Another point of Catholic identity out with the bathwater?

Occasionally we have a collision of Holy Days of Obligations and Feasts in the calendar.  Feasts get transferred.   Does the obligation get transferred?  We had this situation recently regarding the Feast/Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception which fell on an Advent Sunday.  In the Novus Ordo the liturgical day was bumped to Monday.  In the Vetus Ordo it remained on Sunday.  In these USA, Immaculate Conception is supposed to be a day of obligation.  So, was the obligation bumped to Monday in the Novus Ordo?  Confusion reigned.

Now there is a new “Note” from the Vatican’s liturgy office under date of 23 January 2025.

Bottom line:  When Feasts/Solemnities which would otherwise be Holy Days of Obligation are transferred to another days, the obligation is NOT transferred.

Message: It is too much to require that people go to Mass twice in a week or two days in a row.

What I fear from this is the subtext.  I fear that a message is being sent that integrating the Church’s calendar, our feasts and seasons, is not important.  Going to church for Mass, together as a worshiping body fulfilling the virtue of Religion, is not important.

These diminutions of expectations matter.  We are our rites.  There are consequences for our identity within the Church and out in the public square.

Ad intra, isn’t this what happened with the eucharistic fast?  Reduction from midnight to 3 hours, to 1 hour?  Maybe it isn’t that important after all.  Ad extra, a diminishing of public identity may have been an effect of no longer asking women to cover their heads in church.  It was an identifiable social phenomenon on Sundays as families made their way to church.   Ad extra et intra, isn’t this what may have happened with Friday abstinence?   Pretty much everyone was acutely aware that Catholics shouldn’t eat meat on Fridays. People adjusted for their dinner guests on Fridays or were mortified if they forgot.

It could be that in the case of this Note, the law was properly interpreted (odiosa restringenda, etc.).   However, it might have resulted in an alteration of the law.

If you keep whittling, pretty soon there’s nothing left to whittle.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, 1983 CIC can. 915, I'm just askin'..., Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Our Catholic Identity, Save The Liturgy - Save The World and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Comments

  1. Dan says:

    What bothers me about this. Is the reasoning. That because we have messed up the interpretation of it for 50 years, and it has been the practice of bishops. Then it therefore has become law.
    The same reasoning could then be used to ban Holy Communion on the tongue while kneeling. Or ad orientum worship. Over time it has not been the general practice so now the mistake becomes the law.
    God and the liturgy do not work that quickly.

  2. Bthompson says:

    What if there were, and bear with me, a way to “commemorate” impeded feasts on the day itself?

  3. Pingback: VVEDNESDAY MID-DAY EDITION – BIG PULPIT

  4. ajf1984 says:

    So this letter overrides the one from the Office of Legislative Texts surfaced just a few months ago, which clarified that the obligation in the Novus Ordo was transferred to Monday for the Sol. of the Immaculate Conception? (see https://x.com/frpatrickop/status/1846234434883706949 for a copy). Is this a case of “Do not let your right hand know what your left hand is doing” or…?

    What does this do to the members of the faithful who, knowing that Monday 12/9 was an obligatory Mass attendance day at the time, and whose Ordinary had not dispensed that obligation, nevertheless failed to attend Mass without a grave reason–are they now no longer in a state of sin thanks to +Roche? (Joking aside, this really must look like inside baseball to the Nth degree to our separated brethren.)
    I thought we were trying to make the Church less clerical, not more, and now we have different offices of the Vatican issuing conflicting answers to the same question. Publish or perish, I guess, applies to Dicasteries just as it does to Academia! And if I were Archbishop Iannone, who wrote the first responsum, I would be polishing up my resume right about now…

  5. Fr. Kelly says:

    I’m afraid I read this differently.

    This is actually a small and all too rare return to sanity in recognizing the rule of law.
    Whatever is to be said about the changes in liturgical law in regard to the _occurrentia festorum_ that were imposed after the Second Council of the Vatican, it is refreshing to see the law being actually applied.

    The confusion that was visited upon us this past December 8 and 9 came about precisely because the PTB (Powers That Be (TM)) chose to insist on a particular interpretation of Canon Law (Canons 1246-1248 referred to in number 5 of this document) to insist that the obligation to attend Mass is transferred along with the Solemnity.
    This Note insists on independence of Liturgical Law in its own sphere as long as it doesn’t contradict the norms of canon law.

    This is an important point since Liturgical Law is by its nature traditional (new liturgical laws must be interpreted in light of the existing liturgical laws.) while in Canon Law later legislation replaces older legislation on a given topic, even when it is less detailed.

    Number 7 is a very carefully stated and measured conclusion based upon authentic principles of interpretation of existing liturgical law. It is not often that I find myself applauding the decisions of this dicastery these days, but this is one such occasion.

  6. Bthompson says: a way to “commemorate”

    You mean… like doubling the orations?!?

    BACKWARDIST!

  7. Kenneth Wolfe says:

    Sadly, this issue was poorly executed, with respect to the feast of the Immaculate Conception. If we are ever to restore traditional practices within the Church, we need the entire coalition of conservatives, traditional-leaning and traditional Catholics all on the same page. This particular example, for the Immaculate Conception, was an absolute mess, as the TLM is on a different set of rubrics and liturgical law than the novus ordo’s transferred feast, so the united front that could have helped restore something (say, Ascension Thursday……..) was instead a divided mess on Sunday vs. Monday. Good bishops, please think of these coalitions ahead of time. Our army is not very big, but when choosing a battle we need to do so united.

  8. Danteewoo says:

    As Casey Stengel, manager of his inept 1962 Mets, said, “Can’t anybody here play this game?”

  9. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    “These interventions attest a well-established practice” – which documenting them exhaustively and accessibly would presumably demonstrate – why not do that in the interests of truth, accuracy, clarity, charity, etc.?

    Speaking of accessibly, can you, Father Z, or any fellow reader(s) recommend accounts of (the history of) “precedence among liturgical days”?

  10. Ave Maria says:

    Why then even have holy days of ‘obligation’? One year a day may be obliged and the next year not? And many do not acknowledge them anyway as shown by parishes that have 4 Masses on a weekend and only 1 for a ‘holy day of obligation’; they know people will not be coming. Confusion continues to reign in the Church and the present regime does not help to clarify anything.

Leave a Reply