If you are a real thrifty person, you might want to hold on to your 2022 calendar. This is because the 2022 calendar can be used again in 2033.
While calendar years don’t repeat all the time, they do repeat more often than some may realize. The 2022 calendar, for instance, will repeat in 2033, 2039, 2050 and 2061. That means Christmas Eve will again be on a Saturday and Christmas Day will be on Sunday in 2033.
This also means that some Catholics will once again be asking the question “If I go to Mass on Christmas Eve, does that mean I’ve fulfilled both my Christmas and Sunday obligation?”
Of course, Catholics should know that attending a Saturday evening Mass fulfills the Sunday mass obligation. And when Christmas is on a Sunday, attending a Christmas Eve Mass on Saturday evening fulfills the Sunday obligation and the Christmas Day obligation as well.
But this also brings up a couple more interesting questions: what constitutes “evening?” How early can a Mass on Christmas Eve be celebrated and still be considered fulfilling the Christmas Day obligation? In fact, the same question is valid for Saturday Mass times in general – how early can a Saturday evening Mass be held and still fulfill the Sunday obligation?
One might think that the answer to this question could be found in the Church’s Code of Canon Law. But one would be wrong to think this. It seems there is no clear cut, universally accepted answer on how early a Saturday Mass can be held to fulfill the Sunday obligation.
A Minor Brouhaha
I bring this up because these questions actually caused a minor family brouhaha the day before Christmas Eve this year.
My niece and her husband were hosting my wife’s family’s Christmas Eve get together. Since most of the nieces and nephews had little children, some thought it would be a good idea to attend a Saturday “Children’s Mass” at one of the parishes. The Mass was scheduled to begin at 3:00 pm.
And then I started the brouhaha. I pointed out that I didn’t think attending a 3 pm Mass would fulfill either our Sunday Mass or Christmas Day Mass obligation.
“Why would a parish offer a 3 pm Mass if it did not count as fulfilling the Sunday and Christmas Day obligation?” my brother-in-law asked.
“Because sometimes parish priests are not knowledgeable enough regarding all aspects of Canon Law,” I responded.
While the ensuing discussion was interesting it does not bear recounting because it went off in a number of different directions. Suffice it to say I held my ground and we all ended up going to a 4 pm Mass at a different parish.
Was I Right?
A couple days after Christmas, however, I decided to recheck the grounds on which my 4 pm contention was based. The source for my contention was Catholic Answers (CA).
Some years back I did a search on the CA website asking the question “how early can a Saturday Mass be to fulfill our Sunday obligation?” So I again went to CA and asked the same question. Up popped the answer provided by Fr. Charles Grondin:
“The Code of Canon Law (can. 1248) permits Catholics to fulfill their Mass obligation by attending Mass “in the evening of the preceding day.”
“I don’t think many of us would consider 2 p.m. to be “evening.” The Church also does not view that as counting as the evening of the preceding day. Pope Pius XII, in the apostolic constitution Christus Dominus, set the earliest hour for such a Mass at 4 p.m. Unless the Church issues a new rule regarding when to officially define “evening” in canon 1248, 4 p.m. remains the earliest time a Mass fulfills the next day’s obligation.”
Just for the record, Canon 1248 §1 states: “A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.”
So I was pretty confident that my position was correct. But since I like to double and sometimes triple check information, I decided to verify Fr. Grondin’s claim. I emailed noted Canonist Dr. Edward Peters to get his thoughts.
And guess what? It seems that the timing question is not a settled matter.
Different Opinions
Dr. Peters initially referred me to a post in his In the Light of the Law blog from 2014, “A question on Mass-start times that warrants attention.” In this post he presents commentary that says “any Mass attended beginning at 12:00 noon of the day previous,” or later, satisfies the “next-day attendance obligation.”
But in the same post he also quotes canonist Dr. John Huels as saying “Evening’ should be understood as anytime from 4:00 pm onward. The legislator uses the word ‘evening’ (vesper) not ‘afternoon’ (post meridiem); in keeping with the proper meaning of the word (cf. c. 17) an afternoon Mass before 4:00 pm is not an evening Mass and does not satisfy the [attendance] obligation.”
I then asked Dr. Peters if Pope Pius XII’s apostolic constitution Christus Dominus is any way applicable here. He replied, “It doesn’t apply; at least not in my view. Others might disagree.”
So it seems that my brother-in-law and I are both right – at least for now. Attending a 3 pm (or even a Noon) Saturday Mass fulfills our Sunday obligation according to some. But according to others it does not. It all depends on to whom you want to listen.
But I wholeheartedly agree with what Dr. Peters says at the end his blog post. He says, “Bottom line, this very practical question . . . needs to be investigated more fully, and settled authoritatively.”
