to Dec. 9, but provisions hadn't been made for Mass attendance by the working class.
So my understanding is that days of precept that fall on Saturday or Monday, not transferred due to a feast of higher rank, still carry an obligation, correct? That's what the USCCB had interpreted incorrectly?
Not trying to open a can of worms here, but this is an area where the new calendar / ordo would be enriched by taking a page out of the leaf of the older missals (a la Summorum Pontificum) and allow for commemorations where these coincidences occur.
Agree completely.
Would this have any bearing on the ridiculous guidance (at least, in the US) that Holy Days of Obligation falling on Saturdays/Mondays are conveniently dispensed?
No, because when the US Bishops passed the norms governing holy days of obligation, the dispensations for Saturdays and Mondays were built in. Immaculate Conception did not get the same dispensation since it is the country's patronal feast day (as well as Christmas for obvious reasons).
Reminds me of a similar situation Jan 1, 2024 when we were dispensed from required Mass attendance for the Feast of Mary the Mother of God. At the time I posted the following on FB: "News Alert: Monday, Jan 1 is NOT a holy day of obligation!!!!! God forbid that we would be required to step one inch outside our bourgeois comfort zone. All you pudgy bishops please take note: stop infantilizing us. We can take it. We can roll out the morning after a party and find a Mass in the area. Step up lads, grow a pair!"
I have a question about that. It's a legitimate question, asked in good faith, that I've been wondering for a long time.
I understand desiring to go to Mass on Mary, Mother of God, and I would go precept or not.
But why is it important to you that the bishops bind other Catholics to attend? I accept that it is, without judgment, I just don't understand how that enriches your spiritual life, and I would like to.
You might be surprised how many Trads are anti-obligation. We are, however, in favor of actual days. No transfers to Sunday for Epiphany and Ascension, and for most of us Corpus Christi.
They really don't know us at all. The caricaturing saves people from bothering to get to know us.
Huh?
I think it actually has more to do with confusing trads with conservative Catholics. Trads are focused more on Tradition, while conservative Catholics tend to be more focused on Magisterium, what the current rules are, and swift obedience to authority. Since trads and conservatives tend to swing the same way on doctrine and morals (and therefore also secular politics), the groups tend to get conflated on other issues.
The fact that there really are a lot of trads who want to bring back the old fasting and feasting obligations and other traditional rules just makes non-trads more confused about why. The fact that a fair number of conservative Catholics have moved toward or into traditionalist groups ensures that everyone has a chance to be confused about why.
I feel like none of these responses have answered JD's question. The answers were all about "Trad" identity and the distinctions between trads and conservatives, but the initial question, if I'm reading it correctly, had nothing to do with that. It was simply, "Why is it important to you spiritually (who will choose to attend Mass on these days whether or not they are obligatory) that the authorities formally bind all Catholics to attend through obligation?
I was attempting to answer the "Huh?". The answer I wrote to his original question is below, attached to his original question.
I have no clear idea why my question kicked off a conversation about trads, so to speak, so thank you.
*chuckle*
Possibly some of us trads are so used to being accused of rigidity and being overly focused on rules and checkboxes and external practices, that any mention of a related subject immediately invokes the association.
It's not the most helpful of associations, and I'm kinda happy to see a discussion in which it has been entirely useless.
This is a perceptive comment. The disjunction between conservative and traditional Catholics is often obscured for the reasons you elaborate. But ask someone's opinion of the title 'John Paul the Great' and you'll know pretty clearly, in my experience.
I think this comes directly from all three charisms the bishop contains…teaching the magisterium concerning days to be kept holy, sanctifying the day with obligation of holy Mass, governing the faithful with pastoral direction. It’s kind of their duty….
Mostly I think it's better for me to be obligated, even if I were to go anyways.
Partially I think it's a path towards being a more holy people, though I understand if the bishops worry about those Catholics who wouldn't have attended anyways committing grave sin because it was obligated.
Despite having an opinion, I'm glad it's not my job to decide how to handle these things.
