Thread: Easter Saturday Vigil - why? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030353
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
Just back from the local Easter Vigil service. Apart from the fact that it's two hours I'll never get back, I still can't get my head around why we do this service.

It's not Easter Sunday, so why are we reading the resurrection account from Matthew? Why are we singing "Thine be the glory"? It all seems as if we've rather jumped the gun - and as a result, it makes me feel like we're reducing the emotional impact of Easter Sunday.

If it was a service of quiet prayer and meditation - a time of echoing the waiting of the disciples from Good Friday to Easter Sunday - I could understand. Such a service would be rather mournful, but would have a purpose. But this? Is it Easter already and someone forgot to tell me?

I love Easter Sunday - filled with light and Alleluias. But part of the impact is that it bursts upon us out the blue. The disciples didn't get any "pre-Easter" preparation - why should we?

(As you can see, I have need to vent a little. But my venting is not really about the mechanics of the service (which was reasonably well planned and executed) but about the whole reason for its existence. I guess it must be something to do with my evangelical past.)
 
Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :
 
As (properly) observed, The Vigil of Easter celebrates the first Eucharist of Easter after midnight … so it is VERY early on the morning of the first (eighth !!!) day ...
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Is it Easter already and someone forgot to tell me?
Yup.

"And the evening and the morning were the first day."
 
Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :
 
It's not Easter Saturday [heading]. That's in six days time.

The Easter Liturgy takes place during the night (not necessarily after midnight) because that's when the Resurrrection happened.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
As well, in the Jewish calendar, which was followed in the early church, the day was deemed to begin at sunset, so ecclesiastical Sunday started when the sun fell on Saturday. This midnight stuff was Roman in origin, as they used a 12-hour clock, and counted from the height of the sun (noon). Ecclesiastical and civil calendars have been diverging on this for a few millennia, which not really such a long time.
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
The Easter Vigil is the Mother of All Vigils, and is among the Church's most ancient of liturgies. The Resurrection occurred sometime between sunset on Saturday and dawn on Sunday. Thus, anytime after dark and before dawn we celebrate the Easter Vigil. It begins in darkness and ends in great light. During the liturgy we are reminded of how the first Passover, the Exodus from Egypt, took place during the night, as well. We are reminded of how the Light of Christ risen from the tomb dispels not only the darkness of the night, but the darkness of sin, as well.

I simply cannot conceive of Easter without the Vigil. Even Protestant sunrise services are a remnant of the Easter Vigil, which ran all night and ended at dawn.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Just so. A local church has its Vigil at 630pm on Holy Saturday, which IMHO is far too early - at least for the first Eucharist of Easter Day!

Our Cathedral, and also our next-door MOTR parish, start at 5am or 530am on Easter Day - a much more sensible hour, even though I am one who thinks it must surely be illegal to have two half-past-fives in the same day.....

...yes, the Resurrection occurred somewhen in the small hours, but it was not until the pre-dawn that peeps became aware of what had happened.....

Ian J.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
I agree with Oscar. Lovely moment when the lights go on and, at our shack, the doors of the reredos are opened to reveal the figure of Christ in glory in the middle; beautiful Exultet too. I can see that the Easter Vigil means a lot to some people, which is fine, but it's never been an important part of my Easter. It just seems bizarre to be greeted with 'Alleluia, Christ is risen' at 8pm on Easter Eve (tempted to respond 'not yet, He's not'). Dawn service on Easter Day, now, is different.

[ 05. April 2015, 14:01: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :
 
Somehow, something took place overnight which the women discovered in the morning. The Vigil celebrates the Resurrection, while Easter Morning celebrates its repercussions. The traditional readings, psalms and Exultet of the Vigil bring to mind other occasions when God intervenes in human history. God's purposes become clearer over time, and were brought to fulfilment in the Resurrection.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Great. Fine. For me it still goes into the category of 'twiddly bits', though I recognise that I'm probably the one out of step.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:

...yes, the Resurrection occurred somewhen in the small hours, but it was not until the pre-dawn that peeps became aware of what had happened.....

