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

[pickguard1]

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.

I think you might be onto something here. I daresay most Roman Catholics are extremely uncomfortable with the idea of married priests in general, some probably to the point that seeing a married Roman Catholic priest makes them question the validity of his ordination. The fact is that the requirement of celibacy for the priesthood is a disciplinary matter and can be dispensed by the Pope. This is done (with more frequency as more and more clergy from Protestant sects enter the Church) most often, I think for Anglican priests. I personally know one former Episopalian priest in my diocese who converted, along with his wife and six children, and was ordained in the Catholic Church. He is a very devout priest and uses his Protestant background often in his homilies to give perspective to how the other side views it, and to reinforce how the other side so often misses the mark. I’m sure there were some who probably felt a bit scandalized at first upon hearing he is married - perhaps this is what really happened in the OP’s friends case…

 

[pickguard1]

As for the links you posted, I will try and read them so I can comment.

I agree that you don’t deserve the personal attacks - those doing so should refrain from it. This should be a place where we can discuss and learn, not put down and belittle. We are all sinners, lest we forget.

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?

Actually, the Ordinary Form was voted on b y the *Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgiain * “Council for Implementing the Constitution on the Liturgy” October of 1967, according to Wikipedia (I know, I know - wikipedia is not the best resource )

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???

I believe the new translations are a modification of the existing Ordinary Form and are not intended to create a third Rite.

 

[daeve]

They are abuses and were condemned practices before 1969. The indult for communion in the hand came from disobedience. The practice was forbidden and disobedient Bishops and priests were doing it anyway, without Vatican permission. The Vatican eventually relented and gave the indult instead of disciplining the offenders.

Which means that today those things are not abuses, but acceptable to the Vatican. When the Pope says any of those things are an abuse, you’ll have a point.

 

[pickguard1]

OK Falcogreg, I read the links you posted. I think that John (the hot/apologist/theologian) does an excellent job of explaining the pertinent issues surrounding VII’s language. Of course, as far as I understand it, the Ordinary Form of Mass was formulated outised of Vatican II, so the language of VII it isn’t directly related to your original post. But there is no doubt in my mind that there are serious problems with some of the language in VII, and its subsequent implementation/interpretation/misinterpretation. Does any devout Catholic NOT think there are problems with certain parts of its language? I would hope not. That doesn’t mean that the Ordinary Form is invalid. Possibly imprudent, yes. (but that is a matter of private judgement). Poorly implemented and regualted - absolutely.

Regarding your original post, I think RyanML has it right, that if a particular Mass is so disturbing in its content/abuses as to render it an occasion of sin, it is legitimate to avoid it. However, one cannot a priori judge all Ordinary Form masses as being an occasion of sin. I am definitely a traditionalist, and go to an FSSP Mass whenerver I can (almost every Sunday) - but I have been (recently actually) to an Ordinary Form that was very reverent, very devout and left no doubt in my mind as to its validity, and complete licity regarding following the rubrics of the GIRM. It was said with parts in Latin (Gloria, Canon, and Consecration - as well as some of the lower prayers/responses (Dominus vobiscum/Et cum spiritu tuo, etc.) Communion was kneeling on the tongue.) My point is, that one can’t before the fact rule out the entire rite. I think you know this, as you have stated in previous posts.

I have faith that, as the host on the links you posted stated, “God is still in charge of His Church,” and that He will correct any errors according to His Will.

 

[stevusmagnus]

But you are not obligated to attend a Latin Church Mass, the obligation resides with your Church and if you are on vacation where there is no Byzantine Church of which ever Byzantine Church you belong to then there is no obligation but I would speak with your pastor or spiritual father before going and do as they say.

Amazing. So if you are an Eastern Rite Catholic and there is no Eastern Rite Mass on vacation your Sunday obligation is expunged? What Canon is that?

But yet you would deny this same expunging of obligation under Canon Law where a Traditional Roman Rite Catholic is, in conscience, morally unable to attend an NO Mass?

 

[stevusmagnus]

Which means that today those things are not abuses, but acceptable to the Vatican. When the Pope says any of those things are an abuse, you’ll have a point.

So “abuse” to you is relative? The morality of certain liturgical actions can change over time? A sacrilege today can be an acceptable incentive to piety tomorrow?

 

[stevusmagnus]

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.

Ignore it, It is a tactic to focus on you and make you the issue and not the substance. Keep focusing on substance.

What are you stating you were wrong in doing? I think you acted in good conscience and in the best interest of yourself and your family.

 

[stevusmagnus]

You would go to the Roman Catholic NO Mass, because the Orthodox Liturgy does not fulfill your Sunday obligation. And if the music of the guitar offends you, just suck it up and offer it up for someone who needs it. And try to remember that the guitarist loves Jesus as much as you do, and is doing his best for Him, and God is pleased with his offering if he is sincere. That should get you out of there without a total breakdown.

Canon Law clearly states an Orthodox Mass CAN fulfill one’s Sunday obligation if genuine spiritual advantage is to be gained and the error of indifferentism is avoided. See my first post. I completely disagree with this, but Canon Law does state it. Canon Law is very liberal in this regard. Which is why it is quite amazing that some would make it so strict.

So if genuine spiritual advantage can be gained by going to a schismatic Mass rather than an NO and we know there is no obligation to go to an Orthodox Mass, I’d say the Sunday obligation is dispensed with. The canon also states “moral impossibility” of attending a Catholic Mass. For many Traditional Catholics attending the NO Mass is a moral impossibility and therefore if there is no TLM available the Sunday obligation for Mass is dispensed with under Canon Law, although they still must make the day holy through personal and family prayer.

 

[stevusmagnus]

If someone uses the moniker “NO Mass” they are simply trying to be offensive.

This statement is ridiculous and pretends to divine the intent of souls who use the term.

The term is often used to distinguish the New Rite from the Old and is simply a clear way to distinguish the two. It has been used commonly among Catholics for over 40+ years now. The term itself is not pejorative. It depends on how one uses it in context. This entire line of discussion is a red herring and detracts from the real issues the OP wanted discussed.

 

[OhMalley]

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

What you learned growing up wasn’t necessarily accurate. And the “newness” of the OF/EF labels is a non-issue.

“Novus Ordo” and most particularly “NO” are used as offensive slurs today. There really is no way around that.

The Orthodox do the same thing with Eastern Catholics today. They continue to use the term “uniate” even though it has been made vey clear to all for the past couple of decades that it is an offensive term. Like you they won’t say “ok, I’ll make a note of that.” Instead they argues that it once was a common and in some cases even preferred label within Catholicism. In other words they continue to use the slur not because they do not know but because they lack the grace to change – to be “nice” in this instance. They display the same sort of false righteous indignation of those that use “Novus Ordo/NO” and their arguments are just as invalid.

 

[OhMalley]

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.

“NO Mass” is an intrinsically negative statement. That’s clear to anyone who knows what it means and who is honest with themselves.

Continue use of it by people who should know better (Catholics) is the use of a bigoted slur.

 

[RyanML]

“NO Mass” is an intrinsically negative statement. That’s clear to anyone who knows what it means and who is honest with themselves.

Continue use of it by people who should know better (Catholics) is the use of a bigoted slur.

St. Paul tells us that as much as we can, for our part, we should keep the peace. Being reminded of that perhaps, for the majority of cases, “Pauline Rite” or “Ordinary Form” would be more appropriate. But “NO Mass” would aptly describe some “celebrations” I’ve seen.

 

[pickguard1]

What you learned growing up wasn’t necessarily accurate. And the “newness” of the OF/EF labels is a non-issue.

Who is making an issue of the “newness” of the OF versus the EF? It IS new, relatively speaking, and that won’t ever change.

“Novus Ordo” and most particularly “NO” are used as offensive slurs today. There really is no way around that.

You state this as if it is a universal phenomenon, when it is obviously not.

The Orthodox do the same thing with Eastern Catholics today. They continue to use the term “uniate” even though it has been made vey clear to all for the past couple of decades that it is an offensive term. ** Like you they won’t say “ok, I’ll make a note of that.” ** Instead they argues that it once was a common and in some cases even preferred label within Catholicism. In other words they continue to use the slur not because they do not know but because they lack the grace to change – to be “nice” in this instance. They display the same sort of false righteous indignation of those that use “Novus Ordo/NO” and their arguments are just as invalid.

At what point did you begin to read my mind and determine that I will persist in using a phrase that you apparently find so offensive? I’m perfectly happy using OF or Pauline Mass. But I also am not offended by the phrase Novus Ordo, just like I’m not offended by someone calling me a “cracker” (which, the last time I checked, I am most definitely not. )

 

[pickguard1]

St. Paul tells us that as much as we can, for our part, we should keep the peace. Being reminded of that perhaps, for the majority of cases, “Pauline Rite” or “Ordinary Form” would be more appropriate. But “NO Mass” would aptly describe some “celebrations” I’ve seen.

Yes, he did say to quit quarreling over words - (of course there are legitimate quarrels over words - this one I think, doesn’t qualify though.)

 

[pickguard1]

Yes, he did say to quit quarreling over words - (of course there are legitimate quarrels over words - this one I think, doesn’t qualify though.)

Besides being COMPETELY off topic.

 

[pnewton]

But “NO Mass” would aptly describe some “celebrations” I’ve seen.

Is the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist based on our senses? If we are offended by the music, the dress or whatever our per abuse is then Jesus will not be present? With all the criticism I have seen of from traditionalist about the lack of belief in the Real Presence of Christ, I see an irony in the fact that one would refuse to be with the Lord because of extraneous external issues.

 

[RyanML]

Is the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist based on our senses? If we are offended by the music, the dress or whatever our per abuse is then Jesus will not be present? With all the criticism I have seen of from traditionalist about the lack of belief in the Real Presence of Christ, I see an irony in the fact that one would refuse to be with the Lord because of extraneous external issues.

I only meant that such celebrations do not reflect the Catholic faith. Lex orandi, lex credendi. The fact that our Lord is present at these Masses makes it all the worse. If I had no other choice then to attend a Mass with horrible music and people dressed like they were going to the beach, then I would offer it up and deal with it. Ignoring abuses is not as easy as turning off a light switch. I can be there at Mass, acting the best way I know how and then right in front of me something happens that makes me angry and disturbs my peace. I’ve been to plenty of Masses where this goes on for the entire hour. A Catholic should not have to deal with that. I shouldn’t have to offer it up, they should have to change to reflect the mind and faith of the Church.

 

[pickguard1]

I agree with both your Pnewton’s and RyanML’s last posts.

 

[OhMalley]

St. Paul tells us that as much as we can, for our part, we should keep the peace. Being reminded of that perhaps, for the majority of cases, “Pauline Rite” or “Ordinary Form” would be more appropriate. But “NO Mass” would aptly describe some “celebrations” I’ve seen.

The quality (a bad one) that made you feel good/cute/smart/whatever about making that comment is the very basis for the bigoted descriptions some use for the OF.

 

[OhMalley]

I only meant that such celebrations do not reflect the Catholic faith. Lex orandi, lex credendi. The fact that our Lord is present at these Masses makes it all the worse. If I had no other choice then to attend a Mass with horrible music and people dressed like they were going to the beach, then I would offer it up and deal with it. Ignoring abuses is not as easy as turning off a light switch. I can be there at Mass, acting the best way I know how and then right in front of me something happens that makes me angry and disturbs my peace. I’ve been to plenty of Masses where this goes on for the entire hour. A Catholic should not have to deal with that. I shouldn’t have to offer it up, they should have to change to reflect the mind and faith of the Church.

Just how does it reflect on the Catholic faith to take shots at the Ordinary Form of the Mass by using the bigoted slur “NO Mass?”

How about collectively denigrating the Ordinary Form of the Mass at the OP did? Placing his personal opinion ahead of the Church?

It’s tough having rational discussions on these subjects because when things begin to tighten up in the least the conversation on one end shifts to ridiculous hyperbole.

Why not ponder for a moment just how negative the impact much (not all but much) of “traditionalism” (as depicted here) is on the Church?