# Is it a sin to attend a Catholic Latin Mass?



## Anglicanorthodoxy (Oct 31, 2016)

I currently attend a Catholic prep school, and there's a Latin Mass scheduled a few weeks from now. One of my teachers asked me to attend, and I'm not sure what to do. I know Catholic doctrine is heretical, but is it a sin to attend a Traditional Catholic Latin Mass once?


----------



## ABrauny (Oct 31, 2016)

Why are they asking you to attend? Would your attendance be seen as a sign of, 'participation'? If you can't in good conscience go then don't go.


----------



## Anglicanorthodoxy (Oct 31, 2016)

ABrauny said:


> Why are they asking you to attend? Would your attendance be seen as a sign of, 'participation'? If you can't in good conscience go then don't go.


They say they think it would be neat for me to see a High Latin Mass. I don't have an issue with going, but I wasn't sure if it was a sin to attend.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 31, 2016)

One of the allures of Rome is its _pageantry._ They have perfected quite a show over the centuries.

Making church more elaborate after the first couple centuries was part of "selling" the advantage of Christianity over paganism and Gnosticism/mystery cult religion. Christianity had two rites, and pretty plain ones at that, if viewed as outward spectacle. How was the church supposed to compete with all the cool, inside-baseball, multi-level marketing, and all that? Well, start by gussying up what we do got.

When fewer and fewer people speak Latin outside of the scholars' guild as the Middle Ages advance, the increasingly "mumbo-jumbo" of church-speak adds to the mysterious, otherworldliness of the business. Attendance to these things becomes, for the laity, mostly spectacle, a thing to watch. For a long time, lay participation was purposefully limited to once a year, and then served only "in one kind," the bread. The cup was reserved to the priest.

These directions only changed in response to the Reformation. Rome went back to communion in both kinds, and to frequent communion (offered weekly) to the laity. They still do daily communion in some places; what they think they are doing (regardless of who is present to partake or benefit directly) is the _religious work_ that suffuses the culture with grace and blessings. Ergo, more masses equals increase in whatever benefits to this world or the next (including getting people out of purgatory) comes from this work.

Latin being the church-language for so many centuries, it was and still is thought of by many as proper to the pageantry and spectacle. Think of the opera. Many people still prefer the opera without subtitles. Why? Because it's original, it's beautiful, and you don't actually need to understand the words to be emotionally moved by it. Plus, what you can see in the set and in the actions of the characters tells you most of what you need to know about what is going on. This same idea lies behind the attraction of the Latin mass.

Would it be _sinful_ to attend this business as a spectator? Not unless you were tempted by the wow-factor, or some other aspect, into admiration for what is inherently a false form of worship. Perhaps you might go, and feel violated afterward. Wouldn't be a good idea, if you wished you had skipped it. We don't all need to view p0rn to reject it. Some law-enforcement types have to witness some evil things in order to hold back the tide of effluent from drowning all of us.

Will this attendance show you what this mass is like, so you can compare a genuine Lord's Supper to the idolatry there? So you may be better able intelligently to warn others away from the attraction within it? Those are reasons that might justify your attendance.

But do not participate. Paul says, 1Cor.10, not to eat meat sacrificed to idols _*in the idol temples*_ (what you buy in the marketplace don't worry about where it's been). Do not go to ovbserve this business, and get roped into the activity. You are not there to validate their errors, nor to try and improve it or taint it in any way by your "sanctifying" presence.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edward (Nov 1, 2016)

If you find yourself caught in a line heading toward a priest passing out wafers, when you get to the front of the line cross your arms at the wrist across your chest, palms in, and the priest will know not to offer you one. He may utter a brief blessing toward you, then follow back to your seat. (If you are a High Church Anglican, you probably already know this). 

