It is currently Sun Aug 18, 2019 10:01 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
 Sunday or Holy Day Mass Obligation 
Author Message

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 5:21 pm
Posts: 16
New post Sunday or Holy Day Mass Obligation
One of my brothers has been told by a Roman Catholic Priest that one is not obligated to attend Sunday Mass, if one is doing so under a sense of duress. This priest has told my brother that it is Catholic teaching that this is the case, and there is a plethora of documents out there that prove that attending Sunday (or holyday) Masses under duress is mortally sinful. Can anyone guide me to such specific references, please :idea: :?: :!:


Fri Aug 08, 2014 7:20 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Sunday or Holy Day Mass Obligation
Sounds to me like permission never to attend Mass on Sunday. It does not sound like advice from a Roman Catholic priest, but, rather, advice from a Conciliar priest. Unless your brother can provide more specific information, I would not want to say anything further.


Fri Aug 08, 2014 11:13 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 5:21 pm
Posts: 16
New post Re: Sunday or Holy Day Mass Obligation
It was a "Roman Catholic Priest", who has been ill and out of commission for the past many months told this to my brother. A 'rival' parish church with whom this priest is at odds with and has had for a long period of time some legal issues with (a lot of "He said"/"He said" stuff) yet traditional Catholics, not V2 priesst, as far as I know, offering valid masses in every sense of the word. When this priest became too ill to have mass now for many months, my brother, a loyal parishioner of this priest, asked if he should go to the 'rival' parish. This priest responded with "Absolutely NOT! It would be Mass under duress, and would be mortally sinful to attend!" He had some Church teaching quotes that he shared with my brother, who has not yet shared them with anyone else with whom he shared this info, which is highly suspect, in my opinion. My brother goes to the rival parish, but sits in back, not with a prayer-book but with his cell phone, texting :shock:

I agree it does sound like a way to avoid Sunday masses. :cry:


Fri Aug 08, 2014 11:38 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Sunday or Holy Day Mass Obligation
Perhaps the good priest who gave that advice is not well and everything he says at present should be taken with a grain of salt?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Aug 09, 2014 3:06 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Sunday or Holy Day Mass Obligation
Is this the same priest who wants to "separate himself from the traditional movement"?


Sat Aug 09, 2014 12:34 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Sunday or Holy Day Mass Obligation
Yes, I think so. He's had a rocky run lately.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Aug 09, 2014 1:56 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 5:21 pm
Posts: 16
New post Re: Sunday or Holy Day Mass Obligation
TKGS wrote:
Is this the same priest who wants to "separate himself from the traditional movement"?


Yes, it is. He is definitely in our prayers.


Sat Aug 09, 2014 6:35 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 5:19 am
Posts: 36
New post Re: Sunday or Holy Day Mass Obligation
theresao65 wrote:
TKGS wrote:
Is this the same priest who wants to "separate himself from the traditional movement"?


Yes, it is. He is definitely in our prayers.



If this is who I think it might be, I will keep this priest in my prayers. I had no idea he was sick.


Sun Aug 10, 2014 8:47 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: Sunday or Holy Day Mass Obligation
Well I think I am going to be Diabolus advocatus, the priest is right but it depends what you mean by under duress. To a certain extent the obligation to attend mass is conditional depending whether you have a licit location to attend. Now if he is talking about other independent SV's priest, then I have to say what is the reason to miss mass? Now at this point it just sounds to me like preferential cafeteria Catholic. If there is no doctrinal reason from the point of view of the priest, then ONE cannot say that you are under duress. If you have a doctrinally sound SV'ist priest who derived his orders from the licit lines of +Thuc or +Lefebvre or the SSPV Bishop or a pre-Vatican II Bishop using a valid rite, then why would you ever want to miss mass?!! Especially if it is not ridiculously far away, and if it is far away then just attend whenever possible. Maybe once every two weeks? If the person is old and infirm, then they are definitely excused. Holy Mother Church has your back, and when it comes to obligation she always gives the benefit of the doubt when there is a licit excuse.

More recently, I stopped going to the SSPX and I found the local SV'ist priest where he gives mass. I am like a 15 minute walk away from the SSPX chapel, but the drive to the other mass is quite far. Now it turns out the priest is gone for 6 weeks to a trip to Chile, and I somewhat more recently started attending there. I can go to Juarez, Mexico for mass but the location is so remote and I don't have a vehicle of my own (the ones we have are really bad cars that can't endure the bridge times and such deep trips into Mexico). It would take around 8-9 hours of my time to go and come back, and anyone can reasonable see that is a bit too much. Plus I am not really that familiar with Juarez, I could actually get lost :lol: and trust me they don't have real visible street signs everywhere. Its quite a mess O_O unless you are familiar already with the area. So all I do now is I go to sggresources.com and chime in one of their 4 online masses. It doesn't fulfill your Sunday obligation, but there are definitely spiritual graces one can receive the sermons are good and it allows you to take advantage of the Liturgical readings. Given how I have attended exclusively the '62 missal for 16 years, I can really tell just how different the '55 Missal is with respect to the calendar.

