If no TLM, is it sinning to not attend NO mass?

[falcogreg]

Wow, didn’t mean to stir up a hornets nest here! I was just trying to get some sincere, honest (name removed by moderator)ut from a group of people I felt were more knowledgeable on the subject than myself. Some of you are making rash assumptions that have no support. First off, Easter Joy, I did not ask my priest if what I had done was wrong. Matter of fact, we haven’t spoken about it yet. He just happened to bring it up in his homily last week. As for OhMalley and others, I suggest you read the following links. I will be interested to hear your (name removed by moderator)ut after:

       [scripturecatholic.xanga.com/703978535/3-vatican-ii-8211-how-authoritative-is-it/](http://scripturecatholic.xanga.com/703978535/3-vatican-ii-8211-how-authoritative-is-it/)

       [scripturecatholic.xanga.com/703979176/11-did-the-second-vatican-council-teach-error/](http://scripturecatholic.xanga.com/703979176/11-did-the-second-vatican-council-teach-error/)

      [scripturecatholic.xanga.com/703979735/15-a-sedevacantists-confusion-about-the-new-mass-vatican-ii-and-church-authority/](http://scripturecatholic.xanga.com/703979735/15-a-sedevacantists-confusion-about-the-new-mass-vatican-ii-and-church-authority/)

Pay particular attention to the last link.

I have already stated that I have wronged and must confess it. You seem to miss the point that I grew up (after I turned 10 or so) with the OF mass and felt something was wrong. I still do. You insist the church cannot make errors with matters that were not of an infallible nature. I don’t know if I can agree with that. I am not holier than the pope. I am stating that these issues (ie, the OF form of the mass) is not and has not been given infallible status. Nonetheless, I still struggle with this issue constantly. Up until VII, this wouldn’t have even been an issue. Now, all they’ve done is lead to much confusion and a depletion of the ranks.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think B16 is trying hard to slowly re-integrate the traditional aspects of the mass. Even the new mass they are proposing is a more direct translation of the latin mass. If the OF mass is “so good”, why in the world are they trying to introduce a new liturgy??? Once again, more confusion; and due to this confusion, we catholics are sitting here arguing because we are no longer “universal”. A house divided amongst itself will fall. Read up on Bishop De Castro Mayer and the Campos diocese. Learn what his successor Bishop Rifan is doing currently. The church needs to deal with these issues and soon or we will continue to splinter. I am NOT advocating this. I am hoping the current Pope will resolve some of the madness that currently exists. I am trying to do what is right in my heart and am constantly at odds in trying to determine what is right. I am not trying to rationalize. I am trying to develop a deeper understanding and relationship with God so that I may follow His will. Can I make mistakes? Yup. However, I do not warrant these personal attacks. I meant for this to be an intellgent discussion so I can learn more. Instead, assumptions are made and reckless assaults are made. I hope we can continue this discussion but leave the personal attacks out please.

Stevusmagnus, RyanML and twf, thanks for your help and sincere replies.

Teresa Ann, I’ll try to start another thread soon to answer your questions.

Peace, Greg

 

[Sr_Sally]

But how often are these options abused? The Church still prefers male servers because traditionally the position of altar server was to introduce young men to the priesthood. A perfect example would the be the Pope’s liturgies. Female servers are never used. If a priest can have all male servers than that would be best. Extraordinary ministers of Communion are exactly that, extraordinary. Yet, many parishes use them for daily Masses with 20 people in attendance. This is technically an abuse. And obviously our Holy Father prefers the practice of receiving communion on the tongue as he will not allow those who receive from him to receive in the hand. Also, a liturgist close to the Holy Father just gave an interview stating that communion in the hand has led to a lack of reverence towards our Eucharistic Lord. In fact we know that communion in the hand came about out of disobedience. Despite appeals from Rome, bishops continued to allow the faithful to receive in the hand and eventually Rome caved and allowed it as an option.

