Does internet mass fulfill the Holy Obligation?

[Azzy]

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. Latin was used by the Catholic church long after it became a dead language in the middle ages. Yes they did face away from the people. They did not use a compass and face exactly east. Many were built that way so the priest faced away from the people.

I do not want to search old documents for this basic point. My parents generation had Latin masses and described them to me. Wiki used ^ The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford University Press 2005 ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3), to make this claim:

It was only in the 8th or 9th century that the position whereby the priest faced the apse, not the people, when celebrating Mass was adopted in the Roman Rite

As usual the status quo died hard in our church:

Bishop Edward Slattery of Tulsa has argued that the change towards Versus populum has had a number of unforeseen and largely negative effects. First of all, he says “it was a serious rupture with the Church’s ancient tradition. Secondly, it can give the appearance that the priest and the people were engaged in a conversation about God, rather than the worship of God. Thirdly, it places an inordinate importance on the personality of the celebrant by placing him on a kind of liturgical stage”

Will someone claim these rules also came from God?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versus_populum#cite_note-6

1. From what I can see this is just not true. Here is a good article on the subject.

usccb.org/bible/understanding-the-bible/study-materials/articles/changes-in-catholic-attitudes-toward-bible-readings.cfm

" Identifying the reading and interpreting of the Bible as “Protestant” even affected the study of Scripture. Until the twentieth Century, it was only Protestants who actively embraced Scripture study. That changed after 1943 when Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. This not only allowed Catholics to study Scripture, it encouraged them to do so. And with Catholics studying Scripture and teaching other Catholics about what they were studying, familiarity with Scripture grew."

The Pope giving permission allowing the bible study is a very clear indication that the opposite was the norm. Discouraged is a mild word for the apparent attitude.

1. I am not here to teach anyone. I intended to start a discussion. I do not think I have wandered into any controversial area. My 1st post agreed with Father Vince but asked for fleshing out the boundaries. People responded with forward thinking ideas and a defense of the status quo.

What have I said that needs any further study?

1. Mass is not a sacrament, the Eucharist is.
2. I see no demand in the bible to be physically present (in the same room) for mass obligation or the sacrament of reconciliation
3. Many church laws were made by man (don’t eat an hour before communion) not Jesus.
4. We are not the old Jews and do not have to follow their laws or advice given to them…
5. Jesus came to earth to forgive sins, no matter who else does whatever.

You did mention your job was to teach. You have made more clearly false statements in this one post than anyone else has made in all their posts combined. You might do well to take your own advice about learning. I hope you have more tact in your church than you have exhibited here.

 

[Azzy]

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.

Thank you, I was not aware of a TV edict or even an internet one when I posed this question. Both have been done.

I was also not aware of an exception to being in the church. Someone noted that people trapped outside of the church because of overcrowding are still in compliance with obligation.

Others mentioned the role of the internet in the future of the church and I asked if an internet based community could save more souls than a regular church, particularly one stale and going through the motions. I also mentioned this could become the only way for some people to get mass if there is a further decrease in the number of priests. Someone posted this trend has been reversing, so hopefully all Catholics will be in a reasonable distance to a parish priest.

The very interesting possibility of confession via skype was raised which furthered my curiosity about the biblical basis for this demand to be physically present.

 

[St_Francis]

St Francis;11551218:

1. You have made the effort to be there as opposed to flipping a switch and definitely, by any measure, *not *

being there.

1. So now it is effort that determing fulfilling the obligation not physical presence? You are provding a moving target

Not at all; the effort is not the point- someone could live next door or 1/2 hour away walking–they will have each fulfilled the requirement but not have put in the same effort. The point is that the person *is there *as opposed to in bed or wherever.

I already told you that we are obliged in justice to worship our Creator at Mass. The Church has ruled that a TV Mass doesn’t count–our presence is what makes our obligation fulfilled. How can our presence somewhere occur if we are not there?

1. 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?

1. I use skype all the time, it is not trivial to manipulate a runnng camera. A fake priest could be hiding inside a confessional. You mentioned comparing the best of one thing with the worst of another and said it was not allowed! Ok, I got my Latin wrong but the bottom line is arguing the extremes, Ad Contrarian, is well accepted and was valid then and a nice try here, but wanting imo.

First, the one thing you did was comparing rotten apples with freshly-picked oranges.

