Mass as nourishment, not as obligation

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.

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.

Bread of life

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.

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).

Mutual obligation

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.

Poll
How often do you attend Mass? Answer here.

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.

me in post # 165: "... all of the fallacious, inaccurate balderdash contained in some of these sadly misguided Catholic-Bashing posts. (I believe I will start to post these links, and other interesting conversion stories, every time I find another one of these threads loaded with so much false and deceiving information concerning ...."

Elsie in post # 191: "Mighty bold talk for a one eyed fat man! Perhaps a lurker or two; maybe even a TRUTH seeker as well; might want to see EVIDENCE of your brash accusations."

=============================

Your post right there (attacking my "conversion story links" post) is a plain example of the use of "fallacious, inaccurate balderdash" and "false and deceiving information".

It is a clear example of the use of the "ad hominem logical fallacy", based on blatantly false and scurrilously dishonest innuendo, as described below:

"Ad Hominem Fallacy" (argumentum ad hominem) - Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making. It can be stated directly, or indirectly (by implication/inference/innuendo, often completely falsified [as are both of your implied references in your blatantly deceptive post]). Another ad hominem variation is "needling", which is attempting to make the other person angry, taking attention off of the argument, and perhaps even trying to make the other person look foolish, rather than honestly addressing the argument.

This is clearly the fallacious argument of a person losing an argument (the loser), who appears unable to formulate even one single valid, effective, rational, cogent, and coherently meaningful argument against any of their opponent's points (or against their opponent's linked Christian testimonial presentations), so they resort to posting fallacious and false innuendo.

Elsie, another clear illustrative example of that same kind of fallacious post would be if one poster were to say to another poster:

------------------------------------------------------------

"Mighty bold talk for a...

...man who likes to pose as a lady!"

------------------------------------------------------------

Elsie, do you see how such a statement could possibly indicate a fallacious implication (unless, of course, the person referenced really does like to pose as a lady)?

>>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:<<

Paul was talking there to the masters of slaves.

A quick clarification: my reference above was supposed to continue to verse 6 as well, in case I wasn't clear, even though I quoted both.

Well, this is not the biggest point, but I've interpreted the change of address differently. I've probably always viewed verses 2 to 6 (not to mention verses 7 and following) as addressed to the general audience of the letter, not just to the "masters" of verse 1. One reason is that the relatively longer address to "servants" (starting at 3:22) seems to me to be more thematically cohesive than a complementary address that would encompass 4:1-6.

The major relevance in this post would be that the admonitions of vv. 5-6 apply to the general audience, not only to such masters (and then to Christians in general, I suppose, instead of only to "masters" or their equivalent in a given society).

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.

Although I would not agree with the whole of this quotation, I do appreciate the difference in audience. I did notice, when I was quoting Colossians 4:5, that "them that are without" often seems to apply in heated discussion in the Religion Forum. Sometimes professing Christians address other professing Christians as if the Christianity of the latter is in question or in doubt.

Even more importantly, this is a public forum. "Them that are without" can be anywhere, and one important reason to watch our language is to be a good witness to the world. (It may be saying something that our Religion Forum has a lot of rules. Although I'd be wrenching it out of context to apply it directly, sometimes the discourse around here reminds me of Romans 2:24.)

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.

Yes, I did interpret your post as saying something like this, though I wanted some clarification before assuming that you meant something like this.

I say in response that part of "[walking] in wisdom" is knowing how to address one's intended audience.

I actually wasn't aware of the existence of this thread at all, let alone your post, until I searched for another recent post (which I found) that made a reference to "snakes" and "brood of vipers." So of course I found this thread as well.

I find this use of Matthew 23 interesting. For example, when I was looking at something else in the Religion Forum lately, I found an old post, a compilation of scriptural references in which Jesus and others address others as "fools."

Now, it's very nice that someone knows how to use a concordance, but one of those rules in this Religion Forum precludes our actually addressing other participants as "you fool" or "you snake." Thanks in some part to Matthew 5:22, I do not think that those rules stand between us and obeying Jesus.

