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

[OhMalley]

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.

What’s a “Call to Action Mass?” Did you just invent that?

You are providing a perfect example of the use of questionable and outlandish hyperbole that seems very so common within the “traditionalist” ranks. MOST Masses – OF or EF are NOT abusive yet that’s seemingly lost on you.

You seem to believe you can tell tales of EXTREME cases of OF Masses and that your comments should then be applied to all OF Masses (or even most OF Masses) and you couldn’t be more wrong.

We know what’s you’re trying to do and we can see right through it.

The OP said nothing about a “CTA Mass.” In fact he had no idea what sort of OF Mass he would come in contact with if he made the effort to attend and that’s on him.

 

[JReducation]

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.

I think you mean OF masses.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[OhMalley]

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.

As expected your postion runs contrary to that of the Church.

 

[PJM]

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

***You are to commended on your desire to raise your family as Traditional Catholics:thumbsup: However the third Commandment applies to all Catholics, all Christians and all humanity.

It provides no option of doing or not doing. So if one is aware of the Mortally sinfull gravity of missing Mass for any personal whim [even a great one like yours] then certainly one is a GREAT risk of Mortal sin.

Using your logic I would never have to go to Mass as their are no LM’s [the truly Extrodinary Form] within a 65 mile radius of where I live.

As a grandpa who has taught our faith for fifteen years, I suggest that it might even be a good idea to expose them on rare and necessary occassion to the NO Mass, as sooner or later they are going to discover it and this affords an opportunity [a teaching moment] to explain why you choose the way you do.***

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[JReducation]

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.

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

Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.

Brother, your opinion is inconsistent with Summorum Pontificum. It is not the mass of Paul VI. It is the Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI and it is the ordinary form of the mass.

Also, it is not to be used as a tool for debate, since both forms are the one rite. We have a duty to the Church to promote this fact to all other believers. It is also a moral responsibility of all Catholic parents to properly educate their children in both forms of the mass and to avoid the possibility of children growing up believing that the Ordinary Form is defficient or deffective. Such would be an great injustice to a child, because it deprives them of the wealth of the Church and of the whole truth. We are one Latin Rite with two forms.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[RosaryCrusader]

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

You’re trying to take it down a different course when it’s well known the CTA openly professes heresy and the other groups you mention do not (I can’t speak for EOF because I don’t know what that is). But the facts remain the facts - you condone people taking their children to CTA Masses if there is no other Mass. I would say such activity is objectively sinful to put your children and yourself in an occassion of sin and risk of danger to the faith. The '83 Code backs this up.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

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.

I’ve never encountered abuse at an EF - I’m assuming you meant OF.

Based upon the OF I can assure you I’ve had a life full of samples of it. You are the exception in this case not I - as anyone can tell you. Someone can just browse through the forums here with tons examples of people lamenting this experience or that. Everyone has either experienced it themeselve or have friends or relatives that relate their experiences of the Novus Ordo run amok or heresy from the pulpit. You are certainly the exception.

 

[JReducation]

You’re trying to take it down a different course when it’s well known the CTA openly professes heresy and the other groups you mention do not (I can’t speak for EOF because I don’t know what that is). But the facts remain the facts - you condone people taking their children to CTA Masses if there is no other Mass. I would say such activity is objectively sinful to put your children and yourself in an occassion of sin and risk of danger to the faith. The '83 Code backs this up.

The Church has not said that there is such a thing as a CTA mass. The Church has identified their teachings regarding moral issues as morally unacceptable, their beliefs regarding ordination of women is also unacceptable and the novelties that some of their priests allow in the mass are in violation of the GIRM. But the mass is still valid.

I’m not encouraging the OP to go to the CTA for mass. I’m arguing that one can forgo going to mass, because one does not like or feel comfortable or even disagrees with the form of the mass. That is not a justifiable position in the mind of the Chuirch or in the canons.

I’m not about to debate this point to death. Because if your mind is made up that any other form of the mass except the EF is morally safe, then you are the person who has the problem. You are out of compliance with the teaching of the Church. A mass can never be morally dangerous. There is a difference between what people say, believe, do, and advocate, and the core, which is the mass. None of their errors can take away from the mass. Your position seems to be that it can. That is not possible. A mass is either valid or invalid. There are no grays. The licaity is not a matter of gray. That has to do with compliance to law, not to doctrine.

Why would you want to come across as discouraging someone from attending mass in the Ordinary Form?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[RosaryCrusader]

What’s a “Call to Action Mass?” Did you just invent that?

Nope, here - for your viewing pleasure:

youtube.com/watch?v=rh_nqtp3VrU

You are providing a perfect example of the use of questionable and outlandish hyperbole that seems very so common within the “traditionalist” ranks. MOST Masses – OF or EF are NOT abusive yet that’s seemingly lost on you.

