"Anticipatory, Vigil, Saturday/Sunday Mass??
  • ghmus7
    Posts: 1,372
    Hello brains:
    What do you think the best term is for describing the Saturday Mass which is the same
    liturgy as the Sunday Mass? Vigil does not seem to be really correct, as it is
    not a vigil, it is the same liturgy at Sunday.
    And...isn't this a particularly American thing??
  • An "Anticipated Sunday Mass" isn't a Vigil, but it's not exactly new. Permission dates from the time of Pius XII, if I recall. It was made available because factory laborers (if I recall correctly) were being made to work on Sundays. Pope Pius, therefore made it more possible for these devout souls to fulfill their obligation to God without having to attempt to get rapacious business operators to see reason (although some could be made to see reason without severe manifestations).
  • CatherineS
    Posts: 690
    It's normal (and popular) in Brazil (I don't know about other Latin American countries.) Usually the 6pm Mass on Saturday is the anticipated one.
  • GerardH
    Posts: 285
    isn't this a particularly American thing??

    No, it isn't.

    In my experience it is called a Vigil Mass, even though it isn't the same as a historical vigil. Anticipated Sunday Mass would be a more awkward but more correct term
    Thanked by 1PaxMelodious
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,605
    It's called Saturday evening Mass in the vernacular. No confusion. Easy peasy. (Btw, for any parishes that had a Saturday evening mass on 25 December 2021 - last weekend - it was not a vigil of anything, but the Mass of Christmas Day.)
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,100
    It's called Saturday evening Mass in the vernacular.

    But that could be confusing for those [sadly, very few] places that still have a daily Mass on Saturday morning: Some people could be led to believe that the Evening Mass would be the same as the morning Mass.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 1,767
    I believe that “anticipatory” mass is the correct term, as various feasts and solemnities have “vigils” which are distinct liturgies where propers and readings are concerned. I know that my priest is deliberate in his use of the term “anticipatory” mass.
    Thanked by 1CCooze
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,351
    @Salieri
    O.K. in our N.O. parish we do not have a Saturday morning N.O. Mass, although the convent up the road has a N.O. Mass said by our priests. But when a feast falls in N.O. land on a Saturday, the propers from our two evening Masses will be of the Saturday not the Sunday. I don't think we have confusion because, those that attend these Masses are not following the calendar independent of their attendance at Mass.

    The anticipated Mass of Sunday is an indulgence, so those that can't or won't make Sunday Holy can still attend Mass... Calling it a vigil is a complete break with what has been the practice of the Church for around 1500 years.
  • Tom,

    Might this

    Calling it a vigil is a complete break with what has been the practice of the Church for around 1500 years.

    be the reason proponents of calling it a Vigil push so hard to attach the name?
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Felicia
    Posts: 87
    @ghmus7 And...isn't this a particularly American thing??

    It seems I read somewhere that this practice was common in the U.S. even before Pius XII. (This may be wrong, so take with a grain of salt.) I've attended Masses on Saturday evenings in several cities in Italy, so it's not exclusively an American thing. Whether the Italians copied the U.S., or vice versa, I don't really know.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    We easterners have Vespers which is an acceptable substitute for Sunday liturgy. No Saturday evening masses.

    I have heard, knowing next to nothing about Italy or soccer, that the Italian teams play on Sundays. The Saturday evening liturgy is to get people who will go to the games on Sunday to at least go to a mass instead of skipping it to attend games.

    Was it Saturday evening mass in 19th-century Russia? It was not!
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,605
    "Some people could be led to believe that the Evening Mass would be the same as the morning Mass."

    And what actual problem is there with such a notional confusion? I believe it would be a very unusual bird - other than a child without Catholic parents who is *very* unfamiliar with mass schedules - who would be so confused.

    "Anticipated" is certainly not incorrect, but it is unnecessary insider jargon, and probably less clear to more folks on the pew ground, as it were.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,605
    "But when a feast falls in N.O. land on a Saturday, the propers from our two evening Masses will be of the Saturday not the Sunday."

    In the States, the USCCB's rule (which to my mind is at some angle to the norms of the universal calendar, but my opinion is of no import in this matter) is that only happens when Saturday is a day of precept outranking the Sunday adjacent.
  • Liam,

    "Insider Jargon" implies a negative judgment about what is fundamentally true. The precept is fulfilled by attending Mass on Sunday. Since "Vigil" already means something else "Anticipated" describes accurately what's going on. It's coming early (which acknowledges when it should come, and that it's NOT a vigil in the proper sense of the term.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 1,767
    "Anticipated" is certainly not incorrect, but it is unnecessary insider jargon, and probably less clear to more folks on the pew ground, as it were.

    Fair criticism.

    I think it boils down to the fact that the term 'vigil' is used in two ways:
    technically (distinct liturgy with its own readings and propers) and colloquially ("the evening before the main day").

    In the latter sense, which is how it is typically applied to Saturday evening masses, it is tenable, albeit technically imprecise. The obvious problem comes when you have a real vigil on a "vigil". A saturday evening mass is only a 'vigil' (colloquial sense) when the liturgy celebrated is an anticipatory mass and thereby uses the readings proper (no pun intended) to the next day.