The Mass the OP is discussing was a Sunday Mass not daily and not being celebrated by the Pope (or a Presbrytrian! ). When at home the OP goes to a very correct EF Mass. The question this time is not about “technical” abuses at a daily Mass with limited attendence, but about our morally-binding obligation to attend Mass every Sunday and Holy Day unless physically unable to do so.

I stand by my original post. The OP knew he was supposed to be at Mass, he had the ability to be there, he simply chose not to. That is a mortal sin.

 

[Chatter163]

Pope Paul VI 1976

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1976/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19760524_concistoro_lt.html

Care to comment, OhMalley?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Care to comment, OhMalley?

I know that I am OhMalley but I will comment.

If you read that document or the part that was posted it says Novus Ordo, not NO Mass. It does not even say Novus Ordo Mass. The correct usage would be Novus Ordo Missae. It is not proper to use who Latin Words then throw in an English word, it is even more improper to abbreviatethe Latin words and then use an English word. So the correct usage should be NOM and TLM, because if one is designated by abbreviated to three letters, TLM, then so should the other, NOM. I think many of those who dislike the Ordinary Form get a kick out of saying NO Mass as many of them, especially the one who supplied the document, seem to think that the Ordianry Form of the Mass is a moral evil.

Also note the date of the document posted, 1976. I would say that this has been superceeded by the current pope and his usage of Ordinary Form.

Also while this has proven the use of Novus Ordo by the Church can someone supply a Church document using TLM or Tridentine Latin Mass?

 

[catholicguy918]

I share your sentiments of loving the TLM. However, the NO is completely valid, and is now the ordinary form of the Mass. you may not like it, but as Catholics we must embrace it’s validity. One cannot choose not to attend Mass because of it’s form.

If one has the right to not attend mass because it’s too “liberal” then it opens a can of worms because others can say they are excused from attending the pre 1662 liturgy because they dnt understand it.

 

[pnewton]

This is such a simple question to have any controvery at all. Choosing not to attend Mass on Sunday is a grave sin. Period. Why is it that any traditional minded Catholic would try to find an excuse for this basic precept of the Church that is one of our most solid traditions? If you think there is some weird canon law loop hole, it would be better to ask why you seek to find such a thing. Do you not have any desire to be with the Lord and receive him? Is the form more important than the Sacrament?

 

[OhMalley]

I know that I am OhMalley but I will comment.

If you read that document or the part that was posted it says Novus Ordo, not NO Mass. It does not even say Novus Ordo Mass. The correct usage would be Novus Ordo Missae. It is not proper to use who Latin Words then throw in an English word, it is even more improper to abbreviatethe Latin words and then use an English word. So the correct usage should be NOM and TLM, because if one is designated by abbreviated to three letters, TLM, then so should the other, NOM. I think many of those who dislike the Ordinary Form get a kick out of saying NO Mass as many of them, especially the one who supplied the document, seem to think that the Ordianry Form of the Mass is a moral evil.

Also note the date of the document posted, 1976. I would say that this has been superceeded by the current pope and his usage of Ordinary Form.

Also while this has proven the use of Novus Ordo by the Church can someone supply a Church document using TLM or Tridentine Latin Mass?

If someone uses the moniker “NO Mass” they are simply trying to be offensive. That is so very obvious that I’m offended by those who try to tap dance around the issue.

The name of the Mass is the “Mass of Pope Paul IV” It’s been shortened to the “Pauline Mass.” Pope Benedict refers to it in writing as the Ordinary Form of the Mass. Yet some still get some sorta weird thrill out of calling it the “Novus Ordo” Mass as a way to underscore it’s age.

It doesn’t really bother me – I just presume said people are abjectly ignorant – that they do not know better.

These same people get upset when the EF Mass is referred to as the “Extraordinary Mass.” They get beet red in the face explaining that’s not its name and I just have to laugh – often right in their face although I’m not the one using the label “Extraordinary Mass.”