You seem to believe you can tell tales of EXTREME cases of OF Masses and that your comments should then be applied to all OF Masses (or even most OF Masses) and you couldn’t be more wrong.

We know what’s you’re trying to do and we can see right through it.

The OP said nothing about a “CTA Mass.” In fact he had no idea what sort of OF Mass he would come in contact with if he made the effort to attend and that’s on him.

You’re going to tell me the abuse is not the norm for the NO when I’ve attended all my life throughout the U.S. - on business trips, on vacations etc. etc. See my post above - and browse through the topics here on CA and look at all the experiences in every locality. The reverent NO is the exception and not the norm. Care to argue that further? With a straight face?

My points were 100% legit - you just don’t care to answer because you would have to come to a conclusion you don’t want to admit.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

As expected your postion runs contrary to that of the Church.

How does it run contrary to the Church? Why is the NO referred to as “The Mass of Paul VI” and not “The Vatican II Mass?”

 

[RosaryCrusader]

The Church has not said that there is such a thing as a CTA mass. The Church has identified their teachings regarding moral issues as morally unacceptable, their beliefs regarding ordination of women is also unacceptable and the novelties that some of their priests allow in the mass are in violation of the GIRM. But the mass is still valid.

I’m not encouraging the OP to go to the CTA for mass. I’m arguing that one can forgo going to mass, because one does not like or feel comfortable or even disagrees with the form of the mass. That is not a justifiable position in the mind of the Chuirch or in the canons.

Brother, I think you’re confusing me with someone else - never did I imply skipping mass because you do not like the form.

I’m not about to debate this point to death. Because if your mind is made up that any other form of the mass except the EF is morally safe, then you are the person who has the problem.

Priests who say the EF are usually more in conformance with Church teaching, able to render solid spiritual direction in the confessional, and are not influenced by political correctness or willing to cater to the liberal agenda. The difference between your average Diocesan Priest and FSSP, ICK, FSSPX etc. are night and day - unfortunately - and I’m sure there’s exceptions - I’m not taking a jab.

You are out of compliance with the teaching of the Church. A mass can never be morally dangerous. There is a difference between what people say, believe, do, and advocate, and the core, which is the mass. None of their errors can take away from the mass. Your position seems to be that it can. That is not possible. A mass is either valid or invalid. There are no grays. The licaity is not a matter of gray. That has to do with compliance to law, not to doctrine.

Now you’re separating the Divine actions in the Mass from the Human actions and I’m not talking about that at all. I’m talking about the scandal from Priests who are not in line with the Church, practices that are not inline with the Church, and an atmosphere that is not at all about honoring Christ as He should be. If I follow your logic I could attend a Black Mass and try to ignore all the ‘externals’ since there is a valid consecration. Yes, that example was extreme but very relevant to counter your argument.

 

[JReducation]

How does it run contrary to the Church? Why is the NO referred to as “The Mass of Paul VI” and not “The Vatican II Mass?”

RC, it is referred to that way in the same way that we say Gregorian Chant or the Julian Calendar. It does not belong to Paul VI any more than Gregorian Chant belongs to Pope Gregory or the calendar to Pope Julius. These are the popes who promulgated them. There are many other promulgations that are called by the name of the person who authorized it.

Remember, we have a Dominican Rite, but it has nothing to do with St. Dominic. It developed within the Order of Preachers. We have Roman Breviary is called that because it was compiled in Rome, but it has its roots in Benedictine monasticism.

That which people call it is not relevant. Some people refer to the Roman Missal promulgated by John XXIII in 1963 as the TLM. It is not the Tridentine mass. It is a reform of the Tridentine mass promulgated by John XXIII. We read this in the motru proprio.

Also, I’m also 60 and have been a religious and a theologian for a long time and I can tell you that I have seen my fair share of OF masses on four continents. The abuses that I have seen are probably less than five times in my life time. Have I ever seen something out of the ordinary in an OF liturgy? Yes. Has it been catostrophic? No. The video that you posted is unfair, because it does not represent the majority of the celebrations of the mass in the Ordinary Form.

Many of the objections that posters have to the Ordinary Form are based on their experience, but also on their perception of what is good theology. This does not mean that they are good theologians. We cannot and should not underestimate the concerns of people. But we must not affirm those concerns at the expense of the universal Church. We must help people understand the difference between what they believe is good theology and what the Church teaches.

Most Catholics are not well versed in theology. Most do not have the proper background to interpret the documents of the Church. Most have the best intention in mind. We must respect their intention and desire to do the right thing. At the same time, help people understand what the Church teaches about liturgy and sacraments. It would be unfair to let people walk away believing that they have witnessed a catastrophic abuse, when they have not.

