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.
Discuss the issues all you want but do not make it personal.
Expressing your opinion (as if a fact) of what another poster believes is mindreading and is personal.
Sprinkling a little water on a baby's head is not the water baptism described in Scripture. Nor is a person born again when he gets wet.
Conversion is a heart issue. An infant cannot make that kind of choice and nobody can make it for him.
Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and it is recorded in the Bible.
Yup. As an adult.....
The former and non Catholics imply in the concept of “born again” that you are “saved” and entitled to eternal life with God just because you say that you believe.
Not simply because we declare it but experientially.
Claiming that Christians think they're saved because they say so is a Catholic talking point misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the new birth.
It gives you a new nature, one that is dramatically different than the one before.
The evidence is in the change in every aspect in our lives. The way we think changes, what we do, how we see things, our sensitivity to sin and the leading of the Holy Spirit, the revulsion to sin and conviction of it when we do is plenty of evidence.
Nope. We are saved NOW. Today is the day of salvation.
Jesus said that whoever believed was saved (past tense). Almost all the Scripture addressing our salvation is in the past tense, and the present tense ones are concerning out growth and maturity in Christ.
So you don't need the words of Jesus?
John 3:3 King James Version (KJV)Jesus said it and to you it is nonsense? You do not want to see the Kingdom of God?Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 1:18-31King James Version (KJV)So you are putting yourself in the group of "them that perish?"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
Catholics don’t ned [there's ned again...] any of that born-again nonsense, we have the Holy Eucharist, the true Body of Christ.
So that nedgates (oops negates) any scriptures that are "nonsense" to you?
So what you call the "Holy Eucharist, the true Body of Christ" does not include all that Jesus preached? Must be another Christ (Jesus) then the Biblical one.
"ALL" Scripture is beneficial to the Christian according to the Bible.
From another post on this thread you said:
It does not help to quote swatches of scripture out of context and play sophomoric internet theologian
Like the "swatch" you posted here? You reject others doing what you do? Your's is valid because it's....YOU...posting it? Ahhhhm OK...
It's easy to notice that you seem to have an obsession with David Koresh and Jim Jones.
Were you part of those organizations and got out before the Kool-Aid and the cremation?
If so, imo you are better off being a Catholic.
But really, not believing the words of Jesus? I would think that being a part of the Kingdom of God is something any Christian would want.
Oh one more quote of yours: So please don’t give us this words of Christ don’t count stuff.
Unless of course it is His words saying you must be born again. It's clear that those don't count to you as you have plainly stated. You seem to be arguing with yourself, or perhaps it is hypocrisy.
Should you not hold yourself to the same standards you wish to see in others?
Good one. I think that many cults have a lot, though maybe not all of the ideas shown, including INC, JWs, Kingdom of Jesus Christ, the name above all names, Christian Science, the People’s Temple, the Branch Davidians, to name a few. BTW, as much as I disagreed with the Davidians, I don’t think the government had the right to burn them out.
Wow! That’s a stunning list.
Thank you! Would you please point the post out so I may see how I (mis)worded it? God bless you!
AMEN!
name 6
yeah, Catholicism is 2,015 tears old, the Mormans are....what, 150 years old....guess who emulated who???and the Mormans actually kind of followed the protestants....make up your own religion, toss it up in the air and see where it comes down...then go with the flow...
Again you miss the fundamental question of Petrine authority. Christ taught ONE truth. This cannot be denied. Before the Bible there was a received oral tradition of 300 years. This is undeniable.
There was ONE Church and it was under the authority of this ONE Church that the Word of God was identified. Several gospels like those of Thomas and Judas and other agnostic texts were discarded. This was done not by whim or fancy or under the authority of the likes of the Joel Osteens and Billy Grahams of the time. Scriptural scholarship and the works of St. Irenaeus among other establish this beyond any shadow of doubt. He specifically mentions and identifies one Church as the Church in Rome.
The undertaking by the early Church fathers (theologians) was done to preserve the ONE truth and this authority to select and interpret was extend to ONE Church for all time. This is irrefutable scriptural scholarship even by eminent Protestant theologians who having spent a whole lifetime of writing and scholarship and converted to Catholicism. This is undeniable.