A Latin Mass might be an interesting cross- cultural experience (it probably will be for most of the Catholics there, as well). But use your time there to pray (silently, of course) for the salvation of the priests and attendees.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Nov 1, 2016)

It is a sin to attend any mass. WCF 29:

2. In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sins of the quick or dead;b but only a commemoration of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same:c so that the Popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ’s one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of His elect.d

bHeb 9:22,25-26,28. c1 Cor 11:24-26; Matt 26:26-27. dHeb 7:23-24,27; Heb 10:11-12,14,18.

6. That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ’s body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament, and hath been, and is the cause of manifold superstitions; yea, of gross idolatries.m

mActs 3:21 with 1 Cor 11:24-26; Luke 24:6,39.

Pauls tells us to flee from idolatry. There is no benefit to be derived from attending the mass: it is a wicked, idolatrous, blasphemous ritual. John Hooper, the early English reformer, fled his own country to avoid having to attend the mass and was eventually burned at the stake for his refusal and his writings against it. He should be our example.

This is a good wee (modern) treatment of the subject (despite the hand-wringing over the language of the Heidelberg Catechism): http://www.heritagebooks.org/produc...dy-of-heidelberg-catechism-q-a-80-venema.html

For a full-throated Reformation argument against attendance there is this tract by John Bradford (be warned: the style of writing does not make for easy reading): https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...age&q=john bradford hurt hearing mass&f=false


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 1, 2016)

Mere presence is not the nature of the sin or else we'd sin even if bound hand and foot and dragged into one of these abominations. But it sounds like this is voluntary. Even if one viewed that as an indifferent act (and there's far more to be said against that I think), I don't think looking at it as a learning experience is the best use of this providence. Looking at it rather as a time to make a testimony and make your faith clear rather trumps that option any way one looks at it seems to me.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 1, 2016)

I was listening to JD Hall's podcast yesterday, and he told a story about a reformed Baptist congregation in Montana that met in a bar, which they rented on Sunday when the bar was closed. He asked them if they thought that was a problem, and the pastor responded by saying that their choices were to meet either in a Catholic church, or a bar. They decided that meeting in the bar would be less offensive to God.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 1, 2016)

Would say that per the Bible that if YOU are convicted that you should not be attending it, it would be sin to you...

You can attend, for that falls under conviction, but would not partake of their Eucherist!


----------



## Anglicanorthodoxy (Nov 1, 2016)

Contra_Mundum said:


> One of the allures of Rome is its _pageantry._ They have perfected quite a show over the centuries.
> 
> Making church more elaborate after the first couple centuries was part of "selling" the advantage of Christianity over paganism and Gnosticism/mystery cult religion. Christianity had two rites, and pretty plain ones at that, if viewed as outward spectacle. How was the church supposed to compete with all the cool, inside-baseball, multi-level marketing, and all that? Well, start by gussying up what we do got.
> 
> ...


Rev. Buchanan 
Thanks so much as always. When you say "don't participate", what does "participate" mean? Is singing the Latin chants participating, or are you just saying I shouldn't take communion there? I'd never take communion, because I don't share their view on communion, and because they do not allow it. I'm not even baptized yet, so I couldn't even take communion at a Reformed church. I just think it might be interesting to attend and see what it's like. Of course I'm not accepting their beliefs just by attending.


----------



## Edward (Nov 1, 2016)

NaphtaliPress said:


> But it sounds like this is voluntary



I'm not as sure about that. If you are a student at that school, and a teacher asks you to attend, have they asked you, or have they 'asked' you?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 1, 2016)

Well, that would up the ante.


Edward said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > But it sounds like this is voluntary
> ...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 1, 2016)

Anglicanorthodoxy said:


> Rev. Buchanan
> Thanks so much as always. When you say "don't participate", what does "participate" mean? Is singing the Latin chants participating, or are you just saying I shouldn't take communion there? I'd never take communion, because I don't share their view on communion, and because they do not allow it. I'm not even baptized yet, so I couldn't even take communion at a Reformed church. I just think it might be interesting to attend and see what it's like. Of course I'm not accepting their beliefs just by attending.