Given how publically heretical Bergoglio is, I do not see that it is mandatory to attend if you only have a SSPX chapel. I am gathering up some material and I will present my case later on, once I get my own life issues straight. Now if someone wants to attend, then if you have good reasons for doing so and there is no danger of indifferentism then one can do it (I would advice against it) without it being objectively mortally sinful. I would argue that at this point there is a difference between the previous heretical claimants and Bergoglio. His apostasy is in your face, daily, and with no sort of indication that he was ever pretended to be Catholic. The SSPX shows no sign of wavering on several key doctrinal issues that were controversial before, but now they have become real issues. The longer this goes on, the more that one should really stop attending the SSPX for their Holy day of obligation. The SSPX would constitute under duress, but any other independent chapel would not.

The SSPX advocates anti-Thomist positions at every level:

1) Believes we can reject canonizations, based on their own private judgement of who is worthy and not worthy. I never believed this during my days in the SSPX, I would pray to the Vatican II saints because I never rejected canonizations.
2) Tells us to avoid our own head, which is against Divine Law. Unity of government is necessary by Divine Law, you cannot tell the faithful that they are subject to known manifest public heretics. I am not just talking about the Pope issue here, we are talking about the individual Bishops also, this is an issue that not much people bring up. This is against the teaching of Satis Cognitum,
Quote:
Indeed no true and perfect human society can be conceived which is not governed by some supreme authority. Christ therefore must have given to His Church a supreme authority to which all Christians must render obedience. For this reason, as the unity of the faith is of necessity required for the unity of the church, inasmuch as it is the body of the faithful, so also for this same unity, inasmuch as the Church is a divinely constituted society, unity of government, which effects and involves unity of communion, is necessary jure divino.


We must make the proper distinction as to what legitimate debate there can be among the controversial issues. However, the SSPX accepts positions even in issues that are non controversial and the longer it goes on the worst it will get. Take for example the fact that they consider even heretical Bishop's to have retained their office. Not even ONE theologian, or canon law, or Saint has ever disputed that heretics lose membership in the Church. The only one where there was some controversy was dealing with the Pope, since at that time the evidence pointed that there was no such case in history, so this is why there was a controversy. However, when it comes to everyone else, but the Pope, it was beyond unanimous... YET, the SSPX priest will still say that despite even notorious wicked heretics like "Kasper" et al. are still mentioned in the canon. Now it can happen that locally somewhere in the world, there might be a "Bishop" who is not notorious about his heresy and generally allows good in his "diocese." I have never ever heard a priest who omits the name of the Bishop, despite being in a situation where the man is dancing at a faster rate then Mr. Bishop of Rome.
3) Accepts the short form of consecration as valid.
4) Accepts it is legitimate to form their own canonical courts despite acknowledging that the man dressed in white is Pope. In most cases which is even worse, it just accepts the Roman Rota decisions. This is especially a huge issue because I personally have met so many in traditional chapels who are living with someone else, as a result of an annulment. We are talking about folks who have had like 6 to 7 kids, based on an annulment... Being a non-SV'ist is spiritually the most destructive thing you can be, in some cases it is so serious that it can be totally life changing. Their whole life is based on a lie (such as an annulment), I would argue that 99.99999% of the cases out there are valid marriages. Yet, its so nice to have Catholic divorce!
5) Accepts the legitimacy of the New Code of canon law, which is being taught in the seminaries right now.
6) Most SSPX priest believe the absurd notion, of once a Catholic always a Catholic. Since it logically follows that if even the most notorious public heretics can be excused of their crimes, then the only logical position is that everyone else who steps and spits at the face of Our Lord is still a member of the Mystical Body of Christ.
7) Despite 50 years of study, they still conclude that Vatican II can be read in the light of tradition. They totally divorce the Council from the men who promulgated it. It is essentially the protestant error that a text can be able to interpret itself... The only way one can be able to defend Vatican II as orthodox, is to completely destroy every single Catholic notion of authority. Pius IX famously, "I am tradition." You can't get away from that fact, and to attempt to totally ignore every single encyclical, motu propio, Vatican approved congregations (PBC) that has authoritatively said that Vatican II must be accepted or you are separated from the Conciliar Church (of which I gladly accept to be separated from). Vatican II is absolutely heretical, because the men in authority have CONTINUALLY for a consistent 50 year period have given definitive judgements on faith/morals that are heretical. It is heretical because even the Conciliarist anti-Popes who have promulgated it, admit to be in submission to Vatican II and inspired their revolution from its fruitful teachings (that is what they have explicitly told us). Vatican II only self-quotes itself and even when it does happen to quote previous footnotes from previous magisterial teaching, they misquote!
8) All the above errors are bad, but the most spiritually destructive one is this. They accept the new Rites as valid, and this leads many otherwise good Catholics to go to confession to other laymen. In my particular mass center, probably only less then 10 EXCLUSIVELY go to the SSPX for confessions. Everyone I know, goes with the new rite priest's, and I myself was one of those since I held that position. Now the only way you can get back in good graces with God, is a general confession or if you were truly sincere in those confessions with laymen, you could have received the special grace of a perfect act of charity. You of course would not be aware of it, but I am sure that there are many inside of the Conciliar Church that get their sins forgiven through that means. You can especially see this in certain people, who have a supernatural and living faith inside of that cess pool of the Conciliar rot. They have this faith DESPITE the Conciliarist heretics that push a false religion to these Catholic souls who desire to believe as the Church believes.
9) In order to accept these men as Catholic it reduces every single papal teaching before, as disciplinary even when it is not talking about the governance of the Church. We are talking about Encyclicals dealing with a matter directly on faith/morals. Ipso facto the R&R by its very nature, MUST, reduce the authority of previous magisterial teaching in order to make these men Catholic still. I have never used this tactic (many on the different Catholic fora especially use this tactic), for me it was pretty simple before I became a SV'ist. Either the previous popes were wrong, or Vatican II is right. Or I simply reject Vatican II, and simply ignore anything post-Vatican II. So I took the latter option, I rejected Vatican II and ignored any Conciliarist teaching.

