Why going to Mass is not Optional.
#11
(11-12-2011, 01:44 PM)Petertherock Wrote:
(11-12-2011, 01:33 PM)dan hunter Wrote: I have never criticized the SSPX where they are right.
If you provide me with official Church documentation that people 'who cannot in good conscience" [however thats judged since one can't fool God] are not obliged to go to the NO Mass, if that is their only option for fulfilling the obligation, then I will humbly take back everything I quoted on the Churches precept and I will publically apologize.
But remember you cannot fool God.

The faithful are never obliged to attend a worship service which is sinful. Let's take this a step further, are the faithful obliged to go to a Protestant worship service if no NO Masses, TLM's, or Divine Liturgies are available?

The faithful are never obliged to go to a "Mass" where the sacraments validity are questionable. Since with the NO, you never know what you are going to get, you can rightly make the argument that the validity of the Masses are in serious doubt. Therefore, the faithful do not have to attend a NO Mass.

Why Peter, I can see you don't know your NO very well!

You certainly can attend protestant worship.

From the NO's Canon Law:
Can.  844 §2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
Reply
#12
(11-12-2011, 01:55 PM)dan hunter Wrote: Firstly, most NO Masses that I have been to are not sinful.

Most NO attendees say the same thing - not surprising considering the offense committed.

(11-12-2011, 01:55 PM)dan hunter Wrote: Secondly its ludicrous to compare a Prot service to a Catholic Mass, which the NO Missae certainly is.

Not necessarily ludicrous but for clarity sake, one should compare it to that which it replaced. Whoever does that should see the New Mass for what it actually is - a parody of the True Mass. Whoever does not see it is too familiar with the New Mass.

(11-12-2011, 01:55 PM)dan hunter Wrote: If someone lives in an area where they cannot possibly get to any Catholic Mass, NO, TLM or Catholic Divine Liturgy, than the obligation does not apply. God does not expect the impossible.

Don't include the NOM as being Catholic. As I already said, if you believe it Catholic then you've been attending it too long and cannot see it for the parody of the true mass that it is - stay away from it completely.

(11-12-2011, 01:55 PM)dan hunter Wrote: Thirdly, I have been to 2 invalid NO Mass in over 35 years of going to it.

35 years of attending the NO? No wonder your all mixed up man.



(11-12-2011, 01:55 PM)dan hunter Wrote: I have been to one invalid TLM, in 6 years of going to it. So I believe it is very rare to have invalid NO Masses.

Not sure how you could possible know this unless you were serving - or if it was a diocesan TLM.


(11-12-2011, 01:55 PM)dan hunter Wrote: If the correct form and matter is used at the NO it is a valid Mass and it fulfills the obligation and this is the majority of the time.

Sounds like CAF material right there!
Reply
#13
(11-12-2011, 02:22 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(11-12-2011, 01:44 PM)Petertherock Wrote:
(11-12-2011, 01:33 PM)dan hunter Wrote: I have never criticized the SSPX where they are right.
If you provide me with official Church documentation that people 'who cannot in good conscience" [however thats judged since one can't fool God] are not obliged to go to the NO Mass, if that is their only option for fulfilling the obligation, then I will humbly take back everything I quoted on the Churches precept and I will publically apologize.
But remember you cannot fool God.

The faithful are never obliged to attend a worship service which is sinful. Let's take this a step further, are the faithful obliged to go to a Protestant worship service if no NO Masses, TLM's, or Divine Liturgies are available?

The faithful are never obliged to go to a "Mass" where the sacraments validity are questionable. Since with the NO, you never know what you are going to get, you can rightly make the argument that the validity of the Masses are in serious doubt. Therefore, the faithful do not have to attend a NO Mass.

Why Peter, I can see you don't know your NO very well!

You certainly can attend protestant worship.

