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

[EasterJoy]

How in the world can we assume that these were EM’s taking Communion to the sick? I know someone who takes Communion to the sick and it is all planned out. It certainly doesn’t involve going up to receive and slipping the Host into your pocket or purse! That is sacrilegious to say the least.

Simply this: it was the most charitable assumption I could think of, and, considering that the priest sought them out after everyone else had received, not that unlikely. Even the OP, who saw the incident, thought that the most likely explanation. And yes, a parishioner with a chronically ailing spouse might easily leave Sunday Mass each week with the Holy Eucharist in his or her pocket. If it is in a suitable pyx and if the person observes suitable protocols, it is allowed and widely done, even in very traditional parishes. There simply are not enough priests and deacons to meet this need.

By the way, let that be of note: If you borrow a pyx from the parish, BRING IT BACK RIGHT AWAY! If you don’t, reverence requires that those with someone to bring them Holy Communion will still have to do without, for want of a pyx. You wouldn’t want that.

A pyx with a capacity of 6-9 hosts can be purchased for under $15. There is no reason whatsoever for any parish to go without. But if the parish keeps buying pyx after pyx and still can’t keep them in the drawer, it could still happen that they could run out and have no opportunity to buy more in time to meet the immediate need.

 

[stevusmagnus]

Where were the charitable assumptions that falco was being sincere in his story?

 

[EasterJoy]

Where were the charitable assumptions that falco was being sincere in his story?

I don’t believe I expressed doubt that he was telling the truth, only that he was using what he knew to rationalize an inappropriate choice.

I thought that extrapolating from isolated incidents he personally knew of to presume invalidity for all Masses in the entire vicariate was going too far. On that account, I thought he still had an obligation to attend Mass somewhere in the area–or at least to try one!–and in no way would I consider telling him otherwise to be a charitable act…since he asked. I’m not his pastor. It’s not my business to correct him when he doesn’t ask for correction.

Witnessing a Mass that is not reverent is a true penance, but it does not justify a rationalization that it is not still an obligation, when that is the only sort of Mass you have access to.

Excepting that one has duties to one’s home parish that one doesn’t have to the same degree elsewhere, what applies on vacation applies at home, and vice versa. Once we decide that some isolated very bad Masses poison an entire vicariate, that comes to close to saying that there are entire dioceses in which nobody has had an obligation to attend Mass for decades at a time. That is going too far.

 

[Layman]

Funny that we are enjoined to “offer up” or “block out” abuses or novelties tacked-on to the O.F. I would have thought you normally did that for trials occuring outside the Mass, rather than caused by it, during it.

Simple solution:

• Sack the EMHCs and lay lectors,
• Let the priest face the altar and tabernacle,
• Restore Gregorian chant, and, after a period of catechesis of the laity, Latin,
• Kneel to receive COTT.

… then the number of abuses and annoyances will be much less.

We can then concentrate on trying to get to Heaven, rather than to just a reverent Mass.

Just had a thought: How do lay lectors, the priest versus-populum, folksy hymns, CITH and EMHCs improve or benefit the Mass, anyway?

 

[OhMalley]

Funny that we are enjoined to “offer up” or “block out” abuses or novelties tacked-on to the O.F. I would have thought you normally did that for trials occuring outside the Mass, rather than caused by it, during it.

Simple solution:

• Sack the EMHCs and lay lectors,
• Let the priest face the altar and tabernacle,
• Restore Gregorian chant, and, after a period of catechesis of the laity, Latin,
• Kneel to receive COTT.

… then the number of abuses and annoyances will be much less.

We can then concentrate on trying to get to Heaven, rather than to just a reverent Mass.

Just had a thought: How do lay lectors, the priest versus-populum, folksy hymns, CITH and EMHCs improve or benefit the Mass, anyway?

So says your opinion… Too bad things aren’t that easy…

 

[OhMalley]

First off, you must never attend a non-Catholic mass, this includes Orthodox, Presbyterian, anything.

If TLM is not available by indult, you could look for a FSSP or SSPX mass to help you out. The SSPV and CMRI are Sedevacanists and their masses should not be attended.

Alternatively you could attend an Eastern Catholic mass.

However if you’ve exhausted all these options, you have to attend the OF of mass.

Laus Deo

Neither the Orthodox nor Eastern Catholics have “mass.” The have the Divine Liturgy, Holy Qurbonoor other sacrificial liturgies.

The SSPX are in imperfect communion with the Catholic Church. I would NEVER recommend any Catholic attend their services.

 

[OhMalley]

There’s really no point to even trying to have a discussion. For so many Catholics it’s like watching the collapse of a house built on sand and insisting that its a firm foundation. It doesn’t matter how negative the effects of certain novelties, they must be good simply because they are allowed.