In conclusion:
SSPX priest are to be seen as priest who can be sought for emergency sacraments such as last Rites, confession's, blessing marriages (without the mass included) and any other Rite/ceremony that does not involve the naming of heretics in its ritual (so that would exclude Benediction). They can be sought for moral advice dealing with sin, but nothing more. As has been mentioned previously, no man is his own judge. We must have someone else objectively take a look at our own life and give us proper medicine depending on the extent of the damage done to the soul.

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Tue Sep 30, 2014 12:49 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: Sunday or Holy Day Mass Obligation
I would just like to add, forgot to mention it. This is just a short list among many other things. This is just a gist, I have a whole lot more material coming in the future. I will be making explanatory A-Z videos against the Conclavist, Siri Thesis, SSPX, radical schismatics and making the proper distinctions what is precisely right and wrong about these different groups.

In terms of a hierarchy of truth,

1) Pure plain Thomist Sedevacantism, stick to sound theology and philosophy. Don't venture into probable waters, but only safe opinions on whatever topic you delve into.
2) Sedeprivationism [Can't really say anything negative about it. It attempts to solve the problem of the indefectibility of the Church, and reconcile this with what happened at Vatican II. I think that it
3) Siri Thesis [They rank a bit higher because they have a much better claim to a Pope, then all the other conclavist's in general. Not saying its that much more, but just a slight difference in degree. They have plenty of errors some of them even more serious then other conclavist's, but all of these groups drink from the same fount of logic.]
4) Conclavism [They are much better then the SSPX because at the very least they accept that there is such a thing as a heretic, they are just misguided souls]
5) SSPX Resistance [Much much much better position from a stand point of spiritual health. They are more clear about Vatican II, not going to priest ordained in the New rites etc...), Neo-SSPX (progressively it gets worse and worse, its a nightmare situation in general]
6) Indult doctrine [Their ecclesiology is much better then that of the SSPX, but the problem is that they are applying to the wrong men. You can't put yourself under the spiritual direction of heretics, even presuming you are not tainted by their errors yet. Their main problem is that many times, the less educated among the indult tend to be more like High Church Anglicans, or neo-conservatism. Its the shell without the substance, and after some time you even lose the appearance of the shell. You see this now more explicitly]
7) Most Holy Family Sedevacantism [The reason why they are not a bit higher is because they are explicitly schismatic to everyone else, but not necessarily explicitly heretical, their errors are deep. They are one of the few that claim that EVERYONE in the world is a heretic, all the others just merely believe all the other groups are schismatic. They are extremely well read and versed, and give out lots of good content this has to be recognized.]
8) Home aloners [They essentially believe it is licit to spiritually starve no matter where you are located in the world. Everyone else in principle believes that they can attend some sort of mass somewhere in the world, even if its a very small number. This error leads to the worst spiritual dangers, where every man can be his own judge in spiritual matters. The Sedevacantist, has theoretically the possibility of attending somewhere the mass and seeking certain priest for confession but they deny the possibility of this principle. Its an effective explicit denial of the Apostolicity of the Church, its a serious heretical error. Many of the groups mentioned above deny this implicitly, but they deny it explicitly. This can in potentio lead to a prelude of the next position, it doesn't always I tend to think that people with a choleric temperament and scrupulous souls are the ones most likely to become radical schismatics. However, what leads people to radical schism above all is rash judgement to an extreme degree.]
9) Radical schismatics who believe that there are some other anti-Popes before Vatican II such as Pius XII etc... The vast majority tend to go back just to Pius XII, max to Leo XIII. If you go back any farther then Leo XIII, then any Pope is up for loss of papacy in potentio, under enough "study and scrutiny" of these self-deluded prophets of doom.
10) Even more radical schismatics who keep going back a thousand years of anti-Popes!! This is not even Catholicism anymore, its just total novelty. These guys are so heretical its difficult to keep track of their errors. They are the most pernicious of them all. They are so bad, that they deserve to be burned at the stake without a shadow of a doubt. Those who fall under the spell of Richard Ibryani and similar company, have little hope of ever returning to Catholicism. These guys are more "Catholic" then the Pope :lol: .

