Sunday Mass Requirement

[Bannan]

Of course, it just hit me that you would say that christians must accept the doctrines that have been defined by the catholic church.

I don’t think Christians must accept the doctrines that have been defined by the Catholic Church, at least not on this side of Heaven. I believe that Church dogma is protected from error by God himself, so that it is a help to us Christians who trust in him so, but its only positive, not a negative.

I feel that if you differ with the Church, Satan has more room in your life because of the confusion people go through when some of the truth God intended all to posses goes missing. I cannot express how much Mary the Mother of God helps us, words don’t do any justice.

Confession to a priest is a perfect example. God is not limited by those priests and you can confess to God himself directly. But isn’t it better when you can actually take the time to go and submit yourself before a holy man of God, confess your sins, and know that God granted authority to that individual to forgive you on his behalf? There is no wondering, you know your forgiven. God can forgive you outside the confessional, but when it happens this way, in our fallible human nature, Satan can creep in and sow discord. Priests are also granted gifts in the confessional, like being able to say the right things to help you overcome your sin. Because us Catholics can go to a priest and have our sins authoritatively removed, it doesn’t follow that that everyone else experience with God was lessened.

I’ll be honest here, being Catholic to me means setting the bar as high as it can be set. I actually think its easier in worldly terms to be considered Holy by God if you aren’t Catholic, because to whom much has been given, much is expected. If you aren’t Catholic but you behaved like Mother Theresa, your very fruitful indeed. But, if you see the truth and you recognize it as I have, you do it simply because it’s the right thing to do, and your heart will convict you before God if you see his truth but reject it.

And besides, I have recognized my own shortcomings and I submit to the graces of the Catholic Church because I know I’m not as fruitful as I should be. I need more growth. To do more for God, I need a good push off the starting line. To be Catholic, if I can use a metaphor, is to get the perfect amount of spiritual light, water, and nutrients to grow into a saint.

I believe that Christ’s church has everything God wants us to know on earth and it can be found in the scriptures.

Mark my words here, and make no mistake. God does not need scripture to save a man. The earliest apostles had no Bible, most of the new testament wasn’t even wirtten. I know of a person whom God favored far more than the rest, and he didn’t even know God existed when he first met Him. The scriptures are helpful, but they don’t contain all the faith, and the Bible says as much whenever an apostle says, “By word or by letter”. The Bible doesn’t exclude the verbal traditions of the Church, it includes it. I think the Bible is sufficient to realize that the spoken word of God is just as important as the written word.

Do you think that there is anything that we must believe to obtain salvation that is not found in the bible?

There are no requirements to believe anything in the bible for salvation. God is not limited by the Catholic Church. God started the Catholic Church as the primary vehicle for salvation. He gave us the keys through Peter so as to protect and spread the deposit of faith in its entirety, by word or letter. It is inclusive, not exclusive. Those who in this life never come to believe in the Churches’ teachings are not judged for lack of their knowledge. They are judged just as we all are judged, by the content of our hearts.

The last point I will make concerns how I think it may be ‘easier’ in terms of sheer human effort to become Holy in the eyes of God outside the Church. I think this does disservice to the Church because it doesn’t paint the whole picture. Worldly effort is worth nothing without the right intentions of the heart. Mother Theresa said something to that effect, I don’t know the words exactly but it was something like, “It is not how much good we do for God that matters, but how much love we do it with.” It is the Church that speaks to our hearts that enables us to love more perfectly.

 

[Lek]

The last point I will make concerns how I think it may be ‘easier’ in terms of sheer human effort to become Holy in the eyes of God outside the Church. I think this does disservice to the Church because it doesn’t paint the whole picture. Worldly effort is worth nothing without the right intentions of the heart. Mother Theresa said something to that effect, I don’t know the words exactly but it was something like, “It is not how much good we do for God that matters, but how much love we do it with.” It is the Church that speaks to our hearts that enables us to love more perfectly.

 

[Vico]

I don’t think Christians must accept the doctrines that have been defined by the Catholic Church, at least not on this side of Heaven… .

That is really at odds with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Did you ever read this?Faith

2087 Our moral life has its source in faith in God who reveals his love to us. St. Paul speaks of the “obedience of faith” 9 as our first obligation. He shows that “ignorance of God” is the principle and explanation of all moral deviations.10 Our duty toward God is to believe in him and to bear witness to him.

