Mass obligations for families with small children et.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='MithLuin' post='1752234' date='Jan 15 2009, 06:49 PM'][b]The idea is to avoid sliding into, "But the kids have soccer games, so of course we can't go..." or something frivolous and/or planned like that[/b]. Church-going should be a habit, and if you have to miss one week, you have to miss. I am not going to speak for everyone here, but I highly doubt any of us have attended mass every single Sunday since our baptism...[/quote]

Yes, yes, yes. Now there's some commonsense.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Ziggamafu, I really don't appreciate the tone.

For those who are not aware, the "mass liberalization" after Vatican II didn't just pop out of thin air. It had been going on for decades, but after Vatican II, those liberal theologians took the opportunity to spin the council in their favor.

As for what I've said, I'm not a member of the Magisterium. It's my informed opinion. However, I hold that the source you are quoting is incorrect regarding several situations where the Mass obligation is allegedly abrogated.

Regarding moral theology, I have a book at home written in part by a prominent bishop in the United States known for orthodoxy and the book contains several errors later clarified for the faithful. Now, does that mean that the bishop was heterodox? No, but certainly, despite the many well-known theologians who contributed to the text and the book's imprimatur and nihil obstat, it contains error (specifically, it teaches the heresy of fundamental option theory, which was condemned in Veritatis Splendor). I'm not saying that I have more theological background or knowledge than your author, I'm simply saying that I have the benefit of hindsight.

As regards your numerous references to pop apologists, I find it a bit sarcastic and a bit more ridiculous that you think you can quote a theologian and know what is being said and make an argument that is stronger because of the authentic theologian you quote, while calling the argument weaker that relies on those "pop apologists." Despite what you may think, those pop apologists generally went to school and have at least master's degrees in theology. They can wield the texts of theologians better than you can. I find it ironic and professionally insulting that you feel you can toss around quotes and proofs like a master theologian, but you dismiss the claims of those more qualified than yourself (and I'm not referring to myself, here, because, well, I'm not a pop psychologist, I'm just a lowly simple theologian starting a lowly simple career).

I'm going to do some more research tonight (and I bet Jen will join me) and we'll get back to you tomorrow. I'll try to keep my eyes on the pages of only those theologians you respect and not the theologians so frequently respected and appreciated by those theologians you respect for their important, if less grandiose, contribution to lay theology.

God bless,

Micah

PS - "Respected" American theologians include Charles Curran, who led the charge at CUA to dissent publicly from Humanae Vitae, ostracizing the only orthodox theology professor at that college, as well as Gabriel Moran, who stated that Revelation could be cast aside in favor of a personal relationship with Jesus and subjective feelings about God, Thomas Groome, who single-handedly destroyed catechetical methods with German pop-psychology, and Thomas Rauch, who follows the heresy of Loisy. All of them have had books widely approved by other theologians and given the approval of one or more prelates.

[philothea]

FWIW (probably not much, Z, sorry!) thus far I completely agree with Ziggamafu. It looks to me like the assumption behind what he's quoted is [i]a person who really wishes to go to mass[/i] and these are the kind of impediments that are considered not-send-you-to-hell reasonable.

If someone is looking for excuses not to go to mass and "get away" with it, they've got MUCH more serious issues.

I'd heard years ago that travel was considered a reasonable exception. What, people are only supposed to travel from Monday-Saturday? Or only to places full of Catholic parishes?

I've noticed over time that the official, absolute, no-go "rules" are pretty generous. The purpose of the Church is to [i]get people to heaven[/i], not make sure heaven is kept free of all the rifraff and people who can't get their lives in precise order. No use in condemning people of good faith when they're honestly trying to do the right thing in adversity. Life is already hard.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1752241' date='Jan 15 2009, 05:55 PM']See, I take that as a respect for the Mass issue. Whatever your income level, you should where your "Sunday best", as they say, to Mass. If for some reason you don't have access to fitting cloths you should still go - but if you chose not to or were too embarrassed, you would have an excuse sufficient enough to wave the grave obligation. This is of course a matter of interpretation. I find it interesting that you looked at the text and found a loophole for lazy Catholics while I looked at the text and found a commonsense representation of the solemnity of the Mass. If I was a member of a kingdom in which the king invited me to daily audiences, but stressed that not showing up on certain important days without a moderately serious excuse could mean execution, it would make sense that losing my tux and having only a Simpsons tee-shirt and Bermuda shorts would qualify as a "moderately grave" reason for my absence. To show up in the presence of any of this world's rulers in attire that is beneath your capabilities would demonstrate a profound disrespect. But the measure of respect due to any ruler is equal to the power and goodness of that ruler; so what of all-powerful, all-holy God? No, although a person who lacks attire befitting their capabilities should go anyway, they would have a valid excuse - at least on that one occasion.[/quote]

