Author Topic: Fulfilling Sunday obligation  (Read 3648 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23421
  • Reputation: +20552/-329
  • Gender: Male
Fulfilling Sunday obligation
« on: August 20, 2006, 02:51:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It's not just heinous sacrilege at the Novus Ordo that justifies avoiding it altogether.

    You don't need to go there just to pray -- you can pray for your friends, and fellow Catholics, from anywhere. You don't have to dread Sunday, and bear with sentimentality, horrible music, and various abuses just to "fulfill one's obligation". That is not why Mother Church imposed that obligation on us.

    The obligation was imposed so that we would get a chance every week to stop and worship God, and partake of the infinite fruits of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Also, laymen need to raise their minds and hearts to spiritual things every so often, and it's very hard to get around to it unless it's commanded.

    The Novus Ordo tends to destroy the Faith itself -- all the elements thereof. The proof is in the pudding -- countless (but not all) men and women worldwide who have attended the Novus Ordo for 30 or more years are simply not good Catholics anymore.

    To give some examples, one of my relatives no longer believes in purgatory. Many Catholics don't pray for the poor souls anymore. Many Catholics have no appreciation for the MASS ITSELF -- why so few Catholics attend every Sunday.

    Also, Novus Ordo Catholics are, per capita, even more worldly that traditional Catholics (believe it or not), but in their case it is because of the Novus ordo; it is not accidental. TLM Catholics might be worldly, but it is because they are NOT following their priest, parents, etc.

    Many Catholics, and even PRIESTS have admitted they don't believe in Transubstantiation! That is pretty serious -- that alone is sufficient reason to avoid something dangerous to one's faith.

    The modern Church is trying to "get on good terms with the world" so it's no surprise that her children would want to do the same. What happened to being a fool for Christ, and being a "spectacle to angels and men"?

    We are not even permitted to endanger our faith. So while the N.O. is valid, it is forbidden to anyone who knows better, basically. You would be knowingly endangering your faith. For what? For the warm fuzzy feelings of not being "outcast?" Our Lord was crowned with thorns and scourged. Whose side are we on?

    In Christ,

    Matthew
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6172
    • Reputation: +1234/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Fulfilling Sunday obligation
    « Reply #1 on: October 13, 2006, 03:35:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It might be best to discuss this in another thread/area, Matthew, but what is your reasoning as to the validity of the NOM?  That a man you take to have been a true Sovereign Pontiff issued it?  

    Although this is often a 'charged' issue, I mean no disrespect in asking, nor am I throwing down some kind of gauntlet.  I just want to know how you reach the conclusion that it is valid - even in the vernacular, I assume.
    + Vincit veritas +


    Offline Trinity

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3233
    • Reputation: +184/-0
    • Gender: Female
    Fulfilling Sunday obligation
    « Reply #2 on: October 13, 2006, 05:05:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Since this is an issue I am very interested in, I am looking forward to hearing the answer.  I have noticed the loss of faith you speak about, Chant, but I hadn't connected it to the whole NO thing.  It really fits, though.
    +RIP
    Please pray for the repose of her soul.

    Offline thecolorandthenoise

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 67
    • Reputation: +9/-0
    Fulfilling Sunday obligation
    « Reply #3 on: October 13, 2006, 07:20:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • At this point in my life I have two options:
    a) Go to a very reverent NO Mass, offered by two very holy priests and receive the sacraments from them
    or
    b) Sit smug at home, with a "me and my Jesus" protestant mentality and fester in my bitterness

    I spent way too much time practicing option B, and now that I've started living option A, I don't ever want to go back.

    Offline Dawn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2439
    • Reputation: +45/-0
    • Gender: Female
      • h
    Fulfilling Sunday obligation
    « Reply #4 on: October 14, 2006, 07:02:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • True Pontiff, perhaps, but the errors  have been obvious. Is it not true though that there is no person who can judge the Pope, only Christ can. So, then, He is the current Pope, but I do not have to listen to what he says that is in error and save the rest for Christ to sort out. Does anyone else think like that?


    Offline Trinity

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3233
    • Reputation: +184/-0
    • Gender: Female
    Fulfilling Sunday obligation
    « Reply #5 on: October 14, 2006, 09:50:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I was with you on that, Dawn.  But then indefectability came up and I can no longer believe that the Vatican (pope) is in league with the Holy Spirit.  In fact, I have come to believe that the Vatican was hi jacked by another spirit entirely.  Anyone is welcome to show me that I am wrong because I dislike this situation intensely.  

