O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
NO NO NO. To fulfill your obligation you must go to Mass.
- Status
S
St_Francis
Guest
We are not a Bible-based Protestant church: the Bible rests on Catholic teaching, not the other way around.
Having both attended Mass outside the church building and watched Mass on the internet when unable to attend, I can assure you that the experiences are quite different.
I have also noticed that “cyber-hugs” are different from hugs delivered in person.
And so on. What you are doing is just rearranging meanings to suit yourself.
The requirements are not placed on God! They are on us humans, in recognition of our nature, which is not omni-present.
A blessing is different from a sacrament, and He does.
Christ can forgive us whenever He wants. But how will we know we are forgiven? But with Confession, we *can *know, because it is an outward sign of His forgiveness. And since He instituted the sign, surely He can make the rules regarding it!
From the article you linked:
The Sacrifice of the Mass is a sacramental sacrifice
A sacramental reality is just as real (perhaps even more real) than a physical reality. The mere fact that a change is sacramental, does not mean it is not real – no, the most real things this side of heaven are the sacraments! Hence, we need not fear when we state that the **Mass is a sacrifice insofar as it is a sacrament. **The sacrifice is sacramental.
I will clarify: Mrs Jones is a Catholic. She is also a wife. She is also a mother. She is also a daughter. She is also a cousin, an aunt, a sister-in-law… Additionally, she is a doctor, and a student, and a business owner.
Just because something is one thing does not mean it cannot also be something else. The article you linked was emphsizing *one of the many things Mass is *which has been neglected in recent decades, not denying that it could be anything else.
The Mass is the operation by which the sign takes place. Without the Mass, there would be no Eucharist. Without the Eucharist, there would be no Mass.
Can you show one Bible quote where St Joseph, Christ’s foster-father died?
(Just in case that is not clear, I am not changing the subject to the death if St Joseph but deploying a rhetorical device. The Bible is not a textbook, nor does it counter every non-real idea anyone could possibly dream up.)
The best of something ought not to be compared with the worst of something else.
First of all, the number of seminarians is growing now… and secondly, if there comes a time or an area in which there are too few priests and people are unable to attend Mass, the obligation will not bind, right?
I don’t think the Pope is calling for just any old type of thinking so long as it hasn’t been thought before. Given the context of his remarks, I think he is suggesting that in certain areas we may need to consider whether we are neglecting to show love to our neighbor in our zeal to show our love for God.
The laws we follow are instituted by God, not by man as the laws of the Pharisees were.
Overall, you seem to be trying to solve a problem *which does not exist. *If we can get to Mass, we are obliged to *go *attend Mass, not sit at home and watch it on TV or the internet. If we cannot get to Mass, we are *not at all *obliged, and watching Mass online is one of several ways we can sanctify our Sabbath, but not a way to fulill a now-nonexistent obligation.
A
Azzy
Guest
A very nice simple. hard to argue with argument. People are entitled to their opinion, unfotunately when other people are unable to support their argument, like other internet sites. they resort to name calling and insulting comments.
A
Azzy
Guest
Yes, giving many (nick) names for the same thing is bound to create confusion. A very old school catholic might say this is why we had mass in a foreign language, with the priest not even facing the congregation and discouraged individual bible study. Less confusion, less controversy.
A
Azzy
Guest
In this case, only one of the requirements of receiving the indulgence includes the witnessing of the blessing, be it via media or in person. Therefore, what’s really going on is that the pope is simply saying, “you don’t have to be here physically in person.” For an indulgence, that’s ok.
Although there are communal celebrations of the LotH, the normal way for most to pray the hours is alone. So, praying (alone) while the TV is on, doesn’t really change anything. It’s completely different than watching a Mass on TV!
The argument I’ve heard made is that one should not exclusively read the readings and ignore the proclamation. Whether a person is literate or not is irrelevant; what’s at stake here is the difference between Scripture as proclaimed in the context of liturgy and Scripture as personally read.
OK… what’s the case that you want to make, then? What’s the ‘intent’ of attending Mass that could allow for non-attendance? What’s the ‘context’ of the rules that fits your assertions?
Looking at canon law, I see a number of places where your assertions would fail to hold:
Canon 898 states, “[t]he Christian faithful are to hold the Most Holy Eucharist in highest honor, taking an active part in the celebration of the most august sacrifice.” How would you contextualize this canon to suggest that a person who simply views a Mass on TV is “taking an active part” in that Mass?