Your cut and paste stuff in internet theology proves my point. You cannot have every Tom, Dick, and Harry and there grandmother or as Luther himself said, the “milkmaid” try their hand at interpreting scripture.
We can end up endlessly showing how your interpretations are wrong and then only to have you or anybody else (take your pick, Al Sharpton, Billy Graham, or those pastors from many mainline Protestant, Lutheran, Episcopalian churches who ordain gay and lesbian ministers under the authority of “their” interpretation of scripture) offer a contra interpretation with useless incoherent and out of context swatches of scripture.
Those early Church fathers under authority of the Church selected the books of the Bible were assembled them in the order they did is undeniable.
Their authority did not evaporate with the Reformation.
On the contrary as noted British essayist Hillaire Belloc has written unlike other heresies, Protestantism “spawned a cluster of heresies.”
Serious scholars no longer pay any attention to Bible-Christianity since it produces a multiplicity of conflicting beliefs founded on the shallowest of shallow sola scriptura theological waters. Out of these same waters sprang the Mormons, the Moonies, David Koresh, Jim Jones, and The Jehovah’s Witness. The shallow text is deadly.
Catholics have a Catechism and a Credo for all time, all nations and all peoples. Simply providing us internet references to the writings of a local pastor in California whose tracts are not even mentioned in the theological curriculum of Protestant colleges be it Baylor, Biola or anywhere else is demonstrative of the sheer vapidity of these iterations.
These attempt to wash away the Rock on which the Church was founded have proved futile since its founding by Christ and its have the divine guarantee that it will remain until the consummation of the world. Go read the lives of Catholic saints, martyrs, stigmatists, the miraculous cures at Lourdes and Fatima, and most of all the work of the great minds of Augustine, Aquinas, Newman and Benedict, and pull yourself, like others have done, from these stranded shoals.
Your comment: “Not simply because we declare it but experientially” “Nope. We are saved NOW. Today is the day of salvation”
That sounds like you are saved before your death. That seems to be the intrpretation that you are claiming.
However, Fr. Peter Stravinskas, in his Catholic Dictionary, defines salvation as “The result of being released from death through the passion, death, and resurrection of Christ, which brings us to the newness of life in heaven.” Did you catch that last part? According to this definition, salvation is something that has future significance. It is something that takes place later, when you die and consequently gain victory over death and receive eternal life in heaven.
So, which one is it? Does salvation take place now or later? I think it’s both. By God’s grace, we are every day being saved until we come to that day when God declares us fit to live with Him forever in heaven. That is why, in the Bible, salvation is referred to in the past tense (as something that has already taken place), in the present tense (as something that is taking place), and in the future tense (as something that will take place). Here are a few examples of each:
Past Tense: “in this hope we were saved” (Rom 8:24); “by grace you have been saved” (Eph 2:8).
Present Tense: “to us who are being saved” (1 Cor 1:18); “those who are being saved” (2 Cor 2:15).
Future Tense: “we shall be saved” (Acts 15:11); “he himself will be saved” (1 Cor 3:15).
Now that we know what salvation is, we can answer the question at hand. The Church believes that a person receives salvation both in this life, by living a life of faith and reception of the sacraments, and in the future, by persevering to the end (cf. Rom 11:22; Gal 5:1; Phil 2:12; Col 1:22-23; Heb 3:14) and standing before God with grace and faith intact. May we all “run with perseverance the race that is set before us” (Heb 12:1).
Pax Christi,
phatcatholic
You should have been around to school Jesus on that. You have taught Him a thing or two.
Matthew 23: you hypocrites!, hypocrites!, you hypocrites!, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are., blind guides!, You blind fools!, You blind guides!, Blind Pharisee!, You snakes!, You brood of vipers!,
Those were all taken from just one conversation!! You could have shown Him how He should have been more polite.
What is an appropriate time to use such language as you quote, especially in our culture and in our time? Colossians 4:5, at least in my interpretation, points towards tailoring our language:
Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time. Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.
