Posted on 02/05/2015 2:50:39 PM PST by NYer
Most Catholics know we are supposed to attend Sunday Mass every week and observe various holy days of obligation throughout the year. It’s an obligation, however, that many do not observe. As my parish priest joked years ago when the pews of our sleepy rural parish were unexpectedly full, “There must be nothing going on in Tweed [Onterio] today.”
I suspect part of the reason so many Catholics ignore the Sunday obligation is, counter intuitively, the very word “obligation.” Our culture is not one that deals well with concepts like duty and obedience. The words “I was just following orders” is synonymous with mindless compliance, while the character of the “dutiful wife” or “obedient child” tends to be the subject of ridicule or pity.
| Poll |
|---|
As a result, we end up with a divide within the Church. On the one hand, there are those who attend Mass only when there is an important event, when it happens to be convenient or when they are especially in need of divine help. On the other, you have Catholics who dutifully obey the precepts of the Church — but who too often look down on those who don’t.
For a long time, I was a member of the latter camp. When I was first received into the Church, I was an enthusiastic, often daily recipient of the sacrament. I went to Mass because I loved the liturgy and found great consolation in receiving Christ in the Eucharist.
Over time, however, I become scrupulous about ever missing Mass even for the best of reasons, and my perfect attendance record increasingly became an opportunity for self-congratulation. Worse, it became an opportunity to judge others who attended only on occasion.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church acknowledges that there are conditions that validly excuse a person from their Sunday obligation. Illness, isolation, lack of access to transportation, the obligation to care for ailing relatives, and the care of infants are among the reasons why a person might be unable to attend (cf. No. 2181).
If we think of Mass attendance as a kind of spiritual badge of honor, these excuses can seem to be just that: excuses. Loopholes for the lax. After all, any really dutiful and faithful Catholic would find a way to get to church unless they were taken hostage on a Saturday night or found themselves unconscious in the back of an ambulance Sunday morning.
Only when I found myself in a situation where attendance at Mass every Sunday become a practical impossibility did I realize how absurdly presumptuous my judgment had been. In a subtle way, I had come to see my reception of Christ’s gift as a personal accomplishment, almost as a favor I was doing God.
The Sunday obligation is not a chore the Church exacts from her faithful children but a manifestation of her maternal concern. We are called to Mass every Sunday in much the same way children are called to the dinner table every evening.
 |
| * The shift in attendance between 1995 and 2000 reflects a change in the method used to collect the data. |
When the Church tells us that we are obliged to attend, she is telling us how often we need to receive sacramental nourishment in order to remain spiritually healthy. Choosing to skip Mass for trivial reasons is a mortal sin because it is a kind of willful self-neglect. It’s like a businessman who chooses to deprive his body of adequate food because meals cut into the time he has to maximize his profits. Being unable to attend for good reasons is not sinful, but it is a privation, like a mother who skips meals because she only has enough to feed her children.
Christ’s body is true bread, and the sustenance which we receive in the Eucharist is even more important to our well-being than physical food. Indeed, physical hunger is ultimately a sign that helps to illustrate our spiritual needs.
After Christ feeds the multitudes in John 6, the people he has fed go looking for him the next day. When they finally track him down, Christ reveals their motives: “You are not looking for me because you have seen the signs, but because you had all the bread you wanted to eat” (Jn 6:26).
The experience of being satisfied with food after a long day clearly made a deep impression. No doubt some of these people were poor and rarely had enough to eat. Others were dreaming of a world in which the Jewish people would once more be fed directly by the hand of God, as they were in the wilderness under Moses (cf., Jn 6:31). For them, the multiplication of the loaves did not merely point toward the relief of physical hunger but also toward political liberation from the power of Rome. The manna of Exodus had freed the Jewish people to escape the flesh-pots of Egypt. Thus, bread represented both nourishment and freedom.
When Christ answers them, he tries to guide their thinking away from short-term physical and political hopes. “Do not work for food that perishes,” he tells them, “but for the food that endures for eternal life” (Jn 6:27). Later, he clarifies: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world” (Jn 6:51).
Everyone knows it is necessary to eat in order to stay alive, and if we don’t have enough food, it causes health problems. It is the same with the Mass. This is where we come in order to receive the life-blood that nourishes our souls and prepares them to be born to eternal life.
When a person misses Mass for serious reasons, Catholic Tradition offers ways of observing the Sabbath until it is possible to return to the sacraments — emergency rations for the soul, if you will. Individuals and families are encouraged to participate in the Liturgy of the Word and to set aside time for Sunday prayer. An act of spiritual communion can also be made anywhere and at any time by turning one’s heart toward the tabernacle and inviting Jesus’ real presence in the sacrament to spiritually nourish and sustain the soul.
Parish communities should also help absent parishioners return to the Mass. One of the risks of seeing attendance as a personal accomplishment is that it can blind us to the fact that access to the Eucharist is achieved through community.
Consider, for example, the story of the Wedding at Cana — a Gospel passage redolent with Eucharistic symbolism. Here we find that there isn’t enough wine to go around. Some of the guests are going to be excluded from full participation in the joy of the wedding celebration.
Mary’s solicitude at Cana shows us that we can enable others to participate by being aware of their needs and offering assistance. The hosts of the wedding know they are running out of wine, but they don’t know who to ask for help. They have no idea Christ is on hand, able to work a miracle.
People within a parish community might want to attend Mass regularly, but they might be unsure how to ask for the support they need. An older person who has lost their driver’s license might feel uncomfortable asking for a ride. A single mother caring for a chronically ill child might be embarrassed to admit she can’t afford a babysitter Sunday mornings.
