I have a family member like that. She drops off her daughter at school then attends 8am Mass (which she is always late for, since her daughter is suppose to be at school @ 8am and is always late) she says she goes to this Mass because there is no one there, it's short, and that way she doesn't get bored. You can't even talk to this person. I asked her when she told me this "Well do you go to the Sat. nite vigil or Sunday mass?" and she replied "No! I go 5 days a week that's enough, I put in my time, my weekends are MY time!!!" Mind you, she is unemployed. So if I told her it was a mortal sin (which I am sure she knows) she would argue with me and get super defensive. I know it's my duty and I know it is one of the spiritual works of mercy "to inform the ignorant" but it won't make a difference. This is someone you can not even disagree with or they will shut you out and not call you for months. So, I have given up. I do know it's a mortal sin and when it has happened to me I know I need to get to confession PRONTO! I am so glad you started this thread. People need to know it's not ok as a Catholic to miss weekly mass. I wish more people would see it as just that. He gives us 168 hours a week. Can we not give Him one?
The fact that any miracle was performed through his intersession attests to nothing having to do with the end times but only to his special relationship,with God.
Although he was a successful preacher, he traveled only in parts of Western Europe, including Spain (his homeland), France, Switzerland and Northern Italy. He never traveled in the majority of Europe, nor in Englang Ireland or what we now know as the British Isles. He never set foot in Northern Europe, Southern Italy, Germany, Austria, Poland, European Russia, or the Slavic nations.
He had a hand, but not the decisive one, in ending the Great Western Schism. Even if he had done so single handedly, that would hardly qualify as avoiding, in your words, the Apocalypse or allowing the world to continue. That claim is patent nonsense.
And he would be one of the exceptions that proves the rule that most Saints, even today, only affect their immediate locale during their lifetime. St. Francis would be another exception. But those exceptions are few and far between. Most Saints have their biggest impact after they are dead.
It does a severe injustice to the Church and to the cause of evangilization when we Catholics spout exaggerated stories or use unnecessary hyperbole to describe the accomplishments of God's heros we honor as Saints.
Thank you for at least somewhat acknowledging your overblown hyperbole in your original post. Which proves my point that daily Mass attendance by a large numbers of the laity at any point in Church History is uncommon and isolated to single locales for relatively short periods.
Throughout history, sad to say, even the required weekly attendance at mass by the majority of the laity is unusual.
Since your point has no basis in fact, I did not miss it. In fact I addressed the false nature of your statement.
The fact that even a single person with a grueling work schedule can find time to go to Mass wheterh Daily or just in fulfillment of the Sunday obligation is enough to demonstrate that we have no excuse to miss Mass on Sunday except for illness and those instances when one's work schedule truly make it impossible to do so.
It also does a sever injustice to the Church and the cause of evangelization when we Catholics spout skepticism, cynicism and misinformation about the Saints and the practices of the Church. It's hardly an attractive method of winning converts, but I hope it works out for you.
You think that the limits of St. Vincent's influence and message were limited to his travels? Crowds in the tens of thousands would hear him preach regularly, and people would travel for days to hear him preach. When they returned back to their homes, his message would spread and the tales of his miracles would travel with them. It's just a short trip over the Channel from Normandy to England, or a bridge crossing over the Rhine to reach northern Europe. Even if he did not actually step foot in those lands, his words surely did. Our Lord never preached in Rome, yet His words were spoken there by Peter and Paul, and the center of God's rightful worship is now there.
At what point did I say that the Great Schism was the singular event that was driving Europe towards the Apocalypse? Any actual work that he did in ending the Schism was only tangentially related to his work of reconverting Europe and preventing the rise of the Antichrist. God was not going to end the world because there were two (or three) popes. He was going to end the world because of the iniquities of the "Christian" people. The Great Schism was certainly a contributing factor to their sins, but it was not, and is not, the determining factor for the faithfulness of the people. As proof of this, we only have one reigning pope today, yet apostasy and sin abounds as never before in the Church.
Why did Our Lord and the Apostles perform miracles? "[E]ven if you do not believe me, believe in the works . . ." (John 10:38). The same was true of St. Vincent. He performed more miracles than any person during his time since the days of the Apostles, and those miracles always accompanied his message of repentance to stave off the Judgment Day. It was a conditional prophecy that he preached. The prophet Jonah was in the same vein when he preached to Nineveh, and Our Lady herself prophesied in this manner at Fatima. In the cases of Nineveh and St. Vincent's Europe, the sinful people heeded the message- through the preaching of the prophets who were sent to call them to repentance and to speak of the consequences of their failure to do so- and God's wrath was averted. We did not heed Our Lady at Fatima, and the present state of the world and Church is a consequence of her conditional prophecy.
It seems that you are essentially denying St. Vincent's message: that he was the messenger of the Apocalypse spoken of in Revelation 14:6, and that it was near at hand unless men repented through his preaching. He preached this message every day of his ministerial life and it was verified by multitudinous daily miracles. You are essentially calling him either deluded or a liar. And if you call him deluded or a liar, then you are calling God deluded or a liar for verifying Vincent's message of "repentance or destruction" with more miracles than anyone since the Apostles during his time. I will not stand for your slander and blasphemy. Have the last word if you want.
For 15 years, I worked 7am-7pm shift that included every other weekend. I truly missed going to Sunday Mass. I recorded the Mass for shut ins with my VCR when that was possible.
I taught 7th grade CCD, was active in the funeral luncheon ministry, was a leader in the Sunday scripture study group, all while missing Mass every other week! After a few years I started going to Mass an alternate day of the week.
The point is, my 'work' required me to care for the sick and fragile members of the Body of Christ. It is in the belief that a nursing ministry requires the sacrifice of missing Sunday Mass. My kids went with their caregiver's family while I was at work.
So... Why we miss is probably more important than when we miss.
I am not advocating missing weekly Mass, as it is an obligation for Catholics, but it is God who sees everything and who will be the judge, and not other laypeople whose daily grind may be different from those of their brothers and sisters in Christ.
After I moved to Kansas, I had to interview for new jobs. The employers I interviewed with didn't actually believe that I wouldn't work Sundays or Holy Days. In fact, after I did get work, my employer tried to schedule me for a Sunday...to test me, I guess. I had to cross off my name as unavailable and explain to her once again that not working ordinarily on Sundays was a term of employment. She reluctantly conceded.
Once that became a hostile working environment for entirely unrelated reasons, I interviewed for new positions with other corporations. One interviewer actually told me after the interview that he wouldn't even consider me, since I wouldn't waver from needing a single set day off each week. Where I finally settled, the employer agreed to my terms, but then told me that I'd have to work on Holy Days. I said plainly that the employment agreement made didn't allow her to dictate in contradiction to the terms we made and the issue went away.
I find that if a person actually says "no" and means it, employers listen. Of course, there are demands for help which are out of the ordinary that take attention on Sundays, but we should not make them the norm without some good or grave reason.
At some point, though, in absence of a good reason, if a person doesn't actually appear to be living what he says he believes...can he really be thought by others to believe what he says??