I also do not view the apparent difference between Matthew 5:22 and that poster's long list as what some so-called skeptics would have us believe is a "biblical contradiction." One consideration: those who are tempted to call others "fools" based on apparent scriptual evidence should consider if they are like Jesus, or even Paul, before they go ahead and use similar language. Given the likely spiritual state of most of us, I would even guess that Matthew 5:22 applies more closely to most of us, and this rule edifies us more than it hurts. "Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples." What sort of fruit are we bearing?

This is silly stuff because you miss the very first word of the quote “individual” interpretation, and then go onto quote what Jewish sects practiced.

What is truly silly is your own lack of comprehension; first, that your own declarative proclamations are not worth the trouble it took yourself to assert them, and then of course, that followed by the failure on your own part to recognize those assertions have been (quite easily, I may add) falsified ---- shown to be in error.

You said that the Jews, and the early Christians did not practice "individual interpretation", even as I showed you that many Jews did individually stand and speak, providing their own exegesis as it were.

Christ Himself most certainly did give His own "individual interpretation", even as was the custom for Jews to do so. [Strike one]

For those whom could actually hear Him, what did they take note of but that no man had spoken to themselves with authority such as He did?

Later, Peter and other Apostles, although not all of them deeply learned men, as in themselves having been biblical scholars equal to Paul, ---> still spoke with great authority, a deep assurance, (which was noticed by the listeners, I might add) for they were speaking of what they knew of Christ, having witnessed that first-hand, and how what had been witnessed directly by themselves then also related to the Scriptures, even as for what it all meant, hence --- what the interpretations of all of these things, the events and the Scriptures both, taken all together, in actual fact most properly were.

Should I bring those passages of Scripture, so that you may examine them, and then perhaps see what was going on, and thus better understand what I'm talking about?

For the Jews to engage in oral presentation by way of oral Midrash & discussion, does not mean that they did so entirely disconnected from their own faith traditions. Albeit it could often enough be that those same traditions themselves had became part of the problem, as can be seen at those times & places wherein Jesus corrected them, judging and condemning the errors of their ways and traditions whenever He encountered those, although noticeably Himself also still working within the set of understandings which they well should have had, had those previous generations of persons whom had formed the various customs and traditions been sensitive and yielding to the The Spirit, as that can be discerned under the Law (for the Law came from Spirit -- not the other way around).

As for the post-Apostolic age earliest Christians, they were often more or less forced to give explanation.

That is impossible to do without reaching into what one themselves understands, and that understanding is always subject to some amount of personal interpretation, if but for one to internally interpret what some teacher (or many teachers) have said in regard to Scripture, history, traditions, etc.

I know of only one other way --- and that would be to have one's each and every word come to themselves as led by the Spirit of the Lord, most chiefly -- thus 'alone', in that sense. I do not personally myself lay claim to such ability, though I am not entirely without the Spirit being present with myself, even as I write this, the remaining question being --- how well am I myself yielding to and allowing myself to be led of the Spirit, which is one of those sort of critical self-examination sort of things which a Christian must be ever searching themselves inwardly, checking as for how well the Spirit within themselves is either aligned with that which has already trickled it's way into one's own understandings (thus interpretations of things) or else the Spirit of God be preferring to provide some correction towards.

For those whom have had the Lord correct themselves in this manner, while also at other times opening up their understandings to whatever it is that any particular individual may have up until time not realized, the Lord (by His Spirit) provided to themselves clarity (and peace) in the same manner in which Peter was given knowledge by way of the Spirit, that Jesus was the Messiah (even though Peter's brother Andrew had already told Peter that exact thing, by way of human speech), those persons could possibly know what I'm talking about here, even as the Lord also uses ministers and teachers (and even those given truly prophetic insight) to assist other individuals in this same process.