2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it.

There are various ways of sinning against faith:

• Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief.
• Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.
  
  2089
• *Incredulity *is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.
• "*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;
• *apostasy *is the total repudiation of the Christian faith;
• *schism *is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." 11

9 Rom 1:5; 16:26.
10 Cf. Rom 1:18-32.
11 CIC, can. 751: emphasis added.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a1.htm

 

[ProVobis]

would Saturday mass be the same as Sunday?

Or no?

As some posters have pointed out, the Saturday vespere (evening is the closest English word) begins the (dies dominicus) the Lord’s Day, according to a JPII document. Not to be confused with the midnight-to-midnight Sunday. It seems all that is necessary is to get the Pope’s signature to getting the Lord’s Day begun even earlier, if they felt there was a need for it.

 

[Vico]

This is why I am personally looking at this thread…

would Saturday mass be the same as Sunday?

Or no?
Some of the churches have many masses because of all the people cannot fit in one time frame or they have it on Saturday in case they cannot make it Sunday.
I usually have the worse luck making work let me have Sundays off for religious reasons. (I know illegal)
it would help if the church had more than one service on Sundays… I think alot of Catholic churches do though…

The Church, with the revised 1983 canon law (1983 CIC 1248.1), decided to intentionally not specify a particular hour (like 4PM) from which time one could fulfill the Sunday obligation for Mass. This was clear from the discussions at the time. Technically the canon means a time after Noon. Also the readings do not have to be those of Sunday to fulfill the obligation.

There remains the obligation for refrain from work on Sundays.

Canon Law Commentary from (Fr.) Raymond Browne, *Letter & Spirit (1995) *702:“What is ‘the evening of the previous day’? Despite the view of some commentators that this should be interpreted as beginning only at 1400 hours (2 pm) on that day, it is the firm view of this commentary that the evening of the previous day begins at midday (12 noon) on that day itself. In some dioceses there is a local regulation to the effect that the so-called vigil or anticipated Mass may not be celebrated before, say, 5 pm or 6 pm: this is normally for pastoral reasons, e.g. to facilitate weddings or funerals in the parish and other churches. Those regulations do not in any way concern the time prescribed for fulfilling the obligation to assist at Mass: thus, e.g., if . . . a person were to attend a nuptial Mass in the early afternoon on a Saturday, that person would thereby have fulfilled the obligation.”

 

[Bannan]

Originally Posted by Bannan
I don’t think Christians must accept the doctrines that have been defined by the Catholic Church, at least not on this side of Heaven… .

That is really at odds with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Did you ever read this?

​

I don’t think you fully understood what I said. I did not say, “I don’t think Catholics…” I said “I don’t think Christians…” Even the Catechism considers our brothers in Christ the moslems, protestants, etc… They don’t suddenly stop being Christian just because they disagree with the Catholic Church, more than likely through no fault of their own. Our Church still teaches that salvation is still open to all, regardless of Church affiliation.

I think anyone that reads my posts, which advocated the chair of Peter as infallible, would agree that I’m not trying to say that believing in dogma isn’t necessary after death. I was merely showing that sometimes people don’t come to that realization until they are in fact, dead.​

 

[Bannan]

Bannan;12316051:

Bannan, thanks for taking the time to discuss these issues with me, along with everyone else who contributed. Since I’m outnumbered here, each time I make one post, I get 4 or 5 back, so I’m sorry if I haven’t replied to everyone’s comments. I also just got finished listening to a 5 hour debate between Tim Staples, a catholic apologist, and Steve Gregg, a protestant apologist. I’m going to take a little break to digest this mountain of information I’ve encountered, but I will be back. Thanks again and God bless.

Hey buddy God bless you for taking the time to examine your own faith and to seek the truth so diligently. I’m happy to be the first to welcome you to the Catholic faith! Keep me posted will you? Maybe someday down the road we can catch a coffee.