If people don't have clothes appropriate for Mass can afford a Simpson's t-shirt and Bermuda shorts, but can't afford something as simple as a plain colored t-shirt and a cheap pair of jeans, then they are guilty not only of missing Mass, but of missing Mass because they misspent their money and have the wrong priorities in getting clothes.

It's pretty rare that you find people that poor. I work in a parish. Today we had two people come in asking for bags of food wearing nice (some of it designer) clothing. Those who are truly too poor to get such clothing can always get clothing somewhere for free. The obligation is on them.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='philothea' post='1752262' date='Jan 15 2009, 06:08 PM']FWIW (probably not much, Z, sorry!) thus far I completely agree with Ziggamafu. It looks to me like the assumption behind what he's quoted is [i]a person who really wishes to go to mass[/i] and these are the kind of impediments that are considered not-send-you-to-hell reasonable.

If someone is looking for excuses not to go to mass and "get away" with it, they've got MUCH more serious issues.

I'd heard years ago that travel was considered a reasonable exception. What, people are only supposed to travel from Monday-Saturday? Or only to places full of Catholic parishes?

I've noticed over time that the official, absolute, no-go "rules" are pretty generous. The purpose of the Church is to [i]get people to heaven[/i], not make sure heaven is kept free of all the rifraff and people who can't get their lives in precise order. No use in condemning people of good faith when they're honestly trying to do the right thing in adversity. Life is already hard.[/quote]

If a person really wants to go to Mass but is pregnant out of wedlock (I believe that was one of the examples), assuming that person has confessed, then for that person to stay away from Mass is an act of pride, and worse, one that will not allow the person to draw near to God's healing grace.

[MithLuin]

Yes, eventually, you can. But let's say you are travelling and the airline lost your suitcase, so all you have [i]right now[/i] are the clothes you wore on the plane, which might not be totally appropriate for wearing to the first vows of the Nashville Dominicans? And you are in a strange city without any transportation?

[i](Can you tell this really happened to me? At that time, someone drove me to target, and I bought a skirt. But, seriously, things happen.)[/i]

In some places, they will turn you away from church if you have bare shoulders or knees. If you were unaware of this, and all you had with you were shorts....

Ultimately, whether or not you are guilty of grave sin is something you can hash out with the priest in the confessional when you explain to him why you missed mass. If you were 'skipping' or avoiding it, pretty obvious you're at fault. If you tried to go, but couldn't (or it didn't work out), the Church does not hold you guilty. What if you get the time wrong, and show up only to realize you've missed it (and there's not another mass)? Surely this is a pretty common occurance on holy days of obligation or daylight savings when we change the clocks. Or if you're a parent of a newborn, you might honestly be able to say, "I forgot it was Sunday."

Things happen. Taking kids to mass = good. If there is a reason you can't take them one week, this doesn't mean that you need to remind them to confess it when they have their first reconcilliation. If you need to stay home with the kids for some reason, and can't go to mass - you aren't guilty of missing your obligation, either. But if you skip mass because you can't be bothered to go - that's a problem. Usually, we know the difference when we are making those decisions.

Edited January 15, 2009 by MithLuin

[CatherineM]

There were times that I could not physically attend mass because of my disability. I missed it, but didn't commit a mortal sin. Sometimes a Eucharistic Minister would visit, and sometimes not.

We also had mass canceled because of Hurricane Charlie. We had a window boarding up party, and then our pastor gave a general absolution to everyone. Boarding up stained glass windows is interesting.

[philothea]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1752266' date='Jan 15 2009, 06:10 PM']If a person really wants to go to Mass but is pregnant out of wedlock (I believe that was one of the examples), assuming that person has confessed, then for that person to stay away from Mass is an act of pride, and worse, one that will not allow the person to draw near to God's healing grace.[/quote]
Right, obviously in some societies and circumstances (including, probably, the modern USA) that wouldn't be applicable. Like I said, if a person is looking for reasons to avoid mass, there's a whole other issue. However, if going to mass in the condition/situation you are in (and cannot at present get out of) will cause you irreparable long-term harm, I think it's reasonable that people are excused.