Second, manipulation of images is not an unreasonable possibility. How can I know my sins have been forgiven over Skype? I can’t. How can the priest know someone is really there and not just running a movie clip? He can’t. And this is not *comparing *anything, it is considering reality.

And it may be difficult now to manipulate something on Skype, bit it’s not impossible now, and it probably will get easier and easier in fairly short order.

But the main point is that one must be *physically present *to receive the *physical *sign, right? And the Mass obligation has to do with our *physical *worship of God, Who is *physically *manifest in the person of Christ.

 

[Lapey]

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.

You completely missed my point. Adoration and reception of Communion is completely out of the question without Mass. This is where the Blessed Sacrament is confected; no priest, no Mass, no Mass no Eucharist. The two are and at all times must be connected.

I conduct Communion services quite often, this would not be possible without the Mass. The reception of the Communion, the sacrament as you put it, is connected to the Mass in which the host was consecrated.

And yes, it is quite clear this is what i posted earlier, and what I post now. Adoration and/or reception of Communion are part of Mass and flows from Mass.

You have dismissed the requirement to be present, the Church has not.

Again, the web site you posted is protestant, not catholic. If you want to back up your point please use, in context catholic teachings.

 

[Lapey]

1. Latin was used by the Catholic church long after it became a dead language in the middle ages. Yes they did face away from the people. They did not use a compass and face exactly east. Many were built that way so the priest faced away from the people.

I do not want to search old documents for this basic point. My parents generation had Latin masses and described them to me. Wiki used ^ The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford University Press 2005 ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3), to make this claim:

It was only in the 8th or 9th century that the position whereby the priest faced the apse, not the people, when celebrating Mass was adopted in the Roman Rite

As usual the status quo died hard in our church:

Bishop Edward Slattery of Tulsa has argued that the change towards Versus populum has had a number of unforeseen and largely negative effects. First of all, he says “it was a serious rupture with the Church’s ancient tradition. Secondly, it can give the appearance that the priest and the people were engaged in a conversation about God, rather than the worship of God. Thirdly, it places an inordinate importance on the personality of the celebrant by placing him on a kind of liturgical stage”

Will someone claim these rules also came from God?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versus_populum#cite_note-6

1. From what I can see this is just not true. Here is a good article on the subject.

usccb.org/bible/understanding-the-bible/study-materials/articles/changes-in-catholic-attitudes-toward-bible-readings.cfm

" Identifying the reading and interpreting of the Bible as “Protestant” even affected the study of Scripture. Until the twentieth Century, it was only Protestants who actively embraced Scripture study. That changed after 1943 when Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. This not only allowed Catholics to study Scripture, it encouraged them to do so. And with Catholics studying Scripture and teaching other Catholics about what they were studying, familiarity with Scripture grew."

The Pope giving permission allowing the bible study is a very clear indication that the opposite was the norm. Discouraged is a mild word for the apparent attitude.

1. I am not here to teach anyone. I intended to start a discussion. I do not think I have wandered into any controversial area. My 1st post agreed with Father Vince but asked for fleshing out the boundaries. People responded with forward thinking ideas and a defense of the status quo.

What have I said that needs any further study?

1. Mass is not a sacrament, the Eucharist is. The Mass is the Eucharist!
   2.** I see** no demand in the bible to be physically present (in the same room) for mass obligation or the sacrament of reconciliationThe Church says differently, now go and be obedient!
2. Many church laws were made by man (don’t eat an hour before communion) not Jesus.This has been explained to you.
3. We are not the old Jews and do not have to follow their laws or advice given to them… Ten Commandments still apply, haven’t you heard?
4. Jesus came to earth to forgive sins, no matter who else does whatever.No quarrels with this statement.

You did mention your job was to teach. You have made more clearly false statements in this one post than anyone else has made in all their posts combined. You might do well to take your own advice about learning. I hope you have more tact in your church than you have exhibited here.

I’m sorry sir, but you are very mistaken and I have neither the time nor the want to continue with you. Until you realize you have problems with you theology you will not see truth.

 

[pnewton]

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.

I do not know why this is even an issue here at a Catholic site. The Church is clear that we must be physically present, not electronically present, and Mass and Confession. We can speculate about angels on the head of a pin dancing or what might happen in fifty years. The Church is not going to change anytime soon. We go to be where Jesus really is physically present. We go to where the priest is really present as persona Christi. Jesus doesn’t Skype in His holy presence anymore than he had a virtual crucifixion. Modern technology may have many advantages, but those that worship at the electronic altar need to understand technology is a limited tool. It has no part with the Holy Sacraments.