If I don’t hear from you before then, please to pray for me every so often. I’m going to need an awful lot of help to get out of purgatory some day…

 

[Vico]

I don’t think you fully understood what I said. I did not say, “I don’t think Catholics…” I said “I don’t think Christians…” Even the Catechism considers our brothers in Christ the moslems, protestants, etc… They don’t suddenly stop being Christian just because they disagree with the Catholic Church, more than likely through no fault of their own. Our Church still teaches that salvation is still open to all, regardless of Church affiliation.

I think anyone that reads my posts, which advocated the chair of Peter as infallible, would agree that I’m not trying to say that believing in dogma isn’t necessary after death. I was merely showing that sometimes people don’t come to that realization until they are in fact, dead.

However it would express* indifferentism *to say that it is just as good to be non-Catholic. Maybe that is not the intention.

Christians are Christians by valid baptism, and some with invalid baptism only consider themselves Christians. Just the Catholics are bound by canon law.“Basing itself on Scripture and tradition, it [the Council] teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it” (Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican II).

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
Since the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, and other Christian particular churches and ecclesial communities derive from the Catholic Church. All Christians are bound to believe the Catholic dogmas of faith, however the Catholic Church gives the benefit of the doubt of* invincible ignoranc*e.58. In the face of new problems and situations and of an exclusive interpretation of the adage: “salus extra ecclesiam non est”,[88] the magisterium, in recent times, has articulated a more nuanced understanding as to the manner in which a saving relationship with the Church can be realized. The Allocution of Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadam (1854) clearly states the issues involved: “It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it, will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who live in ignorance of the true religion, if such ignorance be invincible, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord”.[89]

 [88] Cf. BONIFACE VIII, Bull “Unam Sanctam”: “Porro subesse Romano Pontifici  omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, diffinimus omnino esse de  necessitate salutis”, *DS* 875; cp. *DS* 1351; *ND* 875:  “Furthermore we declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for  the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff”.
 
    [89] Pius IX,      Allocution “Singulari Quadam”, DS 2865i; *ND* 813.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
Also we have a helpful instruction from St. Pope John Paul II, in Ut Unum Sint, n. 11To the extent that these elements [of sanctification] are found in other Christian Communities, the one Church of Christ is effectively present in them. For this reason the Second Vatican Council speaks of a certain, though imperfect communion.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html

 

[Bannan]

When I stated that the Catholic Church provides the perfect balance of nutrients, water, and light to grown into a saint, how could you have read that as me saying, “it is just as good to be non-Catholic.”!? I am advocating that papal infallibility is true, and of great benefit to all mankind! You honestly read my comments as being indifferent to the Catholic faith? You did! You just insinuated that I was indifferent as to whether someone should be Catholic, on a Catholic apologetic forum, wherein I am a Catholic, and was advocating papal infallibility. How have you even come to this conclusion!?

I’m at a loss for how this was even possible…

I agree with your stance that all Christians “should” believe everything that the Church has taught authoritatively. You agree with me that Christians won’t be judged for something they didn’t know. The code of canon law agrees with us both.

Where is the difference of our opinion here? Did you really believe I was saying its just as good to be non-Catholic? The only thing I can think of is where I said, “I actually think its easier in worldly terms to be considered Holy by God if you aren’t Catholic…”

So to clarify!

If a plant produces fruit, but has no water, or soil, that’d be a miracle right? I could just has easily reworded this concept by saying, “It takes a miracle for God to save someone outside the Catholic church.” The point I was making was in the amount of worldly effort required. Perhaps the adjective Holy wasn’t the right one to use, I don’t know, but what I do know is that we are judged according to what we have been given. Of those given little, little will be expected. Was this the source of our confusion?

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Why is it a mortal sin to intentionally miss mass on Sunday? I can’t find anything in the bible that states that it is a requirement to go to mass every Sunday in order to be saved. The commandment to “keep holy the sabbath” referred to the practice of following all the requirements of the law pertaining to the period of time between nightfall on Friday until nightfall on Saturday, and ended with the establishment of the new covenant. Another way to look at my original question is: what if someone decides he will go to mass on Wednesdays, instead of Sundays, because this better fits his schedule. Or maybe he will be travelling on Sunday, so he goes to mass on Saturday that one week. Why does it matter which day he goes? Reference Romans 14:5-- “One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind.” (NIV)

This is a moral theology question. Please read post # 1 here

CLOSED