Part II: 31st December Catholic Dilemma: to ‘Theotokos’ and, or to Crossover? 

The Liturgical Calendar and Canonical Precedents

On 5^th July 1999, the Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, Lucas Cardinal Moreira Neves, issued a decree, with the approval of Pope John Paul II, stating that the Ecclesiastical Provinces of the United States may transfer the Solemnity of the Ascension of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ from Thursday of the Sixth Week of Easter to the Seventh Sunday of Easter by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the bishops of the respective Ecclesiastical Province. The decision of the Ecclesiastical Province, however, must be communicated to the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and to the President of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. By this action, the transfer becomes universal particular law for that territory, not merely pastoral advice.

Prior to that, considering the needs of the local faithful of the Latin Rite and in conformity with CIC Can. 1246 (especially §2 which states that ‘with the prior approval of the Apostolic See, however, the conference of bishops can suppress some of the holy days of obligation or transfer them to a Sunday’), on 13^th December 1991, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) decreed that while the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God (1^st January), the Solemnity of the Assumption (15^th August), the Solemnity of All Saints (1^st November) are to be observed as holy days of obligations, whenever they fall on a Saturday or on a Monday, the precept to attend Mass is abrogated. That decree of the USCCB was approved and confirmed by the Apostolic See by a decree of the Congregation for Bishops (Prot. N. 296/84), as dated on 4^th July 1992.

On 4^th September 2024 however, a legal address (Prot. N. 18329/2024) from the Prefect, Archbishop Filippo Iannone, of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Legislative Texts (DLT) to Bishop Paprocki, Chair of the USCCB’s Committee on Canonical Affairs and Church Governance, clarified the policy that abrogated the obligatory character of such Solemnities when transferred, stating:

‘… As a matter of fact, CIC can. 1246, § 1, establishes the feasts that must be observed as days of obligation. The canon does not provide for exceptions. For those reasons, those feasts are always days of obligation, and so, even when the aforementioned transfer of the feast occurs. Therefore, in that year, the feast must be observed as a day of obligation on the day to which it is transferred. Additionally, the purpose of the § 1 of the above-mentioned canon is to indicate that Sunday and the other feasts listed are days of obligation (cf. servanda est and servari debent).

It is, however, important to keep in mind that canon law explicitly addresses the situation in which a grave cause renders it impossible to attend Holy Mass (cf. CIC can. 1248, § 2), and, since no one is bound to the impossible, a dispensation is not even needed in those situations. It is in this sense that n. 2181 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states that «the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastors» (for a just cause). In n. 2185 of the CCC it is specified that “Family needs or important social service can legitimately excuse from the obligation of Sunday rest” (or other holidays), in other cases, however, for a just cause, one could obtain a dispensation (Cf. cann. 1247, 1245, 87 and 90).’

Appearing not to have solved the challenge regarding the transfer of the obligation to attend Mass when a holy day of obligation is transferred, Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (DDW), in consultation with the DLT, intervened with a release (Prot. 51/25) on 23^rd January 2025 under the authority of its Prefect, Arthur Card. Roche. After receiving additional requests for clarification, the Dicastery reaffirmed its primacy on matters of liturgical instruction and gently overruled the earlier position of the DLT, restoring the previous status quo by specifying that ‘since this practice is not contrary to the canons of the CIC, it is to be considered liturgical law (cf. CIC can. 2) that, in the event of the occasional transfer of a holy day of obligation, the obligation to attend Mass is not transferred to the day ad quem.’

The exchange between the DDW and the DLT not contradicting doctrine but offering different lenses of interpretation, indirectly reaffirmed the DDW’s primacy to protect the coherence of the liturgical calendar as a theological expression, and not merely a juridical construct. Again, the exchange underscores the need for a coherent interpretive framework—one that preserves the integrity of the Church’s liturgical tradition while acknowledging the legitimate diversity of pastoral contexts. Thus, rather than merely procedural, the exchange between the DDW and the DLT raises broader ecclesiological concerns; the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi.

As it stands therefore, the celebration can be transferred liturgically, but the obligation does not automatically follow unless explicitly permitted or declared. Indeed, apart from the substance of the above precedents, the practice of transferring Solemnities is not alien to many local churches. In Ghana, for instance, since some dioceses observe the pious custom of pilgrimages to Marian grottos during the Solemnity of Assumption, the celebration (even if without its obligatory character) is often transferred to a Saturday whenever it falls on a weekday or a Sunday. Realistically, one of the reasons is the practicality of ensuring the maximum involvement of the faithful (even if not all) without inconveniencing the general populace on days when commerce and other activities are at their peak. The dilemma caused by the tension between the culture of 31^st December and the Solemnity of the Theotokos is no exception.

Now, if ‘the law brings wrath; but where there is no law, neither is there violation’ (Rm. 4:15), and if the salvation of souls is the supreme law (cf. CIC can. 1752), then it is necessary to ask whether the available options (suppression, transfer, and anticipation) can facilitate the fulfilment of the faithful’s religious duty towards the celebration of the Theotokos. Again, what will be the best option among the various precedents? Is there a proper approach that could address local concerns while ensuring that the observance of significant liturgical Solemnities like the Theotokos remains both theologically grounded, pastorally attainable, and in harmony with liturgical and canonical norms presently in force (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium 37-40)?

These questions reveal a dynamic interplay between universal liturgical law, episcopal conference of those concerned, and the concrete pastoral realities of local churches. In the next episode preceding the conclusion, some suggestions will be made

To be continued…