 

[OhMalley]

This is such a simple question to have any controvery at all. Choosing not to attend Mass on Sunday is a grave sin. Period. Why is it that any traditional minded Catholic would try to find an excuse for this basic precept of the Church that is one of our most solid traditions? If you think there is some weird canon law loop hole, it would be better to ask why you seek to find such a thing. Do you not have any desire to be with the Lord and receive him? Is the form more important than the Sacrament?

It’s a very sad issue. Someone else nailed it though. People don’t like something in the Church, they refuse to be obedient so they seach for a loophole to justify their dissident behavior. Sadly it’s often seems to be those who spend time judging the OF Mass or others who perpetuate this process.

 

[OhMalley]

…I grew up (after I turned 10 or so) with the OF mass and felt something was wrong. I still do…

So get some spritual direction or catechesis to help you see the error of your concerns. The path you are on is not a healthy one.

I never said the OF Mass was promulgated from the chair of Peter. That’s absurd. What I will say is that my trust is in the Magisterium of the Church and not in myself or people like you.

As far as the rest of the hyperbole you offer – stop! Don’t go off the rails. Don’t obfuscate the problems at hand. Stay focused on the questions you asked and strive to learn/understand the grave problems with your actions.

 

[OhMalley]

The Mass the OP is discussing was a Sunday Mass not daily and not being celebrated by the Pope (or a Presbrytrian! ). When at home the OP goes to a very correct EF Mass. The question this time is not about “technical” abuses at a daily Mass with limited attendence, but about our morally-binding obligation to attend Mass every Sunday and Holy Day unless physically unable to do so.

I stand by my original post. The OP knew he was supposed to be at Mass, he had the ability to be there, he simply chose not to. That is a mortal sin.

Quite true. And it’s chilling.

I bet he would recognize the truth if things were flipped. If he was a non-traditional Catholic and decided to skip SUnday Mass because the only one available was the EF Mass…

 

[OhMalley]

Recently, my family and I went on vacation. Prior to leaving, I checked the internet to see if there were any TLM’s in the area. Unfortunately, there were none. So, when Sunday morning rolled around, my wife and I discussed the issue and decided not to go. The reasons were several fold. First, we are staunch traditionalists and just cannot embrace the NO mass. Secondly, we try to limit our children’s exposure to this (although my son attends catholic HS and goes to the NO mass during the school year - you should hear what he has to say but that is a subject for another thread). Lastly, the friend we were visiting told us of an incident that happened recently. The area they are in has 26 churches staffed by only 14 priests. To say this is a juggling act is an understatement. One week the priest in charge of scheduling could not find a priest for this local church. So, what did he do? He contacted a Presbyterian minister and asked him to fill in, which he did. If you arrived late and did not hear the announcement and, as my friend put it, you should have seen the shock on some peoples’ faces when he mentioned he was married in his sermon. Sometimes I just shake my head in disbelief!!! And I wont’ even go into the issues of consecration, validity of the mass and such.

Now, this past week, my local priest who celebrates the TLM (and unfortunately the NO as well) mentioned that we must attend mass when we are away on vacation, no matter whether it is a TLM, a NO, Marion rite, orthodox rite, etc. I must admit I did not think to check into some of the other rites. Anyway, since I am trying to formulate my thoughts for my next confession, I am wondering if we have committed a sin and whether it is mortal or venial? No doubt my local priest and I will have some interesting dialog on this subject. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter. IYO, did we sin by not attending the NO mass? What other options could/should we have considered?

Thanks for your thoughts! Greg

I’d bet dollars to dimes that you can’t prove this…

No way a Presbyterian minister attempted to celebrate the Mass in that context in the USA. None.

 

[paperwight]

I’d bet dollars to dimes that you can’t prove this…

No way a Presbyterian minister attempted to celebrate the Mass in that context in the USA. None.