I'll also point out that at least according to my interpretation of the guidelines on the Religion Forum, I would not recommend that anyone here call others here "snakes" or "hypocrites":
But he must not say "You are Satanic." That would be "making it personal." The Bible is always a legitimate source on the Religion Forum, so a poster might quote the Bible where Jesus called Peter "Satan." If a post serves no debate purpose (flame bait or 'making it personal' by devious means) - it would be pulled.When in doubt, avoid the use of the pronoun "you" and Freeper's names - or put yourself in the other guy's shoes.
I am no great theologian, but I highly doubt that this policy somehow keeps us from obeying God's commands. In fact, if this policy were removed, this forum would be even worse.
If you are "sincerely" looking for truth you may want to do some reading. Clement of Alexandria (150-215) who Origen studied under would be one. He was revered by the Roman Catholic Church but his name was removed from Roman Martyrology mostly because of his views on the figurative language of what Catholic refer to as the Eucharist.
A very good article about his views on the figurative language of the Lord's supper can be found here.
The two books by Clement referenced in that article are the Paedagogus and the Stromata. They can be read at the links.
Others mentioned in that article are Tertullian of Carthage, Irenaeus of Lyons, Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, and Ignatius of Antioch.
Catholics who do NOT want to find truth should NOT read this article.
Yes. I am saved now.
I am a new creature in Christ, the old has passed and the new has come.
I am seated with Christ in the heavenly places NOW.
John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
Ephesians 1:13-14 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
Colossians 1:13-14 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Colossians 2:13-14 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
Colossians 3:3 For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.
Ephesians 2:1-10And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Salvation is a done deal here on earth. When we die, the decision we made here on earth is sealed, as there are no second chances after death.
There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Paul was talking there to the masters of slaves. He was talking about how to talk to "outsiders" who may not have heard the gospel. Jesus was talking to abstinent leaders of the synagogue who had corrupted the word of God just as the Catholic Church leaders have.
You may also want to take my comments in context. I was simply pointing out that Jesus wasn't always so nicey, nicey when dealing with those how pervert what scripture says.
Thank-you. I’ll read the linked works.
No need to read any “articles” The truth is out there in the own words of the early Church theologians, and similarly, don’t need to read if Bible Christians don’t want to know why they are so wrong, and instead refer to articles by un-credentialed bloggers and writers that no college theological department would recommend as part of their curriculum.
In their own words: Check the DATES. Many of them were familiar with the apostles and bear in mind the books in the Bible were assembled around 300-400 AD about which time Petrine authority and Apostolic succession was well established.
Pope Clement I
“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).
Hegesippus
“When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord” (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).
St. Irenaeus
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
“Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time” (See 3:3:4).
How Interpretational Disputes Were Settled
“Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?” (See 3:4:1).
“[I]t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth” (See 4:26:2).
“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” (See 4:33:8).
Tertullian
ONE CHURCH
“Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic Church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith”.
Cyprian of Carthage
“[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with [the heretic] Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop [of Rome], Fabian, by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way” (Letters 69[75]:3 [A.D. 253]).
Jerome
“Far be it from me to speak adversely of any of these clergy who, in succession from the apostles, confect by their sacred word the Body of Christ and through whose efforts also it is that we are Christians” (Letters 14:8 [A.D. 396]).
Augustine
“[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here.
The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]).
Well, you’ve got 1) Justin Martyr, 2) Clement of Alexandra, 3) Theodoret, 4) Eusebius of Caesarea, 5) Irenaeus of Lyons, and 6) Origen. For good measure, how about Tertullian, Pope Gelasius I, Serapion, Jerome, Athanasius, Ambrosiaster, Macanus of Egypt, Eustathius of Antioch, and Augustine.
There simply is no teaching during the first 800 or so years of the church that has these characteristics:
1) The bread becomes not just the body of Christ, but the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, and no longer remains bread, and
2) The wine becomes not just the blood of Christ, but the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, and no longer remains wine.
Yet that is what Trent teaches and makes central to the Roman faith. You may find fathers who echo the Scriptural metaphor of the bread being the body and the cup being the blood. You may even find some fathers who go further, and insist that the relationship is more than a mere symbol, but instead is a symbol with power. You may find fathers that talk about a spiritual presence. But you won’t find what Trent teaches.
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.