Help Please: St. Joseph or anticipated Mass for Third Sunday of Lent, OF?
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 340
    Hey Guys,

    My employer is insisting that the 5pm anticipated Mass this Saturday evening must be for St. Joseph. Isn't this incorrect since the Mass anticipates Sunday, which outranks St. Joseph? Are there documents saying one way or the other? Thanks.
    Thanked by 1Don9of11
  • MarkB
    Posts: 824
    Thanked by 2trentonjconn Salieri
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,040
    The evening Mass should be for the III Sunday of Lent.

    This shouldn't even be that complicated: Sundays of Lent are listed in the Table of Liturgical Days as Title I, No. 2, and the Solemnity of St. Joseph as Title I, No. 3. You don't even need to worry about what is or isn't a day of precept, because a Lenten Sunday outranks a Solemnity, period: so, unless I am mistaken, Evening Prayer II of St. Joseph would not be said, but Evening Prayer I of the Third Sunday of Lent would.

    In older parlance: St. Joseph's Day ends after Nones, and the color changes from white to violet.

    [rant]What amazes me is how Ordines (the correct plural of Ordo) have yet to come to terms with anticipated Masses; especially in countries like the U.S. where Saturday/Sunday anticipated Masses are ubiquitous; I mean, it's only been about 50 years! If Ordines would include a rubric on days like this saying: "The Solemnity ends after Nones (Mid-afternoon Prayer), and the Anticipated Mass for Sunday is said before or after First Vespers (Evening Prayer I) of the Sunday" or whatever the particular case may be, depending on the ranking of the Solemnities and Sundays involved, then we wouldn't keep having these problems every time A solemnity lands on a Saturday. Of course, the other issue is that priests would actually need to read the Ordo, rather than using it as a coaster.[/rant]
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 340
    .
    Thanked by 1Salieri
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,040
    I agree that it is not a difficult question, but I nonetheless find myself in these situations with alarming frequency...

    I do as well; and it's the fault of the Ordo. The Ordo is there to make things clear and to answer these kinds of questions; if the Ordo doesn't do that, then it isn't doing its job. I blame the 'rubricophobia' of a certain generation.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,569
    Also, for the USA, the question would never even arise with respect to observing St Joseph on Saturday evening because it's not a holyday of obligation here. See article beginning on page 19 of the May-June 2016 newsletter of the USCCB's CDW.

    https://www.usccb.org/about/divine-worship/newsletter/upload/newsletter-2016-05-and-06.pdf
  • Mass in the morning would be of St. Joseph. In the OF, however, the evening Mass is, in fact, intended to be not the Mass of the day, but an anticipated Sunday Mass.
    Thanked by 1RedPop4
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,569
    Except if the Saturday observance is a holyday of obligation AND is higher on the table of precedence vis-a-vis the Sunday observance. Thus, when Christmas falls on a Saturday, any Mass in the evening would be of Christmas Day, not Holy Family. (That said, I think Saturday evening Mass is unusual when Christmas falls on a Saturday.)
  • Yes. Mind you, holy days of obligation may make a comeback at some point, but we're still working on Sunday obligation in some parts of the Church.
  • Chaswjd
    Posts: 169
    In terms of the obligation, it does not matter what mass is celebrated. The Sunday obligation is fulfilled by the attendance at a Catholic rite mass either on Sunday or the evening before. Can. 1248 §1. "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."
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,016
    The problem partly arises because the Church is unclear whether we use the Roman or Semitic definition of a day. Canon law sticks with a day being the interval between night_time_sleeping_periods/midnight. Modern liturgists preferred to start the day at sundown and then because many of us live far from the equator, define a notional sundown. ¿When do you break the Ramadan fast in Spitsbergen? Previously liturgists were happy, it seems, to anticipate anything at any time, preferably to avoid re-timing meals.
  • Don9of11Don9of11
    Posts: 581
    I think you could satisfy both the Solemnity and anticipated Sunday Mass. Sing a hymn in honor of St. Joseph before Mass. I assume you can still do this in the TLM. I know for sure you can in the NO. To that end check out my collection of hymns to St. Joseph, https://www.motherofmercycatholichymns.com/
  • PaxTecum
    Posts: 254
    I have to say that these explanations make no sense to me. If Saturday March 19th is the Solemnity of Saint Joseph - why could there not be an evening Mass for Saint Joseph? And because said Mass is in the evening, it would also fulfill the Sunday obligation as far as I understand.