Ian J.
The Peeps became aware...
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
It's all a way of dressing up the fact that we can't be arsed to do the vigil properly: one reading an hour from dusk until dawn. It works: count it out.

When we're not doing that, we're whistling in an artificial dawn.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
I get lost in the count of days. Jesus was dead from just before Friday sundown to just after Saturday sundown? I have trouble enough pretending Friday eve to Sunday morning is "three days", but 25 hours = 3 days?

Anyway, to me Easter vigil is an anachronism. No one was staying up all night in anticipation! If anyone stayed awake, it was lamenting the death.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Not three days- the third day!
 
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Not three days- the third day!
You'll love this!


Stuff Fundies Like
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Easter without the Vigil is like fish without chips.

It is the most stupendous liturgy of the year and I can never understand why it is so poorly attended when people (even those with a very tenuous connection to the church) flock to Midnight Mass at Christmas.

I suppose you can celebrate the bursting out of the Light of Christ in broad daylight, but to my mind there is little difference between doing that at 6.30 the previous evening or 10.30 in the morning. It must be dark for it to work dramatically surely?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
The Easter Vigil is THE service, the most important of the church's year. It goeds back to at least the 4th century and there was no morning service, just the Vigil going all through the night.

I don't go to church again on easter morning - it's an anti-climax.

History and rationale here

[ 05. April 2015, 16:22: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :
 
Although we had three times as many people at the morning service than at last night's vigil, we had a few newcomers who came to both and found the vigil more 'meaningful' and 'moving'.
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I get lost in the count of days. Jesus was dead from just before Friday sundown to just after Saturday sundown? I have trouble enough pretending Friday eve to Sunday morning is "three days", but 25 hours = 3 days?

Anyway, to me Easter vigil is an anachronism. No one was staying up all night in anticipation! If anyone stayed awake, it was lamenting the death.
The Jewish way of reckoning was from sundown so isn't it something like this:

[our] Friday = Thurs sundown - Friday sundown (the first day)
[our] Saturday = Friday sundown - Saturday sundown (the second day)
[our] Sunday = Saturday sundown - Sunday sundown (the third day)

...and I love the Easter Eve service, especially the Exultet sung in the darkened church illuminated just by candles - ooh! shivers! [Smile]
 
Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

Anyway, to me Easter vigil is an anachronism.
It's not anachronistic, but achronistic. Liturgy is outside of chronos, yet pierces, transfigures and redeems it, as it does with all created goods.

The Easter Vigil is the service of the year for me too, especially when you have adult initiation in it. We had nine baptisms this year, six of whom also made their first communion and were confirmed. The first light of Easter scatters the darkness; our baptism is renewed and we witness new souls redeemed.

The darkness is a key actor in this service, which is why doing this Vigil too early (or too late for that matter) misses the point. We get an email from the diocese each year telling us what the earliest time is we can do a Vigil. It's sufficiently precise that they give different times for the West and East ends of the diocese. We started at 8:45pm, went till 11:30 and then partied till 12:30.
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Easter without the Vigil is like fish without chips.

It is the most stupendous liturgy of the year and I can never understand why it is so poorly attended when people (even those with a very tenuous connection to the church) flock to Midnight Mass at Christmas.

I suppose you can celebrate the bursting out of the Light of Christ in broad daylight, but to my mind there is little difference between doing that at 6.30 the previous evening or 10.30 in the morning. It must be dark for it to work dramatically surely?
I'd have thought so.....OK, I'll bite....!!I think the rationale between Easter Sunday and Holy Saturday are quite different . Easter Sunday seems to me to be a celebration and thanksgiving for the Resurrection and that's it. Full stop. It's more a celebration than Christmas where you have the commemorations of St.Stephen and the Holy Innocents lurking around the corner......

