Why has midnight mass become so feckin' early?

hatrickpatrick

I remember going to midnight masses growing up in the 90s. Generally they started around 11:30 so that they would run through midnight and wrap up shortly afterwards. The atmosphere was always amazing.

Why is it that in recent years they've been "sneaking" back earlier and earlier? I mean I feel like I'd only just (begrudgingly) made my peace with the idea of midnight mass at 10PM before I was asking what time it was on at and hearing "Oh 9 o clock" - at 9PM, calling it midnight mass is absolutely ludicrous. It's a vigil vigil if it's anything.

Why has this been happening? And is this universal or is it restricted to my own parish (St' Joseph's, Glasthule)?

ABC101

It could be that as the average age of priests is getting older, the mass times have been moved forward.

Or that the local parishioners requested earlier times, as they felt less safer being out late at night.

I thought the main reason was that there was a tendency to get drunk people coming out of pubs late at night, and then causing a disturbance at the back of the church.

Hence midnight mass is now much earlier.

braddun

sick of drunks

they wanted mass over before bars shut

jimmymorrison2

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I remember going to midnight masses growing up in the 90s. Generally they started around 11:30 so that they would run through midnight and wrap up shortly afterwards. The atmosphere was always amazing.

Why is it that in recent years they've been "sneaking" back earlier and earlier? I mean I feel like I'd only just (begrudgingly) made my peace with the idea of midnight mass at 10PM before I was asking what time it was on at and hearing "Oh 9 o clock" - at 9PM, calling it midnight mass is absolutely ludicrous. It's a vigil vigil if it's anything.

Why has this been happening? And is this universal or is it restricted to my own parish (St' Joseph's, Glasthule)?

Because people kept complaining it was too late for them.

smcgiff

It was past baby Jesus bed time.

Cantremember

What difference does it make?

katydid

jimmymorrison2 wrote: »

Because people kept complaining it was too late for them.

I think it's because there were so many drunk people coming in after closing time.

Howjoe1

To get it out of the way.


A bit like Sunday mass on a Saturday.

Peregrinus

Midnight mass used to be at midnight because, liturgically, that was the earliest that it could be.

Once it became possible to celebrate the mass of a particular day on the evening of the day before, the need for midnight mass to be at midnight disappeared; it was only habit and tradition that kept it there. And whether you blame drunks coming out of pubs or sane people wishing to get to bed before 1:30 am (especially as the kids are bound to be up by 5:30 am) there's been a growing realisation that habit and tradition are not enough to keep it there when, on the whole, it suits most people much better to have it earlier.

Turtwig

As well as the reasons mentioned above:

Midnight tended to be absolutely freezing. The entire foothpaths used to have to be gritted. Roads, were treacherous, cars that parked in the "wrong" place would require unreal patience to get out of their inclines. People would often slip. I know it's got religious symbolism but really the move to earlier times was the wise thing to do. Especially as the population has gotten a lot older.

mrolaf

So we can all get out to the pub early

hotmail.com

Should they not rename it Xmas Eve Mass?

katydid

hotmail.com wrote: »

Should they not rename it Xmas Eve Mass?

Or even CHRISTMAS Eve...

jimd2

hotmail.com wrote: »

Should they not rename it Xmas Eve Mass?

Why?

katydid

jimd2 wrote: »

Why?

Well, he has a point - if it's not at midnight, it's a bit of a misnomer. (As is "Xmas", of course...)

Peregrinus

katydid wrote: »

Well, he has a point - if it's not at midnight, it's a bit of a misnomer. (As is "Xmas", of course...)

Well, if we're being pedantic, it's not "midnight mass". It's "mass during the night". For Christmas, the lectionary offers four sets of readings for "vigil mass", "mass during the night", "mass at dawn" and "mass during the day". If you attend anything advertised as "midnight mass", you'll almost certainly get the readings, etc, for mass during the night.

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, if we're being pedantic, it's not "midnight mass". It's "mass during the night". For Christmas, the lectionary offers four sets of readings for "vigil mass", "mass during the night", "mass at dawn" and "mass during the day". If you attend anything advertised as "midnight mass", you'll almost certainly get the readings, etc, for mass during the night.

The point is, I think, is that it is commonly called "Midnight Mass".

Graces7

There was a beauty about Midnight Mass, of keeping Vigil as the day before turned into the day....that has been lost to practicality. Sad

highlandseoghan

I used to love midnight mass and every year I still try find a church offering a mass at midnight.

hotmail.com

Presumably for Catholics, if midnight mass is no longer at midnight and on earlier in the evening, they have to go to mass again on Christmas morning?

Peregrinus

hotmail.com wrote: »

Presumably for Catholics, if midnight mass is no longer at midnight and on earlier in the evening, they have to go to mass again on Christmas morning?

Nope. Since some time in the 1970s a mass obligation for a given day can be satisfied by attending mass at any time on that day, or on the evening of the preceding day.

feargale

katydid wrote: »

Or even CHRISTMAS Eve...

Why on earth do people object to Xmas? Don't they know what the X stands for?

katydid

feargale wrote: »

Why on earth do people object to Xmas? Don't they know what the X stands for?

