Attending Mass as is an obligation?

[seanflynn]

Seven days without Mass makes one weak…

Loved this one!

 

[JerrySeibert]

How about this answer?
Do you need justification for every thing you do in or for the Church?
God and his Son are not some divine “Lucky Rabbits Foot” that you only attend with the ‘intention’ of not going to hell. If you go “willingly” you will develop a relationship with Holy Spirit and will never again question, “Should I go?”
Because when you achieve that relationship you will be, I hope taking the attitude, “I get to go” And be grateful for that relationship.

 

[getgene]

This question leads a thoughtful person to consider the nature of the Church and the nature of its spiritual founder.

As you may know, there were no original “Christians”. There were “Christian-Jews” and “Jewish-Christians”. Saul went about establishing a religion independent of the Jewish requirements and was chastised for that; indeed was that not James, Jesus’ brother who lead the Jewish council? He was upset with Saul for saying Yeshua was God.

In any event, Saturday was the lord’s day, the sabbath.

The Catholic Church changed things: separated from the Jewish tradition, pulled in the original sects (Spain, Ireland), passed laws and edits, edited the Bible and ruled that the sabbath would be Sunday. Jesus, Yeshua, would have found that puzzling.

The laws, rules, interpretations, codifications and so on surrounding Rome, like a massive mushroom patch, seem to offer many a legal solace and basis for judging others, but it does not get involved with truth and God. One could find ones way, but only by traveling through a maze of academics.

Early worshipers followed koinonia . Catholics still do, but this community tradition has become codified (if not stultified) by Cannon Law into days of obligation and the Eucharist. The Protestants objected to this top down, legislated religion and “protested” finding the older traditions to be closer to the Bible and a proper worship. You have the contrast between “holy days of obligation” vs. “keeping the lord’s day.”

If the Catholic Church can announce that violating a law it legislated can send you to hell, then that is its affair. Don’t get Yeshua involved in this; he was Jewish.

Indeed, may I request a knowledgeable response to the more general question: Does violating a Cannon Law result in the commission of a mortal sin?

This is really saying, can a meeting of Cardinals actually generate sacred doctrine which shall remain so forever? And, thus, even ignorant violation condemns to wrong doer?

There are many tough Cannon Laws, many about the “perfidious” Jews and having sex or marriage with one, so an answer here needs to be tempered. There are rules in the Bible that would get you arrested today, if you attempted to follow them.

The blanket Church law that you better go to church on a day of “obligation” sounds like a fairly primitive way to keep your group in line, rather than a concern for koinonia and diakonia. In modern days, we have murderers who find absolute instruction, they believe, in the Koran (Q’uran) which permits murder of those in the way or lying to non Muslims. Indeed, one could find lines permitting all manner of horrible things, as one could in the Bible.

The nature of God and goodness should not be distilled by man and his rules, not worshippers in fear of violating a law, rather than being good.

 

[tee_eff_em]

There are many tough Cannon Laws, many about the “perfidious” Jews and having sex or marriage with one, so an answer here needs to be tempered.

Respectfully, I call Baloney.

tee

 

[Corki]

… indeed was that not James, Jesus’ brother who lead the Jewish council?

Respectfully, I call Baloney.

tee

I call and raise to a double Baloney.

 

[lutherlic]

You (cat) are right. They do not accept the Church as a ruling authority. I like your post and it does relate to my belief on the Church requiring this. And also relates to my understanding of Christ being the Church.

Being schismatic with the Church, they have boxed themselves into a corner via the necessity of Sola Scriptura. I don’t think they raise a difficult question for us so much as raise many questions of their Bible only justification.

There is a lot of great stuff written on Sola Scriptura. My own (not great, but hopefully adequate) piece is here. I also quote some interesting comments from Mark Shea here.

 

[LilyM]

I call and raise to a double Baloney.

Indeed. It appears the poster lied about being Catholic on their profile - I doubt a true Catholic would come up with such a volume of anti-Church stuff. I doubt Yeshua would approve of such deception as this poster has practiced.

 

[getgene]

My prior entry received several vicious “baloney.” Pretty strong stuff even for this forum.

On James being Jesus’ brother: Mark 6:3 (cf. Matthew 13:55-56), where James is actually named as Jesus’ brother, along with four other men. Jermome said this really means “cousins”. here In any event, my comment is not baloney

On Cannon Law have prescriptions about “the perfidious jew” and sexual conduct, let me refer you to Canon 69, I believe, as to sexual contact with jews. The use of “perfidious” is a common historical fact that is only recently being retired officially. The pending return to the latin mass will not have such a reference. You can Google this.

I think that responds to the baloney claims. Personally, I prefer bologna.