    Sure, you could also use the Sunday Mass as an "anticipated Sunday Mass" but I don't read any of this as saying you "must" use the Sunday Mass. After all, it is not Sunday.

    EDIT: I read further the newsletter posted above from the USCCB. It now makes sense. However, it is not (to my understanding) binding legislation. It seems more like a suggestion to me that they "want" to hold the weight of a law, but it isn't a law.
    Thanked by 1MatthewRoth
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,598
    [rant]What amazes me is how Ordines (the correct plural of Ordo) have yet to come to terms with anticipated Masses; especially in countries like the U.S. where Saturday/Sunday anticipated Masses are ubiquitous; I mean, it's only been about 50 years! If Ordines would include a rubric on days like this saying: "The Solemnity ends after Nones (Mid-afternoon Prayer), and the Anticipated Mass for Sunday is said before or after First Vespers (Evening Prayer I) of the Sunday" or whatever the particular case may be, depending on the ranking of the Solemnities and Sundays involved, then we wouldn't keep having these problems every time A solemnity lands on a Saturday. Of course, the other issue is that priests would actually need to read the Ordo, rather than using it as a coaster.[/rant]


    because the rubrics are different on different days (cf. CGZ's point: in fact, the Mass has to be offered according to the rubrics, even when it means the Mass is festal and not dominical). They get confused. It happens, though some cases are bonkers; I recall reading that one ordo called for the Gloria on All Souls, because it was a Sunday per annum, and everyone called for the Credo. It's total nonsense, and the older form gets the transfer right.

    The problem is not just the conflict of anticipated Masses, it's the problem of evening Masses, period. Except for the vigils of Easter and Pentecost everywhere, and in collegiate churches (or monasteries, should they celebrate twice), no one should celebrate the Mass of the day (or what is permitted to replace it, e.g. a votive Mass) in the afternoon except by indult. Pius XII caused a huge problem here, and the communion fast was the first consequence. Another would be evening Masses replacing Vespers on Sunday, and in far too many places, Saturday morning Mass is replaced by the evening Mass, Mass is offered in lieu of, or in addition to, evening hours of adoration, and so on.

    It's also total nonsense, with no historical precedence other than a fear of multiple offices dating to the reforms of 1960, to force the office of a day of precept over a day that has a higher calendar rank without doing anything to commemorate the higher office. Now, it is also true that in the 1911 reform, Sundays were of semidouble rite, but legally, they took the place of most minor feasts; you still commemorated the feast, however, and Saturday Vespers (and those of Sunday itself) frequently yield to feasts of Our Lord, Our Lady, the Apostles, and whatever else is above the rank of double major.

    To the above question: there may be an expectation, if not particular law, that says to do so, but I think that given how few places have a consistent schedule for Saturday Masses during the day, I think that wanting to offer Mass of St Joseph is a reasonable expectation as well.

    My own complaints aside, we have to have Saturday evening Mass due to space issues (it's a TLM, not anticipated) and it will be a sung Mass of the feast. Were the pastor able to offer a second Mass, I'd rather do it in the morning; however, he as a rule, does not like this, and I respect that, but it leaves Saturday completely empty, and morning Mass would allow us to not then turn around for 8:30 the next day…
  • PaxTecum
    Posts: 254
    Here is the relevant notitia in its entirety:
    http://notitiae.ipsissima-verba.org/pdf/notitiae-1984-603-605.pdf

    At the end it specifically makes way for "pastoral interpretation" - however it is reserved to the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop and he must use this right to make a pastoral exception at the beginning of the liturgical year.

    I still think it's all crap. Notitiae are generally not binding anyway (not always the case, but often). Pastor can probably do whatever he wants on this. My vote is for St. Joseph. Call me a rebel, lol.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,598
    Yes, also, if something is only in Notitiae and doesn't clearly make its way into the actual books, then people are going to be confused.
    Thanked by 2PaxTecum tomjaw
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,040
    NB: I did say: "or whatever the case would be, depending on the Solemnity and Sunday involved".