    I can understand C & N's point, too.  But I am skeptical of the validity of the sacraments in the NO and I don't want to lull myself into thinking I am receiving the sacraments, then wake up dead and find out I wasn't.  This is why I say all this is satan's dirtiest of dirty deeds.  It's a very hurtful business.
    +RIP
    Please pray for the repose of her soul.

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 23421
    • Reputation: +20552/-329
    • Gender: Male
    Fulfilling Sunday obligation
    « Reply #6 on: October 14, 2006, 11:05:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There are no easy answers when we're in a horrible Church Crisis like this.

    The point about "not sitting at home, wallowing in my bitterness" is precisely why I am so against those who pick on the 1962 missal, as if there is something "Novus Ordo" about it. It's a pure, unadulterated TLM, and it is certainly better than sitting at home reading a missal!

    Of course not everyone has a TLM within a 1 or 2 hour drive. For those people, I would first suggest relocating. There is nothing more important than the Sacraments. Especially those who are living in the city and/or making good money -- if you move to the South, for instance, you'll find the cost of living is so low, that you can earn MUCH less and get by just fine.

    There are many facets to this issue though, I have only hit on a couple of them.

    God bless,

    Matthew
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6172
    • Reputation: +1234/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Fulfilling Sunday obligation
    « Reply #7 on: October 16, 2006, 04:56:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: thecolorandthenoise
    At this point in my life I have two options...I spent way too much time practicing option B, and now that I've started living option A, I don't ever want to go back.


    Dear thecolorandthenoise,

    While I can sympathize with your dilemma (for I have gone long periods without Holy Mass), if the question about the validity of the NOM is answered in the negative (i.e., that it is not valid), then the NOM is simply not Mass at all (however 'reverent' those involved may appear).  There are very good arguments against its validity, and I would simply encourage those who have not read them to do so.
    + Vincit veritas +


    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6172
    • Reputation: +1234/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Fulfilling Sunday obligation
    « Reply #8 on: October 16, 2006, 04:59:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Dawn
    Does anyone else think like that?


    Yes, although I see it as a most unfortunate thing that they do (which does not mean I do not understand why they do, or lack sympathy for them in these confusing days).

    Perhaps we can open another thread to discuss this view you have espoused.  I do not want to stuff up this thread any more than I may already have (which, as stated above, is not my intention).
    + Vincit veritas +

    Offline Trinity

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3233
    • Reputation: +184/-0
    • Gender: Female
    Fulfilling Sunday obligation
    « Reply #9 on: October 16, 2006, 05:00:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Give us a link, Veritatis.
    +RIP
    Please pray for the repose of her soul.

    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6172
    • Reputation: +1234/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Fulfilling Sunday obligation
    « Reply #10 on: October 16, 2006, 05:05:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: gladius_veritatis
    It might be best to discuss this in another thread/area, Matthew, but what is your reasoning as to the validity of the NOM?  That a man you take to have been a true Sovereign Pontiff issued it?


    Matthew,

    I am not trying to be pushy, but I simply did not see any reference to what I had asked (unless the first few words of your post are meant to be your answer).  I have re-presented it here (in case you had simply overlooked it), although I respect your right to not respond at all.
    + Vincit veritas +


    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 23421
    • Reputation: +20552/-329
    • Gender: Male
    Fulfilling Sunday obligation
    « Reply #11 on: October 22, 2006, 09:10:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Let me try to answer this difficult question:

    The Catholic Church has a right to regulate her official liturgy and prayers (except, of course, certain parts of the Mass and sacraments that are fixed by Our Lord Himself).

    That being said, a horrible liturgy resulted from the work of the Vatican II implementation committee. Their creation, the Novus Ordo Mass (NOM), has very few things specifically Catholic in it, while it contains a plethora of Protestant elements (from Cranmer's liturgy, Luther, etc.)

    The NOM, whether or not it is valid, has certainly resulted in a loss of Faith in both priests and laity, as evidenced by the general apostasy of the last 36 years (declining vocations and Mass attendance, ignorance and loose morals among the Faithful, heretical beliefs among priests/laity, etc.) Some people in 1970 might have questioned such a criticism of the NOM, ("Hey, give it a chance!") but with 36 years of "fruits", we can now reliably judge this "tree".

    Is the NOM valid or not? Does it matter? Even if valid, it is not safe for Catholic consumption. It tends to weaken/destroy the faith of Catholics who attend it. Even if someone attended the NOM because of lack of traditional "options", it would still require a constant judging -- by a layman -- of his priest, which is not an acceptable proposition.

