Dispensation from Mass Obligation

  • Thread starter Thread starter akathlic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

akathlic

Guest
Here in San Diego, Catholics are being dispensed from their Sunday mass obligation because of the virus and everything, but masses are still held online and outdoors to those who want to attend.

My family is in really good condition, we all got tested for the virus (which was negative) and there isn’t too much worry with us going out in public.

However, my family solemn goes to mass in person now even though we have the ability to do so. They’d rather go to mass online.

Is this a sin? Should I be encouraging them harder to go to mass in person?

Even though we are dispensed from our Sunday obligation, would not attending mass (when you have the means to do so and there isn’t any risk) be sinful if it was just out of business or laziness?
 
Last edited:
I do not attend mass because of the risk of exposure. There are medical issues so I am at risk. Others simply don’t want to risk exposure, some may not want to be compliant with masking during Mass. I’d just do what you feel is best and trust that others are doing the same
 
akathlic said:
would not attending mass (when you have the means to do so and there isn’t any risk) be sinful if it was just out of business or laziness?
Click to expand...
San Diego guy here too…I wouldn’t worry about a thing, unless, you saw it as an excuse and had elected out of personal comfort to not view one of the many on line masses available, and pray the prayer of spiritual communion…I highly recommend the Sunday Mass online (live at 9am, or on You Tube from Mission Santa Barbara.

Pax et Bonum!
 
There’s no sin since there’s a dispensation. I would also say in this time, we shouldn’t really be trying to determine whether someone else should or can go to Mass or not. Everyone has a level of risk being out in public and around a group; if your family’s risk is extremely small, that still doesn’t make it prudent to be out circulating without precautions and when unnecessary. Necessity is for the individual to decide here in the case of Mass.
 
Last edited:
akathlic said:
However, my family solemn goes to mass in person now even though we have the ability to do so.
Click to expand...
The dispensation is just that, a dispensation. You are dispensed.
akathlic said:
They’d rather go to mass online.
Click to expand...
Make no mistake, we do not “go to mass online”. Watching mass is not the same as going to mass. It does not fulfill the obligation. Since you have a dispensation, you do not have an obligation.
akathlic said:
Even though we are dispensed from our Sunday obligation, would not attending mass (when you have the means to do so and there isn’t any risk) be sinful if it was just out of business or laziness?
Click to expand...
Dispensed is dispensed.

You are making assumptions about your family’s motives.
 
I think that the more group events that people go to, the greater the risk of exposing oneself and others to the virus.
That’s why there’s a dispensation.
I think that the smallest number of people going to group events is best. Many priests themselves are a bit older and more at risk.
Just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
I and all those where I live have been dispensed since March. There is no Mass here except live stream
 
1ke said:
Make no mistake, we do not “go to mass online”. Watching mass is not the same as going to mass. It does not fulfill the obligation. Since you have a dispensation, you do not have an obligation.
Click to expand...
I would soften this a bit.

If someone is remotely watching Mass on a video feed in the same building, is that the same as “going to mass”? What is the difference between viewing that same feed from home or from a different room in a same building (as in “overflow” areas)?

One hears the same readings, says the same prayers and hears the same homily. The only difference is the reception of the eucharist…which, one can receive “spiritually” (whether present at Mass or remotely).

I understand and for the most part agree with your post. However, we don’t want to give the impression that shut-ins (those that can never go to Mass) and those of us who cannot go for reasons of risk avoidance for Covid-19 are at issue with the Mass obligation. 🙂
 
At our parish, one could be in a house next door to the building and be closer to the altar than those in the overflow area.
 
I don’t entirely disagree with you here, but the Church apparently does, so …

My thoughts are that we’re “attending” Mass to the best of our ability (it’s our intention, after all) even though I know it’s not the same, doesn’t fulfill an obligation if I have one, and so forth. ETA: In regard to the thread on having Mass streaming in the background, I’ll have to admit that I’ve done that more than once as well, and my intention is entirely different.