You miss the point entirely. Somehow you believe you are the arbiter of what is a “novelty” and you’re not. The Church is. When your personal opinion does not match what the Church directs YOU are necessarily in error when you infer or directly claim the Church is in error.

 

[Layman]

So says your opinion… Too bad things aren’t that easy…

Sure they are.

No EMHCs and CITH means less chance for funny business with the Host.
The priest ad-orientem means the pressure is off him to ‘perform’, and we can’t see his face a lot of the time, also less distracting.
Gregorian chant means we can be spared folk guitars and peculiar music choices (in both senses of that word).
No lay lectors means we can be spared thinking about our neighbours up there, rather than the epistle and what it means.

And before anyone says, “You should offer it up” or “block it out”, I say, why should I have to? At a Mass.

Do Shakespeare in plain clothes if you must, but meddle with a Mass? Crazy behaviour.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

N.O. - Novus Ordo

I find the term “Mass of Paul VI” more offensive than NO since it implies the Mass belongs only to Paul VI. Which in this case is probably more accurate and more just to attribute the new Mass solely to the pontificate of Paul VI and not to Vatican II.

Stevus Magnus,

At the beginning you render the 3rd commandment as saying “keep holy the sabbath” and not “attend mass.” You are right - however attending Mass, as you well know, is a precept of the Church and is based upon not just the 3rd commandment but Christ’s words of “do this in memory of Me” thus creating a Divine obligation. In the new law the Church has always interpreted “keep holy” as requiring the most holy of all actions, the Mass, as a matter of obligation. So your interpretation is flawed but I agree with you on some important concepts that continue to elude many.

I will add that the above is my understanding of things and is open to correction.

 

[OhMalley]

There also used extensively in rock concerts. Guitars are not a liturgical instrument. Maybe in the OF Roman Mass they are. But not in the EF Roman Mass, or the Divine Liturgies of the East. Including Oriental Churches. Personally I would first attend a EF Mass, if not then I would seek an Orthodox Church. The OF Roman Mass, is to protestant for me. Just me!

Anyone who has heard or watched Andres Segovia play a classical guitar would never make the stultified comment that the guitar is “not a liturgical instrument.” It all depends on the guitar and the guitarist. Guitars are every bit the liturgical instrument that the violins they play at the EWTN shrine are. Both are orchestral instruments.

I know some Eastern Catholic churches flatly reject ANY instrument. They most especially REJECT the pipe organ because they equate it to a calliope suitable for the circus and possibly the county fair. I wonder how “traditionalists” feel about that – the tiny number that know this of course?

Anyone suggesting “The OF Roman Mass, is to protestant for me” cannot really know anything about the Holy Sacifice of the Mass – of ANY form. That is a downright nasty comment that is best left not said.

 

[Grace_Angel]

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

Greg YES YES YES it is a sin and I think you already know it otherwise it would not have disturbed you and continue to disturb your peace. You also must know how proudfull your post sounds. “formulate” your thoughts for your next confession? OH goodness does that sound sincere sorrow for sin or planning a justification for your sin?
Is your kind thought the thought that develops from attending the TLM? because if it is heaven help us.
Greg do you remember the Phariseees and their treatment of people and that the only people Jesus railed against were these pedantic who made the “law/yoke” so difficult that people could not carry the Load? Thats what it sounds like to me, that maybe you have become so heavy laden with “law/rubrics” that you have forgotten Love.
GraceAngel

 

[pnewton]

Simple solution:

• Sack the EMHCs and lay lectors,
• Let the priest face the altar and tabernacle,
• Restore Gregorian chant, and, after a period of catechesis of the laity, Latin,
• Kneel to receive COTT.

… then the number of abuses and annoyances will be much less.

It is not a very practical solution. The OP does not have the authority to do these things, nor does anyone here.

 

[JReducation]

In light of the original post, I believe that the question and the answers have been over extended. If I understood the orignal poster, he was asking if it was a sin to miss mass because he did not find an EF mass in the area where he was vacationing.

The bottom line, as Brother David, O’Carm (ByzCath) has pointed out is that canon law and Church teaching declares that there is a moral obligation to attend mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation.

On the other hand, there is the issue of conscience, which is also protected by canon law and Church teaching. If a person finds the a situation is morally dangerous he must act to avoid the moral evil.

Now, let’s put these two things together and see what happens.

1. There is a moral obligation to attend mass on Sundays and holy days. In fact, the Church believes this so profoundly that it is also written into canon law that a Catholic may attend an Orthodox liturgy and receive communion if he/she is unable to attend a Catholic mass. Even though we are not in full communion with the Orthodox, the Church makes allowances in light of the seriousness of our Sunday obligation.
2. The conscience clause is a difficult one to apply in this case. When it was written, it was not meant to apply to the Church. It was meant to apply to situations where there is a real danger of moral damage to the soul. The diversions and even the abuses that one can find at a mass, regardless of the form, are not the mass itself. The mass itself is not morally dangerous to the soul. Therefore, avoidance of the mass to avoid the diversions and the abuses gives priority to these, than it does to the holy sacrifice on the altar and to praying and worshipping with the Church. We cannot morally justify avoidance of the Eucharistic sacrifice and the prayer of the Church, because in themselves there is nothing evil or proximately evil in them.