I couldn't have/still can't say how "open" they might make their offering of wafers or anything else; so I don't know what activity you might be invited to join.

Personally, I'd shun the whole affair; and I've been a believer all my life, and think my faith is plenty strong to resist any fascination. 1Cor.10:14, "Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry."

If I somehow thought that observing such a thing would teach me something significant about people I would interact with--helping me love them better to call them out of their idolatry, then maybe I'd attend (why not just catch the business on youtube?)...

But only to watch. Paul seems pretty clear to me. These folks have erected idols in the temple of God (2Ths.2:4), and sacrifice to demons and not to God, "and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons," 1Cor.10:20.

For myself, if I found myself there I wouldn't do anything but study the scene, keep my eyes/ears open, my mouth shut, butt planted in a seat, follow along in the paper or the book as far as possible in order to keep abreast of what's happening.

Someone else might give you another answer, and another justification. All I have to offer is my long-distance pastoral counsel to a young believer.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Nov 2, 2016)

Anglicanorthodoxy said:


> I currently attend a Catholic prep school, and there's a Latin Mass scheduled a few weeks from now. One of my teachers asked me to attend, and I'm not sure what to do. I know Catholic doctrine is heretical, but is it a sin to attend a Traditional Catholic Latin Mass once?



Going into a mass is entering into the Antichrist's kingdom. I think the reformers were well aware of the spiritual weight that would be upon one's soul if they went to a mass. 

I think Rev. Buchanan was on to something when he said "We don't all need to view p*rn to reject it." This wouldn't be something to do for "educational" purposes. That's like viewing an abortion for educational purposes. It's an abomination. 

God calls *those who are able* (with authority to do so) to tear down the high places. Why would He allow those who can't, go to them for an observance? 

Don't take this lightly. It will truly have an effect on your soul.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Nov 2, 2016)

Anglicanorthodoxy said:


> Rev. Buchanan
> Thanks so much as always. When you say "don't participate", what does "participate" mean? Is singing the Latin chants participating, or are you just saying I shouldn't take communion there? I'd never take communion, because I don't share their view on communion, and because they do not allow it. I'm not even baptized yet, so I couldn't even take communion at a Reformed church. I just think it might be interesting to attend and see what it's like. Of course I'm not accepting their beliefs just by attending.



If you attend and do not vocally denounce what is going on, you are supporting what is going on there. The "priest" will "pray" for all those in attendance: that will include you.


----------



## jambo (Nov 2, 2016)

When we lived in the Irish Republic, our two boys were the only non-Catholic children in the whole school. Once the school knew we were not RC they were very good about our boys not attending RC events and there was never any pressure applied. You do not need to denounce it but just graciously explain why you do not wish to take part. The school I am sure would respect you and it also sets a mark for similar things in future.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 2, 2016)

Think that the responsibility would actually fall upon on the Catholic priest/church, as my attending the service would NOT be stating agreement with theology, just there as a guest!


----------



## Parakaleo (Nov 2, 2016)

alexandermsmith said:


> If you attend and do not vocally denounce what is going on, you are supporting what is going on there. The "priest" will "pray" for all those in attendance: that will include you.



Some of the sins forbidden in the Ninth Commandment are "undue silence in a just cause" and "holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others". There could be a case made for silently sitting through a R.C. Mass being a 9CV.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 3, 2016)

WLC Q 129: What is required of *superiors* towards their inferiors?
Answer: It is required of superiors, according to that power they receive from God, and that relation wherein they stand, to love, pray for, and bless their inferiors; to instruct, counsel, and admonish them; countenancing, commending, and rewarding such as do well; and *discountenancing, reproving, and chastising such as do ill*;... 

There could be a case made that the young believer and student is no superior.