From 1 Corinthians 14;

And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

Barnes Notes

Athanasius was but a relatively young deacon when he pressed his own case against Arius, using his own words and reasoning as towards how the precept of God appearing to us in form of Trinity should first -- be adopted, then --- be best described, thus conceptually *thought about* and theologically considered.

Many others also wrote for or against some particular theological position or another, so in that way were themselves sharing their own personal understandings of Scripture, and their own personal understanding of what "traditions" there were also, pretty much each and every time they wrote a single word that was not simply reciting Scripture itself, or repeating verbatim what someone else had said or written, of the faith.

Among those whom strayed into serious errors, were many who themselves had been appointed bishops of the Church, which shows there is no real guarantee one or another that those in positions of ecclesiastical 'authority' will be always correct.

The Apostle Paul himself wrote to many, encouraging them to search the Scriptures to see if what he was saying was correct, or not, praising those whom did so.

Notice there that Paul did not say "go to what is traditionally said of, or else written of and about Scripture", but to go to the very Scripture itself.

Being that Paul must have been most chiefly referring to Tanakh (the Hebrew Scriptures) when he wrote what he did, one may attempt to argue here that the NT writings are a different kettle of fish entirely, resulting in that none save those in some position or another of perceived 'authority' could ever rightfully enough from the Scriptures and their own understanding of them, argue and present their own case as for some theological position, or aspect of Christian faith --- yet where in the world would that have left poor Athanasius once his own bishop had quite literally, died? Athanasius contra mundus, et mundum contra Athanasium, or "While the world is set against Athanasius, Athanasius is equally set against the world." [Strike two]

As for our conversation here, there is still the issue of the un-sourced Luther quote. It has begun to re-circulate here on this forum. Attribution for where the quote came from has been asked for, more than once.

Why has that not been provided?

The rest of your last note, the veritable strawman of church sketches and comparisons, would be laughable if they were not so sad from the opening of the sequence;

"You go to one, the pastor is gay..."

What of all the faggoty priests within the RCC which those in top echelon of authority within the RCC had long known about (we are talking multiple decades, at the least, for they were "treating" them as far back as the 1950's) yet did not dismiss and remove from within their own ranks?

Would it be "ok" for a (so-called) Catholic priest to be "gay", as long as whoever it was, was also allegedly celibate?

That was more or less how things went for a long time within the RCC, and still strongly tend to do so, even to this day. The "who am I to judge" statement made fairly recently by Bergoglio was made in context of that very thing, was it not?

I won't waste my own time going entirely through each step of the rest of your "silly" sketches and assertion (as for #1 -thru- #4 example churches, as if those were actually fair sampling, description & examples) but I will tell you that one can find Roman Catholic priests among leading pacifists, and that Jeremiah Wright has nothing to directly to do with "Four Square Gospel" church affiliations. [Strike three] ..and you are outta'there

From top to bottom, your overall assertions have been so thoroughly flawed the conclusions which follow are thereby contaminated.

Yet (I will ask you to ask yourself) were you not instead, working from the bottom up --- by which I mean from your own a priori conclusions, needing to invent things in order to justify those same conclusions, which often are so far overstated by yourself, they've been easy picking to have been shot down over and again on the pages of this forum, by those whom you've sputtered and spewed on thread after thread, were "sophomoric" and/or labeled "internet theologians"?

If the case cannot be made without resorting to strawmen and insults, then the "case" itself as reasoned and worded must be lacking --- or else --- your own ability to coherently present the case may be lacking also, as part of the overall problem.

The Luther quote.

SOURCE. Provide the source from where you are copy/pasting that from.

And this "one truth" you keep yammering on about.

In your own words, what is it?

Myself, I already know the truth, and the truth has set me free.

The Lord Himself has told me directly, even word-for-word, in the Spirit;

"you are free".

The word of the Lord -- given to me(!)

What personal testimony can you give? Do you have one at all?

Or is all which you know, or *think* you know, have come to yourself second-hand?

If that be the case, then it's no wonder that you continue to raise such dogged opposition towards those whom are not limited to the same conditions which you, yourself perhaps are.

Blackbird

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.