 

[buc_fan33]

I have not posted on here in almost a year. But, I stumbled upon this thread, read through it, and felt compelled to offer a response.

First, Mass most certainly is a sacrament. Words routinely have multiple meanings in the English language, and the word “sacrament,” is no different. In one sense, it means the seven sacraments instituted by Christ: Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Reconciliation, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony.

But, in another sense, “sacrament,” means “sign.” As St. Paul says, the role of the priest is to “administer the mysteries of God.” The Greek word “mysterium,” was translated into “sacramentum” in Latin, which has two definitions in English: our word “sacrament,” and “sign.” So, for instance, there is a tradition in the Church of calling the Church herself, “the universal sacrament (sign) of salvation.” The Church is the visible sign of the invisible reality of heaven, salvation. We can “see” salvation by “seeing” the Body of Christ, the Church. Furthermore, Jesus Christ is “sacrament of the Father’s love for us.” I teach a high school course on the sacraments, and rather than just jump straight into a discussion about Baptism, I always start with a little Christology (study of Christ) and ecclesiology (study of the Church) because of the tradition of calling both Christ and the Church sacraments.

So, in one sense, is the Mass a sacrament? No. But, “Mass” is synonymous with “Eucharist.” So, in another sense, is the Mass a sacrament? Yes.

But, leaving that aside for the moment, let’s look at the original question. As others have correctly said, the “obligation” to attend Mass is ONLY fulfilled by actually being present at the Mass. As an objection, it has been noted that at large Masses, many people (perhaps tens of thousands) are not able to be physically “present” in the church, but nevertheless, fulfill their obligation.

For example, at World Youth Day in Spain, my group was WAY in the back. There were LITERALLY 2 million people between them and the sanctuary/altar where Mass was being offered. The reason they “fulfilled” their obligation was not based on an arbitrary point, for instance, no one said, “You have to be within five miles, or be able to see the Pope,” or whatever for Mass to “count,” so to speak. Rather, the key thing is intention. Does one have the intention to attend a specific Mass or not? In this case, the answer, clearly, was yes.

I would argue, however, that Mass via T.V., or radio, or internet, or any other means of communication would indicate a lack of intention to be present at Mass.

Again, as it relates to the original post in this thread, intention is key. Was the OP’s INTENT to be at Mass? It seems to me, yes. But, he was inhibited from being able to do so on account of there not being a Catholic Church within a reasonable distance to where he was staying in a foreign country.

 

[Azzy]

Not at all; the effort is not the point- someone could live next door or 1/2 hour away walking–they will have each fulfilled the requirement but not have put in the same effort. The point is that the person *is there *as opposed to in bed or wherever.

1. I already told you that we are obliged in justice to worship our Creator at Mass. The Church has ruled that a TV Mass doesn’t count–our presence is what makes our obligation fulfilled. How can our presence somewhere occur if we are not there?

First, the one thing you did was comparing rotten apples with freshly-picked oranges.

1. Second, manipulation of images is not an unreasonable possibility. How can I know my sins have been forgiven over Skype? I can’t. How can the priest know someone is really there and not just running a movie clip? He can’t. And this is not *comparing *anything, it is considering reality.

And it may be difficult now to manipulate something on Skype, bit it’s not impossible now, and it probably will get easier and easier in fairly short order.

1. But the main point is that one must be *physically present *to receive the *physical *sign, right? And the Mass obligation has to do with our *physical *worship of God, Who is *physically *manifest in the person of Christ.

1. Your own words indicate that making the effort to be there counted, if you want to backpedal ok. People in the parking lot are not physically in the church but they fulfill their obligation. Hence they are either close enough, or it is the effort that mattered.
2. You did not address the simple point that people could be fooled by a lay person in the confessional, this does not make in person confession invalid. It is much easier to sit in for someone than manipulate images in real time on skype.
3. I am not debating this is a requirement, but lets say it how it is. It is because men made the law not because Jesus said you have to be in a church every week or it is a mortal sin on the same level as killing someone in that it must be confessed with very few exceptions to be saved. The requirement to receive the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist is once a year, another man made rule.