 

[tee_eff_em]

On Cannon Law have prescriptions about “the perfidious jew” and sexual conduct, let me refer you to Canon 69, I believe, as to sexual contact with jews. The use of “perfidious” is a common historical fact that is only recently being retired officially. The pending return to the latin mass will not have such a reference. You can Google this.

You believe mistakenly.

Can. 69 A rescript for whose presentation no time is specified can be shown to the executor at any time, provided that there is neither fraud nor malice.

I find neither the word *perfidious *nor the word jew in the whole of the CIC. I did not look for sexual contact.

I stand by my prior call of Baloney.

tee

 

[japhy]

On James being Jesus’ brother: Mark 6:3 (cf. Matthew 13:55-56), where James is actually named as Jesus’ brother, along with four other men. Jermome said this really means “cousins”. In any event, my comment is not baloney.

Since it is Catholic dogma that the Blessed Virgin Mary is *ever-*virgin, and that our Lord Jesus Christ was (and is) her only child, we do consider it “baloney” to state that James is a biological blood-brother of Jesus, another son of Mary.

On Cannon Law have prescriptions about “the perfidious jew” and sexual conduct, let me refer you to Canon 69, I believe, as to sexual contact with jews.

That is classy… referring to “Canon 69” regarding some sexual conduct law.

Let’s check the 1917 Code of Canon Law…
Can 69. Nemo cogitur uti privilegio in sui dumtaxat favorem concesso, nisi alio ex capite exsurgat obligatio.
Nope, not there. Let’s check the 1983 Code too:
Can. 69 - Rescriptum, cuius praesentationi nullum est definitum tempus, potest exsecutori exhiberi quovis tempore, modo absit fraus et dolus.
Nope, not there.

Let’s look for the word fragment perfid in those two Codes… nope, not there at all. Try again. Show us yourself, don’t tell us to go to Google.

The use of “perfidious” is a common historical fact that is only recently being retired officially. The pending return to the latin mass will not have such a reference.

You are referring to the use of the Latin word perfides (“unfaithful”) in the prayers on Good Friday. Yes, everyone here knows (or should know by now) that Pope John XXIII expunged the word perfides from the prayer for the Jews.

 

[getgene]

I hope this is the way to respond to others who wrote me.

I have no idea why I thought one sould look at Code 69 and did not mean to be flippant by saying go Google it. Clearly, 69 has not relevence. I did say I thought that was the cite.

I was using the “perfidious” adjective as it was once fluidly used, but I did not meant to say it is in the Canon Law, itself. As one comment noted it was a term used in prayer. I was merely using the term as a rhetorical point and do, now, agree, as Hamlet noted, in this dicsussion one must be abolute in language.

Finally, I cannot stand and defend a position unarmed; however, I did find a reference, clearly hearsay, to shore up my comment:

St. Bernardine of Feltre “Canon Law forbids all intercourse with Jews.”

Is that a valid quote, I cannot say. What I can say is that this discussion makes my point about the legalism that interferes with faith. You cannot deny my central argument by finding the word “perfidous” was misplaced in a side coomment.

You are engaging in ad hominum argument and no further attention need be paid.

 

[tee_eff_em]

The moderators seem to have taken an interest in culling posts from this thread, so I am hesitant to respond until this has stood for a couple of days. I can only hope I shall remember to come back at a later time and do so.

tee

I hope this is the way to respond to others who wrote me.

I have no idea why I thought one sould look at Code 69 and did not mean to be flippant by saying go Google it. Clearly, 69 has not relevence. I did say I thought that was the cite.

I was using the “perfidious” adjective as it was once fluidly used, but I did not meant to say it is in the Canon Law, itself. As one comment noted it was a term used in prayer. I was merely using the term as a rhetorical point and do, now, agree, as Hamlet noted, in this dicsussion one must be abolute in language.

Finally, I cannot stand and defend a position unarmed; however, I did find a reference, clearly hearsay, to shore up my comment:

St. Bernardine of Feltre “Canon Law forbids all intercourse with Jews.”

Is that a valid quote, I cannot say. What I can say is that this discussion makes my point about the legalism that interferes with faith. You cannot deny my central argument by finding the word “perfidous” was misplaced in a side coomment.

You are engaging in ad hominum argument and no further attention need be paid.

 

[Flame4]

Well lets examine why God , through the Church, makes us come to mass. We have a relationship with God. Can you have a relationship with someone if you don’t spend time with them? This is what we do at mass. More importantly, we experience God’s loving sacrifice through the Eucharist. Have you every heard the Bible quote, "we love b/c he (God) loved us first? When we recieve the Eucharist, we recieve God’s love which enables us to love him and others.