Don't you think?

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1752254' date='Jan 15 2009, 07:02 PM']Ziggamafu, I really don't appreciate the tone.

For those who are not aware, the "mass liberalization" after Vatican II didn't just pop out of thin air. It had been going on for decades, but after Vatican II, those liberal theologians took the opportunity to spin the council in their favor.

As for what I've said, I'm not a member of the Magisterium. It's my informed opinion. However, I hold that the source you are quoting is incorrect regarding several situations where the Mass obligation is allegedly abrogated.

Regarding moral theology, I have a book at home written in part by a prominent bishop in the United States known for orthodoxy and the book contains several errors later clarified for the faithful. Now, does that mean that the bishop was heterodox? No, but certainly, despite the many well-known theologians who contributed to the text and the book's imprimatur and nihil obstat, it contains error (specifically, it teaches the heresy of fundamental option theory, which was condemned in Veritatis Splendor). I'm not saying that I have more theological background or knowledge than your author, I'm simply saying that I have the benefit of hindsight.

As regards your numerous references to pop apologists, I find it a bit sarcastic and a bit more ridiculous that you think you can quote a theologian and know what is being said and make an argument that is stronger because of the authentic theologian you quote, while calling the argument weaker that relies on those "pop apologists." Despite what you may think, those pop apologists generally went to school and have at least master's degrees in theology. They can wield the texts of theologians better than you can. I find it ironic and professionally insulting that you feel you can toss around quotes and proofs like a master theologian, but you dismiss the claims of those more qualified than yourself (and I'm not referring to myself, here, because, well, I'm not a pop psychologist, I'm just a lowly simple theologian starting a lowly simple career).

I'm going to do some more research tonight (and I bet Jen will join me) and we'll get back to you tomorrow. I'll try to keep my eyes on the pages of only those theologians you respect and not the theologians so frequently respected and appreciated by those theologians you respect for their important, if less grandiose, contribution to lay theology.

God bless,

Micah

PS - "Respected" American theologians include Charles Curran, who led the charge at CUA to dissent publicly from Humanae Vitae, ostracizing the only orthodox theology professor at that college, as well as Gabriel Moran, who stated that Revelation could be cast aside in favor of a personal relationship with Jesus and subjective feelings about God, Thomas Groome, who single-handedly destroyed catechetical methods with German pop-psychology, and Thomas Rauch, who follows the heresy of Loisy. All of them have had books widely approved by other theologians and given the approval of one or more prelates.[/quote]

And yet, for all your words, I remain the only one of us who has provided support for his position from the Catechism, Canon Law, an authoritative moral theologian, and a respected contemporary apologist. What have you provided besides your own opinion, my challenge of which you seem so hot over? It takes a far greater intellect to concede than to persist in error for the sake of one's own opinion.

Also: your references to heretical theologians; can you honestly, sincerely compare Heribert Jone to any of them? How many nihil obstats did each of them receive for a single heretical work? How many times were the heretical works translated, only to be given the nihil obstats again? How many of the heretical theologians [i]remain [/i]universally respected by conservative, orthodox Catholics? Please answer these questions and size up your comparison of their work to that of Heribert Jone. I find it both unfair and disrespectful to the memory of so great a man.

And please do not twist my words; I did not attack pop-apologists themselves, but only spoke negatively of those whose studies begin and end with pop-apologists; those who then proceed to speak the word of the pop-apologist as if it were the final say; ultimately, those whose minds are made up by Catholic pop-culture rather than an educated assessment of the broader spectrum of theological authorities. I am very close friends with one pop-apologist (in the realm of sexual morality and Church teaching regarding women), occasionally correspond with another pop-apologist (in the field of philosophy), and have the personal contact info of several others, some of whom I have had the pleasure of meeting. They are all far more learned than I.

Anyway, I get the privilege of doing some chores and playing with my children now. But since my own opinion seems worthless to you, and since likewise you find the support of my position from the Catechism, Canon Law, the most respected moral theology handbook of the 20th century, and a respected pop-apologist to be insufficient to outweigh the convictions of your own made up mind, I too will do some research tonight.

