Fulfillment of mass obligation
#1
To fulfill my mass obligation on holy days of obligation, must I attend the entire mass?  The canon doesn't seem to specify. 

I can tolerate an occasional Novus Ordo during the week, but on Sundays it is very difficult to tolerate and the only accessible Latin mass in the old rite is on Saturday morning.
[-] The following 1 user Likes everbecoming2007's post:
  • oneandonly6tk
Reply
#2
I have heard that the obligation is fulfilled by being present from the Gospel or the Offertory to the Priest's Communion, but I stand ready to be corrected.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 1 user Likes jovan66102's post:
  • MagisterMusicae
Reply
#3
One is obliged to attend Mass unless morally or physically impeded.

It would be a grave sin to miss the essential part of the Mass which is the part which involves the Sacrifice, since the Mass is essentially a Sacrifice (this is one real problem with the confusion of the Novus Ordo, since it claims to be a meal, and not a Sacrifice). Traditionally the essential part of the Mass is from the Offertory until the Priests' Communion, because that constitutes the Sacrificial portion.

Nevertheless, it would be a venial sin to intentionally and without reasonable excuse to miss any other part of the Mass.

Now, what constitutes a physical or moral impediment?

Well distance is a physical one. Needing to care for a sick person would be a moral impediment. If your presence would cause scandal then that also would be a moral impediment.

If a Mass you would need to attend to fulfill the obligation represents a harm to your Faith or your Morals, then there would be a moral duty to omit the following of the human ecclesiastical law (to attend Mass), and follow the moral law (to protect your Faith or yourself from falling into sin). That's a basic moral principle. Those of us here will differ in how we apply it.

I think it clear that if Fr Jimmy was comin' to town and this was the only Mass that you and your children could attend, you would be obliged to avoid that apostate, even if it means missing Mass. To expose yourself to that monster or let your children hear him "Sing a New [homosexual] Church into Being", would be a serious moral fault on your part. We cannot put our Faith or that of another into danger for any reason. That's a moral impossibility.

Now, I think a good case can be made that all but the most orthodox Novus Ordo Masses constitute such a danger for at least some people. I think the new theology behind the Mass does this, independent of the "abuses". To the extent one knows that this is dangerous for him, he must avoid it. Others would disagree, and probably make their own strong case. It's very situational, and you're probably not in Nebraska, or one of these places where priests know what a priest is and try to be priests.

If it's so bad that you risk committing sins of anger or endanger your Faith by attending the Mass, you certainly would have no obligation to attend, but instead an obligation to avoid it. You can't be obliged to do something sinful or that is a near occasion of grave sin.
[-] The following 6 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102, karl, Markie Boy, newenglandsun, ServusDei, Teresa Agrorum
Reply
#4
(02-24-2020, 05:24 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: One is obliged to attend Mass unless morally or physically impeded.

It would be a grave sin to miss the essential part of the Mass which is the part which involves the Sacrifice, since the Mass is essentially a Sacrifice (this is one real problem with the confusion of the Novus Ordo, since it claims to be a meal, and not a Sacrifice). Traditionally the essential part of the Mass is from the Offertory until the Priests' Communion, because that constitutes the Sacrificial portion.

Nevertheless, it would be a venial sin to intentionally and without reasonable excuse to miss any other part of the Mass.

Now, what constitutes a physical or moral impediment?

Well distance is a physical one. Needing to care for a sick person would be a moral impediment. If your presence would cause scandal then that also would be a moral impediment.

If a Mass you would need to attend to fulfill the obligation represents a harm to your Faith or your Morals, then there would be a moral duty to omit the following of the human ecclesiastical law (to attend Mass), and follow the moral law (to protect your Faith or yourself from falling into sin). That's a basic moral principle. Those of us here will differ in how we apply it.

I think it clear that if Fr Jimmy was comin' to town and this was the only Mass that you and your children could attend, you would be obliged to avoid that apostate, even if it means missing Mass. To expose yourself to that monster or let your children hear him "Sing a New [homosexual] Church into Being", would be a serious moral fault on your part. We cannot put our Faith or that of another into danger for any reason. That's a moral impossibility.

Now, I think a good case can be made that all but the most orthodox Novus Ordo Masses constitute such a danger for at least some people. I think the new theology behind the Mass does this, independent of the "abuses". To the extent one knows that this is dangerous for him, he must avoid it. Others would disagree, and probably make their own strong case. It's very situational, and you're probably not in Nebraska, or one of these places where priests know what a priest is and try to be priests.

If it's so bad that you risk committing sins of anger or endanger your Faith by attending the Mass, you certainly would have no obligation to attend, but instead an obligation to avoid it. You can't be obliged to do something sinful or that is a near occasion of grave sin.

This post makes more sense than almost any I have read.  I know I'm a pain at times - but the state of the local Catholic Church causes so much of the above problems for me, I can't believe someone is bound to go to it.  From the horrible music that supports people rebelling against God (thank you OCP for those books - not.) - to the Charismatic movement, to the barrage of social justice preaching - I often leave angry from Mass wishing I could say home and read Scripture instead.

Last week the choir broke into this song right as communion is starting - Lord prepare me, to be a sanctuary, blah, blah, blah - I can't believe the priest allows this - and I just wanted to leave.
Reply
#5
(02-24-2020, 05:24 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Now, I think a good case can be made that all but the most orthodox Novus Ordo Masses constitute such a danger for at least some people. I think the new theology behind the Mass does this, independent of the "abuses". To the extent one knows that this is dangerous for him, he must avoid it. Others would disagree, and probably make their own strong case. It's very situational, and you're probably not in Nebraska, or one of these places where priests know what a priest is and try to be priests.

If it's so bad that you risk committing sins of anger or endanger your Faith by attending the Mass, you certainly would have no obligation to attend, but instead an obligation to avoid it. You can't be obliged to do something sinful or that is a near occasion of grave sin.

The Novus Ordo is essentially the same as the Extraordinary Form. Whatever differences exist are accidental properties of one, holy and divinely instituted sacrifice. No Mass is, or could ever be, "a near occasion of grave sin," although people's actions there may cause such a near occasion of sin.
:monstrance:Deo Gratias et Ave Maria! :monstrance:
Pray the Rosary

A Dieu mon ame,
Mon arme au roi,
Mon Coeur a la dame,
Mon honneur a moi!
Reply
#6
(02-25-2020, 08:27 PM)ServusDei Wrote: The Novus Ordo is essentially the same as the Extraordinary Form. Whatever differences exist are accidental properties of one, holy and divinely instituted sacrifice. No Mass is, or could ever be, "a near occasion of grave sin," although people's actions there may cause such a near occasion of sin.

Define "Mass".
[-] The following 2 users Like Paul's post:
  • jovan66102, MagisterMusicae
Reply
#7
(02-25-2020, 08:27 PM)ServusDei Wrote:
(02-24-2020, 05:24 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Now, I think a good case can be made that all but the most orthodox Novus Ordo Masses constitute such a danger for at least some people. I think the new theology behind the Mass does this, independent of the "abuses". To the extent one knows that this is dangerous for him, he must avoid it. Others would disagree, and probably make their own strong case. It's very situational, and you're probably not in Nebraska, or one of these places where priests know what a priest is and try to be priests.

If it's so bad that you risk committing sins of anger or endanger your Faith by attending the Mass, you certainly would have no obligation to attend, but instead an obligation to avoid it. You can't be obliged to do something sinful or that is a near occasion of grave sin.

The Novus Ordo is essentially the same as the Extraordinary Form. Whatever differences exist are accidental properties of one, holy and divinely instituted sacrifice. No Mass is, or could ever be, "a near occasion of grave sin," although people's actions there may cause such a near occasion of sin.

The Novus Ordo is essentially the same as a Black Mass as well, because both are Masses. Accidentally, there is, fortunately, a very wide berth.

Methinks, though, that "accidental properties" do matter.

No Mass, in so far as it is a Mass in the sense defined by Trent, could be an occasion of sin, but clearly accidental things can be added or removed such that it does become that. Beyond that essential aspect, the accidents very clearly do change things.

Let us set up a scenario where for a LGBTQAARP+ meeting, to show inclusiveness, James Martin, S.J. decided there would be a Traditional Latin Mass at St Mary's in DC at which the other ministers were openly homosexual priests, the servers were men and women in leopard-skin leotards, and the choir was the Gay Men's Chorus of DC. The sermon would be delivered by the said Fr Martin. I think, even though it were a Traditional Latin Mass, it ought to be avoided as a "near occasion of grave sin", and not because it was a Mass, but because the accidental qualities of that dumpster fire might burn you.

I agree with Paul, though. You need to define "Mass."
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Blind Horus, jovan66102
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)