Canon 899 §2 states, "n the eucharistic gathering the people of God are called together with the bishop or, under his authority, a presbyter presiding and acting in the person of Christ. All the faithful who are present, whether clerics or laity, unite together by participating in their own way according to the diversity of orders and liturgical functions." How would you contextualize this canon to suggest that by watching TV, a person is truly “called together with the bishop or… a presbyter”? How would you suggest that a TV viewer is “unite[d] together” and is “present” at such a Mass? In the document The Church and the Internet, the Pontifical Council for Social Communications states, “Although the virtual reality of cyberspace cannot substitute for real interpersonal community, the incarnational reality of the sacraments and the liturgy, or the immediate and direct proclamation of the gospel, it can complement them” and again, “[v]irtual reality is no substitute for … shared worship in a flesh-and-blood human community. There are no sacraments on the Internet.”
That would take quite the modification to canon law!
Canon 964 asserts that “[t]he proper place to hear sacramental confessions is a church or oratory” and that “[c]onfessions are not to be heard outside a confessional without a just cause.” Remember – in 1983, when the current code of canon law was promulgated, we already had technologies that would allow for ‘virtual’ communication, and these weren’t considered valid media for the sacrament of reconciliation!
No, this has already been addressed by the Church, using less recent technology! Note that confession must be made auricularly – that is, spoken by the penitent and heard by the confessor directly! Also, the priest is obliged to keep the seal of the sacrament inviolate; you wouldn’t want to make a bet that your phone conversations and internet communications are completely private, would you?
No, I think that the argument as presented is that these sorts of things have been considered in other contexts and are already not permissible!
There are several points that some to mind but I will let the original poster have their say, if they so desire. I want to thank you for the reference to Vatican and the internet. I was not aware of this statement which makes sense in the current environment.
A
Azzy
Guest
St Francis;11550149 said:
I will clarify: Mrs Jones is a Catholic. She is also a wife. She is also a mother. She is also a daughter. She is also a cousin, an aunt, a sister-in-law… Additionally, she is a doctor, and a student, and a business owner.
Just because something is one thing does not mean it cannot also be something else. The article you linked was emphsizing *one of the many things Mass is *which has been neglected in recent decades, not denying that it could be anything else.
The Mass is the operation by which the sign takes place. Without the Mass, there would be no Eucharist. Without the Eucharist, there would be no Mass.
- Can you show one Bible quote where St Joseph, Christ’s foster-father died?
- The best of something ought not to be compared with the worst of something else.
- First of all, the number of seminarians is growing now… and secondly, if there comes a time or an area in which there are too few priests and people are unable to attend Mass, the obligation will not bind, right?
- The laws we follow are instituted by God, not by man as the laws of the Pharisees were.
- Overall, you seem to be trying to solve a problem *which does not exist. *If we can get to Mass, we are obliged to *go *attend Mass, not sit at home and watch it on TV or the internet. If we cannot get to Mass, we are *not at all *obliged, and watching Mass online is one of several ways we can sanctify our Sabbath, but not a way to fulill a now-nonexistent obligation.
- No one said we are a bible based church. I have already quoted a priest who likes to say Jesus started a church, He did not write a bible. That said if you are insisting something is part of a sacrament, there should be a reference for that in the bible.
- Standing outside the church and watching on TV are different, but it is how they are the same that is relevant. In neither care are you physically present, if you mean in the same building or face to face with the person.
- On Skype the priest can tell you, the same as in person. Are you claiming Jesus made the specific rules for the sacrament of reconciliation? Can you please provide this verse? As I was often taught, we know because Christ died for our sins. Many nuns used to say confession is for us, it is not really needed to have your sins forgiven, if you are repentant.
- I chose that link because it appeared to have a factual reference to the post apostolic era. I do not believe it is authorative on all matters. Mass is not the sacrament, hence the ritual of first communion.
“The Mass is the operation by which the sign takes place. Without the Mass, there would be no Eucharist. Without the Eucharist, there would be no Mass.” ??? Don’t tell that to all the priests carrying communion to hospitals etc. Even if we accept they can not be separated, the mass is preparation for receiving the sacrament of the Eucharist. - We are not talking about St Joseph’s death, as stated before, sacraments MUST have specific bible quotes to show their validity to being instituted by Christ.
- Have you never heard of Reductio ad absurdum?? It is a very well accepted argument to compare extremes.
