Sure it matters QvD and makes sense Ladislaus.  Because to say that all of the masses available are not obligatory means the Church has required something of us that we cannot satisfy.  Assisting at mass is not just about what we get out of it.  It's about doing what the Church/God wills of us.

And to be clear, I am not telling people what they should or should not do.  I am looking at this issue outside of that..the bigger picture: Whether the Church (still) provides masses for us in order to fulfill our Sunday Obligation.  It seems that most are saying that the Church does not.

I agree. The 6 Commandments of the Church have not been abrogated, the commandment at hand (from the BC) is: "To hear Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation." This means that it is our duty as Catholics to go to Mass - in this day and age we need to add the proviso "if one is provided for us." 

The BC goes on....

Q. 1329. Is it a mortal sin not to hear Mass on a Sunday or a holyday of obligation?

A. It is a mortal sin not to hear Mass on a Sunday or a holyday of obligation, unless we are excused for a serious reason. They also commit a mortal sin who, having others under their charge, hinder them from hearing Mass, without a sufficient reason.

I look at it like this; if Fr. Pfeiffer's Mass is the only one available, my first inclination is to go, period. I must discern for myself whether or not to risk sinning by not going for whatever reason. That's how I look at it - whether it's Fr. P or some other nefarious priest. Unfortunately, the catechism does not take today's crisis into account as far as what is a "serious reason." We're pretty much on our own for that.

Matthew made excellent points which absolutely need to factor into the decision of whether to expose oneself to that situation or not.  

Sure it matters QvD and makes sense Ladislaus.  Because to say that all of the masses available are not obligatory means the Church has required something of us that we cannot satisfy.  Assisting at mass is not just about what we get out of it.  It's about doing what the Church/God wills of us.

And to be clear, I am not telling people what they should or should not do.  I am looking at this issue outside of that..the bigger picture: Whether the Church (still) provides masses for us in order to fulfill our Sunday Obligation.  It seems that most are saying that the Church does not.

It seems to me that the Divine Law to Keep Holy the Sabbath Day or to Sanctify Sunday can be fulfilled even in our times. The obligation to assist at mass is a Church law that can’t always be observed and sometimes allows for a dispensation or an excuse on reasonable grounds. For instance, we are excused from our Sunday duty of assisting at mass if we are sick, live a distance from mass, or we are staying in an area were no mass is available.

Jone says a church is a "sacred edifice dedicated to divine worship and open to all the faithful for this purpose." This sounds like most trad chapels to me.

I think after reading the whole page in context it becomes obvious that by the word “church” he means a sacred edifice that was established by the Church Herself. If that wasn’t the case then there would be no need to differentiate between churches, oratories, or semi public oratories, etc..

This is my understanding as well, so long as the Priest and Mass are themselves valid, that the obligation does not cease.

Mine is that because of the crisis in the Church we are not obligated to go to mass, though If a valid mass with a valid priest who doesn't harm your faith is available and close enough, it's still good to go.

Canon Law is very specific on what satisfies the requirements for the Sunday obligation. This is from the moral theologian Heribert Jone OFM:

Of course you realize Jone wasn't talking about during a time of great Crisis in the Church or persecution. Which we are living in today, I should point out.

As I said "I must discern for myself whether or not to risk sinning by not going for whatever reason." I am not trying to tell anyone else what to do.

And remember that in this case, we are talking about a certainly validly ordained priest and the True Mass - nothing whatsoever to do with NO priests and their jazz. I am saying that if I went at all, it would be because it's my one and only choice and that I would perhaps go to confession, receive Our Lord, and leave when it ends. IOW, regardless of his serious faults, I would use him for what I need, for the benefit my soul and that's it, that's all of it.  It's not like I'm endorsing conversing with him. I am conditionally endorsing using him for our soul's needs *if that's all you have available*.

Also, I was raised to never look at whether the NO "mass" was valid or not because it is neither valid nor invalid, what it is for sure is evil.  The consecration within the NO "mass" might be valid or invalid, no one knows for sure, but I avoid the NO because regardless of the question of validity of it's consecration, the "mass" or service itself is evil, and it is that service itself that brings with it the loss of faith. 

As I said, that's how " *I* look at it," that's how I've always looked at it. Deo Gratias that He saw fit that *I* no longer need to concern myself with any of that, but that's how I worked it when I did - and how I would work it if I need to again.

.

I really don't understand where this idea came from. People are not obliged to hear Mass anymore? Why not?

I look up in the 1917 code of canon law, and it looks like the relevant canons are as follows:



It says there that people must attend Mass on a day of precept.

What exactly are the options for attending mass? If only novus ordo is available? Or it an indult tlm? Or any tlm with a Novus ordo priest? Eastern Catholic?

And then there's also home aloners saying most traditional priests do not have jurisdiction. So would their mass even fulfill the requirement?