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.
God bless you!
Well, that's a rather loaded question. How about we just look at what the Holy Spirit teaches through scripture?
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. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.
Now, compare that to the teaching of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church teaches that the Sabbath was abolished as seen here but teach that Sunday is mandatory.
2180 The precept of the Church specifies the law of the Lord more precisely: "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass." "The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day."
An "obligation" and they "are bound"? Read Romans 14:5 again.
That Catholic Church says missing mass is a "grave sin".
2181 The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor. Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.
"Grave sin"? Read Romans 14:5 again.
They call Sunday "the Lord's day". Not once in all of scripture is Sunday called "the Lord's day" nor is it considered a "day of obligation" or that it is a "grave sin" if one does not observe it. The only place in history that we find Sunday being called the "Lord's day" is in the pagan worship of the Sun god and in "churches" which have followed the lead of the Catholic Church.
So "what I do" is between me and God as Paul said. Making any day "obligatory" is contrary to the teaching of the apostles.
I'll leave you with a statement by the Catholic Churches own claimed pope Pope Gregory I.
"It has come to my ears that certain men of perverse spirit have sown among you some things that are wrong and opposed to the holy faith, so as to forbid any work being done on the Sabbath day. What else can I call these [men] but preachers of Antichrist, who when he comes will cause the Sabbath day as well as the Lord’s day to be kept free from all work. For because he [the Antichrist] pretends to die and rise again, he wishes the Lord’s day to be held in reverence; and because he compels the people to Judaize that he may bring back the outward rite of the law, and subject the perfidy of the Jews to himself, he wishes the Sabbath to be observed. For this which is said by the prophet, ‘You shall bring in no burden through your gates on the Sabbath day’ [Jer. 17:24] could be held to as long as it was lawful for the law to be observed according to the letter. But after that the grace of almighty God, our Lord Jesus Christ, has appeared, the commandments of the law which were spoken figuratively cannot be kept according to the letter. For if anyone says that this about the Sabbath is to be kept, he must needs say that carnal sacrifices are to be offered. He must say too that the commandment about the circumcision of the body is still to be retained. But let him hear the apostle Paul saying in opposition to him: ‘If you be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing’ [Gal. 5:2]" (Letters 13:1 [A.D. 597]).
How does that compare with what the Catholic Church teaches today? The Catholic Church today declares that the Sabbath day is Sunday do they not? Do they not use the ten commandments to declare observance of Sunday?
I was born from my mother’s womb. I was born again when I was Baptized. That’s it. God bless you!
Romans 14 would be one.
That cracker isn't Jesus Christ nor is Jesus Christ in some cracker.
But what do you do as one who interprets Scripture for oneself do to keep the Sabbath day holy and which day do you choose? I already know what my Church teaches. It’s not a loaded question. It is you who interpret, saying Time is wrong: what do you feel mine or any church ought to do and when?
I'm thinking that if you go there now and stay till around the first of April that will give enough time for it to sink in to him!!!
Regardless of the history, I don’t believe it’s Scriptural. I’m sure it’s not.
By the way, I got my understanding from studying the history and theology of the Roman church. It’s interesting that they would have made Duns Scotus a doctor of the church since he was so off-base. I don’t know why in the world Pope John Paul II would have beatified him.
Is it possible you have never studied the history of that doctrine and have blindly accepted that transubstantiation has been the consistent and official belief for 2000 years?
Can the magisterium simply declare history to be as they want? If they rewrite it are you obligated to believe it?
And if “this is my body” is to be taken to mean the bread becomes the literal body of Christ, why doesn’t the subsequent phrase(this cup is the new testament) mean the cup literally becomes New Testament? Or maybe you believe the cup magically transforms into a red letter New Testament, at the urging of a priest of course.
Garry Wills is the author of “Why I am a Catholic,” but also of “Why Priests?” In “Why Priests” p. 16 he wrote:
“Indeed, Eucharist (”Thanksgiving”) in its later sense, of sharing bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ, is never used in the New Testament, not even in the Letter to Hebrews, which alone calls Jesus a priest. Even when the term “Eucharist” came in, as with the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, it was still, as in Paul, simply a celebration of the people’s oneness at the “one altar.” That meaning for the “body of Christ” would persist as late as the fourth and fifth centuries, in Augustine’s denial of the real presence of Jesus in the elements of the meal.”