- So if there is no priest within 100 miles, the people should just be happy they are not committing a mortal sin and forget all about that mass stuff??
- “The laws we follow are instituted by God, not by man as the laws of the Pharisees were.” The pharisees thought they were following God’s law by telling people how to behave on the Sabbath. How is that any different than our rules for our “sabbath”. Do you think Jesus said not to eat 1 hour before communion or if you don’t attend mass on a holy day or Sunday you have committed a mortal sin?
- This thread started as a simple question and poll about when it might be acceptable to substitute internet mass. There have been some interesting ideas and a sub-argument about what is really required for a sacrament and is mass a sacrament. I am happy to discuss these issues with anyone who can refrain from insults and pretending they are superior to others here.
A
Azzy
Guest
If you can’t counter the points against your 2 claims that 1. you must be present for a sacrament and 2. Sunday is the Christian Sabbath, there is no reason to get snarky about it. I expected better on a Catholic web page, especially from someone claiming to be a deacon.
L
Lapey
Guest
They have been countered, but you know better. I’ve got some questions for you, is it possible for one to receive the Eucharist without the Mass? Is it possible to have Eucharistic adoration without the Mass? If your answer is no to these questions, which they should be answered no, then you will see that the Eucharistic celebration in its entirety is the “most august of sacraments”.
Another question, if I am in a place where Mass is available and I can go to Mass, but I choose not to, and this is a Sunday obligation situation, do I satisfy my obligation by going to the tabernacle with a person who can distribute Communion to me? If the Sacrament is the Communion only, then your answer should be yes; if your answer is no then you starting to get it.
PS. I do not CLAIM to be a deacon; I am a deacon ordained in the Catholic Church, Latin Rite. This link will show you who I am, Dcn. Gary Lapeyrouse of the Diocese of Houma/Thibodaux in Louisiana.
htdiocese.org/ClergyReligious/ClergyReligiousDirectory/tabid/55/Default.aspx
PSS. You have also been refuted completely and quite eloquently by a priest in this thread. You should teach less and listen/learn more.
L
Lapey
Guest
I have no issues with your first paragraph, it is quite simple that one must be present with the minister, priest or bishop, to receive the sacrament of reconciliation.
In the second, we are conflating two issues, attending Mass, and receiving communion. Which of the two fulfills the obligation to participate in Mass? Yes, the first; reception of Communion is only required once during the Easter season for the year. But participation in Mass, the Eucharistic celebration, is required every Sunday and Holy Days of Obligation unless there is reason one cannot, in that case there is no obligation. (sounds like a broken record.)
The biggest key to understand is, receiving Communion is not possible without the Mass; Eucharistic adoration is not possible without the Mass. To attend Mass and not receive does fulfill the obligation.
These statements that you have been given by me and others are not opinions, yours have been opinions based on your ideas that things should change. Truth does not change. We are and will always be required to attend Mass in person to fulfill our obligation; until He comes again, in which case we will have the King with us so we will not have need of His Sacramental presence.
Also, my job is to teach, not refute websites that do not hold any authority or have any credibility. Why would I go to a web site that refutes Catholic teaching by using the bible which the Catholic Church produced? The Church is a three “legged stool”; Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium who is charged with teaching and interpreting the first two. The bible alone is not the authority but a source to the authority.
L
Lapey
Guest
We had Mass in the language of the Latin Church, the Roman Catholic Church’s official language is Latin. That may be foreign to you but not to Mother Church. The priest did not face away from the people, he faced to the Liturgical East, “Ad Orientem”. We still have Mass offered in this way, the Extraordinary Form of the Mass is still said in many areas and available in every diocese I would guess. The Novis Ordo Mass can also appropriately said with some Latin, and facing Liturgical East; Ad Orientem. Not in most places, but it is there if you look.
The Church never discouraged individual bible study, but still to this day discourages individual interpretation; the Church alone is the authority to the scripture, not me or you. To your last point, disobedience causes confusion and controversy, not a well celebrated Mass.
I’m sure you have some good intensions and seem to be ambitious, but it appears you have much to learn about the Catholic Church. As I mentioned before, seek out instruction and learn before you try to teach.
L
Lapey
Guest
The web site you linked is protestant and reeks of fundamentalism. I have linked a good and authoritative site with real guidelines for you to go and see what Jesus and His Church teaches about the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day. Please read it.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a3.htm
PS. This is the 3rd commandment, not the protestant 4th commandment.