You might as well ask what the point of having any Holy Days of Obligation is? Or, for that matter, why anyone wants the bishops to bind other Catholics to do anything that goes beyond the absolute minimum from the Apostles. How does making other people fast on Ash Wednesday enrich your spiritual life?
It is certainly traditional to go to Mass on Sunday. Similarly, the octave of Christmas is a feast day going back to at least the 7th century. Note that it is an octave, not a septave. The feast also celebrates the Circumcision of the Lord, the first shedding of His blood, and that was on the eighth day.
The Puritans banned regularly ordained fasts and feasts, even as they engaged in both fasting and feasting irregularly. They wanted those things to fit the events of their lives, not the events of Christ's or the Church's.
On a sociological level, if an organization is to retain group cohesion, it needs to have disciplines. Catholic religious disciplines are oriented toward prayer, fasting, almsgiving, and the Sacramental life. Dropping disciplines because they are very difficult can be considered prudential. Dropping them because they are mildly difficult damages group cohesion, and with it a sense of community - because the community is now made of people who either won't sacrifice for the community, or it has leaders that think that no one should have to. For a Catholic to go to Mass on January 1, which many people have off from work, seems to fall into the "mildly difficult" category, even if they did go to Mass the day before.
On a spiritual level, we are one body, and "If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together." The sanctity and prayer of cloistered nuns and monks is a great support for the Church... and so is the sanctity and prayer of the laity.
I think all of your points are good, but you’re missing one thing: if the bishops declare x is an obligation and y is not, then to be one body, our best and safest course of action is to submit to this. Obviously we may attend Mass on days that are not obligatory (I am ordinarily a daily Mass goer myself), and we may also think the rules for when holy days of obligation are abrogated are confusing/inconsistent/wrong. But the question JD was posing is, “why feel the need to scold at other people who are following the bishops’ instruction to the letter?” and it’s a good question. I don’t know if it comes from a sort of “if I have to suffer, everyone else should too” attitude, or a Workers in the Vineyard attitude (“are you envious because I am generous?”), or if it comes from a place of “ubermensch” Catholicism, trying to flex those muscles of superiority (I knew a couple where one spouse followed the Church’s Lenten guidelines and the other spouse was constantly taking on more and more burdensome ascetical Lenten practices and then guilt-tripping the first spouse for not being disciplined enough—but actually, there is wisdom and humility in doing exactly as the Church prescribes, in my opinion).
I do think it’s good to have a shared culture, holidays, etc., and I do think attending Mass on Mary, Mother of God is a good thing. But strictly speaking, if we obey the bishops, we ARE living as one body.
I did not address that, because it did not seem to be a question or objection raised in this conversation, and I thought the post was long enough already. As I read it, the OP was not scolding people who follow the bishops, it was scolding the bishops for removing requirements, even as we currently have fewer requirements than at any other time in recorded history, in the wealthiest society that has ever existed. And JD was not asking why people felt the need to scold those who follow the rules, but why people feel that the rules should not be relaxed further than they already have been.
I'm certain that there is virtue in obedience to everything the Church requires, and that there is no legal requirement to do anything further. I can't say I've ever thought that there is virtue in refraining from doing anything further, in and of itself. We're supposed to be generously loving, not minimalist or legalist.
I have had Lents in which I went quite above and beyond, and others where I did scarcely anything beyond the minimum. I did not move from one to the other, or back again, on principled grounds of being an ubermensch, or of being precisely obedient to the Church. These things are spiritual disciplines, meant to nourish and develop us. What is appropriate to each of us depends on what else is going on in our lives, our health, our minds, what we are capable of, what our predominate fault is, and which direction our growth is moving along. A good and discerning choice of what we ought to do, requires prayer, humility, and prudence.
this is a pretty good answer. thanks.
I would only add that it requires a spiritual father/spiritual director. It is a rare doctor who can accurately prescribe his own medicine, and who can bear to take it.