Mass is a gift for US! Its also good for us. Our parents made us eat our vegtables b/c they are good for us. God makes us come to mass b/c it is good for us. Its a not an excellent comparison, but it does help show why mass is an obligation.

Its an hour once a week. Not much to ask, eh?

And yes, this does come done to the Church’s authority. God acts through the Church. Therefore by obeying the Church we obey God.

God Bless.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I hope this is the way to respond to others who wrote me.

I have no idea why I thought one sould look at Code 69 and did not mean to be flippant by saying go Google it. Clearly, 69 has not relevence. I did say I thought that was the cite.

I was using the “perfidious” adjective as it was once fluidly used, but I did not meant to say it is in the Canon Law, itself. As one comment noted it was a term used in prayer. I was merely using the term as a rhetorical point and do, now, agree, as Hamlet noted, in this dicsussion one must be abolute in language.

Finally, I cannot stand and defend a position unarmed; however, I did find a reference, clearly hearsay, to shore up my comment:

St. Bernardine of Feltre “Canon Law forbids all intercourse with Jews.”

Is that a valid quote, I cannot say. What I can say is that this discussion makes my point about the legalism that interferes with faith. You cannot deny my central argument by finding the word “perfidous” was misplaced in a side coomment.

You are engaging in ad hominum argument and no further attention need be paid.

Regrettably, it is difficult to explain and expand upon what was formerly posted. By my recollection, I was responding to an assertion along the lines of:
Canon Law regulates sexual contact with Jews.
The statement, as I recall, was in the present tense (as I have cast it above). I (in my own succinct way) as well as others denied that it is the case that the Code of Cannon Law, currently in force, does any such thing, and challenged the production of evidence to support your statement.

St. Bernardine of Feltre “Canon Law forbids all intercourse with Jews.”

I cannot deny this statement – It certainly googles up aplenty. I can only note that St Bernardine lived and died in the 13th century and cannot possibly have been referring to the 1983 CIC. I am not competent to speak to historic canons of the Church, nor do I wish to do so. But it seems akin to questioning the authority of the US government because “it permits slavery” – It may have done so at one time, but it no longer does so. Nor do I necessarily buy the argument that past failures (as viewed through hindsight) call in to question current (or even past) legitimacy.

Finally, I hope you did not perceive any of my meagre responses as *ad hominem *arguments? If so, I must surely have expressed myself poorly.
(I cannot say I noticed any such arguments myself, but with so much excision who can tell?)

PS.
You do know that *intercourse *has a broader meaning than *sexual intercourse *I hope? (Though a prohibition against *all intercourse *would necessarily include sexual intercourse).

tee
Frequently engages in social intercourse in public places

 

[getgene]

Permit me to respond to:

Well lets examine why God , through the Church, makes us come to mass. We have a relationship with God. Can you have a relationship with someone if you don’t spend time with them? This is what we do at mass. More importantly, we experience God’s loving sacrifice through the Eucharist. Have you every heard the Bible quote, "we love b/c he (God) loved us first? When we recieve the Eucharist, we recieve God’s love which enables us to love him and others.

Mass is a gift for US! Its also good for us. Our parents made us eat our vegetables b/c they are good for us. God makes us come to mass b/c it is good for us. Its a not an excellent comparison, but it does help show why mass is an obligation.

Its an hour once a week. Not much to ask, eh?

And yes, this does come done to the Church’s authority. God acts through the Church. Therefore by obeying the Church we obey God.

God Bless.

My arguments are always taken for what they are not: an attack or judgment. I look for logic, which is a gift, not a weapon.

Flame4’s reply announced the fact in question to be true, explains why it is a good fact, like eating your vegetables. And, that’s that.

However, the question under consideration is whether the fact is a real one. An answer cannot be: “I say it is, so lets discuss why it is good.” Also, are we to think the question posited is a false concern?

A place to start a consideration is whether God does order people to go to mass through the rule of the Church. Is this a universal law or an organizational rite? This question leads to: what it is to be Catholic? One view is a Catholic is a subject of a holy realm who must follow a strict laws of the lords and king who have divine direction.

In this path, you are building a wall around your group, the way Jews and Christians did in the first century. It is the way Muslims create their enemies today. We have the Bloods vs. Crypts with each side claiming divine favor. This is History 101: War. In the end, it can lead to no other conclusion. I am sorry, but this seems so; then again, perhaps the undesirable end is irrelevant.

Others, who think themselves, at least, Christian, don’t understand the formalism and organizational controls. They do not deny the substance, only the form of religion, the ritual and man-made rules. Many will accept the teaching of Yeshua and can live readily by them, even to keeping the Sabbath. In many ways, such people are far more faithful to the substance of Christ than sunshine patriots found at Sunday mass who grudgingly pass through their sentence.