I’m venturing to guess that the reason the Church would want a clear distinction (aside from people getting the wrong idea about what’s acceptable practice) is that sacraments require our physical presence and can’t be ‘transmitted’ via any means that doesn’t bring us into contact with a brother or sister in Christ. After all, we are the Church* and participation in worship shouldn’t be apart from community whenever possible (the whole “where two or three are gathered” thing 😉).

*I know there’s a physical Church and an institutional Church as well; just making a point.
 
Last edited:
So how is “physically” defined? In the same building?

Does that mean shut-ins are not meeting their mass obligation? Or are perhaps not receiving the same graces as those physically present?
 
drjsp said:
If someone is remotely watching Mass on a video feed in the same building, is that the same as “going to mass”?
Click to expand...
No.
drjsp said:
What is the difference between viewing that same feed from home or from a different room in a same building (as in “overflow” areas)?
Click to expand...
There isn’t one. You are not fulfilling the obligation watching mass in a so-called “overflow area”.
 
drjsp said:
I understand and for the most part agree with your post. However, we don’t want to give the impression that shut-ins (those that can never go to Mass) and those of us who cannot go for reasons of risk avoidance for Covid-19 are at issue with the Mass obligation. 🙂
Click to expand...
There is no issue with the obligation. Shut ins and people who are ill cannot go to mass. Therefore they have no obligation.

Shut ins watching mass on TV are not attending mass.

In most places people are currently dispensed. But when no longer dispensed, the ill and infirm who cannot attend mass do not have an obligation.
 
Last edited:
drjsp said:
So how is “physically” defined? In the same building?
Click to expand...
You must be in the same space, a contiguous space in which you are actually participating.

Not in another room down the hall with CCTV. Not in the parish hall and not in a classroom or a chapel or any other separate space even if “in the same building”.

If the overflow consists of chairs or standing in the back of the church or in the narthex or the choir loft— you are at mass. No walls or doors separate you, you are at mass, you are hearing with your ears and seeing with your eyes (even if partially obstructed because you are standing behind a pillar or a tall guy).

If the “overflow” consists of down the hall, in another room, where you can’t see or hear the priest, have to have the mass streamed in through CCTV or other method, you are NOT attending mass.
 
Last edited:
1ke said:
You are not fulfilling the obligation watching mass in a so-called “overflow area”.
Click to expand...
Can you cite any supporting evidence for this? I don’t see how this can be correct.

Joe Catholic goes to Mass on a particular Christmas or a particular Easter where every Mass is overflowing, i.e. has no choice to go He has failed his obligation to attend Mass?
 
1ke said:
you are hearing with your ears and seeing with your eyes (even if partially obstructed because you are standing behind a pillar or a tall guy).
Click to expand...
So if one is totally obstructed (tall dude, post, etc.) then the obligation fails? What about someone who is blind? They cannot see. Or deaf, they cannot hear.

Is seeing with one’s eyes and hearing with one’s ears legitimate criteria?

I was at a mass where a couple kids were sitting behind two identical brothers, no kidding, were both over seven feet tall. There’s no way the kids could see the Mass. There was no where else to sit, it was full. Their parents failed in their obligation to bring the kids to mass?
 
Last edited:
drjsp said:
Can you cite any supporting evidence for this? I don’t see how this can be correct.
Click to expand...
Can. 1247 On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass.

You have to actually BE at mass to participate in the mass. Watching on TV from another location is not participating in the mass. Whether that location is near or far, whether the mass is live or pre recorded.

See here for more info:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.osvnews.com/amp/2017/01/04/does-tv-mass-count/
drjsp said:
Joe Catholic goes to Mass on a particular Christmas or a particular Easter where every Mass is overflowing, i.e. has no choice to go He has failed his obligation to attend Mass?
Click to expand...
Again, if you cannot attend you don’t have an obligation. Joe and his family attempt to go to mass, and are unable to do so. Ergo, no obligation.
 
Do you have a reference for that? I’m not trying to be argumentative. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top