 

[Azzy]

I do not know why this is even an issue here at a Catholic site. The Church is clear that we must be physically present, not electronically present, and Mass and Confession. We can speculate about angels on the head of a pin dancing or what might happen in fifty years. The Church is not going to change anytime soon. We go to be where Jesus really is physically present. We go to where the priest is really present as persona Christi. Jesus doesn’t Skype in His holy presence anymore than he had a virtual crucifixion. Modern technology may have many advantages, but those that worship at the electronic altar need to understand technology is a limited tool. It has no part with the Holy Sacraments.

The point is not whether this is a law but that people are claiming 1. this is a law from God, not a man made law and 2. The mass is a sacrament, despite very clear posts refuting this claim. The need for First Communion being the most convincing evidence that it is only the Eucharist that is a sacrament.

 

[Azzy]

I have not posted on here in almost a year. But, I stumbled upon this thread, read through it, and felt compelled to offer a response.

First, Mass most certainly is a sacrament. Words routinely have multiple meanings in the English language, and the word “sacrament,” is no different. In one sense, it means the seven sacraments instituted by Christ: Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Reconciliation, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony.

But, in another sense, “sacrament,” means “sign.” As St. Paul says, the role of the priest is to “administer the mysteries of God.” The Greek word “mysterium,” was translated into “sacramentum” in Latin, which has two definitions in English: our word “sacrament,” and “sign.” So, for instance, there is a tradition in the Church of calling the Church herself, “the universal sacrament (sign) of salvation.” The Church is the visible sign of the invisible reality of heaven, salvation. We can “see” salvation by “seeing” the Body of Christ, the Church. Furthermore, Jesus Christ is “sacrament of the Father’s love for us.” I teach a high school course on the sacraments, and rather than just jump straight into a discussion about Baptism, I always start with a little Christology (study of Christ) and ecclesiology (study of the Church) because of the tradition of calling both Christ and the Church sacraments.

So, in one sense, is the Mass a sacrament? No. But, “Mass” is synonymous with “Eucharist.” So, in another sense, is the Mass a sacrament? Yes.

But, leaving that aside for the moment, let’s look at the original question. As others have correctly said, the “obligation” to attend Mass is ONLY fulfilled by actually being present at the Mass. As an objection, it has been noted that at large Masses, many people (perhaps tens of thousands) are not able to be physically “present” in the church, but nevertheless, fulfill their obligation.

For example, at World Youth Day in Spain, my group was WAY in the back. There were LITERALLY 2 million people between them and the sanctuary/altar where Mass was being offered. The reason they “fulfilled” their obligation was not based on an arbitrary point, for instance, no one said, “You have to be within five miles, or be able to see the Pope,” or whatever for Mass to “count,” so to speak. Rather, the key thing is intention. Does one have the intention to attend a specific Mass or not? In this case, the answer, clearly, was yes.

I would argue, however, that Mass via T.V., or radio, or internet, or any other means of communication would indicate a lack of intention to be present at Mass.

Again, as it relates to the original post in this thread, intention is key. Was the OP’s INTENT to be at Mass? It seems to me, yes. But, he was inhibited from being able to do so on account of there not being a Catholic Church within a reasonable distance to where he was staying in a foreign country.

I like the idea of intent. Effort, which means intent, was also mentioned but the person did not sound so sure the next time.

I also like the idea of a compromise on whether mass is a sacrament or not. We did discuss alternate definitions before but I can’t get past the fact of First Communion preparing people to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist. IMO, there could easily be 8 sacraments, since the mass fulfills the basic requirements. It is a divine institution, instituted by Christ (in some sense anyway) to give grace. However, men have decided this is not the case and we have 7 sacraments. Somethng being a part of something does not make both things the same.

 

[Azzy]

You completely missed my point. Adoration and reception of Communion is completely out of the question without Mass. This is where the Blessed Sacrament is confected; no priest, no Mass, no Mass no Eucharist. The two are and at all times must be connected.

I conduct Communion services quite often, this would not be possible without the Mass. The reception of the Communion, the sacrament as you put it, is connected to the Mass in which the host was consecrated.

And yes, it is quite clear this is what i posted earlier, and what I post now. Adoration and/or reception of Communion are part of Mass and flows from Mass.

You have dismissed the requirement to be present, the Church has not.