Did the OP commit a mortal sin? I don’t know. I doubt that he/she knows. Otherwise, they would not have posted here asking a question. I would say this, if it bothers you enough to have to ask, it is worth confessing.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[RosaryCrusader]

I have a few points, in the form of questions, to offer for consideration:

1.) How many illicit acts of defiance on the part of the Priest or “ministers” does it take before a N.O. Mass becomes an occassion of sin warranting abstention?

2.) How many times does a N.O. Priest have to utter heresy before it becomes morally intolerable to attend?

3.) Seeing how the norm for the N.O. are the above mentioned dangerous practices of heresy from the pulpit and/or illicit acts (whether approved or disapproved by Rome) is it morally permissable to assume that at least some or all of these will take place at any given N.O. Mass and that a danger is present to you or your children whom you will take with you?

4.) Should someone deliberately take their children to a N.O. Mass, knowing that the above mentioned practices are routinely the norm at such masses, without having first attended alone to “pre-screen” the Mass (as silly - and sad - as this sounds) to get a feel for the orthodoxy of the Priest and that no danger to the faith exists for him and his family?

5.) If the Mass is the Mass is the Mass etc. and the only option of fulfilling your Sunday obligation is a Call to Action Mass should one attend?

 

[JReducation]

I have a few points, in the form of questions, to offer for consideration:

1.) How many illicit acts of defiance on the part of the Priest or “ministers” does it take before a N.O. Mass becomes an occassion of sin warranting abstention?

2.) How many times does a N.O. Priest have to utter heresy before it becomes morally intolerable to attend?

3.) Seeing how the norm for the N.O. are the above mentioned dangerous practices of heresy from the pulpit and/or illicit acts (whether approved or disapproved by Rome) is it morally permissable to assume that at least some or all of these will take place at any given N.O. Mass and that a danger is present to you or your children whom you will take with you?

4.) Should someone deliberately take their children to a N.O. Mass, knowing that the above mentioned practices are routinely the norm at such masses, without having first attended alone to “pre-screen” the Mass (as silly - and sad - as this sounds) to get a feel for the orthodoxy of the Priest and that no danger to the faith exists for him and his family?

5.) If the Mass is the Mass is the Mass etc. and the only option of fulfilling your Sunday obligation is a Call to Action Mass should one attend?

The simple answer is that you must attend a valid mass to fulfill your moral obligation. Even if that mass is ilicit, such as those of the SSPX and the Call to Action. If that is the only option that is available.

Remember, the faults of the celebrant and others who attend the mass, do not tarnish the mass itself.

As to bypassing an OF liturgy to attend an Orthodox liturgy, because one feels that the OF is too Protestant, that is not allowed by the Church. Attendance at the Orthodox liturgy to fulfill our Sunday abligation is only allowed when there is no other mass to attend. Individual Catholics cannot make the laws that govern this issue. We cannot make them for ourselves or for our families. In moral areas, the Church’s teaching is the final word.

We can debate the merits of the form, but we cannot debate the moral teaching of the Church. To clarify the above statement, if there is no valid and licit mass available, but there is an ilicit SSPX or Call to Action mass available, you can attend to fulfill your Sunday obligation. But you must understand that this is your reason for attending, not to give support to either group. Currently, both groups have an irregular relationship with the Church. We cannot lend support to the irregularity. But the irregularity should not stop somone from fulilling his Sunday obligation, if that’s the only option.

However, I can’t imagine being in any town in the USA where you will not find a valid and licit mass, even if they have some less than orthodox customs.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[RosaryCrusader]

The simple answer is that you must attend a valid mass to fulfill your moral obligation. Even if that mass is ilicit, such as those of the SSPX and the Call to Action. If that is the only option that is available.

Remember, the faults of the celebrant and others who attend the mass, do not tarnish the mass itself.

As to bypassing an OF liturgy to attend an Orthodox liturgy, because one feels that the OF is too Protestant, that is not allowed by the Church. Attendance at the Orthodox liturgy to fulfill our Sunday abligation is only allowed when there is no other mass to attend. Individual Catholics cannot make the laws that govern this issue. We cannot make them for ourselves or for our families. In moral areas, the Church’s teaching is the final word.