Holy Saturday is first a celebration of light over darkness. Candles and such like are used throughout many religions from Buddhism and even including Islam one of the most austere of religions I'd have thought. The candles are lit,('the light shineth in the darknesss and the darkness comprehendeth it not') and the ministry of the Word then takes place. 4 OT Lessons parts of the psalms in between. It tells the work of our redemption and Easter is put in that context. The point behind it I think is that our redemption has been bought at a cost, and that cost was very, very high. Crucifixion - death by slow torture - is a hideously barbaric way of killing somebody. So there is something unsettling about the Paschal Vigil - indeed there should be something unsettling about it. Perhaps a spiritual sums it up better - 'Were you there when they crucified my Lord?' Well yes, I'm afraid we all were, if truth were to be told. But after that you have the Gloria, the ringing of bells often a fanfare on the organ.'Death is swallowed up in victory'

It helps if you consider the Triduum as one service but over 3 days - so you go out in silence on Maundy Thursday. You enter in silence on Good Friday and you should leave in silence also. ( Yes I know - haha - but you should) You enter in silence on Holy Saturday and you leave with - hopefully - rejoicing - and aren't you just dying to get to the pate and cheese and biscuits and wine afterwards....!!!!

I don't altogether agree with Leo when he says Easter Sunday is an anti-climax, although I'm not unsympathetic. In my church we had the blessing of the Easter Garden on Easter Sunday, so it wasn't really complete until Easter Sunday. (Incidentally I thought Leo's article he linked to was very helpful, despite my reservations)

I don't know if this helps people - if you don't like the vigil service possibly not but I do find it works for me
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I can see that the Easter Vigil means a lot to some people, which is fine, but it's never been an important part of my Easter. It just seems bizarre to be greeted with 'Alleluia, Christ is risen' at 8pm on Easter Eve (tempted to respond 'not yet, He's not'). Dawn service on Easter Day, now, is different.
My feelings precisely.

Easter Sunday morning should be the time of celebrations of the resurrection, when we go with the women to find the empty tomb. Doing it all the night before feels like we're walking with the women, saying "I know something you don't!"
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
It's not Easter Saturday [heading]. That's in six days time.
Yes - I know. But I was very tired and quite cranky. Forgive me!

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
The Easter Liturgy takes place during the night (not necessarily after midnight) because that's when the Resurrrection happened.
The implication in the gospels is that the resurrection happened at or around dawn. Which would be why the early Church met to worship at sunrise on Sundays.

I would be interested to know when the practice of having "Sunday" services on Saturday evening first started.
 
Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :
 
In the classic Roman Rite, Holy Saturday means the Vesperal Liturgy - which is supposed to start after None (at the anticipated times - though nothing precludes starting at the proper time for None, i.e., 3.00 p.m.) and end with an abbreviated Vespers, and the Easter Vigil properly said, which, again can be anticipated after Compline around at around 9.00 or 10.00 p.m. or held after Midnight.

It is at the Vesperal Liturgy that the Candle would be blessed by the deacon singing the Exultet and actually enacting it (inserting the grains of incense, lighting it with the triple branched candle, etc), followed by the 12 lessons, the blessing of fonts, baptisms if any, Litany of the Saints, then Mass followed by Vespers.


The Easter Vigil means precisely that in the classical Roman rite - a service of the Mattins and Lauds - of the Resurrection.

All this was subsequently changed by the Reforms of the 1950s, though some Catholicks still observe them.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

Anyway, to me Easter vigil is an anachronism.
It's not anachronistic, but achronistic. Liturgy is outside of chronos, yet pierces, transfigures and redeems it, as it does with all created goods.
Well put.

In the Orthodox Church, of course, we begin our Nocturnes of Easter at 11:30 Saturday night in a dimly-lit church building, including an entire Canon, then process around the church singing "Thy resurrection O Christ God the angels in heaven sing / enable us on earth to glorify thee in purity of heart" to a singularly gloomy melody. Then after a gospel reading at the church doors, we go back inside to full light, and a complete Matins and Liturgy, which takes another 2.5 hours. We cap this off with a huge potluck of decidedly un-Lenten foods (recall that virtually all of us have given up meat, dairy, and eggs for the last 50 days), and drive home just before dawn. Then we come back at 1:30 in the afternoon for a brief Vespers service, and a huge potluck.