Again, the web site you posted is protestant, not catholic. If you want to back up your point please use, in context catholic teachings.

I have not dismissed the requirement to be present. I have just asked where is this need in the bible? Jesus never said you must be in Church once a week and receive communion once a year. These are man made rules where I do not see any direct bible reference to support them. It does not mean they are not valid rules. Men make many decisions on church rules.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I have not dismissed the requirement to be present. I have just asked where is this need in the bible? Jesus never said you must be in Church once a week and receive communion once a year. These are man made rules where I do not see any direct bible reference to support them. It does not mean they are not valid rules. Men make many decisions on church rules.

Would you mind giving us the Scriptural passages which:
A. State that all that Jesus said, taught, and did is contained in the Scriptures.
B. That the Scriptures are the pillar and foundation of the Truth.
C. That we are to go to Scripture, and Scripture alone, as our ‘authority’.
D. Gives the list of what is to be considered "authentic Scripture’. . .

 

[Azzy]

I’m sorry sir, but you are very mistaken and I have neither the time nor the want to continue with you.

The 4th time you have said this.

Until you realize you have problems with you theology you will not see truth.

One of us clearly has a problem with theology but one of us is using evidence and the other just keeps saying he is right and won’t be back. Neither has proven true.

1. Mass is not a sacrament, the Eucharist is.
   The Mass is the Eucharist!
   **Wrong. **Then what is the point of First Communion? I answered most of your questions but you don’t answer many of mine. Saying something red is blue does not make it blue!
2. I see no demand in the bible to be physically present (in the same room) for mass obligation or the sacrament of reconciliationThe Church says differently, now go and be obedient!

Where is there any evidence I have ever been disobedient?? If you are now admitting these are man made rules, not to be found in the bible or from Jesus, we have nothing more to debate.

1. Many church laws were made by man (don’t eat an hour before communion) not Jesus.This has been explained to you. Not with any logic or fact. There have been many attempts to “explain” but no one can explain how the rule that we can’t eat for an hour before communion or the requirement to receive communion once a year are anything but man made rules. The explanation that Jesus told us to obey Peter in all matters as if Jesus himself said it was never backed by scripture and Peter was in fact, a man.
2. We are not the old Jews and do not have to follow their laws or advice given to them… Ten Commandments still apply, haven’t you heard? Are you claiming we are the old Jews and need to follow their laws??? Commandments are a level above laws concerning diet and dealing with pharisees. Still Jesus put these commandments in a new context: ‘Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.’
3. Jesus came to earth to forgive sins, no matter who else does whatever.No quarrels with this statement.

Let’s hope you can finally keep your word.

 

[Azzy]

Would you mind giving us the Scriptural passages which:
A. State that all that Jesus said, taught, and did is contained in the Scriptures.
B. That the Scriptures are the pillar and foundation of the Truth.
C. That we are to go to Scripture, and Scripture alone, as our ‘authority’.
D. Gives the list of what is to be considered "authentic Scripture’. . .

Who ever claimed everything Jesus said has been recorded? Are you inferring Jesus DID say you must be in Church once a week and receive communion once a year.

This is not my point at all. In the absence of any evidence, biblical or otherwise, that the physical requirement to fulfill the obligation to go to church comes straight from Jesus, we must conclude this is a man made rule of the same order that you can’t eat an hour before receiving communion and you must receive communion once a year. The (absurd) claim was made that all Catholic laws come from God and the Jewish laws came from man. Do you agree with this statement?

The triple base of Catholic teaching has been mentioned here and I agree with this old tenet.

 

[buc_fan33]

I also like the idea of a compromise on whether mass is a sacrament or not. We did discuss alternate definitions before but I can’t get past the fact of First Communion preparing people to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist. IMO, there could easily be 8 sacraments, since the mass fulfills the basic requirements. It is a divine institution, instituted by Christ (in some sense anyway) to give grace. However, men have decided this is not the case and we have 7 sacraments. Somethng being a part of something does not make both things the same.

I’m not sure I understand what is so significant about receiving first Communion. In the east, this is routinely done as an infant. In the west, we have the discipline of waiting until the child has attained the age of reason.