You should read his book, it does a nice job of explaining the history of the doctrine.
The truth of the matter is the doctrine of the real presence (in the transubstantial sense it is given by Rome today) was not the ancient teaching of the churches - even if a real spiritual presence was taught by some of the fathers.
"then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve"
Like I said. What I do is between me and the Lord. You can do as you wish but don’t don’t pass it off as commands in scripture and requirements or that all are “bound” to believe or observe.
No one is telling you you have to go to Mass on Sunday! Why would you be expected to follow our Church laws if you don't believe in the Church? Present date, you in your lifetime.
God bless you!
As indicated, Church councils resolve aand state in detail church doctrine when there has been some contrary viewpoints. The Church goes back to the Apostles and early church leaders to establish what was taught and practiced. As you can see, many of the early church leaders wrote about the Real Presence and was clearly mentioned in the Bible in several areas. Transubstantiation was defined later and affirmed at the council of Lateran IV in 1215.
Councils are legally convened assemblies of ecclesiastical dignitaries and theological experts for the purpose of discussing and regulating matters of church doctrine and discipline. The terms council and synod are synonymous, although in the oldest Christian literature the ordinary meetings for worship are also called synods,
Twelfth Ecumenical Council: Lateran IV (1215)
The Fourth Lateran Council was held under Innocent III. There were present the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem, 71 archbishops, 412 bishops, and 800 abbots the Primate of the Maronites, and St. Dominic. It issued an enlarged creed (symbol) against the Albigenses (Firmiter credimus), condemned the Trinitarian errors of Abbot Joachim, and published 70 important reformatory decrees. This is the most important council of the Middle Ages, and it marks the culminating point of ecclesiastical life and papal power.
•Canon 1: Exposition of the Catholic Faith and of the dogma of Transubstantiation
For we have the two extremes of conversion, namely, bread and wine as the terminus a quo, and the Body and Blood of Christ as the terminus ad quem. Furthermore, the intimate connection between the cessation of one extreme and the appearance of the other seems to be preserved by the fact, that both events are the results, not of two independent processes, as, e.g. annihilation and creation, but of one single act, since, according to the purpose of the Almighty, the substance of the bread and wine departs in order to make room for the Body and Blood of Christ. Lastly, we have the commune tertium in the unchanged appearances of bread and wine, under which appearances the pre-existent Christ assumes a new, sacramental mode of being, and without which His Body and Blood could not be partaken of by men. That the consequence of Transubstantiation, as a conversion of the total substance, is the transition of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, is the express doctrine of the Church (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. ii).
For details: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3
Early fathers on the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist:
St. Ignatius of Antioch (110 A.D.)
I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to the Romans 7:3)
St. Justin the Martyr (100 - 165 A.D.)
We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined
For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, AND BY THE CHANGE OF WHICH our blood and flesh is nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. (First Apology, 66)
Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery… (Letter to the Philadelphians 4:1
St. Irenaeus of Lyons (140 - 202 A.D.)
…He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, “THIS IS MY BODY.” The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, HE CONFESSED TO BE HIS BLOOD.
He taught THE NEW SACRIFICE OF THE NEW COVENANT, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: [quotes Mal 1:10-11]. By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; BUT THAT IN EVERY PLACE SACRIFICE WILL BE OFFERED TO HIM, and indeed, a pure one
http://www.catholicbible101.com/transubstantiation.htm
Another source: http://www.justforcatholics.org/a181.htm
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paschasius_Radbertus
The most well-known and influential work of St. Paschasius, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini (written between 831 and 833), is an exposition on the nature of the Eucharist. It was originally written as an instructional manual for the monks under his care at Corbie, and is the first lengthy treatise on the sacrament of the Eucharist in the Western world.[4] In it, Paschasius agrees with Ambrose in affirming that the Eucharist contains the true, historical body of Jesus Christ. According to Paschasius, God is truth itself, and therefore, his words and actions must be true.