The X stood for Christ in the early days of printing, when they were saving letters. There is no need for it today, it's lazy and disrespectful.

jaansu

Xmas is not disrespectful to Christ, it has nothing to do with saving letters.

http://www.grammarly.com/blog/2014/why-do-we-shorten-christmas-as-xmas/

katydid

jaansu wrote: »

Xmas is not disrespectful to Christ, it has nothing to do with saving letters.

http://www.grammarly.com/blog/2014/why-do-we-shorten-christmas-as-xmas/

Well, that too. An early symbol for Christ. AND used by printers to save letters.

One way or the other, unnecessary today.

feargale

katydid wrote: »

The X stood for Christ in the early days of printing, when they were saving letters. There is no need for it today, it's lazy and disrespectful.

And is it lazy and disrespectful to refer to Father Murphy as Fr. Murphy, or Reverend Murphy as Rev. Murphy? We live in a world of abbreviation.

katydid

feargale wrote: »

And is it lazy and disrespectful to refer to Father Murphy as Fr. Murphy, or Reverend Murphy as Rev. Murphy? We live in a world of abbreviation.

Those are accepted by the people and the roles concerned.

hotmail.com

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nope. Since some time in the 1970s a mass obligation for a given day can be satisfied by attending mass at any time on that day, or on the evening of the preceding day.

Hilarious.

So basically by the 70s, Sunday mass goers were dropping and they loosened the rules to get people to go on Saturday evening.

Hilarious.

Synchronic

I'd imagine It had a lot more to do with the fact that Sunday (a day of rest) was no longer being treated as sacred by society due to people having to work so Catholics who wanted to go had to compromise.

hotmail.com

Synchronic wrote: »

I'd imagine It had a lot more to do with the fact that Sunday (a day of rest) was no longer being treated as sacred by society due to people having to work so Catholics who wanted to go had to compromise.

Doubtful - the Church makes such a big deal about going to mass on Sundays.

The changing of the rules shows the farcical nature of mass, but the Church is willing to look farcical, if it keeps mass goers going, even if it is on a Saturday. That collection plate won't fill itself.

Benny_Cake

hotmail.com wrote: »

Hilarious.

So basically by the 70s, Sunday mass goers were dropping and they loosened the rules to get people to go on Saturday evening.

Hilarious.

Maybe it's my sense of humour, but I don't see what is so hilarious about THIS (aside from being an opportunity to have a pop at the RCC). The routine of modern life changed, and the church modified it's position to facilitate it's members. Actually, it's quite in keeping with the Jewish tradition of the Sabbath:

http://bustedhalo.com/questionbox/if-i-go-to-mass-on-saturday-evening-does-it-count-for-sunday-mass

hotmail.com

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Maybe it's my sense of humour, but I don't see what is so hilarious about THIS (aside from being an opportunity to have a pop at the RCC). The routine of modern life changed, and the church modified it's position to facilitate it's members. Actually, it's quite in keeping with the Jewish tradition of the Sabbath:

http://bustedhalo.com/questionbox/if-i-go-to-mass-on-saturday-evening-does-it-count-for-sunday-mass

So can you go to mass on a Wednesday or just the eve of Sunday or a holy day?

Peregrinus

hotmail.com wrote: »

Hilarious.

So basically by the 70s, Sunday mass goers were dropping and they loosened the rules to get people to go on Saturday evening.

Hilarious.

So it's an immutable fact of nature that days must be measured from midnight to midnight, and if anybody adopts a different approach you find that "hilarious"?

In the real world, less dogmatic people than yourself recognise that the measurement of time is a human construct, established by convention and easily changed as required to meet the needs of the times. The Romans had a convention of measuring days from (more or less) midnight to midnight; the Jews measured them from sunset to the following sunset; the Christian Church inherited both systems and has always been happy to use one or other as seemed more convenient, and to change from one to the other for different purposes from time to time. The current practice as regards mass obligation is that the obligation can be satisfied on the day measured either by the Roman convention or by the Jewish convention. If you find that hilarious, you are worryingly easily amused.

feargale

hotmail.com wrote: »

So can you go to mass on a Wednesday or just the eve of Sunday or a holy day?

Why does it bother you? You are beginning to sound like a person with scruples.

hotmail.com

I'm just trying to clarify what days the Catholic Church say you have to go to mass on.

Peregrinus

hotmail.com wrote: »

I'm just trying to clarify what days the Catholic Church say you have to go to mass on.

The holy days of obligation are (a) every Sunday and (b) a selection of other holy days, which may vary from country to country - e.g. St Patrick's Day is a day of obligation in Ireland but not elsewhere.

The mass attendance obligation can be satisfied by attending mass at any time on the day concerned, or on the evening of the previous day. "Evening" is not rigidly defined; it's up to the bishop of each diocese to decide how early the "Saturday evening mass" can be celebrated. A lot of dioceses have adopted 5 p.m. as the earliest time, but there are exceptions both ways.

2 stroke

Midnight mass gave you a chance to sober up a bit before driving home.

clionaryan

so cray right