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Tue Sep 30, 2014 1:32 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Sunday or Holy Day Mass Obligation
Jorge, there's a lot of material in these forums from years ago, sorting out a lot of what you're trying to sort out now. There are a lot of shoulders you can stand on, rather than try and work it all out yourself.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 01, 2014 12:07 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: Sunday or Holy Day Mass Obligation
Who said I was working alone! I do rely on so many post's from these forums, I don't dare to be rash and ignore the treasures that are out there! Not re-inventing the wheel, just explaining things from a fresh perspective given the ever new novelties we are presented with. Particularly I am going over some things that I think have generally been neglected, and arguments that have not really been looked at. Particularly something I find the connection between all the modern traditional splinter groups and holding non-Thomist positions. Yet, the magisterium has been so clear with regards to not deviating from St. Thomas in the least (especially his metaphysics). All traditionalists generally recommend St. Thomas, yet they still reject the most important theological positions he advocated (in addition to the magisterium backing him up on those opinions). I just wish to demonstrate how anti-Thomism has led to the crisis we have within true Catholicism. Things aren't as confusing as people would love us to believe. They are only confusing, because they are advocating for us to drink from non-Thomist fonts. To those of us who have taken the liberty to drink from the font of St. Thomas, we are quite happy and sane. There is a remedy to the insanity out there, all I want to is to point to its direction.

All I want to do is to help explain these things that are contained already in these forums and explain it from scratch. Its difficult sometimes for someone to understand when they don't have any significant theological background. In many of the papers written, many things are taken for granted and a simple commentary can help those who find it difficult. Its not that difficult once you start with a fresh perspective, and really go to the sources of Catholic wisdom and teaching. I am not trying to re-interpret anything, just teach what is already out there and update it a just a bit where some folks have not gone too deep.

It goes without saying, thanks for all the great material you have put forth. It really has helped me in a huge way, be able to see where particularly my errors. It really was a gradual process with me, somethings were so deeply rooted that it was difficult for me to see where is it that I was wrong. This is why sometimes its best to start fresh, and simply mentally block out whatever arguments have been laid forth before.

We have to pray for the SSPX very much, the longer this madness keeps going on the worse and worse they get. I have a very dear love for the SSPX, because of them I was not in the Conciliar rot. Personally it really is so disheartening to see the man who confirmed you (in my case +Bishop Fellay), advocate such radical + dangerous positions as he does now. I still believe he is a Catholic Bishop, but one whose errors must be totally avoided at every level. Ultimately, I rather err on the safe side give my fellow Catholics the benefit of the doubt. Nevertheless, just because their minimally Catholic at worst the positions they advocate can lead to loss of faith if someone is logical enough to follow it. From an overall perspective I would have to say that as a whole, given that we are living through the times (or pre-cursor) to the Great Apostasy, I tend to think we are doing pretty great given the circumstances. We are certainly doing much better then during the time of Elijah when everyone was given to the worship of Baal, save but a few hundred souls.

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Sat Oct 04, 2014 9:45 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.