    Saying the NOM is not valid, however, creates more problems than it solves. First of all, it says the Crisis in the Church is much worse than we already know to be true. Next, it means that countless devout Catholics, even those with the Faith, are not attending Mass or receiving Jesus in Holy Communion. Would Our Lord permit the gates of Hell to prevail over His Church? Because if the NOM is not valid in any case, then Our Lord has effectively abandoned Catholics of good will who have not yet found the Traditional movement.

    And since everyone who says the NOM is invalid ALSO says that the new Rite of Ordination is invalid, it also means that there are only a few hundred (maybe a thousand?) valid priests left on the earth.

    A Catholic of good will (and who still has the Faith, by the preserving grace of God) would not be party to the more abuse-intensive Masses, nor would they seek out the more liberal priests. All the ugly abuses (such as those featured on a certain website) would turn off most Catholics who still have the Faith. They would likely go "parish-shopping", though they would stick to N.O. parishes.

    As we speak, there are many good Catholics who still attend the NOM. They are trusting their priest that the SSPX is in schism, that they have to obey the Pope, etc. Even though they are mistaken, they are trying to do God's will. If they could be made to understand Modernism, 50's Catholicism, the Liturgical movement, the history of the Church, Vatican II, etc. they would probably end up at a Traditional Mass center, approved by Rome or not.

    One important point is the fact that not all N.O. Masses are the same. There are some that are done according to the rubrics, with all possible reverence. At the other end of the scale you have clown "masses". But usually you have something in between, which varies by diocese, parish, and even by priest.

    I know that some traditional Catholics are so horrified at the thought of Hosts being left on the floor, etc. that they can't fathom that Our Lord would tolerate such abuse of His Body. Indeed, it is a great horror. Everything that is Catholic in me is repulsed by it. But abuse of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament is nothing new. It has happened since the beginning, though perhaps not on so large a scale. Perhaps most of the "Masses" where such abuses take place are lacking some element necessary to validity. But that doesn't mean that the N.O. rite, as promulgated by Rome, is in all cases invalid.

    In Christ,

    Matthew
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6172
    • Reputation: +1234/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Fulfilling Sunday obligation
    « Reply #12 on: October 23, 2006, 05:01:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thank you for that answer, Matthew.  I am headed out the door, so my response shall have to wait.  God keep all of you.
    + Vincit veritas +

    Offline clare

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2269
    • Reputation: +887/-34
    • Gender: Female
      • h
    Fulfilling Sunday obligation
    « Reply #13 on: December 27, 2006, 06:58:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: ChantCd
    The obligation was imposed so that we would get a chance every week to stop and worship God, and partake of the infinite fruits of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Also, laymen need to raise their minds and hearts to spiritual things every so often, and it's very hard to get around to it unless it's commanded.


    I read the missal at home when I can't get to the Trad Mass.

    I see it as the Spirit of the Law, rather than the Letter.

    Clare.

    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6172
    • Reputation: +1234/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Fulfilling Sunday obligation
    « Reply #14 on: December 28, 2006, 05:20:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: ChantCd
    Saying the NOM is not valid, however, creates more problems than it solves.


    This is not an argument against the case that it is invalid.  It is appealing to emotion by way of the "it's just too much" style of argument.

    Quote
    First of all, it says the Crisis in the Church is much worse than we already know to be true.


    This does not deal with the objective argument against validity.  The crisis is much bigger than you or I can possibly imagine, and I already believe it is much bigger than you presently think.  We did not arrive where we are because things are going well, but because there has been infidelity on an ante-deluvian scale - and this infidelity has consequences.  Imo, however bad it is, it is much better to know the reality, and face it.

    Quote
    Next, it means that countless devout Catholics, even those with the Faith, are not attending Mass or receiving Jesus in Holy Communion.


    Again, this does not refute the argument against validity in any way.  Anne Catherine Emmerich saw this very situation in a vision, describing it in minute detail.

    Quote
    Would Our Lord permit the gates of Hell to prevail over His Church?


    No, and this question automatically posits the idea that if the NOM is invalid, the Church has been overcome.  I say the two do not necessarily follow one another as night follows day.

    Quote
    Because if the NOM is not valid in any case, then Our Lord has effectively abandoned Catholics of good will who have not yet found the Traditional movement.


    While this may seem to be a logical conclusion, it is not.  Our Lord has not abandoned anyone, but there are countless throngs who have abandoned Him.  He has led countless men out of NewChurch, and He will continue to do so.  Btw, if it is valid, why leave it or criticize it at all?  Merely upon the issue of "reverence"?  This would be to whittle it all down to nostalgic preference for greater decorum, etc. - which some sadly do in these days.
    + Vincit veritas +

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16