Canon Law
So if Canon Law does not even provide an answer to the “what time is correct” question, why does the Church even have a thing called Canon Law?
As Canon Lawyer Pete Vere wrote, “The Church does not need a Code of Canon Law, but it has chosen to use such a structure. Canon law deals with the day-to-day affairs of the Church.” To put it simply, the Code of Canon Law codifies the New Covenant given to us by Jesus Christ.
The Church gets her authority to make these laws directly from Jesus. He told Peter and the apostles, “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Mt 16:19, and again in 18:18).
The Canons are set laws that the Church interprets and applies to given situations. The current Code of Canon Law, released by Pope John Paul II in 1983, has 1,752 canons. The previous Code (1917) had 2,414 canons. These canons are rules that govern the Church.
The Code contains seven sections:
- Book I General Norms,
- Book II The People of God,
- Book III The Teaching Function of the Church,
- Book IV Function of the Church,
- Book V The Temporal Goods of the Church,
- Book VI Sanctions in the Church.
- Book VII Processes (penal law, and procedural law).
Many of these laws are practices, so they are subject to change over time, as the Church sees fit. For example, the practice of women wearing a veil at Mass was done away with in the 1983 code. As such, this practice is no longer required. Others laws however, are doctrinal and cannot be changed.
One Change IS NEEDED!
While Canon 1248 is not an infallibly proclaimed doctrine, it is a law of the Church. So just as keeping the third commandment means attending Mass on Sunday, Canon 1248 is also a law of the Church. But it is a rather vague law.
Catholic clerics, religious, and laypeople are all bound by these laws. However, per Canon 87 §1 “A diocesan bishop, whenever he judges that it contributes to their spiritual good, is able to dispense the faithful from universal and particular disciplinary laws issued for his territory or his subjects by the supreme authority of the Church.” As such, it would not be a bad idea to make sure the law here is clear.
It would probably be a good idea if Pope Francis fixed this. Instead of causing confusion he could actually eliminate some confusion! All it takes is adding some words to Canon 1248: “Evening of the preceding day is defined as after [insert a time here] local time.” Or perhaps: ““Diocesan bishops may define “evening of the preceding day” in their diocese.”
NOTE: Information on Canon 87 was added to this article and the article was updated on 1/1/2023.
13 thoughts on “A Simple Change in the Code of Canon Law is Needed”
Gene, by “inordinate” I would mean that if a Mass is offered before 4pm for Sundays or major feasts then it meets the obligation.
The world is not black and white, yes, there is moral and theological certitude found in the Tradition of the Church, which includes canon law. But it could be that canon law does not rule on how early a Mass can be offered for Sundays or major feasts for the express reason that there are different needs in different places. That is why there is particular law for a diocese or religious community. Since the current Code does not specify a time it is up to the local Ordinaries to decide.
You are correct and I apologize you did not say CA is authoritative, but many people will quote it and other sources as “authoritative.” Simply the name “Catholic Answers” implies this.
The highest good is always the salvation of souls, for me this is the center of the question of how early Mass may be offered.
I found this in an article specifically written about newly ordained priests celebrating the Old Rite.
Yet it is germane to this conversation. The author is Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, he quotes canonist Fr. Gerald Murray:
“The provisions of canon 87 §1 that permit the diocesan bishop, for reasons of ‘spiritual welfare,’ to dispense from disciplinary ‘universal laws and those particular laws made by the supreme ecclesiastical authority for his territory or his subjects’ remain in place, unless the pope specifically reserves such dispensation to himself or to some other authority. Canon 87 §1 grants power to diocesan bishops to dispense from disciplinary laws when he judges this to be advisable for the ‘spiritual welfare’ of his flock. The general law of the Church grants this power, which can only be taken away by the Roman Pontiff when he ‘specially reserves’ the power of dispensation ‘to the Apostolic See or to some other authority.”
Fr. Murray’ comments correspond to the 2000 Commentary on the Code Of Canon Law.
Fr. Khouri, Thanks for the clarification on Canon Law. I’ll update the article.
Canon law should not refer to a clock time, because governments play with clock times. All of China is in the same time zone, for example, and the Senate tried to make daylight savings time permanent. The latter would mean the difference between noon and the sun being at the highest point in the sky could differ by as much as 2 hours.
People won’t really like this, but I think a vigil mass should not start until the beginning of nautical twilight, at least if you’re between 60 degrees north and 60 degrees south. If you’re above those latitudes (few are), use the beginning of nautical twilight at 60 degrees for your longitude.
Think what a mess we will have if people ever live full-time on Mars!
My vote would be 4PM – based on the Jewish day having started at sundown. Arbitrarily, choosing the 45th parallel closely approximates this on the Winter Solstice…8 hrs 46 min daylight. Noon is ridiculous.
