Desire or Action?

[journeyman]

and the other option said desired, but being unable . . . that indicated to me "prevented" from attending . . . as in sick . . . as in caring for someone else who is sick (the latter having been my case for the last few months)

does that change the scales of the balance any?

[morostheos]

Well, this has certainly been a heated discussion.


From personal experience, I said it was better to go out of habit. I have been in both situations in my life, and comparing them going to Mass was definitely better. (I wasn't an athiest or anything, but I did mainly go to Mass because my family did and really didn't think much of it if I missed Mass for some other reason.)

Looking back on my life of virtue and the grace present in my life at the time when I was going to Mass out of habit, it was immeasurably better than when I was not going to Mass. When I was in college I lived in the middle of the rainforest in Canada for a semester and was unable to attend Mass. I really wanted to, and set aside my own worship time on Sundays, but it is not the same. Not having those graces present in my life made me realize just how much grace we recieve simply by attending Mass.

[philothea]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' post='1005868' date='Jun 14 2006, 09:17 PM']
I know it said "only" out of havit. My vote still remains the same. Grace is not dependent upon our feelings/desires/motivations, it flows regardless (and as I said, cooperation is another story that wasn't part of the polling options). And the person who is actually present at Mass has a better opportunity for grace than the person who desires to go but can't make it.
[/quote]
Hrm. I find this compelling, but with further analysis it seems flawed. You could be [i]a saint[/i] and not be able to go to mass. You could not be a saint and be going to mass only out of habit. Being present at Mass means that you are guaranteed the benefit of the graces granted to those present, but wanting to go, and being truly unable to -- obviously your inability is God's will. What can better than the will of God?

Or do we believe that God's will denies necessary grace from some one who desires to serve him? Is God a technical perfectionist, or does he care about your heart more?

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' post='1005868' date='Jun 14 2006, 09:17 PM']
It is better to actually receive the Eucharist than to desire it without reception. Desire comes and goes, but habit presents a real opportunity for growth and conversion through the grace one receives by attending Mass. A person going "only" out of habit is still going-- and that still says something. Ask a priest if they'd rather every person going to Mass "only out habit" just stay home. No priest would say yes-- GOING (/action) provides opportunity and grace. Desire is good, but action is better... desire is meant to lead to action.
Both are good. It is still good that the homebound woman desires to be at Mass (hey, maybe a priest could bring her communion, or go celebrate Mass for her at her home)... but the atheist at Mass receives grace for going to Mass and also receives the opportunity for conversion and change of heart through the Sacred Liturgy. But I'm not sure these cases are really comparable... would it be better for the woman to be able to go to Mass? Yes. Would it be better for the atheist to skip Mass? No. Just because he doesn't want to be there or whatever, does not negate the outpouring of grace that comes from the Mass and worshipping in community.
[/quote]
Sure, but none of this addresses the question, and I don't see why the cases can't be compared. Which would [i]you[/i] rather be? The atheist at mass or the devout homebound person?

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='journeyman' post='1006562' date='Jun 15 2006, 10:04 PM']
and the other option said desired, but being unable . . . that indicated to me "prevented" from attending . . . as in sick . . . as in caring for someone else who is sick (the latter having been my case for the last few months)

does that change the scales of the balance any?
[/quote]
Nope.

I recognized that those who were home were home for grave reason(s).

[quote name='philothea' post='1006626' date='Jun 16 2006, 12:02 AM']
Hrm. I find this compelling, but with further analysis it seems flawed. You could be [i]a saint[/i] and not be able to go to mass. You could not be a saint and be going to mass only out of habit. Being present at Mass means that you are guaranteed the benefit of the graces granted to those present, but wanting to go, and being truly unable to -- obviously your inability is God's will. What can better than the will of God?[/quote]
I'm not sure I would agree that God's will would ever be for someone to miss Mass. He may allow them the evil of missing Mass for various grave reasons, but I do not believe that God's will would ever be actively for someone to miss Mass.

[quote]Or do we believe that God's will denies necessary grace from some one who desires to serve him? Is God a technical perfectionist, or does he care about your heart more?
Sure, but none of this addresses the question, and I don't see why the cases can't be compared. Which would [i]you[/i] rather be? The atheist at mass or the devout homebound person?
[/quote]
It wouldn't be God's will denying grace...

No, God is not a techincal perfectionist, but I know that He would rather have you at Mass than not there. They cannot be compared because they are radically different. Both are goods. It is good to be a Mass, period. It is good to desire to be at Mass, period. If one has grave reason(s) to not attend Mass, then yes, it is a good to desire to be there. However it is better for the atheist to be present at Mass. The Sacrifice of Calvary made present at each and every Mass has immeasureable graces that flow from it-- it has the power and opportunity to truly touch a person.

I wouldn't want to be either of them-- I'd rather be a devout person attending Mass every Sunday. If I had to choose, I would still say I would rather be there than not be able to go. The Sacrifice of the Mass is powerful beyond compare.

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='philothea' post='1005670' date='Jun 14 2006, 12:45 PM']
Actually, the value-neutral aspect of an established habit is [i]exactly[/i] why I chose that for the comparison. This isn't an easy question with one obviously right answer.

Obviously, "going to mass only to keep up the apperance of being religious" sounds rather biased. Same with, "only to see the cute altar server." The point was someone who doesn't believe in God, or the sacraments, or the efficacy of the mass, but goes for some other neutral reason. Habit seemed to fit.
[/quote]

Ok, well there seems to be big difference between saying going to mass only out of habit and going to mass as an atheist out of habit. The former does not imply the latter.

[morostheos]

[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1006692' date='Jun 16 2006, 02:06 AM']
Ok, well there seems to be big difference between saying going to mass only out of habit and going to mass as an atheist out of habit. The former does not imply the latter.
[/quote]


I agree.