Ultimately, I think the distinction goes back to what I said…we’re splitting hairs. Can the sacrament of the Eucharist be received outside of Mass? Certainly. But is the Mass often referred to as the Eucharist? Yes. Could one make his or her first communion outside of Mass? Again, clearly, the answer is yes. For instance, if someone were to convert on his deathbed, his first communion may well be viaticum.

But, that reality does not change two other realities, namely:

1. The Eucharist is confected at Mass, and only at Mass. It’s very simple…no Mass=no Eucharist.
2. The terms “Mass” and “Eucharist” are used almost interchangeably in sacramental theology. Yes, “Mass,” refers specifically to the unbloody representation of Christ’s sacrificial death, but “Eucharist” can refer to this same action generally. Specifically, it refers to the sacramental species that to our senses appear to be normal bread and wine, but through the eyes of faith, we know are the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.

Again, I’m really not sure how this relates to the original question.

 

[pnewton]

The point is not whether this is a law but that people are claiming 1. this is a law from God, not a man made law and 2. The mass is a sacrament, despite very clear posts refuting this claim. The need for First Communion being the most convincing evidence that it is only the Eucharist that is a sacrament.

You are mistaken. Check out the question in the first post. This thread is exactly about what is acceptable and what is not. As a Catholic, I see the idea of a law from God and a man-made law as a false dichotomy. The Catholic Church has authority from God to make canon law.

I see the argument about what is the sacrament as useless. It is sufficient that the Mass is where we receive the Blessed Sacrament, the source and summit of our faith. There is no Mass without the Eucharist and no Eucharist without the Mass.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Who ever claimed everything Jesus said has been recorded? Are you inferring Jesus DID say you must be in Church once a week and receive communion once a year.

This is not my point at all. In the absence of any evidence, biblical or otherwise, that the physical requirement to fulfill the obligation to go to church comes straight from Jesus, we must conclude this is a man made rule of the same order that you can’t eat an hour before receiving communion and you must receive communion once a year. The (absurd) claim was made that all Catholic laws come from God and the Jewish laws came from man. Do you agree with this statement?

The triple base of Catholic teaching has been mentioned here and I agree with this old tenet.

Hmmmm, I see you answer a question with a question and that you also offer a ‘conclusion’ based on an unproven assumption. Also I don’t recall (though this is a long thread) an ‘absurd claim that all Catholic laws come from God and Jewish laws’ from man’ that you were 'refuting. . .

It appears though to me that you are attempting to separate Christ and His Church by inferring or implying that only a ‘Biblical’ statement by Christ is "Christ alone’ and that other things, be they dogma, doctrine, or discipline, come ‘outside of Christ’ or are ‘man made’.

Discipline, though it comes from men in prayerful communion with the Spirit, can change (just as the midnight fast before the Eucharist became the 3 hour and then the 1 hour fast). . .but you note that the conception of a fast itself DOES NOT CHANGE. Just as St Paul himself noted the transition of the Jewish Sabbath to the Christian Sunday (a decision made by the Church due to prayerful communion with the Spirit, and the ‘leading’ of the Spirit to all Truth), as well as the change from RECLINING at table to reception either standing or kneeling, the fact was that there was always a ‘setting apart’ to honor God (in the Jewish covenant, Saturday; for Christians, Sunday) and always a humble ‘reception’ of the Eucharist, whatever the posture was, it always indicated REVERENCE and humility.

The fact is, you seem to confuse dogma, doctrine, and discipline as well as to confuse the role of Christ and His Church at times, even when you claim to ‘agree’ with teaching. . .or so it seems to me.

 

[Azzy]

I’m not sure I understand what is so significant about receiving first Communion. In the east, this is routinely done as an infant. In the west, we have the discipline of waiting until the child has attained the age of reason.

Ultimately, I think the distinction goes back to what I said…we’re splitting hairs. Can the sacrament of the Eucharist be received outside of Mass? Certainly. But is the Mass often referred to as the Eucharist? Yes. Could one make his or her first communion outside of Mass? Again, clearly, the answer is yes. For instance, if someone were to convert on his deathbed, his first communion may well be viaticum.

But, that reality does not change two other realities, namely:

1. The Eucharist is confected at Mass, and only at Mass. It’s very simple…no Mass=no Eucharist.
2. The terms “Mass” and “Eucharist” are used almost interchangeably in sacramental theology. Yes, “Mass,” refers specifically to the unbloody representation of Christ’s sacrificial death, but “Eucharist” can refer to this same action generally. Specifically, it refers to the sacramental species that to our senses appear to be normal bread and wine, but through the eyes of faith, we know are the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.