Shared holidays form the bedrock of a general culture and marks the participator as distinct from the world. It reinforces and reiterates the communal nature of our faith. There are only a handful of HDO which aren’t already secular holidays, so they should be preserved as the little bits of Catholic distinctiveness we have left. A HDO also means the liturgy will be of a higher order than a standard weekday. Instead of a solo priest with (at best) 1 altar server and a lector, you’ll have several altar servers, choir, deacon, incense, etc. which is edifying in itself. Practically speaking, it is much easier to honor the day if it is a holy day of obligation. Parishes schedule extra masses around normal working hours and it’s much easier to get off work if it’s mandatory. Requirements like HDO solve collective action problems for the faithful.
It’s a prudential decision and if we had medieval levels of holy days that would be way too much for the present time, but we are much closer to zero than to medieval.
this is a helpful answer. thanks.
I’m interested in binding anyone, except perhaps myself. What I was trying to get at is what seems to be the idea of some churchmen that we, the laity, need relief from any perceived burden. Things which in the past were not viewed as burdens, but just things that set Catholics somewhat apart. Perhaps it’s about “making Catholicism weird again,” which has been a subject of recent talk from various online personalities (most recently by Tracy Rowland over at “What We Need Now). At 80 years perhaps I come across as a little curmudgeonly. I remember lots of things we “just did” which, as a young man, gave me little boost. And probably some unjustified pride.
oops, NOT interested in binding anyone
I thought you were being wryly self deprecating 😂
that's a helpful answer. thank you.
I did laugh at "I'm interested in binding anyone, except myself". Me too, friend, me too
(And the speed I'm driving is perfect one!)
For me, it’s because going to Mass is good for my soul and the soul of others. It seems when the Church “lightens” a requirement, the outcome is typically less engagement instead of increased participation (e.g. removing meat fast from non-Lenten Fridays-very few people observe a Friday sacrifice outside of Lent). I would also like to see more engagement from Catholics on the feast side of things as we are known for our fasting.
But here is what grinds my gears regarding Jan 1.
-Three holy days of obligation in less than a month (Dec 8, Dec 25, Jan 1) is a lot to plan for logistically…even as someone who goes to Mass 6-7 times a week regularly, obligations mean Masses typically have music that make it an hour instead of half an hour which means it’s harder to go right before work or on a lunch break. When we made the Gregorian calendar and picked feast days, could we have spread these out (asking in good faith)?
-Jan 1 is the day after the one night a year that people purposefully stay out late, yet you have to search very hard to find an evening Mass. I get it Padres, people rarely observe this Holy day of obligation and you want some time off as well after a long Christmas octave…but to not have an evening Mass for this particular solemnity seems absurd when you have evening Masses for every other holy day of obligation
Guessing the frequency of feast days in the winter was a pick-me-up as well as convenient for an agrarian society. Can’t plant, can’t tend, can’t reap, it’s dark and cold a lot. So…gaudete!
Excellent point I had not thought of previously! This 21st century lens is so different than what people saw throughout the majority of the Church!
There is something particularly offensive about the line of reasoning in regard to dispensing the obligation for holy days on Saturday or Monday, which would seem to be "we can't possibly require people to go to Mass two days in a row." I think the reactions from faithful Catholics against this dispensation are related more to a sense of having been personally insulted, rather than from a desire for someone else to be obligated to attend mass. This is true for me personally, and I also recognize that sometimes it is good for me to be required by the Church to do certain things. For instance, I am grateful that the Church requires me to go to Mass on Sundays.
I am a faithful Catholic, and I don't have that reaction. I guess I have figured that if bishops dispense, they must have a sense that people can't make it to Mass as easily as me, and they don't want to bind them under pain of sin to something onerous.
But I do appreciate your insight. And I agree that it is very good for me when the Church requires me to do things.
As you probably see despite this fatuous question- It would give men more confidence in our bishops if they led clearly and with manliness.
Weak!
This is a problem of the current curial offices not following the traditional practice of dicasteries letting other dicasteries review their documents when competence overlaps or is related. Such confusions are avoided when this is done.