From the NO's Canon Law:
Can.  844 §2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
",..in whose Churches these sacraments are valid?"
What sacraments are valid in protestant communities?
Reply
#14
(11-12-2011, 02:45 PM)dan hunter Wrote:
(11-12-2011, 02:22 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(11-12-2011, 01:44 PM)Petertherock Wrote:
(11-12-2011, 01:33 PM)dan hunter Wrote: I have never criticized the SSPX where they are right.
If you provide me with official Church documentation that people 'who cannot in good conscience" [however thats judged since one can't fool God] are not obliged to go to the NO Mass, if that is their only option for fulfilling the obligation, then I will humbly take back everything I quoted on the Churches precept and I will publically apologize.
But remember you cannot fool God.

The faithful are never obliged to attend a worship service which is sinful. Let's take this a step further, are the faithful obliged to go to a Protestant worship service if no NO Masses, TLM's, or Divine Liturgies are available?

The faithful are never obliged to go to a "Mass" where the sacraments validity are questionable. Since with the NO, you never know what you are going to get, you can rightly make the argument that the validity of the Masses are in serious doubt. Therefore, the faithful do not have to attend a NO Mass.

Why Peter, I can see you don't know your NO very well!

You certainly can attend protestant worship.

From the NO's Canon Law:
Can.  844 §2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
",..in whose Churches these sacraments are valid?"
What sacraments are valid in protestant communities?

Exactly.

Seems the NO is taking non-catholic's sincerity all the way.
Reply
#15
(11-12-2011, 02:30 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(11-12-2011, 01:55 PM)dan hunter Wrote: If the correct form and matter is used at the NO it is a valid Mass and it fulfills the obligation and this is the majority of the time.

Sounds like CAF material right there!

Let's talk about this...correct form...wouldn't changing Christ's words be incorrect form? Or does "For all" mean the same thing as "For many?" Unless you are going to a Latin NO, then incorrect form is being used in all English speaking NO's. Let's talk about matter...I don't know how many NO Masses I have seen use anything from cookies, to Doritos, to crackers, and all kinds of illicit matter...and let's not forget grape juice, kool aid, and an assortment of other drinks including Coke and Pepsi being used for the Precious Blood.

The one thing that you forgot, is the Priest must intend to do what the Church teaches, namely, Consecrate the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Since a majority of NO Priests (over 50% according to polls I have seen) don't believe in the Real Presence, then how can you say the Priest intends to Consecrate the bread and wine? Therefore, how can you be sure any NO is valid?

 
Reply
#16
(11-12-2011, 01:23 PM)dan hunter Wrote: I just gave what the Church teaches on the obligation to assist at Mass every Holyday.
That is not my will, but the Churches.
If the NO Mass is the only Mass available to one for Holy Days then the Church says we must go.

A couple of things: first of all, the NOM that many attend today is not the true, original NOM. The original NOM was in Latin. I attended a Latin NOM every Friday when I was in grade school, and it was presided over by Monsignor Popek. It was done so reverently that my 12 yo self didn't even realize at first that it was not the TLM (this is not meant to downplay the problems with the changing of the Mass). What is the NOM today is a far, far cry from that. Secondly, you can say whatever you like, but I don't consider myself obligated to attend a Mass where things like this are allowed: a young woman is prancing down the aisle in a pink body suit, white tights, a fluffy tail, and bunny ears, handing out Easter candy to the children. I personally witnessed this. I don't feel obligated to attend a Mass that has altar girls, eucharistic ministers, and guitars. I don't feel obligated to attend the Mass of a priest who tells penitents that "fornication is not a mortal sin anymore" (true story). I don't feel obligated to attend a church where "dignity masses" are held (we had one of those 4 blocks away).

Bottom line: while I do not believe the NOM is invalid per se, or that those attending in good faith are committing any kind of sin at all, I also do not believe that I am obligated to attend it. And there is absolutely nothing that you can say that will change my mind. Nothing.
Reply
#17
(11-12-2011, 03:03 PM)Jenn Wrote:
(11-12-2011, 01:23 PM)dan hunter Wrote: I just gave what the Church teaches on the obligation to assist at Mass every Holyday.
That is not my will, but the Churches.
If the NO Mass is the only Mass available to one for Holy Days then the Church says we must go.