Matt 28:1 says Mary Magdalene was free to begin work again “after the sabbath” (not the “evening of”). Yet Matt 26:20 says the last supper was “in the evening” – after sunset of what we call Thursday (or Friday Eve), so evening originally meant the earliest part of the day – not the latest…the eve.
As far as scheduling questions go, that’s a relatively easy one.
Wait until next year, when Christmas falls on a Monday, and you have to figure out whether the Christmas Eve liturgy would also fulfill the Sunday obligation. (I don’t think it does, but the expert opinions I’ve found have been contradictory.)
LV – Only in a year in which Christmas is on a Sunday can we fulfill our Sunday and Christmas Day obligations on the same day. In 2023, since Christmas Day is on a Monday we will have two separate Mass obligations for two separate days, Sunday Mass and Christmas Day Mass. We cannot satisfy two separate/distinct Mass obligations on the same day. This means we have to attend Mass two times in two days, or attend Mass twice on Sunday (once in the morning and again in the evening). But this means we get to receive Holy Communion twice in one day, per Canon 917! So a person could receive Communion at an 11:00 am Mass on Sunday morning (while fulfilling the Sunday obligation), and again at an evening Mass on Sunday (thereby fulfilling the Christmas obligation). How great is that!
Merry Christmas LV!
Pingback: FRIDAY EVENING EDITION – Big Pulpit
members of the flock going in different directions;
which sheep are right and which sheep are wrong,
(maybe all of them) ain’t the point.
Sign of poor shepherding. Shepherd needs to clarify things for the sheep. As you say Gene, a change in canon law is needed. The shepherd(s) need to get on it. Merry Christmas – Happy New Year!
Mark 2:27
Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.”
There are places where there are not enough priests to staff more churches. In dioceses where there are many seasonal retirees (i.e., those in Florida and AZ) Masses are added in Winter and can commence as early as noon the day before a Sunday or a major feast with the permission of the bishop. In some places this is also an issue because of the lack of priests and big enough churches.
In a parish where I once served the 10 weekend Masses began at 2pm on Saturday so that all who wished to attend Sunday Liturgy could do so. Again, this required the blessing of the local bishop.
We have canon law for good reasons, but the most serious need to be understood is the salvation of souls.
Catholic Answers is in no way authoritative and does not speak for the Church. Consulting internet “experts” and Catholic television “gurus” who can not take into account local needs or situations causes more harm than good.
It is best if you have a question to consult your local diocese or, despite this article’s author contention, most parish priests who are competent regarding the universal law or local customs of their particular dioceses.
All law does not come from Rome, there is particular law for local dioceses because canon law cannot rule on every need or situation in a local Church.
Personally, I would be thrilled that my younger family members want to go to Mass at all.
Many of us don’t have the time or energy to split hairs over this issue.
“The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” sums it up nicely. Thank the God the Father for the Incarnate Word made flesh; He frees us from inordinate legalism.
Fr. Khouri, thanks for reading and commenting on my article. I do, however, take issue with a few of the statements you make.
1) Nowhere in the article did I say Catholic Answers is the authoritative source on Church teaching or Canon Law, or that it speaks for the Church. I only pointed to it as the source of my 4 pm contention during a conversation. I asked Dr. Peters to clarify things and I think he clarified the situation very nicely for us.
2) While a bishop can certainly determine common ecclesiastical law for his diocese, I don’t think he can enact a law that is contrary to Canon Law. I may be wrong but I think a bishop can only permit or forbid that which the Canon Law neither forbids nor permits with certitude. In this specific instance, apparently because the timing question is not settled, bishops do have the authority to allow Masses prior to 4 pm.
3) I did not say “most parish priests” are not competent when it comes to Canon Law. I said “sometimes parish priests are not knowledgeable enough regarding all aspects of Canon Law.” This is a far cry from “most.” So please don’t put words in my article that are not there or chastise me for saying something I did not say.
4) Nowhere in the article did I suggest people should consult “internet experts and Catholic television gurus.” I agree with you that this can cause problems, as I think I mentioned in my article! This is why I consulted Dr. Peters before writing the article. His credentials are top drawer.
5) Finally, Father, I don’t think I’m splitting hairs over this. You might want to take a look at LV’s comment above. A lot of us ordinary Catholics like things black and white. You also say “Thank the God the Father for the Incarnate Word made flesh; He frees us from inordinate legalism.” Yet His bride the Church, on His authority, saw fit to put in place a Code of Canon Law. Now if only we could all agree on what constitutes “inordinate legalism” . . .
A better solution would be that religious law is not binding in Christianity (cf. Galatians 5:3-6).