Again, I’m really not sure how this relates to the original question.

Good points, we clearly have gotten off on some tangents. The way we got to this one was somebody said you have to be present for all sacraments and I said but mass is not a sacrament.

 

[buc_fan33]

I think one of the biggest problems in this debate is that it is structured around “rules.” Personally, I HATE, DESPISE, ABHOR…whatever adjective you can think of, the term, “Holy Day of OBLIGATION.” This feeds right into our mentality that law, any law, is imposed on us from without, whether that imposition comes from God’s hand or man’s.

Rather, law actually is internal, welling up from within us to set us free. “I came that they might have life, and have it abundantly.” “For freedom, Christ has set us free.” The sad reality is that most of us do not have enough self-control to be free of the law. For example, if we were to abrogate speed limits, and just say, “Let people drive as fast as they want. People are adults. They can be responsible,” we would have problems…not from most people, but from a few. Most people would drive at a safe speed, even if slightly higher than current posted speed limits (say 75 in what is currently a 55 zone). But, a few would drive so insanely (say 120 in the same zone), that it necessitates a law be enacted.

The moral law is the same way. Those who love and long for the Holy Mass do not need a LAW saying, “Thou must attend Mass on Sunday.” Those who would just as soon roll over and go back to bed, however, do.

It’s true that there is nothing recorded in Scripture that says that Christ laid down the law, so to speak, that we MUST attend Mass on Sundays. (Although, I think you can make a case that Hebrews 10: 25 comes close to implying this.) In any event, St. John is clear (both at the end of his Gospel, and in his second and third letters) that the whole of our faith is NOT contained within the recorded pages of Sacred Scripture. So, we turn to the Church, to whom Christ gave authority on earth. And, it is clear from the earliest times of Christian history, see for instance, the First Apology of Justin Martyr, that Christians have gathered together to worship on Sunday, every Sunday, without exception.

And, this gathering together requires a communal aspect. There is nothing solitary in worship. The entire idea of the Church (ekklesia in Greek, which also means “congregation”) is that we worship as a community. It’s not just “Jesus and me.” It’s ALWAYS Jesus and WE.

Show me an example of a saint, and I’ll show you someone else who was holy in that person’s life. Augustine and Monica, Benedict and Scholastica, Francis and Clare, Theresa of Avila and John of the Cross, John Paul II and Mother Theresa, and that’s not even bringing up the countless religious communities who understand that holiness grows in community.

An internet Mass is nice for those who, through no fault of their own, cannot be physically present at Mass, with the community. But, it in no way substitutes for not having the community be present. I’ll give you a real life example. I am a priest, and I love being a priest. My parish is my family. However, that does not, and cannot, substitute for my real family. I was fortunate to be able to see some members of my family at Christmas this year. However, many live hundreds of miles away. When they got together at my grandparents’ house, I could not attend due to my parish responsibilities. I was able to speak with them via telephone and Face Time, but I will tell you with absolute certainty, that that is not the same as being able to see them face to face, to shake my uncle’s hand, to hug my cousins, to play with my nieces and nephews. It’s the same with Mass. And, regardless of however technology develops, it can never, ever, replace authentic human relationship.

 

[Azzy]

You are mistaken. Check out the question in the first post. This thread is exactly about what is acceptable and what is not. As a Catholic, I see the idea of a law from God and a man-made law as a false dichotomy. The Catholic Church has authority from God to make canon law.

I see the argument about what is the sacrament as useless. It is sufficient that the Mass is where we receive the Blessed Sacrament, the source and summit of our faith. There is no Mass without the Eucharist and no Eucharist without the Mass.

??I think I know what the 1st question was, I am the one who wrote it. We went off on a tangent that did have to do with mass as a sacrament. People who jump into the middle of any internet thread often end up confused.

We hold sacraments on a higher level than other parts of the church, like the blessing of throats on St Blaze’s feast day, precisely because they are instituted by Christ Himself.
I am a fan of the throat blessing and get it every chance I can but it is not the same as the 7 sacraments. You are entitled to your opinion, to me all church laws are not made equal.

The insistence that all man made laws are basically the same as those instituted by Christ has led to the widespread misconception that we think the pope is always perfect and infallible.