    The problem started when First Vespers lost its place of honour.

    IMHO: A complete restoration of Pre-55 is the way to go.
  • DL
    Posts: 36
    As a rule of thumb, it seems to me that if your 5pm Saturday Mass is always of the following Sunday, it is probably best to keep it as such, especially if you have something which couldn’t ever displace a Sunday. If you didn’t usually have a Mass at that time, and perhaps if you also didn’t have one in the morning, you could do a one-off for St Joseph on a Saturday evening without feeling like you’d made a misstep. But if there’s a question of a proper Vigil Mass (as opposed to an anticipated Mass) your 5pm should be of that rather than the next day’s texts.

    Universal Norms para 58 should be better known, albeit handled with care:

    “For the pastoral good of the faithful, it is permitted to observe on Sundays in ordinary time those celebrations that fall during the week and that are agreeable to the devotion of the faithful, provided the celebrations rank above that Sunday in the table of liturgical days. The Mass of such celebrations may be used at all the celebrations of Mass at which the people are present.”
    Thanked by 2trentonjconn tomjaw
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 340
    I agree that there would be nothing wrong per se with a Mass for St. Joseph on the evening of his feast, even if that be a Saturday. What seems odd and incongruous to me is to take the Saturday 5pm which is ALWAYS an anticipated Sunday Mass and to turn it into a Mass for St. Joseph.

    The obvious solution is to universally eliminate Saturday evening Masses, with exception being granted via indult. From my experience, 98% of folks use Saturday evening Mass to sleep in Sunday and reserve it for golf or some other form of recreation. This seems contrary to the 3rd commandment in spirit.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw PaxTecum
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,598
    Salieri, right, but the rules are extremely complicated. I agree that we should go back.

    The real question is whether anticipated Masses (setting aside the NO version of a vigil that’s done in lieu of anticipation) are obligatory. My gut says that particular law defines this whenever universal law doesn’t trump this, which is why the conflicting rubrics are really, really unhelpful. So if a priest only said the Mass of Saturday to spite the crowd that never comes on Sunday, he’d eventually get told to do Sunday’s Mass by the vicar general or something. But if he does St Joseph instead of Sunday, and Christmas day instead of Holy Family, and so on, once a year as needed he won’t be in trouble. Unfortunately, I say this knowing that the politics of Saturday evening Masses will take at least another ten years to revisit.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,259
    Why shouldn’t anticipated Masses be required to be after sundown?
    Seems pretty simple.

    Why should someone expect a 5pm Saturday Mass to count for Sunday and a 5:30pm Sunday Mass to also count for Sunday?

    There really is no logical sense to it.
    Put the Holy days back on their own days, without transferral (Ascension Thursday-Sunday, anyone?); let Saturdays actually have their own Mass; and if anyone wants an anticipatory Mass, make it be after sundown, like on the evening of Holy Saturday.

    And yes, then also restore us (or at least anyone who uses ‘62) to the pre-‘55 Mass.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,016
    Here sunset varies from 3:53pm just before Christmas to 9:45pm at mid-summer (with clocks on summer time).
  • SponsaChristi
    Posts: 330

    Why shouldn’t anticipated Masses be required to be after sundown?

    Not all places experience “sundown”, or sundown is very late at night.
  • Sponsa,

    Your point, while valid, only highlights the wisdom of the Church: Sunday doesn't begin at 4:30 in the afternoon on Saturday. In the places where sun down is very late, the rule about sun down doesn't get pushed aside, but observed.
    Thanked by 1CCooze
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 1,006
    And yes, then also restore us (or at least anyone who uses ‘62) to the pre-‘55 Mass.
    It doesn't make a great case for EF attendees accepting the teachings of Vatican II if they refuse even the mild reforms of 1955 and 1962, let alone 1965 and 1967.
    Thanked by 1MarkB
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,569
    The thing about Summorum Pontificum is that, by its own terms, it solely applied to the 1962 Missal. It never said use of any earlier edition of the Missal had not been abrogated, though one might argue that use of any *later* edition has not been abrogated.
  • MarkB
    Posts: 824
    For the good of the salvation of souls, Canon Law provides generously for the faithful to fulfill their obligation to attend Mass by including the evening of the day prior to a day of precept within the qualifying timeframe.