Yes.... This is not a startup[1], after all; they ought to have standards. Normally it seems to me that they would post their pull request to Github (well, the equivalent) and have an adjacent team do a peer review, then after addressing any reviewer comments they could roll out a canary release to their staging environment. Otherwise user-visible outages are likely, resulting in potential loss of trust.
[1] despite the presence of angel investors
Phenomenal
Its the classic case of a medieval court run amok. Courtiers hate each other, and they go behind the back of each other to enact a decree on the kings authority, so they can get all the credit.
In that sense, I feel like traditionalists should love this kind of stuff. It's what the "good ol days" were actually like ;)
As long as your change request doesn’t get held up in approvals…
"Forgive me your Eminence, I pushed my changes directly into the master branch without a pull request!"
Drop that bold and brazen bit of irony, Missy or it’s an after school detention you’ll be having….
Angel Investors !! That was the icing on the cake of the comment of the day!
An excellent point, Father. My hesitation, though, is whether the dicasteries are staffed with people who are fundamentally on the same page. Interdicasterial review makes sense when everyone's sense of the law aligns and you need to polish the details. When that alignment is imperfect, it seems like a recipe for stasis and endless rounds of internal bickering. In such a case, perhaps a "just do it" logic makes sense.
Puts new light on the question regarding the recent reinstatement of ministerial faculties by +Peña Parra.
Genuine canon law question: does Roche have competence to override the Dicastery for Legislative Texts here? It doesn't seem clear to me which Dicastery should take precedence here, which makes me question one overriding the other without saying outright that's what they're doing
That’s my homework tonight. But on first blush, I’m struck that the LegTexts thing was a private responsa
I have some related canonical questions. If canon 16 limits the authentic interpretation of the law to the Pope and the Dicastery for Legislative Texts (is this right?), does any interpretation outside of "authentic interpretations" become merely a canon lawyer's opinion? Or does it have more weight?
Second, it also seems the Dicastery's letter last year made clear the plain meaning of the text, which perhaps is supported by the USCCB Complementary Norm for canon 1246 specifically approving the abrogation of the precept to attend Mass for two other days.
Third, is the Dicastery for Divine Worship claiming that its historical practices are equivalent to law even when not promulgated as law? Or am I misreading the Note? Also, the statement that this matter is not covered by the law seems to be the opposite of what the Dicastery for Legislative Texts says. Very confusing.
There is a section in Canon Law about custom taking precedence over the law under certain circumstance. That is what I though the DDW was alluding to and gave me the impression that this is the principle they were invoking. But I'd like to see what a real Canon lawyer says befoer I jump to any conclusions.
Is Roche just "gambling" that the Dicastery for Legislative Texts will let his interpretation stand?
"Guys, I promise that Latin Christianity is so much more than rigid legalism!"
Meanwhile, in Rome...
I appreciate the existence of the Latin Church's legal code. It guards against scruples, particularly when the law doesn't bind me to do something I normally do. For instance, I've been tempted to view the breviary as an obligation for me, because it's very useful to me. Knowing that Mass attendance is an obligation on Sundays, and the breviary does not bind laymen, is very helpful.
The way the Vatican writes new laws and interprets existing ones lately, however, seems very capricious (e.g. this article) and sometimes even vicious (e.g. Traditionis custodes).
I'm just being facetious here... I too appreciate our legal code, especially for that reason, that it helps people avoid scrupulosity.
But, imagine how embarrassing this is for a priest: "Hey guys, the USCCB didn't actually have authority to cancel the obligation for [insert Saturday or Monday Solemnity], so you all need to be here tomorrow for Mass... Oh, actually, the bishops were right and Rome was wrong, so you didn't have to be here after all."
Makes it tough to appeal to Church Law when it comes to things like the proper celebration of the Sacred Liturgy...
And, it makes the Faithful (Lay and Clerical) feel like they're just being tooled with by the upper brass.