L
Lapey
Guest
I bet you’re glad I “bowed out”!
G
Gorgias
Guest
Well, before we get too far afield, let’s correct this misperception: the Catholic Church is a ‘Bible-based Church’ – the thing is, though, is that we’re not a ‘Bible only’ Church! Through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit the books of the Bible were written; through the protection of the Holy Spirit, the canon of Scripture was defined. However, the Deposit of Faith contains the Revelation of God found both in Scripture and the Apostolic Teaching handed down through Apostolic Succession through to the present day!
That, then, means that it’s not the case that “there should be a reference [for an arbitrary stance] in the bible.” After all, the Church – to whom the sacraments were entrusted – are the caretakers of the sacraments. It is up to the Church to define the disciplines surrounding the sacraments. The relevant Scripture, then, is the notion of the ‘keys of the kingdom’ being handed to Peter in Matthew 16:19. Having received the ‘keys,’ the Church is empowered to regulate the sacraments.
Again: Christ instituted Reconciliation, and the Church regulates the sacrament. By virtue of the proxy given by Christ to Peter (‘binding and loosing’), if the Church says “Reconciliation must be in person”, then it must be in person. Jesus made “specific rules,” alright! His rule was: ‘listen to what Peter tells you to do’…!
Then, sorry to say, those nuns were very mistaken, and taught you untruths.
No. They should honor the Sabbath in prayer. A big part of that prayer, of course, would be for an increase in vocations so that there will be a time – sooner, rather than later! – that there will be a priest closer to them than 100 miles away!
Jesus also told the Jews to do what the scribes Pharisees said to do, because they sat on the chair of Moses (cf Mt 23:2). Taking that principle to heart, we are to do what the hierarchy of the Church tells us to do, since they have the apostolic authority given them by Christ.
A
Azzy
Guest
You have provided some nice answers, but in most cases they were not to the questions at hand.Well, before we get too far afield, let’s correct this misperception: the Catholic Church is a ‘Bible-based Church’ – the thing is, though, is that we’re not a ‘Bible only’ Church! Through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit the books of the Bible were written; through the protection of the Holy Spirit, the canon of Scripture was defined. However, the Deposit of Faith contains the Revelation of God found both in Scripture and the Apostolic Teaching handed down through Apostolic Succession through to the present day!
That, then, means that it’s not the case that “there should be a reference [for an arbitrary stance] in the bible.” After all, the Church – to whom the sacraments were entrusted – are the caretakers of the sacraments. It is up to the Church to define the disciplines surrounding the sacraments. The relevant Scripture, then, is the notion of the ‘keys of the kingdom’ being handed to Peter in Matthew 16:19. Having received the ‘keys,’ the Church is empowered to regulate the sacraments.
Again: Christ instituted Reconciliation, and the Church regulates the sacrament. By virtue of the proxy given by Christ to Peter (‘binding and loosing’), if the Church says “Reconciliation must be in person”, then it must be in person. Jesus made “specific rules,” alright! His rule was: ‘listen to what Peter tells you to do’…!
Then, sorry to say, those nuns were very mistaken, and taught you untruths.
No. They should honor the Sabbath in prayer. A big part of that prayer, of course, would be for an increase in vocations so that there will be a time – sooner, rather than later! – that there will be a priest closer to them than 100 miles away!
Jesus also told the Jews to do what the scribes Pharisees said to do, because they sat on the chair of Moses (cf Mt 23:2). Taking that principle to heart, we are to do what the hierarchy of the Church tells us to do, since they have the apostolic authority given them by Christ.
- You are trying to corrrect something no one ever said here. In fact multiple people, including myself, said the opposite concerning a bible-based church.
- I never said the church did not have the right to set the rules for the sacraments. By your own words you refute your claim that it is God who made these rules. What was bought up was that IN THE FUTURE we might see skype for confession and online mass counting as the obligation. In my very 1st post here I stated that I agreed with Father Vince’s answer but thought there were areas worth considering and fleshing out. Part of this is questioning the scriptural basis of this man made rule for being present. Just because we are not fundamentally bible based does not mean we can ignore the bible, God’s gift to man.