The only way I can accept this happened is to imagine a Communion Service i.e. with previously validly-consecrated Hosts, and maybe the Presbyterian minister was asked in to preach.

But even that seems unlikely.

I can’t imagine the minister even agreeing to ‘celebrate Mass’, if it was as the poster claimed.

I can’t help thinking that if it had happened in our church, most of the congregation would have walked out - or rather, slipped out quietly, I don’t mean stomped out.

The thing is, though, unless the poster collected witness statements, how is it to be proved one way or the other? Another urban legend is born, I fear.

 

[Chatter163]

If someone uses the moniker “NO Mass” they are simply trying to be offensive. That is so very obvious that I’m offended by those who try to tap dance around the issue.

Get over your smug self, making broad generalizations and asserting absolutes. While I generally use OF and EF terms myself, many traditionalists who have no dog in the old vs. new Mass fight use the NO term, simply because, along with “new Mass,” it is simply a result of habit over forty years. The terms Pauline Mass and Mass of Paul VI are either unfamiliar or a mouthful to them.

I do not deny that many traddies use the term disparagingly, but PLENTY of others, who are not in any way right wing radicals, use it without any such thought, simply because until B16’s advent of the OF term two years ago, they were simply used to the short term NO. So get over the blanket assertions.

 

[pnewton]

Get over your smug self, making broad generalizations and asserting absolutes. While I generally use OF and EF terms myself, many traditionalists who have no dog in the old vs. new Mass fight use the NO term, simply because, along with “new Mass,” it is simply a result of habit over forty years.

And after forty years it is no longer new. I do not think all use the term deliberatly as an insult, but enough do to give the term a very negative connotation. Words really do have meaning and nuance. I recognize that the internet is the world’s worst place to expect linguistic accuracy as every thing is shortened to acronyms. However, there is a price of misunderstanding to be paid. When the acronym is also used as a negative adjective, there is NO way this is NOt going to result in misunderstanding and offense. The term NO Mass is the slickest propadanda tool I have ever seen in this forum. Intentional or not, it implants a picture in the unconscious mind of no Mass.

 

[pickguard1]

NEITHER are “liturgical abuses.”

Technically they are, in the Roman Rite.

 

[pickguard1]

Technically they are, in the Roman Rite.

albeit, as I said before, minor ones in relation to a Presbyterian purporting to offer a Catholic Mass.

 

[RyanML]

This is such a simple question to have any controvery at all. Choosing not to attend Mass on Sunday is a grave sin. Period. Why is it that any traditional minded Catholic would try to find an excuse for this basic precept of the Church that is one of our most solid traditions? If you think there is some weird canon law loop hole, it would be better to ask why you seek to find such a thing. Do you not have any desire to be with the Lord and receive him? Is the form more important than the Sacrament?

It is a very simple question with, for the most part, a very simple answer. But as I pointed out in an earlier thread, the Church’s highest law is the good and salvation of souls. If a person’s only option for attending Mass was a celebration full of all kinds of abuses to the point that it endangered their spiritual welfare, then I believe the higher law supercedes the lesser law. Granted this would be an extremely rare case and I do not believe the OP can make it for his situation, but I only mean to say that it could be possible that attendance at a NOM could be sinful.

 

[pickguard1]

Are you serious or are you just trying to be offensive?

I’m serious, no intent to offend at all.

The Church does not use the label “Novus Ordo” nor has it ever used “NO.” Check the current Roman Missal for the name of the Mass. It’s not the “Novus Ordo.”

I grew up learning that the term came from the fact that it was Paul VI’s “Novus Ordo Missae” or, “New Rite of the Mass.” Of course, I have also used “the Mass of Paul VI”, or “Pauline Mass,”, but have used them interchangeably with Novus Ordo. I have never been offended by this. I personally thought that using the abbreviation “NO” was as natural as any of the other abbreviations, such as RCIA, TLM, SSPX, FSSP, EO, EMHC, which are so frequent in these threads. I had no idea that anyone took that abbreviation as anything but. I’m sorry that some have taken it to mean someone is referring to the Ordinary form as not being a Mass, or that some may have even used it with this intent. This has never been my intent.

