<p>
</p>
<p>You have fellow Catholics who disagree: [Evening</a> Mass–a Question - Catholic Answers Forums](<a href=“Catholic Faith, Beliefs, & Prayers | Catholic Answers”>Catholic Faith, Beliefs, & Prayers | Catholic Answers)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>lol yeah im sure you banged like 69 girls after writing this post</p>
<p>you know it</p>
<p>justtotalk, of course there are people who disagree.</p>
<p>Just like here, who disagree with what you the people on that forum state – [What</a> is a “Vigil” Mass? - Catholic Community Forum](<a href=“What is a "Vigil" Mass?”>What is a "Vigil" Mass?)</p>
<p>In addition, one poster states that no “Saturday Vigil” Masses are technically Vigils at all because they are identical to Sunday Masses in every way.</p>
<p>So, if we want to talk on rock-solid ground, there are Masses on Saturday that count for the Sunday obligation. The question is whether there is a problem with this. My answer would be no. Now BalconyBoy will use this in some bizarre fashion; I’m somewhat curious.</p>
<p>I never asked if you had a problem with that. I asked if you were OK with the change by adding a Saturday vigil mass to count for Sunday mass. And from what I have read you are OK with that and you are also OK with the change in amount of time one must fast prior to taking communion. That kinda shoots down your statement “I am an absolutist, not a relativist.” If you truly are an absolutist these changes would not be permissible to you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you referring to me pandem?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wrong on two counts – First, they are not moral issues, as I mentioned previously. They are disciplinary/administrative ones. Second, they all fall under the purview of the absolute belief in the correctness and definitiveness of the Church teaching, thereby eliminating spiritually meaningless changes at a micro level from the realm of “relativism.” So it is simply a different form of absolutism.</p>
<p>Nice try though!</p>
<p>Your statement “I am an absolutist, not a relativist” was your statement about yourself, not the Catholic church. Spin it any way you like so it fits your definition. It’s all relative!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am an absolutist. I embrace the belief that the Church teaches definitively and absolutely, which is what it claims, in an absolute manner.</p>
<p>Therefore, when the Church makes a definitive/infallible decision, I believe it. Every time. Because I am an absolutist, and my absolutism includes adhering to Church belief absolutely.</p>
<p>You seem not to be getting it.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the Church itself is morally absolutist. The addition of a Mass is NOT a moral issue, just like instructing priests to wear, say, tennis shoes or sandals would NOT be a moral issue. That has nothing to do with morality whatsoever.</p>
<p>By definition</p>
<p>Absolutism - n - any theory holding that values, principles, etc., are absolute and not relative, dependent, or changeable. </p>
<p>The Catholic church changed stuff. You are OK with that. It’s relative. If you were a true absolutist any change would be wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. You’re being silly.</p>
<p>All of these beliefs fall under the purview of the Catholic Church teaching. </p>
<p>I don’t view these issues as “time of Mass” or anything else, I view them as “Church teaching.” I am an absolutist in the sense that I adhere to that teaching absolutely. If it changes, so do I. So my absolutist actually compels me to accept certain changes because they are not even considered by me on a micro level. They ALL fall under the larger belief that the Church is absolutely correct.</p>
<p>The following belief fits your definition: The Church teaches absolutely and definitively. This belief of mine is, as you say, absolute. I do NOT consider the time of Mass absolute, but that doesn’t make me a relativist any more than dropping a course makes me a relativist. Because I absolutely do not believe those issues to be moral issues at all.</p>
<p>If someone is reading this, perhaps you could explain this better, given that BalconyBoy has understanding problems.</p>
<p>Baelor believes in the absolute authority of the Catholic Church, and does not necessarily believe in specific teachings of the Church in an absolute sense.</p>
<p>EDIT: The teachings are absolute because they are the teachings of the Church, not necessarily because they are intrinsically absolute in themselves.</p>
<p>^Exactly. Thanks.</p>
<p>Although some Catholic teachings are themselves absolute (i.e. infallible, e.g. reservation of ordination to males, Assumption of Mary, etc.).</p>
<p>Bull…</p>
<p>[Papal</a> bull - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_bull]Papal”>Papal bull - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Yep.</p>
<p>Very well-played.</p>
<p>Wrong kind a bull.</p>
<p>"Wrong kind a [sic] bull. "</p>
<p>Well how are we supposed to know that from your ambiguous statements, hmm?</p>
<p>Go with the spin master Baelor. He is neither absolute or relative. He is the bull.</p>
<p>One cannot be an inanimate object, although if I had to be something, I would indeed enjoy being such a formal document, written by the Pope, no less.</p>
<p>I bet you’d enjoy having the pope’s ink all over you.</p>