So for us, the midnight service is THE Paschal service of the church. We don't have a dawn service, let alone some wimpy-assed 8:30 or 10:00 service. It's midnight or nothing, baby.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
The implication in the gospels is that the resurrection happened at or around dawn.
Would you care to favor us with a citation, or four, to back up this claim?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, I agree with Mousethief.

Last year, when the Western and Eastern dates for Easter coincided, I attended a wimpy-assed Easter Vigil at a medieval parish church about 3 meals from here - which took place far too early in the evening ... then headed down to the Orthodox in the nearest conurbation and caught up with them just before they did the processing around outside and banging on the church door ... 'Who is this King of Glory?'

I felt it was the real deal.

Ok, there were loads of Eastern Europeans who never darken the church doors the rest of the year - where do they come from? And during the feast afterwards I was snubbed by a Romanian truck driver (who later apologised, to be fair) who declared, 'Anglican? Anglican is not true Church, Papa is not true Church, Ort'odox is True Church ...'

But, other than that, I felt very welcome and like a kid in a sweety shop (candy store) ...

The previous year, I attended the RC Easter Vigil and found that almost as wimpy-assed as the Anglican one the subsequent year. Ok, they had the proper readings and so on but the thing took place early in the evening.

If you're going to do it, do it at midnight or not at all.

Neither of the Anglican churches in my town have an Easter Saturday vigil. One is too evangelical for that and the other too bone idle ...

All the liberal-catholic parish did was hold a BCP Evening Prayer at the unfeasibly early time of 6.30pm. I attended that, along with the curate, organist and two others.

What was that all about? If was neither here nor there. Whilst I love the 1662, apart from the two hymns and the collects and readings, it could have been any other evening of the year.

Is outrage.
 
Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
It's not Easter Saturday [heading]. That's in six days time.
Yes - I know. But I was very tired and quite cranky. Forgive me!

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
The Easter Liturgy takes place during the night (not necessarily after midnight) because that's when the Resurrrection happened.
The implication in the gospels is that the resurrection happened at or around dawn. Which would be why the early Church met to worship at sunrise on Sundays.

I would be interested to know when the practice of having "Sunday" services on Saturday evening first started.
Any thoughts about Midnight Mass at Christmas?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
Holy Saturday is first a celebration of light over darkness.
More than that, it's the victory of the cosmic Christ over sin and death and the restoration of all creation.

Compared with that, Sunday morning is merely Jesus seeing people and saying 'Hi! I am back.'
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
All the liberal-catholic parish did was hold a BCP Evening Prayer at the unfeasibly early time of 6.30pm. I attended that, along with the curate, organist and two others.

What was that all about? If was neither here nor there. Whilst I love the 1662, apart from the two hymns and the collects and readings, it could have been any other evening of the year.
...
But that's how the BCP offices work. The main thing they do is establish a regular and consistent pattern of prayer which underpins everything else, day in, day out, feast, fast or feria.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Oscar the Grouch asks:
quote:
I would be interested to know when the practice of having "Sunday" services on Saturday evening first started.
There are two answers to this. The first is since whenever, as the early church followed Jewish practice of the day beginning at sunset. AFAIK only monastic venues did the first-vespers thing of a Sunday or a major feast from the night before but the more recent and widespread practice is a post-Vatican II phenomenon, when RC parishes began having a mass of the first vespers on a Saturday night to accommodate all those who were otherwise occupied on Sunday (up here, it meant all the skiers who headed off to the slopes and trails of a Sunday morning).
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:


Easter Sunday morning should be the time of celebrations of the resurrection, when we go with the women to find the empty tomb.
'early in the morning, while it was yet dark.' Hence more like 5.00 than 11.00.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Ok, there were loads of Eastern Europeans who never darken the church doors the rest of the year - where do they come from? And during the feast afterwards I was snubbed by a Romanian truck driver (who later apologised, to be fair) who declared, 'Anglican? Anglican is not true Church, Papa is not true Church, Ort'odox is True Church ...'
There was a Romanian family at the Anglican Easter Vigil I attended, who appeared to greatly enjoy it and said it was not very different from what they were used to. Mind you, they may have been minority RC Romanians!
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Last year, when the Western and Eastern dates for Easter coincided, I attended a wimpy-assed Easter Vigil at a medieval parish church about 3 meals from here -
Perhaps you should have fasted before church.
[Razz]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ha ha ...