It’s the Mass of Pope Paul IV; the Pauline Mass; or as Pope Benedict XVI calls it “the Ordinary Form of the Mass.” If you want to save keystrokes the “OF Mass” or even just the “OF.”

Of course, you know that this terminology is very new.

To ignore the terminology used by the Pope so they can quietly gig the OF is monumentally bad-form. Not very Catholic either.

Again, not my intention, ever - and shame on those who do have this intent.

I’m sure most on these forums are aware of what I just typed. Those that continue to use “Novus Ordo” and especially the bigoted slur “NO Mass” are just trying to denigrate what they personally do not like and/or understand.

Again, I still do not see using the term Novus Ordo as being denigrating - and I truly mean no offense if I use the term.

I’m confident they’ll face God at some point on this matter.

Undoubtedly, we ALL will face God at some point, for innumerable matters.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Just to address this thing going around in this thread about the supposed Mass celebrated by a Presbyterian minister.

All we have is that Greg was told this by someone else, here is what he said in the original post.

Lastly, the friend we were visiting told us of an incident that happened recently. The area they are in has 26 churches staffed by only 14 priests. To say this is a juggling act is an understatement. One week the priest in charge of scheduling could not find a priest for this local church. So, what did he do? He contacted a Presbyterian minister and asked him to fill in, which he did. If you arrived late and did not hear the announcement and, as my friend put it, you should have seen the shock on some peoples’ faces when he mentioned he was married in his sermon. Sometimes I just shake my head in disbelief!!! And I wont’ even go into the issues of consecration, validity of the mass and such.

This is called hearsay and is not admissible in a court of law, so should we accept it here. Even if it did happen I highly doubt that the minister attempted to celebrate a Mass. Could it be that this was a former Presbyterian minister that converted and was ordained a priest, this has happened and he could be married and still be a valid Catholic priest.

 

[falcogreg]

First of all, I am NOT using the NO abbreviation in a negative manner. Didn’t know it was considered offensive. In my recent posts, I have used OF instead.

Secondly, regarding the Presbyterian minister saying mass, I am relaying what my friend who lives in MI told me. I have no reason to believe he made it up. I’m sorry if you don’t want to believe this can happen but it does. Until I have reason otherwise, I believe him. BTW, he is not a traditionalist so I’ll just leave it at that.

I can see none of you read the links I provided since there are no comments. Too bad. Perhaps you would have learned something, just as I am trying to do.

You say to cut the hyperbole, but I am not looking for a loophole. If that were the case, I would try to look for loopholes all the time. In these times, it’s easy to do. I attend mass regularly including holy days. I go to confession every 3 - 4 weeks so I am not trying to find an easy way out. On the contrary, I am trying to deal with some personally difficult issues. Although some of you could have been more polite, I concede your point that I was wrong in this instance and have stated so. Yet, you keep attacking me in this regard even though I have conceded. I’m not sure how I will deal with this going forward but I will address it somehow.

I read recently that the US Bishops approved the new liturgy by a narrow margin. The Vatican is still waiting to hear from other areas of the world before they decide. Although, I have feeling it will be approved. Why is this liturgy being voted on yet the OF mass was not when it was being considered? Why were we lied to when we were told the TLM mass is forbidden and the OF mass was the only valid mass when the changes came? Yes, I said lied. You can dress it up as much as t you like but that IS how it was presented. Why should they vote now? Why doesn’t B16 just implement the new liturgy? Is it now a popularity contest?

When/if the new liturgy is approved, will there now be 3 acceptable from of masses or will the OF be abrogated and replaced by the new? More confusion!!! Yet you don’t see a problem with any of this???

Once again,

Peace, Greg