----------



## Phil D. (Nov 3, 2016)

Something else to consider: "What are the sins forbidden in the Ninth Commandment?...speaking the truth unseasonably..." (LC145)


----------



## alexandermsmith (Nov 3, 2016)

Phil D. said:


> Something else to consider: "What are the sins forbidden in the Ninth Commandment?...speaking the truth unseasonably..." (LC145)



I can't think of a more seasonable time to speak the truth that the mass is a blasphemous ritual than when one is present at one being performed. If one were to argue that a Christian should not go to a mass just to cause a disruption, when he is under no obligation to attend, then that's a different point: a Christian should not attend mass, period. It's still unclear whether the pupil is required to attend the mass. Either way he should not go. Our obedience is to God first, the civil law second. It is better for him to refuse to go and suffer the consequences than to attend and offend Christ and suffer spiritual harm. I think the example of those who composed the Confession and Catechisms speaks for itself.

It's not a question of whether the pupil is a superior or inferior. The pupil has no say over the educational and religious policy of the school: that is a question for his superiors; he does have absolute say over where he is physically present (unless they are going to bind him and carry him into the hall to witness the mass being performed).


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 3, 2016)

alexandermsmith said:


> It's not a question of whether the pupil is a superior or inferior.



It _is_ a question, especially if he made a _choice_ to attend. The propriety of the former decision is the original point of inquiry for the thread. Since then, a subsidiary point has been proposed: whether any/every dissenting attender has the *duty* to comment. It is not unequivocally clear from Scripture whether even forced attendance requires anything more than suffering in silence. Not when our Lord "opened not his mouth."

Say what you will, if we on principle countenance obnoxious interruption of a public, voluntary gathering that has allowed (even encouraged) guests--as if such invitation was the equivalent of floor-privilege--then on what basis could we object to such violence in the Public Worship of God in a Christian church?

Some people will be just fine with a double-standard. This happens all the time in political gatherings, where opponents want harmony in their meetings and respect for their speakers; while demanding "guaranteed free speech rights" to disrupt those who are *wrong!* These are _political ethics_ of a certain kind; and they are out of place in orderly society that grants degrees of toleration for the sake of peaceful coexistence.

Is the proposed attendance a matter of sin and righteousness, of wisdom and folly, or indifference? Both the first proposals have been asserted and defended. The last has not been defended at all.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Nov 3, 2016)

Contra_Mundum said:


> alexandermsmith said:
> 
> 
> > It's not a question of whether the pupil is a superior or inferior.
> ...



I'm not sure what you are referring to with your last sentence. I, certainly, have never argued this is a matter indifferent. It's because it is _not_ indifferent that I have argued as I have. It was certainly the view of John Bradford, whose tract I linked to, that attendance at a mass _without_ a vocal condemnation of what was going on was sinful. But he would have said a Christian shouldn't be there in the first place. I believe he would have represented quite a common view towards attendance at the mass amongst the reformers and puritans. I know that there are some reformers who counselled that there were circumstances where it would be permissible (Calvin, I believe, did say this in some circumstance) but even if that is so they were living in a situation where people were coming out of a false church in countries which adhered to the false church; we live in Protestant countries and this would be an example of going _back into_ the false church.

If the person in question has voluntarily attended mass in the past, then that was a wrong choice and doesn't, in my mind, require him to continue attending. However, I was not aware that he had done so, being under the impression that this would be the first time he had ever attended mass. If I'm wrong I hold my hands up: I misread the discussion. But that was the understanding under which I was arguing. I agree- and implied as much- that it's probably best for Christians not to attend a mass just to disrupt it. However I would say that the main reason against that is that Christians should not attend mass. I do not hold a mass and the public worship of the true church on a par. Out of common courtesy I wouldn't intentionally disrupt _any_ public assembly, probably, but that's as far as it goes and I'm not entirely convinced that such a position isn't a result of compromise on our behalf in this age of relativity.