On this one, I feel more like the rulers are incompetent than that I'm being tooled with. Which is also somewhat uncomfortable.
From what I've heard, after the Novus Ordo was promulgated the Vatican published reams of documents giving instruction on how to celebrate it, with many reverses, clarifications, additions, permissions... too much for anyone to keep up with. Therefore they did not. So I think your reference to Church law and the proper celebration of the Liturgy is entirely apropos.
Isn't there some canon law principles regarding the necessity for a law to be promulgated, communicated, and received, in order for it to be binding?
I'm going both days. Quod non prohibitum est, licet
Who cares? The bishops in their blindness, and since they rarely actually speak with the laity about our lives, particular blue collar lay people, are totally oblivious that in the past generation a major social change has occurred without any notice or commentary by them. A quarter of the US workforce now works on weekends. For blue collar workers it is a third. The idea that Sunday is a day of rest is going the way of the dodo bird.
The longstanding allowance of Saturday vigil masses ought to be remedial for these conditions, if parishes can get away from always offering them at 4:30 pm. I think late evening Sunday (or Saturday) masses (like, 7pm or even later) need to become much more common
Although, thinking of the ways you emphasize the social justice teaching of the church, Kurt, I see a deficiency in my earlier comment. The onus on the church is not just to totally shape itself to the schedules that its parishioners are pushed to adopt, but also to stand up, where fruitful, against business interests that would take from the worker his day of rest.
While the Pope's mind and cognitive abilities are quite impressive for a man as old as he is, its clear his poor physical health is impeding his governance. He's always struggled to get ahold of events outside of Rome, but now he can't even govern inside of Rome. Dicasteries make decisions in the popes authority on their own accord, with zero conslutation of others, even when its obviously needed. This is the kind of situation where a leader is needed to restore order and coordination. Yet in addition to being unable to celebrate Mass, he is now unable to see or speak to people save for a very small window of time because he's either hurt or fatigued from the lightest of work. (Yet he's still doing a full travel schedule.)
This wasn't a big issue when it was a few hundred thousand trads, or the CDF issuing a declaration so absurd everyone promptly ignored it. We now have real question over when someone going to Mass has satisfied a sunday obligation, exposing us to untold amounts of legalism and pharisaism.
Nothing will change, it will only get more chaotic in these final days. People may hate it, but this is exactly why Benedict believed in abdication, where a pope, in humility, spares the harm inflicted on the faithful by his decline in ability.
As I always liked to tell our RCIA classes:
“…and you think you’re joining an *organized* religion.”
I scanned the comments to see if anybody had already brought this up, but the Church has been around for 20000 years and this has never happened before? No precedent for a regularly scheduled holy day falling on a Sunday? Help me out here...
No it's definitely happened before. The reason it became an issue this year is that the Vatican told the US bishops that their longstanding practice (declaring that the Immaculate Conception was not a Holy Day of Obligation when bumped to Monday) was not in accordance with the law.
That said, it hasn't been happening for very long because prior to Vatican II the calendar allowed solemnities to co-occur. i.e you could celebrate both the IC and Advent II on the Sunday on which they both fall
In 1962 the Immaculate Conception superseded the Second Sunday of Advent in case of conflict. There is a special entry for it in the table of precedence, just to make sure it doesn't get shifted like a first class feast typically would if it occurred on a first class Sunday (in the 1962 rubrics at least).
We've changed our approach to the calendar in the post-conciliar period, and that's what's catalyzed this question.
I don't want to read through all the comments, so I don't know of the following observation came up. In my area, New Orleans, it was made clear enough maybe that the obligation to go to Mass had transferred to Dec. 9, but provisions hadn't been made for Mass attendance by the working class.
The Vatican needs to hire Karoline Leavitt - problem solved. 🤦♂️
So my understanding is that days of precept that fall on Saturday or Monday, not transferred due to a feast of higher rank, still carry an obligation, correct? That's what the USCCB had interpreted incorrectly?
A church of lawyers and judges.
Oh no !