What can we do on sundays


#21

I did not say that is was not the same Church. And it is not a “horrible false dichotomy” to speak my opinion, or even the truth. “The Canon Law has developed to more accurately portray the wisdom of the Church (I suspect to more accurately teach Christ’s command that the Sabbath was made for man, but it is what it is).” Are you stating that previous Codes did not accurately teach Christ’s Command? That is a modernist heresy! That sounds like the sort of heresy being maliciously spread through the Church today. It reminds me of a priest I met from a local English seminary who said that the Church before Vatican II was not Biblical! In fact, my opinion is that the modern Code is not very helpful regarding certain topics, including the Dominica (the Lord’s Day).

Those instructions are taken from a 1962 Examination of Conscience for Confession. To do any one of those IS a mortal sin!! When referring to Confession, I think the Church has to be rigid, so that everyone knows what properly constitutes a sin!

I thought the joy proper to Sunday is God?! Apparently not in your case!

Again, Dominica is made by God for man, so that man can worship God properly. Hence the reason for the Sunday obligation to attend Mass. I know the modern Code says that you can go on Saturday evening. However, this is an absurd thing to say. The Mass is what makes the Lord’s Day holy!! It is consecrated by the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass! My Sunday is empty without Mass! I sometimes go on Saturday evenings to prepare for Sunday, but it never fulfills my obligation to go on Sunday!

If people were preoccupied with praying or being with family, then they would not need to worry about sinning on the Dominica. You are more likely to sin whilst shopping (all those naughty billboards that display obscene images), than by meditating on a image of Christ, His Mother or the Saints!

Okay, the Code doesn’t mention the word “servile”. Yet, it does not define what constitutes “works and affairs which hinder the worship to be rendered to God”. At least the older Code took the time to define what it meant. We are not Protestants who can pick and choose! And for the Code being more “accessible” to the modern mind, I for one would highly disagree! I am 21 years old and find myself scratching at what it means! How am I supposed to do as God has Commanded when I am picking and choosing my own beliefs?! And, are you stating that the 1917 Code is not accessible? I turn to the traditional teachings of the Church, even if they are “medieval”. At least then, I can understand what God wants me to do!


#22

Do you not know what accurate means? Two sentences can properly form an idea, both correctly, but one can be more accurate than another. No one is calling the 1917 Code wrong. The 1983 does a better job of teaching Christ’s command, AND allowing the See of Peter to loose where he sees optimal.

Off-topic rant.

So, on the record, you are saying having a glass of wine on Sunday for lunch is a mortal sin? That’s what your brochure literally says. (For my record, it’s not to be interpreted that rigidly, but neither are other provisions there in which you seem to be so interpreting. This is why the 1983 Code is better. If a Church is wrong in one part of its theology, it abdicates its power to say it is right in another. Failure to clarify can cause grave scandal. If a modern non-churched Atheist saw that document, that to have a glass of wine on Sunday would mean his soul would go to hell, he would laugh his head off at the Catholic Church, rightfully so. That document may be right, but only when interpreted properly.

I can celebrate a day of rest by watching a football game or going for some relaxful shopping. I can do it while thanking God. That is what the OP asked, and he deserves to know the Truth. Your suggestions are certainly improvements on the road to sanctity, and I commend you to the extent you practice them, but how dare you judge that someone who enjoys a football game is not doing it in the Lord.

The Church is absurd? The saintly Pope authored an absurd Code? Really? If you’re going to mock the Pope, perhaps you should keep that opinion more private.

All days are holy as we celebrate the Mass on all days. Sunday is certainly preeminent in this regard, but the Mass itself is not a distinguishing characteristic. However, this doesn’t answer the OP’s question. Whether or not he attends Mass on Sunday (and I sincerely hope he does), his question stands on its own. So this observation isn’t entirely relevant.

The images are not obscene. Nothing that enters from without is impure. An image of a scantily clad woman is very beautiful, and still shows God’s goodness, even if it was likely designed to cause people to lust - a tragedy. There is nothing there in the image itself to offend a Christian practicing purity. Also, you can see Christ at work in his people in society. Neither of us recommend Sunday shopping (I like your options you listed in your last post), but shopping is permissible in many instances especially where there is need or it is relaxful. It can be good exercise.

We are free men. We have a conscience that God gave us. We have to exercise it in many instances, might as well do so here also. The Code is more genius for leaving it off. If servile work were defined, it would just lead to senseless definitions. A Protestant would just laugh his head off with thoughts of “I worked 1:59 minutes, whew, I’m safe, glad I looked at the clock since if I had worked just two more minutes I would have gone to hell!” The Church doesn’t need that legalistic grief. Our Church is primarily the Church of the “yes”. It tries to frame as much as possible in the language of love, not thou-shalt-nots. Some people really need the negative language (which still fully teaches the Truth), but the positive language of inspiration (find joy this day!) is less of a turn-off and more in line with Jesus’s own preferred methodology. The OP asked for a minimum, and I have tried to give it to him. You want to inspire him to more for the Lord’s sake - that’s awesome, but don’t deny his minimum if the Church itself does not do so in its wisdom. He will ascend higher up the path to perfection eventually, as may we all. For all we know, he may be ahead of us.


#23

I have this problem also. But perhaps I should re-read St… Pope John-Paul II encyclical
Dies Domini at vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_05071998_dies-domini_en.html


#24

When Our Lady says in an approved apparition that unnecessary work on a Sunday greatly offends her Son, I believe her. It is that simple. I do not want to encourage others to offend Him. Have a nice day.


#25

I think most of us here are more interested in what the rubric is in today’s world on this subject, not the SSPX’s…:shrug:


#26

Not responding here to the post per se - just this line.

Note: Mortal sin and grave sin refer to the same sin (they are synomyns).


#27

Jimmy Akin has a podcast on this. I have not listened to it all -so not sure what it all addresses -but here it is:

jimmyakin.com/2011/12/sunday-rest-special-what-can-you-do-on-sunday.html


#28

I have often wondered where the line is myself. The store clerk could have met their obligation on Saturday night or at an early morning Mass and still been able to go to work. I myself try to avoid shopping before lunchtime or so. I figure that in a way encourages the store to at least not be opening up before Mass is done.


#29

I am not SSPX. I frequent a FSSP Church and also the Novus Ordo Mass. Not everyone who is traditional is SSPX.


#30

Not everyone who is “traditional” is FSSP either…

Tradition - “to hand on”. To receive what has been handed on.

All who have living and profess the Catholic Faith in its entirety is “traditional” they have received what has been handed down through 2000 years and 21 Councils.

Even if they do not prefer Latin or Greek or Aramaic etc. Even if they have preferences for the 12th Century or the 21st Century. Even if they prefer the Ordinary Form of the Roman Liturgy or are Eastern Catholics.

So long as they have received the Catholic Faith and profess it an live it - they are “traditional”. Let us not limit the term to those those who had gone into schism or those who have a preference for a particular time and way of celebrating the Liturgy etc.

Let us not limit the term.

(but this takes the thread off tracks…so please return to the normal thread)


#31

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.