[Big Grin]

@Albertus - yes, I recognise that and didn't object to the BCP format in principle - it's just that on Easter eve, I'd have expected a 'bit more' ...

But then, there'd have been an Easter Vigil somewhere or other I could have gone to ...
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
Heavens Gamaliel what are you trying to do - start a new liturgy? 3 meals on Holy Saturday......Trinity Sunday has evidently come early and serve you right if they made you recite the Athanasian creed at Evensong..... [Killing me]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Doh ... [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
The implication in the gospels is that the resurrection happened at or around dawn.
Would you care to favor us with a citation, or four, to back up this claim?
Matthew 28:
"After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And suddenly there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it."

As I said - it is implied, not stated outright.

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If you're going to do it, do it at midnight or not at all.
Agreed.

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:


Easter Sunday morning should be the time of celebrations of the resurrection, when we go with the women to find the empty tomb.
'early in the morning, while it was yet dark.' Hence more like 5.00 than 11.00.
Can't argue with that. Although, I believe that sunrise in Jerusalem around this time of year is 7:00. So you could allow a little leeway.

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
It's not Easter Saturday [heading]. That's in six days time.
Yes - I know. But I was very tired and quite cranky. Forgive me!

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
The Easter Liturgy takes place during the night (not necessarily after midnight) because that's when the Resurrrection happened.
The implication in the gospels is that the resurrection happened at or around dawn. Which would be why the early Church met to worship at sunrise on Sundays.

I would be interested to know when the practice of having "Sunday" services on Saturday evening first started.
Any thoughts about Midnight Mass at Christmas?
Two rather different things. And, of course, there is no evidence for the early Church celebrating Christmas for the first couple of hundred years.
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
Minority RC Romanians would probably be Hungarian speaking.
Minority Romanian Catholics otherwise would probably be 'Greek' Catholics following the Byzantine rite,sometimes called Uniates.

The idea of first Vespers of Sunday on Saturday is,of course,centuries old.Very common in the Orthodox church, it was not so common in public services in parish churches in the Latin church.
Of course First Vespers of Sunday on Saturday evening would be said by those bound to recite the Breviary.

From the late 1950s Mass could be celebrated in the Latin rites in the evening.Fasting was also reduced gradually to one hour.

Slowly,but surely early morning Sunday Masses were replaced by Saturday evening Masses.
Generally speaking the hours for Sunday Mass to be celebrated are from 12 noon on Saturday till 12 midnight on Sunday.

For those who wish to do something on a Sunday which precludes attendance at church on a Sunday morning it is good that they attend on a Saturday evening and it should not be implied nor inferred that they are not 100% Mass attenders.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
The local TEC did a 8:00 pm – Noon Good Friday All Night Prayer Vigil.

I was surprised, hadn't heard of a vigil at this time instead of an Easter vigil.

But an interim clergy killed the Easter vigil a few years ago because he was too old to drive two hours from his house to this small town church work until one AM, drive home, and drive back for the 8 AM. Human beings need adequate sleep. No one should be expected to be driving distances on 2 or 3 hours of sleep.

The problem doesn't exist at Christmas because there is no Christmas day service (unless Christmas is Sunday, I guess).
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
There are plenty of churches that hold Christmas Day services when Christmas falls on whatever day of the week.
 
Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:

Generally speaking the hours for Sunday Mass to be celebrated are from 12 noon on Saturday till 12 midnight on Sunday.
This is not true "generally speaking." 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." Pius XII defined 'evening' in such circumstances to be 4pm or later. This does not apply to the Easter Vigil, due to the neccessity of darkness for the rite. (Although I suppose it would still establish a lower bound in some (ant?)arctic place where darkness could be found at 3:30pm).
 