    From a canonical standpoint, by the way, evening (the latter half of the day) starts at noon, not at 4:00 p.m. and not at sunset. So if you attend a wedding Mass that begins at 1:00 p.m. on a Saturday, that satisfies the obligation to attend Mass for the following Sunday, as far as fulfilling the canonical requirement is concerned. You're welcome and encouraged to also attend a Sunday Mass, of course, but it's not necessary to do that to satisfy the canonical obligation to attend Mass for that Sunday since you've already satisfied it.

    I read an article about exemptions from the obligation to abstain from eating meat on Fridays during Lent when a solemnity occurs on a Friday, as is the case this year with March 25: the Annunciation. That article went on to consider that some have argued, and one bishop has decreed, that for the Solemnity of Saint Joseph, which is on Saturday, March 19, one may anticipate the solemnity on Friday evening and thus enjoy a steak for dinner on Friday, March 18.

    https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/2-meat-fridays-maybe?s=r

  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,323
    It doesn't make a great case for EF attendees accepting the teachings of Vatican II if they refuse even the mild reforms of 1955 and 1962, let alone 1965 and 1967.

    So having a Proper Last Gospel, 12 Prophecies, extra feasts with unique Propers some how is not in tune with Vatican II... hmmm.
    Anyway I am interested in these teachings of Vatican II, could you explain how the Liturgy in use during and before the council contravenes these "teachings".
  • Schoenbergian,

    With Tom I have difficulty identifying the teachings of Vatican II which are incompatible with the 1955 liturgical books and still dogmatically binding.
    Thanked by 2PaxTecum tomjaw
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 340
    one may anticipate the solemnity on Friday evening and thus enjoy a steak for dinner on Friday, March 18.


    Looking at culinary traditions of various cultures (especially the Italians), it's pretty clear that eating meat for the feast of St. Joseph was not common practice. Doing so on a Lenten Friday feels so wrong...
  • PaxTecum
    Posts: 254
    Schönbergian

    the changes in 1955 and 1962 are anything but mild.
    Thanked by 2MatthewRoth tomjaw
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,598
    It doesn't make a great case for EF attendees accepting the teachings of Vatican II if they refuse even the mild reforms of 1955 and 1962, let alone 1965 and 1967.


    As PaxTecum said, those reforms were not mild. What about the Ambrosian rite, then? The Milanese have restored I Vespers and said "no thanks" to both the feast of the Holy Family in December, keeping instead the feasts of the Comites on Sunday (something that they don't do for Our Lady's Assumption or for St Charles Borromeo) and to the new feast of Mary, Mother of God, keeping the feast of the Circumcision instead… Or how about the Byzantines? The Old Ritualists of the Russian Catholic Church were purged by Stalin, but nobody had a problem with it from ca. 1905 to 1937, and there are Old Ritualists in communion with Moscow (the Holy See regards the Russian Catholic Church as something embarrassing, and I hope that this changes soon).

    To MarkB's point: there is some disagreement among canonists. The CLSA New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (the green one) holds that "evening" means late afternoon, but Ed Peters claims that the British and Irish canonists claim noon (which I find spurious myself as well); I take his word for it, as I've never looked it up myself. In any case, saying an anticipated Mass a) only happens in certain circumstances and b) doesn't seem to be universally binding (this goes back to my question about particular law).

    Also, not only was meat not eaten during Lent traditionally, the exception for solemnities dates to 1983, but it applies to the solemnity itself, when March 19 is on Friday, because Friday abstinence is midnight-to-midnight. If a bishop dispenses people on Friday evening, fine, though the decision needs to be met with the amount of respect it deserves; in fact, one priest of my acquaintance did not tell the faithful that the bishop dispensed the requirement to abstain on Friday, March 17, which is an even worse decision because people will drink to excess.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • PaxTecum
    Posts: 254
    In any case, saying an anticipated Mass a) only happens in certain circumstances and b) doesn't seem to be universally binding (this goes back to my question about particular law).