We can debate the merits of the form, but we cannot debate the moral teaching of the Church. To clarify the above statement, if there is no valid and licit mass available, but there is an ilicit SSPX or Call to Action mass available, you can attend to fulfill your Sunday obligation. But you must understand that this is your reason for attending, not to give support to either group. Currently, both groups have an irregular relationship with the Church. We cannot lend support to the irregularity. But the irregularity should not stop somone from fulilling his Sunday obligation, if that’s the only option.

However, I can’t imagine being in any town in the USA where you will not find a valid and licit mass, even if they have some less than orthodox customs.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Br. JR,

Wrong answer! I’m quite shocked that a religious would condone attending a CTA Mass under any circumstance when the quote that Stevus posted, from canon law, speaking of being excused from attending mass on the grounds of moral impossibilty clearly pertain here.

 

[JReducation]

Br. JR,

Wrong answer! I’m quite shocked that a religious would condone attending a CTA Mass under any circumstance when the quote that Stevus posted, from canon law, speaking of being excused from attending mass on the grounds of moral impossibilty clearly pertain here.

It does not pertain, because the mass is still valid, even though it is illicit. You are going to fulfill your Sunday obligation, with no intention of lending support to the organization.

This is the same logic that Church law applies to other groups who are in an irregular relationship with the Church. The validity of the mass is not in question.

If you’re talking about making this your regular Sunday mass, then you have serious moral problem and there the canon applies. But a person passing through on holiday does not constitute support or regular attendance.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[RosaryCrusader]

It does not pertain, because the mass is still valid, even though it is illicit. You are going to fulfill your Sunday obligation, with no intention of lending support to the organization.

This is the same logic that Church law applies to other groups who are in an irregular relationship with the Church. The validity of the mass is not in question.

If you’re talking about making this your regular Sunday mass, then you have serious moral problem and there the canon applies. But a person passing through on holiday does not constitute support or regular attendance.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Nobody is questioning validity nor the fact that you could, technically, fulfill your obligation there. I think it obvious that any pious father would never take his family to a CTA Mass since refraining from attending Mass in this case is certainly a grave cause as indicated by canon 1248 (2). Further, I would think it objectively sinful to take your family to such a mass which would not only put your faith and the faith of the family in jeopardy but also be the source of MUCH scandal.

 

[JReducation]

Nobody is questioning validity nor the fact that you could, technically, fulfill your obligation there. I think it obvious that any pious father would never take his family to a CTA Mass since refraining from attending Mass in this case is certainly a grave cause as indicated by canon 1248 (2). Further, I would think it objectively sinful to take your family to such a mass which would not only put your faith and the faith of the family in jeopardy but also be the source of MUCH scandal.

Now you speaking about conscience. That’s another issue altogether. Let’s take several cases: CTA, SSPX, SSPV, and the EOF. All of them are in irregular relationship with Church. If a person truly believes that participating in a mass with these communities poses a danger to him or his family, that person has a moral obligation to act according to conscience.

That being said, we must make sure that the call is made according to the teachings of the Church and not a personally formed conscience. A properly formed conscience is formed by the teachings of the Church, not the feelings, opinions and private beliefs of the individual. The Church does not allow the individual to select the teachings of a prior generation over those of the current apostolic see and common law. That would be selective moral reasoning.

Where this leads to is that an individual has an obligation to fulfill his/her Sunday obligation. If the only resources is an ilicit mass, he/she can use it, provided that he does not lend support to the organization that sponsors it. If he chooses not to use it, he must be certain that he is choosing what the Church wants, not what he wants. In other words, his choice must be consistent with the wishes of the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[OhMalley]

I have a few points, in the form of questions, to offer for consideration:

1.) How many illicit acts of defiance on the part of the Priest or “ministers” does it take before a N.O. Mass becomes an occassion of sin warranting abstention?

2.) How many times does a N.O. Priest have to utter heresy before it becomes morally intolerable to attend?

3.) Seeing how the norm for the N.O. are the above mentioned dangerous practices of heresy from the pulpit and/or illicit acts (whether approved or disapproved by Rome) is it morally permissable to assume that at least some or all of these will take place at any given N.O. Mass and that a danger is present to you or your children whom you will take with you?

4.) Should someone deliberately take their children to a N.O. Mass, knowing that the above mentioned practices are routinely the norm at such masses, without having first attended alone to “pre-screen” the Mass (as silly - and sad - as this sounds) to get a feel for the orthodoxy of the Priest and that no danger to the faith exists for him and his family?

5.) If the Mass is the Mass is the Mass etc. and the only option of fulfilling your Sunday obligation is a Call to Action Mass should one attend?

In plainspeak you’re talking smack. From my experience the GREAT MAJORITY of OF Masses are extremely reverent. They follow the rubrics are defined by the Church AND NOT by some “traditionalists.” Your comments assume that all (or most) EF Masses are abuse-filled and they are not. They might be where YOU live and if that’s the case you need a larger sample.