Parishioners can imitate Mary by taking a friendly interest and getting an idea of what obstacles are preventing folks from attending more regularly. People who are afraid of asking for help are often grateful for a simple, gracious offer of assistance.
If we see the sacrament as a gift, and ourselves as conduits through which others are enabled to receive it, we can both avoid the silliness of spiritual pride and also help to build vibrant Eucharistic communities where everyone is able to enjoy the bounteous generosity of God.
I am absolutely amazed that you describe the church concept and then do not follow it...where on Earth does it say that everyone gets to decide for him/her self how things should be done.....
Isn’t that funny? They blaspheme God, call the Catholic Church a cult, call Jesus Christ a cracker, and they don’t even go to church. What’s that?
Sorry, that does not work.
Is private interpretation of the Bible condoned in the Bible Itself? No, it is not (2 Peter 1:20). Was individual interpretation of Scripture practiced by the early Christians or the Jews? Again, “NO” (Acts 8:29-35). The assertion that individuals can correctly interpret Scripture is false.
Even the “founder” of Sola Scriptura (Martin Luther), near the end of his life, was afraid that “any milkmaid who could read” would found a new Christian denomination based on his or her “interpretation” of the Bible.
Luther opened a “Pandora’s Box” when he insisted that the Bible could be interpreted by individuals and that It is the sole authority of Christianity. Why do we have over 20,000 different non-Catholic Christian denominations? The reason is individuals’ “different” interpretations of the Bible.
Can there be more than one interpretation of the Bible? No. The word “truth” is used several times in the New Testament. However, the plural version of the word “truth” never appears in Scripture. Therefore, there can only be one Truth.
So how can there be over 30,000 non-Catholic Christian denominations all claiming to have the “Truth” (i.e., the correct interpretation of the Bible)? For that matter, aren’t ALL non-Catholic Christians as individuals claiming “infallibility” when it comes to interpreting the Bible? Catholics only believe in the infallibility of the Papacy as an office.
Which is more believable - one office holding infallibility or 400 million non-Catholic Christians who can’t agree on the interpretation of Scripture all claiming “infallibility?” When it comes to interpreting Scripture, individual non-Catholic Christians claim the same infallibility as the Papacy. If one were to put two persons of the “same” non-Catholic Christian denomination (i.e., two Presybterians, two Lutherans, two Baptists, etc.) in separate rooms with a Bible and a notepad and ask them to write down their “interpretation” of the Bible, passage for passage, shouldn’t they then produce the exact same interpretation? If guided by the Holy Spirit as Scripture states, the answer should be “Yes.” But would that really happen? History has shown that the answer is “No.”
Now, in the case of Catholics, the Church which Christ founded and is with forever (Matthew 28:20) interprets the Bible, as guided by the Holy Spirit, (Mark 13:11) for the “sheep” (the faithful).
The Church (not individuals) interpret Scripture. In Catholicism, Scripture is there for meditation, prayer and inspiration, not for individual interpretation to formulate doctrine or dogma.
Is the Bible the sole “teaching from God?” No. The Bible Itself states that their are “oral” teachings and traditions that are to be carried on to the present-day (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Timothy 2:2; Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 1:24-25).
These teachings are what the Catholic Church considers “Sacred Apostolic Tradition.” This type of “Tradition” never changes because it was passed down by the Apostles themselves. It is not the same as the man-made traditions condemned in Scripture. The man-made traditions condemned in Scripture were those of the Jewish Pharisees. In fact, as Christians, we are suppose to disassociate ourselves from persons who do not follow Apostolic Tradition (2 Thessalonians 3:6).
If oral tradition is not to be followed, why did St. Paul state Christ said something that is not recorded in the Gospels (Acts 20:35)? St. Paul must have “heard” this saying, not read it from any Gospel or “Scripture,” thereby, proving that some things Christ said were not recorded in the Gospels (John 21:25) and were passed on orally among His disciples instead, but were just as valid as anything written since St. Paul himself used one of these oral passages in one of his own epistles.
Pope of OURS...he is Pope of ALL Christians...
Your comment: “According to Duns Scotus, transubstantiation was not an article of faith before the thirteenth century.”
That is not correct. The Catholic Church has often after time has documented the teachings and reaffirmed them.
The Apostles believed and taught the Real Presence of Jesus and is contained in the Bible:
1st Corinthians, 11:23-26. “For I received from the Lord what I shall deliver to you.”
23* For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you,k that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, 24and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”l 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
27Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.
Then why do protestants do it...Catholics have a Consecrated Host...The Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ....no "crackers" in our churches!!!
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
I don’t think you understood my comment.
Did Christ "WANT" to suffer and die on the Cross?
"Father, if thou wilt, remove this chalice from me: but yet not my will, but thine be done."
If you want to argue with a doctor of your church, that’s fine by me. If it was accepted and settled as far back as the apostles, then why did the Lateran Council take it up?
Thank you for your kind words.
God’s Peace be with you.
That's kind of where Baptism comes in....
Precisely. This works directly again you. The Church is not “any man.”
The Catholic Church clarifies its teachings when necessary. I will try to provide further info later.
The Assumption of the Blessed Mother in 1950 was an example.
Any time : )
He chose to do so, did He not?
:-)
We were born of our mothers’ wombs; we were born again in Baptism. That’s what we believe.
Yeah right...the Apostles thought that Christ was kidding when He said "THIS IS MY BODY"...The true presence of Christ in the Eucharist was understood from the very beginning...13th century???, you have to be kidding...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.