Perhaps I misunderstood your point in quoting the question on superiors, in which case I'd appreciate you to enlarge upon it. I took by it that you were saying because the pupil wasn't a superior it wasn't his responsibility to denounce what was going on. That is why I said the question was irrelevant in this circumstance because it was, ultimately, up to the pupil whether he attended mass or not. He had no say over whether the school is romanist but he does over whether he attends mass, even if that incurs punishment. I would argue it is better to be punished by the school than God. Ultimately, of course, it raises the question of why he's at a romanist school in the first place. But he is where he is and sin is sin and compromise on this point (the mass) has become one of the many hallmarks of the declension of the church. The mass hasn't changed since the Reformation. They might speak their voodoo in English rather than Latin, but it's still blasphemy.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 3, 2016)

My point is simply: the counsel given has covered the field, from defining voluntary attendance as sin, to advice on the wisdom of attending.

For those who cannot say, in good conscience, attendance is a blanket-sin covering all cases, it is summary to point out that _no one_ has put up or set aside the whole matter as a thing indifferent.

And I think that's all I have to add.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 3, 2016)

What does the Bible though state in this issue? Think if we look at the overall applicapable passages, if chooses to go, can speak to people one on ome on issues, but not public disrupt and make attention...


----------



## Anglicanorthodoxy (Nov 3, 2016)

I've actually been given an opertunity to speak with the priest after Mass( obviously not Confession, just a talk) I think it'd be an interesting experience for me if I politely asked him to defend ssome of the unbiblical doctrines of the Catholic Church.


----------



## Parakaleo (Nov 3, 2016)

Anglicanorthodoxy said:


> I think it'd be an interesting experience for me if I politely asked him to defend ssome of the unbiblical doctrines of the Catholic Church.



Once again, I feel I must give a word of warning against violating 2 John 10-11. 



> If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.



Have you asked yourself why your Roman Catholic teacher, knowing you are Protestant, wants you to go to a Mass and talk to a priest? Is it purely for "academic purposes" only? I already think it's a bad idea to go, but add to it the possibility that a teacher is nudging you, however gently, toward heresy and it becomes a sin to willingly comply.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 4, 2016)

Anglicanorthodoxy said:


> I've actually been given an opertunity to speak with the priest after Mass( obviously not Confession, just a talk) I think it'd be an interesting experience for me if I politely asked him to defend ssome of the unbiblical doctrines of the Catholic Church.



Unless you are very well versed in Roman Catholicism and Reformed doctrines this would be unwise in my opinion. Moreover, while it may not be the case, it does seems that a wee bit of bravado is at work here, much like those who join a church with the idea it is a personal mission field to _reform_ the church to one's own views. If you want to enter into an apologetic discussion with the local priest, just call the man and set up an appointment, letting him know your agenda so as to not be perceived as conducting ambush style apologetics.


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 4, 2016)

I guess I would ask myself what the point of going is. I can't think of any myself.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Nov 6, 2016)

Calvin spoke directly to this a few times in his Anti-Nicodemite tracts and letters to the French church. Many were attending Mass and even partaking to avoid persecution. While he noted that it is no sin and cannot be avoided to merely look upon idolatry, and it would be inappropriate for a lay-person to publicly preach or contend against the mass, to give the least semblance to participation or approval of idolatry is to violate the commanded mentioned above to flee idolatry in 1 Cor 10. 

Here is one of his tracts on the subject: "Of Shunning the Unlawful Rites of the Ungodly" https://books.google.com/books?id=O...QAhXEx1QKHVqnDeIQ6AEIRDAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 6, 2016)

Hello Khater, 

There is a power inherent in Roman Catholicism, just as there is in pagan religions, and in the spiritual paths of the East and their gurus—it is the power of the devil, to seduce, to bedazzle, to draw.