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Minority RC Romanians would probably be Hungarian speaking.
Minority Romanian Catholics otherwise would probably be 'Greek' Catholics following the Byzantine rite,sometimes called Uniates.
Tangent: In my teens, when Cardinal Ambrozic limited the availability of the traditional Latin Mass in Toronto, I often communicated at the Divine Liturgy with a nearby congregation of, as they call themselves, the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church Unica cu Roma. In fact, as I understand it, they are a double minority: while Romania is an overwhelmingly Orthodox country, what Roman Catholics it has are mostly of the Roman Rite. I suppose this makes sense bearing in mind the name of the country and the fact that they speak a Romance language. Nevertheless it is somewhat counterintuitive and is the reverse of the situation that obtains, I believe, in Ukraine.

[ 06. April 2015, 18:40: Message edited by: Knopwood ]
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
Adam the document you cite goes back to 1953 and the early days of evening Masses.

Generally speaking Masses celebrated on the evening before a Sunday or Holyday of Obligation will,for the convenience of the faithful,be in the late afternoon or evening.

But there are many special circumstances.I remember as far back as 1960 a Sunday Mass held regularly at 3 p.m.Fairly recently in Spain Sunday Mass held at 1pm on Saturday.
In the 1970s I was twice in Moscow where Sunday Mass was held on Friday evening,Saturday evening and Sunday -given that at that time there were only officially two RC churches open in Russia proper.
In modern times I go regularly to the United Arab Emirates where Sunday Mass ,called 'obligatory'
Mass takes place on Fridays,Saturdays and Sundays.

However I take your point about 'generally speaking' I can't cite a document saying from 12 noon on a Saturday but I do think that Pius XII's admonitions have been superseded.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
There are plenty of churches that hold Christmas Day services when Christmas falls on whatever day of the week.
You are correct. I failed to make clear that I was still talking about the specific local church, not switching to a generalized statement.
 
Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :
 
Forthview, the canon I also cited says "evening" and 12 noon is clearly not evening. I am aware (and I've looked) of no legislation later than Pius XII's document defining evening for these purposes, so its force remains (none of the four cases of Canon 6 apply to abrogate it). There may be some specific cases where this law has been dispensed, or some places that I don't know of may have an indult for a laxer rule more generally. But, the universal law remains that one cannot fulfill a Sunday obligation before 4pm.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
The implication in the gospels is that the resurrection happened at or around dawn.
Would you care to favor us with a citation, or four, to back up this claim?
Matthew 28:
"After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And suddenly there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it."

As I said - it is implied, not stated outright.
But, Oscar, the gospel texts say nothing about when Jesus skedaddled from the tomb. They only take notice of when the women showed up and, in Matthew, when the stone was rolled away, a sort of not later than condition.

This inference it is convenient for you to make—for you would rather a Sunday morning service than a Saturday night one—isn't really supported by the texts.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

Anyway, to me Easter vigil is an anachronism. No one was staying up all night in anticipation! If anyone stayed awake, it was lamenting the death.
I don't quite understand the point. Services like the Easter Vigil are a kind of anamnesis (calling to mind again), storytelling if you will. They're not mystery-cult re-enactments.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
But Fr Weber, remember that you were a slave in Egypt.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
This inference it is convenient for you to make—for you would rather a Sunday morning service than a Saturday night one—isn't really supported by the texts.
Sorry, but that's a load of old tosh. As long as I've been a Christian, the widely held assumption by most people I've come across has been that the resurrection was in the early morning. This is nothing about how convenient it is for me, and I rather resent the implication that I'm so shallow as to do that.

And I would maintain that Matthew's earthquake is most naturally to be understood as a sign of the resurrection, rather than just a convenient way of showing the women that the tomb is empty. After all, in Matt. 27, there is the earthquake when "the saints who had fallen asleep" were raised. If, in Matt. 27, earthquake is directly connected to resurrection, it seems implausible to deny the same link in Matt.28.
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
Just a reminder that robust debate is welcomed and encouraged, but please try to avoid making it 'personal'. Telling people what their motives are can easily cross a line, TSA, as I'm sure you are aware!

Your cooperation appreciated as always.

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
But Fr Weber, remember that you were a slave in Egypt.
By analogy, sure--where "slave in Egypt" = "slave to sin and the Devil."
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0