A couple of things: first of all, the NOM that many attend today is not the true, original NOM. The original NOM was in Latin. I attended a Latin NOM every Friday when I was in grade school, and it was presided over by Monsignor Popek. It was done so reverently that my 12 yo self didn't even realize at first that it was not the TLM (this is not meant to downplay the problems with the changing of the Mass). What is the NOM today is a far, far cry from that. Secondly, you can say whatever you like, but I don't consider myself obligated to attend a Mass where things like this are allowed: a young woman is prancing down the aisle in a pink body suit, white tights, a fluffy tail, and bunny ears, handing out Easter candy to the children. I personally witnessed this. I don't feel obligated to attend a Mass that has altar girls, eucharistic ministers, and guitars. I don't feel obligated to attend the Mass of a priest who tells penitents that "fornication is not a mortal sin anymore" (true story). I don't feel obligated to attend a church where "dignity masses" are held (we had one of those 4 blocks away).

Bottom line: while I do not believe the NOM is invalid per se, or that those attending in good faith are committing any kind of sin at all, I also do not believe that I am obligated to attend it. And there is absolutely nothing that you can say that will change my mind. Nothing.
AMEN!
Reply
#18
(11-12-2011, 03:03 PM)Jenn Wrote:
(11-12-2011, 01:23 PM)dan hunter Wrote: I just gave what the Church teaches on the obligation to assist at Mass every Holyday.
That is not my will, but the Churches.
If the NO Mass is the only Mass available to one for Holy Days then the Church says we must go.

A couple of things: first of all, the NOM that many attend today is not the true, original NOM. The original NOM was in Latin. I attended a Latin NOM every Friday when I was in grade school, and it was presided over by Monsignor Popek. It was done so reverently that my 12 yo self didn't even realize at first that it was not the TLM (this is not meant to downplay the problems with the changing of the Mass). What is the NOM today is a far, far cry from that. Secondly, you can say whatever you like, but I don't consider myself obligated to attend a Mass where things like this are allowed: a young woman is prancing down the aisle in a pink body suit, white tights, a fluffy tail, and bunny ears, handing out Easter candy to the children. I personally witnessed this. I don't feel obligated to attend a Mass that has altar girls, eucharistic ministers, and guitars. I don't feel obligated to attend the Mass of a priest who tells penitents that "fornication is not a mortal sin anymore" (true story). I don't feel obligated to attend a church where "dignity masses" are held (we had one of those 4 blocks away).

Bottom line: while I do not believe the NOM is invalid per se, or that those attending in good faith are committing any kind of sin at all, I also do not believe that I am obligated to attend it. And there is absolutely nothing that you can say that will change my mind. Nothing.

Agreed 100% Jenn. I know I tend to focus on the extreme abuses that are thankfully not that common, but it's the every day abuses such as Altar boy girls, Communion in the hand, armies of mostly female Eucharistic monsters, and women readers, and a new phenomena around here, "Sunday Celebrations of the Eucharist in absence of a Priest" where hopefully a Deacon but sometimes women give a prayer service and hand out Communion and according to our Bishop is OK to count as your Sunday Mass obligation when there are plenty of NO Masses within a short drive from this particular Church. This tells me that if a prayer service where women can preach on the Gospel readings and Communion is distributed by lay people or maybe a deacon...if that counts for Mass....then if I can't get to a true Mass, since you are not required to receive Communion at any Mass to satisfy your Sunday obligation, then staying home, reading my Missal and praying the Rosary is just as good then dealing with that garbage.

PS: Jenn, if that's you in your avatar...you are gorgeous!  :grin:
Reply
#19
Even the latin NO had many problems. The Ottaviani Intervention told us this and what was to come.
Reply
#20
(11-12-2011, 03:14 PM)Petertherock Wrote: PS: Jenn, if that's you in your avatar...you are gorgeous!  :grin:

Yes, it's me. Thank you --you're very kind. :)  :blush:
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)