- Is confession absolutely needed to forgive sins, even mortal sins? Since it should be well accepted that the beginning of mass forgives venial sins, we are only talking about mortal sins for Catholics. The answer is still no in some situations:
catholic.com/quickquestions/can-mortal-sins-be-forgiven-without-confessing
I also think the Gloria in excelsis Deo said at every mass provides an answer, approved by the Church: Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father who take away the sin of the world, have mercy on us, you who take away the sins of the world." It does not limit this to those who go to confession. Jesus will forgive whatever sins He chooses to forgive. If a priest does not help someone through the sacrament of reconciliation and does not bind the sin, does not mean they can’t be forgiven. If one priest does bind someone’s sin in confession does that mean this sin will not be forgiven by another priest who gives “last rites” which forgives all sins?
To pretend one has to have confession to be free of sin means you believe only Catholics can get into heaven. This is not logical to Jesus’ appeal to all men and the anonymous Christian clause. I am proud to be in one of the few Christian churches that does not insist only they are going to heaven. I do not think the nuns were wrong. All sacraments are mainly for us. God does not need anyone to do anything. He wants people in His church and taking an active part.
- Telling someone to just pray at home when they could be participating in an online mass does not seem to be very communal and has mentioned previously may not pass the test of time.
- Matthew 23 is hardly a ringing endorsement for following the leader: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. " Important to note is that this was meant for the Jews. Jesus had a new set of rules for His church, which included testing God, specifically banned by the old law and mocked in a recent reading where God states He will give a sign and the person says they can’t test the Lord.
Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
If we are instructed to test God almighty why wouldn’t we think about testing centries old church dogma?
Claiming all church laws come from God because Jesus said do what Peter says (reference needed) is just not logical to me.
A
Azzy
Guest
This site is very clear that their are reasons that we use Sunday instead of Saturday. It never calls Sunday the Christian Sabbath as you did. Im fact it states the exact opposite. As you call it, a refutation.
Sunday - fulfillment of the sabbath
2175 Sunday is expressly **distinguished from the sabbath **which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ’s Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man’s eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:107
Code:
Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death.108
A
Azzy
Guest
This is the 3rd time you have “threatened” this. Does crying wolf have a biblical basis?I bet you’re glad I “bowed out”!
S
St_Francis
Guest
The way to box off parts of comments is by putting (without the asterisk!!!) [/quote] at the place where you want to insert your comment, and [quote] where you want to start quoting again.
Thank you for not putting your comments inside the quote boxes, because that really complicates the response
You have made the effort to be there as opposed to flipping a switch and definitely, by any measure, *not *being there.
Exactly–so we can know our sins have been forgiven. But who can be sure of anything over Skype? Can videos or digital images be manipulated?
Oh, very clever–it’s good and accurate where it agrees with you, but not authoritative where it’s not!
Without the Mass, what would the priest be bringing?
And I even gave you a hint!
And we do. St Matthew 6, iirc.
Yes, I have, and what you did is not it.
What did people do during the prohibitions against the Catholic Faith in the times of Queen Elizabeth? What did the peasants of South America and Africa do when they had only an occasional visit fro a travelling priest? You act like this is something never before seen, yet we are actually in better shape than at any other time in history.
I think it is quite clear from Christ’s attitude toward them that the Pharisees knew exactly what they were doing.
True.
Regarding your mention of what the nuns taught you… The word Catholic comes from the Greek ekatolikos, from which our word holistic also comes. We have to look at things holistically as Catholics–we cannot just look at one side of a part of something and draw conclusions. We must see how the whole works as well as how each part of the whole interacts with all the other parts of the whole.
So Confession is instituted for us, but otoh, it is also instituted to clarify our individual relationships with God. Confession requires only imperfect contrition and to be forgiven outside of Confession requires perfect contrition.
A
Azzy
Guest
No one is trying to conflate issues. The issue is that some people have insisted the mass is a sacrament, and in a fracton of the space I used, she refuted that completely. Of course you can have Eucharistic adoration without a simultaneous mass. Many churches do it all the time wiith near perpetual adoration. If you mean there must be a mass to make the communion wafers being adored, ok, but it is not clear you mean this.
We have already dismissed this absolute requirement to see mass in person to fulfill obligation with the stories of people being outside the church and not attending in person. Most of us have moved on to the degree of being present in person.
The quote I used from a non-Catholic web site supports not refutes Catholic teaching. I updated that with the quote from the catechism which states the exact same thing.
A
Azzy
Guest
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
This has been previously addressed with TV mass.
If you can go to Mass, you are bound to so, and a TV or internet Mass at home does not count in that case. You need to be present in the Church.
If you can go to Mass, you are bound to so, and a TV or internet Mass at home does not count in that case. You need to be present in the Church.
- Status