Since the idealists, to borrow a concept from Emerson, understand and respect the materialist bound by hard laws and fact, they simply desire to be free of the strictures and requirements that stand in the way of personal understanding. While materialists are respected by these idealists, they do not entertain any thoughts of the free-believers. The Church subjects reject the concept of a Luther naming 95 errors, so to speak and happily chop off heads; though, over time, most of those theses were accepted - by the men of the Church.

So, the issue, at the bottom, comes to the matter of God speaking through the Church.

Are the rules handed down, accepted as divine direction, just for Church members? Is an Amazon native lost for failure to know of Sunday Mass? If the answer you select is, “Oh no, there is baptism of desire…” doesn’t this smack of rationalization and the avoidance of the principle being raised?

Consider this, and throughout consider the Church is a conduit for God’s instruction: For those who submit to the Catholic Church, they must follow the rules; for those ignorant of the rule, they cannot apply; for those who doubt the prescription, they may remain fine Christians, but they are not members of the organization of the Church and are not subject to its unique demands.

I submit to hold otherwise creates enemies of friends without just reason.

Now, as to the moral consequence of a Catholic who flaunts the rules, can one merely say they are not true Catholics? Or, are we to say one can voluntarily commit acts that they know will lead to their eternal damnation?

 

[davidv]

Permit me to respond to:

My arguments are always taken for what they are not: an attack or judgment. I look for logic, which is a gift, not a weapon.

Flame4’s reply announced the fact in question to be true, explains why it is a good fact, like eating your vegetables. And, that’s that.

However, the question under consideration is whether the fact is a real one. An answer cannot be: “I say it is, so lets discuss why it is good.” Also, are we to think the question posited is a false concern?

A place to start a consideration is whether God does order people to go to mass through the rule of the Church.

Does the command to keep holy the Lord’s day count as an order? Jesus established a new covenant and a Church. He invested in His Church His authority to bind and loose.

Is this a universal law or an organizational rite?

As a command from God, it seems to me to be universal, at least for those who call themselves Catholic.

This question leads to: what it is to be Catholic? One view is a Catholic is a subject of a holy realm who must follow a strict laws of the lords and king who have divine direction.

In this path, you are building a wall around your group, the way Jews and Christians did in the first century. It is the way Muslims create their enemies today. We have the Bloods vs. Crypts with each side claiming divine favor. This is History 101: War. In the end, it can lead to no other conclusion. I am sorry, but this seems so; then again, perhaps the undesirable end is irrelevant.

Others, who think themselves, at least, Christian, don’t understand the formalism and organizational controls.

What is wrong with formalism and organization controls? Without them there is anachy.

They do not deny the substance, only the form of religion, the ritual and man-made rules.

When contradictory things are taught, there is more than form difference.

Many will accept the teaching of Yeshua and can live readily by them, even to keeping the Sabbath. In many ways, such people are far more faithful to the substance of Christ than sunshine patriots found at Sunday mass who grudgingly pass through their sentence.

Those who do this have really missed out on what the Mass is and what it is for.

Since the idealists, to borrow a concept from Emerson, understand and respect the materialist bound by hard laws and fact, they simply desire to be free of the strictures and requirements that stand in the way of personal understanding. While materialists are respected by these idealists, they do not entertain any thoughts of the free-believers. The Church subjects reject the concept of a Luther naming 95 errors, so to speak and happily chop off heads; though, over time, most of those theses were accepted - by the men of the Church.

Strawman, not worthy of response.

So, the issue, at the bottom, comes to the matter of God speaking through the Church.

Are the rules handed down, accepted as divine direction, just for Church members? Is an Amazon native lost for failure to know of Sunday Mass? If the answer you select is, “Oh no, there is baptism of desire…” doesn’t this smack of rationalization and the avoidance of the principle being raised?

Consider this, and throughout consider the Church is a conduit for God’s instruction: For those who submit to the Catholic Church, they must follow the rules; for those ignorant of the rule, they cannot apply; for those who doubt the prescription, they may remain fine Christians, but they are not members of the organization of the Church and are not subject to its unique demands.

I submit to hold otherwise creates enemies of friends without just reason.

And it seems, submitted without convincing evidence.

Now, as to the moral consequence of a Catholic who flaunts the rules, can one merely say they are not true Catholics?

Unfaithful, but still Catholic.

Or, are we to say one can voluntarily commit acts that they know will lead to their eternal damnation?

One can say that, and it applies to all, whether Catholic or not.