I was amazed once, when listening to a video message the current pope had recorded on an iPhone to send to Kenneth Copeland and his congregation (a former attender and friend of Copeland who became a close friend of the pope before he "ascended the throne of Peter" recorded it)—he (pope) tried speaking in English, then said he had to revert to Italian (I think it was) but he would speak "the language of the heart" and it could easily be translated: he was so winsome and so deep-hearted and "spiritual" it frightened me! I say it frightened me because I strongly oppose Catholicism yet was drawn to this man, to his charisma. He appeared lamb-like, but it was the seducing voice of a dragon. It shook me, as I am no novice.

Unless you were skilled in apologetic rebuttal of RC doctrines, I would avoid the priest. And there is power in the show they put on—it is not just a religion, but a demonic pageant geared to fish for souls. It is probably a good idea to thank the teacher for the invite, and tell him as you're a convinced Protestant you would not want to go, though you would share with him the beauty of the simple Biblical faith in Christ you hold if he were interested.

It would be good to join a sound local church and get baptized when you are able (though I think I recall reading your circumstances don't allow that at present).


----------



## MichaelNZ (Nov 7, 2016)

As a former traditionalist Roman Catholic, I second Jerusalem Blade's point about the show. I still find myself drawn to the beauty and pageantry of the Latin Mass (the new Mass is but a mere shadow of the traditional Mass). However, the Mass is a blasphemy against the cross of Christ, as it seeks to 're-present' or 'make present' Christ's bloody sacrifice upon the altar in an unbloody manner. It is believed by Romanists to be a sacrifice of Christ (which is much more evident in the Latin Mass than the modern Mass) and therefore violates the Epistle to the Hebrews.

If you're having trouble deciding, think about it this way: if you were being asked if you'd like to see a puja at a Hindu temple, would you go or not? Romanism will lead you to hell just as fast as Hinduism will (in fact I'd say Romanism is more dangerous as it seems so close to Biblical Christianity). My recommendation is not to go. The danger far outweighs any benefits.

As to debating the priest, remember, he's been through years of seminary and has probably had to defend the Catholic faith multiple times. It would be like a 13-year old kid taking on a boxing champ like Mike Tyson. My recommendation again is not to do it. If you want to watch someone who knows his stuff take on papists, then watch Dr James White's debates with Roman Catholic apologists.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 7, 2016)

good advice, as Roman Catholic theology seems to those "outside their camp" to be changing and adapting to more "reformed views" regarding salvation, but the truth still is that Rome still upholds First Council of trent, so really teaching another and false Gospel!


----------



## MichaelNZ (Nov 7, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> good advice, as Roman Catholic theology seems to those "outside their camp" to be changing and adapting to more "reformed views" regarding salvation, but the truth still is that Rome still upholds First Council of trent, so really teaching another and false Gospel!



As far as I know, Rome has not moved towards a "Reformed view" of salvation, that is, salvation by faith alone. Catholic Answers, one of Rome's main apologetics sites, has numerous articles critiquing the Protestant view of sola fide. However, since Vatican II, Rome has embraced the ecumenical movement and now refers to Protestants as "separated brethren". Pope Francis at least seems to think that Orthodox (and maybe even Lutherans) do not need to convert to Catholicism in order to be saved. He may very well be a universalist. 

What is obvious is that the modern Catholic hierarchy's views are at odds with the "infallible" Council of Florence, which stated "[The Roman Catholic church] firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives" (Session 11—4 February 1442)


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 7, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> good advice, as Roman Catholic theology seems to those "outside their camp" to be changing and adapting to more "reformed views" regarding salvation, but the truth still is that Rome still upholds First Council of trent, so really teaching another and false Gospel!



Name one or two "reformed views" being adopted by Rome.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 7, 2016)

I was saying that to those who do not really know Catholic theology, it might appear moving towards that, as that infamous signing where some said that Rome now agreed with salvation by/through grace alone...

That was my point, that it was NOT changing at all, but might appear that way to someone not knowing what they really believe!


----------



## Anglicanorthodoxy (Nov 14, 2016)

Just for the record, I did NOT end up attending the Latin Mass.


----------