    In the case of this weekend [Epiphany — for readers of this thread a long time from now] there is a genuine "vigil" mass (technical sense), so the Mass that we celebrated here last night was indeed a vigil mass in the proper sense, as distinct from the liturgies celebrated this morning.
    Thanked by 2a_f_hawkins tomjaw
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,062
    I think I recall that Bugnini says the Italian Bishops pushed very strongly both for the transfer of Hoyldays of Obligation to the Sundays, and for the relaxations allowing evening communion.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,062
    tomjaw, I agree calling the the designated Sunday text a 'vigil' is a mistake, it was common in England 40 years ago, but seems to have been squashed.
    The structure of a vigil can be still seen on 28th June when there is in the NO a Mass for St Irenaus in the morning, and a vigil text to be used for Ss Peter & Paul after Mid-afternoon Prayer (Nones) in the afternoon, just as there was in 1920 [I don't think I ever bought a 1962 Missal, the readings hadn't changed] . The flavour of a vigil is of course changed by the fasting rules, and evening Masses. Actually if you want to, you can give the NO Saturday anticipated Mass a somewhat vigil feel by taking it quietly and incorporating Vespers according to the rubrics.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen tomjaw
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 1,767
    I think I recall that Bugnini says the Italian Bishops pushed very strongly both for the transfer of Hoyldays of Obligation to the Sundays,

    Interesting you should mention this. I was just reading in Denzinger last night and here is what Pius VI had to say in Auctorem Fidei

    74. The deliberation of the synod [of Pistoria] about transferring to Sunday feasts distributed through the year, and rightly so, because it is convinced that the bishop has power over ecclesiastical discipline in relation to purely spiritual matters, and therefore of abrogating the precept of hearing Mass on those days, on which according to the early law of the Church, even then that precept flourished; and then, also, in this statement which it (the synod) added about transferring to Advent by episcopal authority the fasts which should be kept throughout the year according to the precept of the Church; insomuch as it asserts that it is lawful for a bishop in his own right to transfer the days prescribed by the Church for celebrating feasts or fasts, or to abrogate the imposed precept of hearing Mass,—a false proposition, harmful to the law of the general Councils and of the Supreme Pontiffs, scandalous, favorable to schism.
    Thanked by 1StimsonInRehab
  • CatherineS
    Posts: 690
    I'm scandalized by the moving of feasts to the preceeding or subsequent Sunday willy nilly. All of them are now so shuffled around that I have on at least one occasion, due to travel and singing obligations, assisted at the same feast on three different days. (It must have been the Thursday in one place, and the Saturday-anticipated plus Thursday-Feast-moved-to-Sunday?)
  • StimsonInRehabStimsonInRehab
    Posts: 1,821
    Trads do it, too, especially with Corpus Christi and Sacred Heart. Laziness is all across the liturgical spectrum. External Solemnity = Internal Calamity.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,062
    Bishops might fear that few of their flock will actually turn out except on a Sunday, which means it is possible to go eleven years without experiencing Epiphany (or whatever), and make a prudent judgement that something must be done. However there must be a better solution, along the lines of "external solemnities".
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 1,767
    I take Mass head counts at every mass I play, and I can tell you that even when things are announced in advance as an HDO, we only have half our Sunday attendance. I sigh, ever time. Half the congregation is in a presumed state of mortal sin. (There are always exceptions, I know, but I highly doubt there are 250ish people who either have an exception or attended another parish…)
    Thanked by 2CCooze tomjaw
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,259
    When was the last time people realized that The Ascension isn't/wasn't on a Sunday, but on a Thursday?

    I can (disagree with but still) see the point of a Saturday or Monday solemnity/hdo being moved to Sunday, because that would only happen maybe twice of every 6/7 years, but a Thursday Mass forever being on a Sunday? That's just insane.
    They don't move Ash Wednesday to the 1st Sunday of Lent, and yet there are often more people at (any denomination) church on Ash Wednesday than any other day besides Easter. And it's a Wednesday. Could we really not make it to Mass on Thursday?
  • CatherineS
    Posts: 690
    Churches are often full for regular weekday evening Masses where I live.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,062
    I recall 1950 Christmas was a Monday and an HDO, next Monday the Circumcision and an HDO, and the Saturday - Epiphany and an HDO, all mornings only, of course. That particular arrangement of 6 Obligations in 15 days tested my 12 year-old piety, particularly as school restarted on Jan 8. (But at least we could sing at the school Mass.)
  • Yes, Hawkins, but you grew up. I think Corinne's point is that if we insist on having such low expectations, we should expect that people don't live up to them.

    Stimson,

    External Solemnities are (as I'm sure you know) NOT the same as transferred feasts in the new calendar. When the solemnity gets transferred, the feast is celebrated twice.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,062
    CGZ - duplication/repetition a much more sensible idea. In England they have put Ascension back to the right date and Epiphany. What we need now for the NO is "Sunday within the Octave of ..."
  • Here in the States, such sensibleness isn't widely (but only sporadically) in evidence.