In closing, I’ll give an example. At the WYD mass in Sydney, I was there. I saw the seminarians do the liturgical dance with the Gospel book as they brought it up to the sanctuary for the readings. Some people questioned this as a liturgical abuse. This is not such an abuse. But those who don’t know what the reason was behind it, get confused and misunderstand.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[RosaryCrusader]

nevermind… crossed posts.

 

[JReducation]

Brother, I think you’re confusing me with someone else - never did I imply skipping mass because you do not like the form.

I’m so sorry. I thought it was you who said that.

Priests who say the EF are usually more in conformance with Church teaching, able to render solid spiritual direction in the confessional, and are not influenced by political correctness or willing to cater to the liberal agenda. The difference between your average Diocesan Priest and FSSP, ICK, FSSPX etc. are night and day - unfortunately - and I’m sure there’s exceptions - I’m not taking a jab.

This is not that unreasonable. The same happens between priests who are religious and priests who are secular. Some people say that they find a difference between the two. I always attribute it to the experience that comes with religious formation, that secular priests do not get, because it is not proper.

Now you’re separating the Divine actions in the Mass from the Human actions and I’m not talking about that at all. I’m talking about the scandal from Priests who are not in line with the Church, practices that are not inline with the Church, and an atmosphere that is not at all about honoring Christ as He should be. If I follow your logic I could attend a Black Mass and try to ignore all the ‘externals’ since there is a valid consecration. Yes, that example was extreme but very relevant to counter your argument.

Yes, I am separating the two. This was the precedent that the Church establish when it spoke of Catholics attending mass at the SSPX chapels. She specifically said that it was permissible to fulfill one’s obligation, as long as one did not lend support to the SSPX. That position has not changed.

I have no idea what a Black Mass is, so I can’t speak to that. Sorry about that.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[RosaryCrusader]

RC, it is referred to that way in the same way that we say Gregorian Chant or the Julian Calendar. It does not belong to Paul VI any more than Gregorian Chant belongs to Pope Gregory or the calendar to Pope Julius. These are the popes who promulgated them. There are many other promulgations that are called by the name of the person who authorized it.

Remember, we have a Dominican Rite, but it has nothing to do with St. Dominic. It developed within the Order of Preachers. We have Roman Breviary is called that because it was compiled in Rome, but it has its roots in Benedictine monasticism.

That which people call it is not relevant. Some people refer to the Roman Missal promulgated by John XXIII in 1963 as the TLM. It is not the Tridentine mass. It is a reform of the Tridentine mass promulgated by John XXIII. We read this in the motru proprio.

Also, I’m also 60 and have been a religious and a theologian for a long time and I can tell you that I have seen my fair share of OF masses on four continents. The abuses that I have seen are probably less than five times in my life time. Have I ever seen something out of the ordinary in an OF liturgy? Yes. Has it been catostrophic? No. The video that you posted is unfair, because it does not represent the majority of the celebrations of the mass in the Ordinary Form.

Many of the objections that posters have to the Ordinary Form are based on their experience, but also on their perception of what is good theology. This does not mean that they are good theologians. We cannot and should not underestimate the concerns of people. But we must not affirm those concerns at the expense of the universal Church. We must help people understand the difference between what they believe is good theology and what the Church teaches.

Most Catholics are not well versed in theology. Most do not have the proper background to interpret the documents of the Church. Most have the best intention in mind. We must respect their intention and desire to do the right thing. At the same time, help people understand what the Church teaches about liturgy and sacraments. It would be unfair to let people walk away believing that they have witnessed a catastrophic abuse, when they have not.

In closing, I’ll give an example. At the WYD mass in Sydney, I was there. I saw the seminarians do the liturgical dance with the Gospel book as they brought it up to the sanctuary for the readings. Some people questioned this as a liturgical abuse. This is not such an abuse. But those who don’t know what the reason was behind it, get confused and misunderstand.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Brother, you are clearly my elder and I respect that and your vocation to the Church. I will not disrespect you. I do disagree with you though on just about all counts. I’ve been to too many parishes to count from Texas, Arizona, California, Washington, & Idaho in a variety of dioceses and the story is virtually the same. One seriously does not know what to expect going from on Church to the next.

