Abrogating a holy day

[Ryan1]

My 12 year old cousin likely doesn’t know. Her parents only take her to mass twice a year.

 

[Ryan1]

I did say “almost.” Maybe you missed that.

 

[1ke]

My 12 year old cousin likely doesn’t know. Her parents only take her to mass twice a year.

That’s her parents’ fault, not the priest and not the bishop. If she isn’t there to hear his homilies, if she isn’t in religious education to receive instruction, that’s on her parents. Parents are the primary educators of their children in the faith.

Put the blame squarely where it belongs: her parents

 

[1ke]

I did say “almost.” Maybe you missed that.

No I didn’t miss anything. Your statement was outrageous and misplaced. People seem to think they know better than their bishops, and also seem ready to cast nefarious motives onto them.

You’ve missed the point. And to say that the bishop is “almost sinning” by abrogating a holy day still completely misunderstands the authority of the bishop AND the origin of holy days.

 

[Ryan1]

It contradicts the knowledge you claim Catholics possess. Or else she isn’t a Catholic.

 

[Ryan1]

It was obviously absurd, as one cannot “almost sin.”

 

[1ke]

Instruction is done, in many ways and in many places. If your cousin isn’t their to receive it, that is not the fault of those who do the instructing.

Your post implied instruction is not done. This is imply false.

 

[edward_george1]

To your point, it misses the point in general of why we have rules and obligations, but also the authority to relax them. The point of being Catholic is not to follow a bunch of rules. The rules exist to help us to be better Catholics, and thus to follow God more closely. Sometimes, the ability to relax the rules is helpful even toward this end. As a parish priest, I’m empowered by my faculties from the bishop to dispense from the Sunday obligation and the communion fast. Doing so is not a sin, it’s an exercise of lawfully delegated authority that serves to aid people. To have the obligations relaxed enables people to have peace of mind when it might be difficult to fulfill them.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[Ryan1]

Arguements can be made for there being too little discipline in the Church.

 

[Ryan1]

What choices did the bishops face? Instruction or abrogation. Why choose abrogation over instruction? Was abrogation simply the easier path?

 

[exnihilo]

Catholics know what a holy day of obligation is. They know they are supposed to attend mass. But many do not. Some cannot, legitimately. I don’t know why other do not.

Not all. I know a cradle Catholic who went to Catholic schools through high school. She didn’t know what holy days of obligation are. She did hear a homily last year, I believe, on them. After that she started meeting her obligation. It was a homily that finally taught her, but she was somehow a Catholic going to Catholic schools and didn’t learn this.

The point is we have to be very careful in assuming Catholics know things as apparently they weren’t always well instructed. She might have never learned had a priest assumed everyone sitting in Mass knows what a holy day of obligation is.

 

[1ke]

I never said we shouldn’t instruct. We should. We do.

The post above I was responding to indicated that the bishop would RATHER abrogate THAN instruct. Which is simply untrue.

And yes, some don’t know for whatever reason-- and ultimately that is on their parents who are the primary educators of the faith and should be taking them to mass. If she never heard about a holy day of obligation her entire life, then her parents never took her to a holy day of obligation-- and that is her parents fault.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Ryan1:

Almost seems like a sin on the part of the bishops, to do so.

You have the wrong idea bout holy days of obligation if you think the bishops sin if they abrogate them. It is the authority of the bishops that created them in the first place. They are not mandated by any Church doctrine or by God. The requirement to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation are a discipline of the Church. And, that discipline has changed over the centuries to meet cultural requirements.

Of course, the early Church had NO holy days of obligation, those developed over many centuries. Holy Days used to be many more numerous beginning around the middle ages and when countries were Catholic and workers did not have to work on those days-- they were truly holidays in all sense of the word.

In the current times, holy days are much fewer, and many have been moved to Sunday. The bishops have the authority to do it, and to imply they are SINNING by doing so is outrageous.

I can see your point about Holy Days, but isn’t the obligation to attend Mass on Sundays directly coming from the 3rd Commandment?

 

[1ke]

What choices did the bishops face? Instruction or abrogation.

This is not an either/or proposition.

Why choose abrogation over instruction?

You are assuming things that simply aren’t true. As if no one in the Catholic Church instructs the faithful. Instruction happens. No one said “don’t instruct the faithful”. We have religious education, we have homilies, we have bulletins, we have blogs, we have You Tube. If people remain ignorant, it’s certainly not because of a lack of instruction opportunities.

I guess we don’t have instruction for people like your cousin who aren’t actually going to mass or religious education-- and whose own parents aren’t instructing them-- and I’m not sure how you expect her to be instructed? Are you instructing her? If not why not? But abrogation has no impact on her either, since she didn’t even know of the obligation to start with, she certainly wouldn’t know about the abrogation of the obligation.

Was abrogation simply the easier path?

Abrogating a holy day likely has many considerations. They are different all throughout the world. I encourage you to re-read @edward_george1 's post.

 

[exnihilo]

And yes, some don’t know for whatever reason-- and ultimately that is on their parents who are the primary educators of the faith and should be taking them to mass. If she never heard about a holy day of obligation her entire life, then her parents never took her to a holy day of obligation-- and that is her parents fault.

She went to Catholic schools her whole life. Sure, her parents may bear some responsibility. But maybe they likewise went to Catholic schools and were never instructed. If the Church, including her schools, don’t teach then how is anyone supposed to know the Faith? Also, in her case her parents are divorced. This is not uncommon. We have so many fractured families not following the Faith that it would not be wise to rely on parents.

 

[1ke]

I can see your point about Holy Days, but isn’t the obligation to attend Mass on Sundays directly coming from the 3rd Commandment?

No, actually. The commandment only says to keep holy the sabbath, and in our case the Lord’s Day. It doesn’t command that we must attend Mass.

It is the Church that places the requirement to attend mass on that day as an obligation, not the commandment itself.

Mass is certainly an excellent way to keep the Sabbath holy. But don’t confuse the commandment with the mass obligation. They are not the same thing.

 

[1ke]

She went to Catholic schools her whole life. Sure, her parents may bear some responsibility. But maybe they likewise went to Catholic schools and were never instructed. If the Church, including her schools, don’t teach then how is anyone supposed to know the Faith? Also, in her case her parents are divorced. This is not uncommon. We have so many fractured families not following the Faith that it would not be wise to rely on parents.

I was replying to Ryan.

And, frankly, in many cases where cradle Catholics supposedly never learned anything in Catholic school or religious education, I can tell you for a fact it was covered because I’ve been teaching for over 25 years and I’ve had kids tell their next teacher that they never learned XYZ, when I taught XYZ extensively.

I would suggest that more than learning about holy days of obligation in catechism class, the place the child learns about the LIVING the faith and LIVING the obligation is through going to church and that is squarely on the parents. It’s on the parents. Catholic religious education is supposed to be a help for parents, but it does not replace their example and their active raising of their children in the faith.

 

[TomH1]

Sure, her parents may bear some responsibility.

Her parents bear most responsibility. All too frequently parents and others abrogate the parents’ responsibilities as the primary educators of their children. I know this from first-hand experience. I am a teacher and we are often blamed for things pupils do not know when what they do not know is the responsibility of their parents. Very often as another member has said (1ke) pupils claim not to have been taught XYZ when, indeed, the teacher has taught XYZ.

The education and instruction of children in the Catholic Faith is primarily the responsibility of the parents. They are the ones who should ensure their children receive a Catholic education and it is their responsibility to check it is a good education and to take measures if it is not. The role of the school and parish in educating and instructing children in the Faith is always secondary to the role of the parents.

 

[exnihilo]

And, frankly, in many cases where cradle Catholics supposedly never learned anything in Catholic school or religious education, I can tell you for a fact it was covered because I’ve been teaching for over 25 years and I’ve had kids tell their next teacher that they never learned XYZ, when I taught XYZ extensively.

Covering it doesn’t mean they learned it. It could be taught and not learned. The responsibility for that may not lay entirely with the educator.

Her parents bear most responsibility.

We don’t know that. As I said they may themselves not have known. You can’t teach something you don’t know. The parents certainly do have an obligation to learn the Faith themselves so they can teach it.

All I can say is that I meet plenty of people who went through Catholic school or went through RCIA and don’t know certain basic elements of the Faith. We can test to see whether people know the Faith. So it isn’t as if it is impossible to determine whether people have learned things.

 

[Canvas]

Well, part of it is the way the Church interprets the meaning of the 3rd Commandment, to Keep Holy the Sabbath. The actual Third Commandment doesn’t specifically say what each person had to do to be in obedience. And the obligations for a Jew 2500 years ago are different than for a Catholic today, but both are meant to fulfill this.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a3.htm

there is a section on the Sunday Obligation, starting with 2180

**[2180] The precept of the Church specifies the law of the Lord more precisely: "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass."117 "The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day."118