[Ziggamafu]

Okay. It is far later than I thought it would be when doing this. I will flip through some of my own library of books tomorrow, but some of the stuff I found in about ten minutes of web surfing included:

[quote]Hi,

[b]Children under the age of reason are not obliged to attend Sunday Mass.[/b] However, they should be familiar with attending Mass by the time they are seven years of age ( the accepted age of reason). They ought to be attending Sunday Mass regularly by the time they start school.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.
[url="http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=177064"]http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=177064[/url][/quote]


Other helpful info regarding the proper interpretation of CCC2181:

a) “Infant” typically means “under seven years of age” both in secular dictionaries and, most especially, in Church terminology
b) Evidence of this is amplified in that there are two distinct forms to the children’s rites of Christian initiation; one for infants and one for those who have attained the age of reason (seven)
c) Evidence of this is CONFIRMED by:

[quote]Can. 97
§1 A person who has completed the eighteenth year of age has reached majority; below this age, a person is a minor.
§2. [b]A minor before the completion of the seventh year is called an [u]infant[/u][/b] and is considered not responsible for oneself (non sui compos). With the completion of the seventh year, however, a minor is presumed to have the use of reason."

[url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PC.HTM"]http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PC.HTM[/url][/quote]

[quote]Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 1331. Are children obliged, under pain of mortal sin, the same as grown persons, to hear Mass on Sundays and holydays of obligation?
[b]
A. Children who have [u]reached the use of reason[/u][/b] are obliged under pain of mortal sin, the same as grown persons, to hear Mass on Sundays and holydays of obligation; but if they are prevented from so doing by parents, or others, then the sin falls on those who prevent them.[/quote]


[quote]Age of Reason
The name given to that period of human life at which persons are deemed to begin to be morally responsible. This, as a rule, happens at the age of seven, or thereabouts, though the use of reason requisite for moral discernment may come before, or may be delayed until notably after, that time.[b] At this age Christians come under the operation of ecclesiastical laws, such as the precept of assistance at Mass on Sundays and holydays[/b]…
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01209a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01209a.htm[/url][/quote]

Thus far, the heavy hitters - you know, the stuff that clearly supports the commonsense position - have already been provided in my previous posts.

However, I will try to keep them coming until you concede.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1751988' date='Jan 15 2009, 01:26 PM']1962.
I see no defensible reason why any position stated in the book would not still apply today.[/quote]

I apologize for veering off topic, but I really can’t help myself.

[quote]women or children who would incur the grave displeasure of their husbands or parents by attending Mass[/quote]

What on earth is this supposed to mean? First off all, I certainly do not appreciate women - adults - being put on the same level as children (for obvious reasons, maturity being one of them). Secondly, if a woman attending Mass "would incur the grave displeasure" of her husband, she is NOT to go to Mass? If the husband doesn't want her going to Mass, she can't go?

If the husband incurs the "grave displeasure" of his wife by attending Mass, does he also get a time-out from Church?

[Resurrexi]

What it's saying is that she doesn't [b]have [/b]to go to Mass in that circumstance. I don't really think that the Church would force women to go to Mass that means that they would get verbally or physically abused.

Edited January 16, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Resurrexi]

double post

Edited January 16, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Ziggamafu]

Right, plus the whole situation would cause scandal; a specific Holy Mass should not be turned into a [i]direct [/i]occasion for sin (which also ties in to other excuses listed).

I'm going to do some more research. In the meantime, I would expect Raphael to address my questions regarding his disgusting comparison between Jone and heretic theologians.

Also, I believe it is adamantly clear that (in regards to the original question that spawned this thread) a parent is not under grave obligation to take an infant (child under seven) to Mass. At this point, one would be a Protestant of Church teaching - or at least a "my way" Catholic - to say otherwise.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='StColette' post='1752216' date='Jan 15 2009, 06:27 PM'] someone is being snarky. I'll come back to this topic when you stop making jabs at people who may not agree with your particular taste in Theologians or those who may not be familiar enough with a particular Theologian.[/quote]


Have you ever read, say, St. Francis de Sales against Protestantism? Or St. Thomas More's [i]Dialogue Concerning Heresy[/i]? When it comes to errors and misrepresentations of Church teaching - especially by those who represent a teacher's position (such as the flag-bearers of Phatmass) - the saints throughout history, the Apostles, and even our Lord Himself were FAR more "snarky" than I've been. All for the love of the Church! I have not merely listed Jone, but also the CCC, Canon Law, Jimmy Akin, Fr. Vincent Serpa, the Baltimore Catechism, etc., all in defense of our wise Mother's commonsense approach to the holy obligation of Mass. That all of this is not enough for some people is beyond belief.