Shortly thereafter, a third monk joined the debate, Rabanus Maurus, which initiated the Carolingian Eucharist Controversy.[9] Ultimately, however, the king accepted Paschasius’ assertion, and the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist became the dominant belief in the Roman Catholic faith.
Peace be with you.
>>Catholics don’t ned any of that born-again nonsense<<
Yea they can just do works and spend some burn time in purgatory then they will have cleaned themselves up enough to be “presentable”to our Holy, Holy, Holy God
I've told you before. Believe as you wish but don't come in here promoting the Catholic Church and it's teachings as "the only church" or that belonging to that church is required as the Catholic Church teaches. I don't condemn you. I condemn what the Catholic Church teaches.
Your comment: “I condemn what the Catholic Church teaches”
Then you are against the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Your personal opinions and teachings do not speak the Truth of Jesus.
Why do you have such ill feelings towards the Catholic Church?
Catholics have been told by Jesus: “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”
May God’s Peace be with you.
I have as much right to be here and post my beliefs as you do. God bless you!
Of course you do. But don't complain when others do the same.
Oh so now you play internet theologian but telling us what the Greek translation is? This is why it has been said that if you place 100 Bible-Christians in a room and give them a notepad and pencil and have them interpret a phrase of scripture, you’d have 100 different reasons they would provide for their conclusion. Don’t forget to include pastors from the AME Church as well or those Bible-faiths that ordain gay and lesbian pastors.
Why don’t you simply accept what all the eminent Protestant theologians who have studied, taught, written, and preached scripture for all of their lives have said when they converted to Catholicism. This is why we have Petrine authority. This is why no serious scholar, even among atheists and agnostics who convert to Christianity convert to Catholicism.
The shallow born again nonsense is the stuff of Joel Osteen, Billy Graham and anyone else like corner-street pastors who think they can simply crack open the pages of the Bible (books assembled by the early Church Fathers some 300 years after the death of Christ ) and find the Word of God. Yet they miss the singular most important teaching of the Church for eternal salvation, the sacraments including the Holy Eucharist and the supreme Sacrifice of the Mass, which the renowned and brilliant convert to Catholicism, John Newman, called the “perfect prayer.” Before the Bible was the Catholic Church.
Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, “[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).
Don’t take my word. Here’s one original source. St. Irenaeus:
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
“The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere” (4:33:8).
No, I'm against the Catholic Church perversions of the teachings of Jesus Christ.
>>Why do you have such ill feelings towards the Catholic Church?<<
Because it corrupts, perverts, and adds to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. It incorporates paganism in it's worship and blasphemes God by giving glory to others that belong to Him alone.
>>Catholics have been told by Jesus<<
No, they were not. Jesus told the apostles to "go into all of the earth". He told them to make disciples of all the ethnos (all people, typically used for all Gentiles). He didn't say just some elite group of some so called "magisterium". He told the apostles to wait until they until they were baptised with the Holy Spirit.
Acts 1:4 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5 For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."
But then the apostles told us we have that same Holy Spirit.
Acts 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.
That's why they said we wouldn't need some "magisterium".
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.
The Catholic Church lies to keep people subjected to them contrary to what Jesus and the apostles taught.
No, I simply point it out so those who care to really know the truth can check for themselves understanding that what the Catholic Church is corrupting what scripture actually teaches.
>>Why don’t you simply accept what all the eminent Protestant theologians who have studied, taught, written, and preached scripture for all of their lives have said when they converted to Catholicism.<<
Because I don't follow some man. We are told to "test the spirits" and "search he scriptures to see if what they teach is so".
>>This is why we have Petrine authority.<<
No, we have scripture and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit so that we don't get led astray by some "petrine" false teachers.
>>The shallow born again nonsense<<
Jesus says without it you won't see heaven.
>>Yet they miss the singular most important teaching of the Church for eternal salvation<<
"believe on the Lore Jesus Christ and you will be saved"
>>The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church,<<
Prove that what the Catholic Church teaches today is what was "commited orally" to the "church". Show the documentation.
>>Don’t take my word.<<
You can believe me when I say I don't.
Again, prove that what the Catholic Church teaches today that they claim was "handed down" is exactly what the apostles taught. Documentation please.
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.