    That is exactly my point on this, Matthew. The anticipated Masses are absolutely not mandatory and were never meant to be so regular in all parishes. They were "allowed" due to "pastoral need" - not "required." With this understanding it seems obvious to me that a pastor would have (in true Novus Ordo fashion) a choice on this matter.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,040
    There are pre-'55 things (like the celebrant wearing the Chasuble on Good Friday) that were restored, either completely or partially, in '69 (Novus Ordo) because the '55 reforms were not liked--And Pope Roncalli was one of those who did not like them: Holy Week under John XXIII followed the pre-'55 rubrics. So apparently, we should consider John XXIII, Paul VI, and Bugnini to be "against Vatican II", too.

    Restoring, partially, or completely, the practices of the pre-'55 calendar (if not the calendar itself: I would love to celebrate the Feast of the Flight into Egypt on 17 February, or the Masses in honor of the Instruments of the Passion on Fridays of Lent), which include the honorific place given to First Vespers of a feast, isn't against Vatican II: It's actually more in line with the "return to the primitive Church" that Vatican II requested, since it is a continuation of Semitic practices which would have been followed by the early Church.

    I would, therefore, argue that a return of pre-'55 elements is more in keeping with Vatican II than what happened in the Pian revision: and if the '69 changes to Candlemas, Palm Sunday, & Good Friday, which are closer to pre-'55 than '62, are any indication, I think Bugnini & Paul VI would agree.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,016
    We have wandered rather far from the OPs question, but - one way, I would say the major way, in which 1962 and its predecessors do not conform to either Vatican II or Trent is the almost total absence of a homily on the texts of the Mass. The simple fact that the rubrics did not mention this demand of the Council of Trent
    that the sheep of Christ may not suffer hunger, nor the little ones ask for bread, and there be none to break it unto them, the holy Synod charges pastors, and all who have the cure of souls, that they frequently, during the celebration of mass, expound either by themselves, or others, some portion of those things which are read at mass,
    lead to a widespread distortion of the understanding of the sacred action among both people and clergy. A good pastor of course does not need a rubric to allow this, but seminaries seem never to have taught its necessity. SC does demand it, and the 1965 rubrics conform.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,598
    Given the quality of preaching, and that the overwhelming majority of priests cannot be bothered to use the actual texts of the Mass but instead use various songs and other forms of music, why should we want this as anything more than an ideal? The reality is also that just about all priests preach every Sunday and holy day, because it's in canon law, making the question moot (preaching on Palm Sunday is intolerable due to the length of the ceremonies even in the 1962 rite and in the NO, and why the hierarchy insists on this is once again proof that these people were never pastorally minded),

    Or what of Gregorian chant and the celebration of the office? We sing Mass on every Sunday, every major feast (holy day or not, with or without an obligation) plus Exaltation of the Cross, three Requiems (a Requiem on Memorial Day, a chantry Mass required by a trust left in the 1880s, and one during the All Saints octave), the Triduum liturgies, and a Rorate Mass; we also sing Vespers monthly. It's going to be weekly during the school year within the next eighteen months (probably before the end of 2023). So even without Tenebrae this year and with some cancellations due to unusual winter weather we're on track to sing over ninety liturgies in Gregorian chant. There are no other parishes singing any of the hours in the diocese. There are a few groups that read the breviary together, but that's it outside of the religious who pray in choir. There's one parish that uses chant on a regular basis of which I know (in the postconciliar form; there's a second TLM with a schola). Not to beat a dead horse here, and say what you want about the sad reality of American Catholic life before Vatican II, trads have been faithful to conciliar teaching on sacred music in a way that the rest of the church has largely not been.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen tomjaw
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,016
    MatthewRoth : I don't think preaching at Mass was required in canon law until 1983, and not in liturgical law before 1965, and both these flow directly from SC reiterating Trent XXII:cap.viii.
    I agree that trads have been more faithful to conciliar, and papal, directives on music. And I would be delighted to have access to what you describe.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,040
    Of course the issue today is that most diocesan (and religious) Novus Ordo priests can't tell an anaphora from an epiclesis, and so are completely incapable of preaching on the liturgy; so they stick to social justice and platitudes. I have heard more liturgical preaching from 'traditionalist' priests (by which I mean those who either celebrate using the Tridentine books, or lean in that direction regarding liturgy) than the run-of-the-mill N.O. priests.