The WYD event you brought up with the tribal dancing and what not - even the Pope was clearly agitated by such a display and the issue of inculturation is a different topic altogether. The OP didn’t report any aborigines at Mass so I think it best to leave it alone for now.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

**For the record: My advice is not to skip the OF in the event that an EF is lacking.

My point is that if there is a reasonable concern that heresy or utterly sacrilegeous nonsense is going to take place I think it justifiable to not attend and not only that but it may even be sinful to attend if it’s going to put you or your little one’s faith in danger.**

Do you know how hard it is to undo what a Priest says or does during Mass to little children? It kills all credibility in their little minds when you have to constantly explain away that what he said was wrong - or what they’re doing is wrong. You tend to reinforce a negative image of the Church when you go and try to be faithful.

I won’t be doing it again.

 

[JReducation]

Brother, you are clearly my elder and I respect that and your vocation to the Church. I will not disrespect you. I do disagree with you though on just about all counts. I’ve been to too many parishes to count from Texas, Arizona, California, Washington, & Idaho in a variety of dioceses and the story is virtually the same. One seriously does not know what to expect going from on Church to the next.

The WYD event you brought up with the tribal dancing and what not - even the Pope was clearly agitated by such a display and the issue of inculturation is a different topic altogether. The OP didn’t report any aborigines at Mass so I think it best to leave it alone for now.

Even if we disagree on this point, I do respect and appreciate your courtessy. Thank you very much. It is a pleasure talking with someone who can have a different opinion and be civil. In fact, I find it encouraging.

HOWEVER . . . next time you want to show respect for someone, don’t remind them that they are your elder,

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[DorianGregorian]

Reading the posts, alot of people who seem to support the NO mass think of it as a natural evolution. It’s not, it was (yet another) bad idea from the 1960s.

First read Paul VIs commentary on the new mass: intheruinsofrome.googlepages.com/paulvi

Do I believe Paul VI was a “manifest heretic?” absolutely not, that’s a very specific term, and only a competent body of Canon Law can make that judgment. However he was, in my opinion, a weak leader, the weakest Pope of the 20th Century, and has divided the Church in ways unseen since those of the times of Julius II and Leo X.

The NO mass retains the essential form of Consencration, but not much else. It’s a “bare bones” mass, enough to be called Catholic, but stripped of dignity.

The new rites of the Sacraments are the same. The matter & form remain, but the ceremonies and it’s meanings have been practically destroyed. No where is it seen more in Holy Orders which emasculates the Priesthood (yet I stress, the Priest still receives the laying of the hands and the “power to offer the sacrifice.” Remember also that the Eastern Churches have different rites which are just as valid), and Extreme Unction which now cares more about the body than the soul. The new rite of Confirmation almost misses the mark entirely.

This is because man thought he could improve what was the work of God. There were only minor changes from St. Pius V to Bl John XXIII (who I believe was a great Pope, he clearly never wanted to change the mass or the ceremonies, he wanted a discussion, a conference if you will).

The new mass is in the words of Paul VI “a creation: an innovation.” There is no need to improve on the work of God.

Laus Deo

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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!

Actually, they are liturgical instruments, in Latin America, so if the bishops approve of them there then they must be ok. It is the music that is played on them in some places that is what is wrong.

As for the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, there is no liturgical instrument. Any instrument would be an abuse.

As for the rest of this thread, it is just more of the ultra-traditionalists playing as if they are the ultimate authority, the exact sin that lead to the protestants leaving the Church.

 

[JReducation]

Reading the posts, alot of people who seem to support the NO mass think of it as a natural evolution. It’s not, it was (yet another) bad idea from the 1960s.

First read Paul VIs commentary on the new mass: intheruinsofrome.googlepages.com/paulvi

Do I believe Paul VI was a “manifest heretic?” absolutely not, that’s a very specific term, and only a competent body of Canon Law can make that judgment. However he was, in my opinion, a weak leader, the weakest Pope of the 20th Century, and has divided the Church in ways unseen since those of the times of Julius II and Leo X.

The NO mass retains the essential form of Consencration, but not much else. It’s a “bare bones” mass, enough to be called Catholic, but stripped of dignity.

The new rites of the Sacraments are the same. The matter & form remain, but the ceremonies and it’s meanings have been practically destroyed. No where is it seen more in Holy Orders which emasculates the Priesthood (yet I stress, the Priest still receives the laying of the hands and the “power to offer the sacrifice.” Remember also that the Eastern Churches have different rites which are just as valid), and Extreme Unction which now cares more about the body than the soul. The new rite of Confirmation almost misses the mark entirely.

This is because man thought he could improve what was the work of God. There were only minor changes from St. Pius V to Bl John XXIII (who I believe was a great Pope, he clearly never wanted to change the mass or the ceremonies, he wanted a discussion, a conference if you will).

The new mass is in the words of Paul VI “a creation: an innovation.” There is no need to improve on the work of God.

Laus Deo

You’re allowed to have an opinion, but you’re off topic. The OP is looking for an answer to a question.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF