Licit to attend weekly NO Masses with abuses?
#31
I brought up a similar point once with someone when he insisted that the Eucharist is the only thing that matters, regardless of what prayers surround Its consecration, offering and reception.

But a NO mass is still a mass. A Black Mass is not a mass at all and must rely on having a previously consecrated Host.
Reply
#32
I don't think we can ever have too much respect for the Blessed Sacrament, given what it truly is. Consider the devotion of the Jews to the Tabernacle, and this was just a preparatory dwelling. How much more respect should we show? How much more outraged should we be at the slightest sacrilege? How much more should we fear to give scandal by going to a Mass at which we are unsure of what will be done to the Sacred Body of Our Redeemer? How will the others there know that we don't approve of what is going on (to them, we are there and if we thought it was disrespectful, we wouldn't be there)? How can we claim that obtaining graces for ourselves is more important than attending a Mass at which there is a significant likelihood of Our Lord sustaining abuse at the Unbloody Sacrifice? How can we be so sure of grace when God Himself fears to manifest His Body in the hands of the priest who has almost as little respect for His Body than the Jews did when they crucified Him? Again, the ends never justify the means: willing to witness and attend imminent sacrilege in order to obtain grace. We owe God - He doesn't owe us; He's already paid His price.

Edit: If we have to allow evil in order to obtain a "good" end, then it is not really a good end. God transforms evil into good because He has given us free will to choose and He must allow for our evil choices. We, however, can't abuse this transformation by telling God that we will purposely sin or allow sin so that He can secure a greater good for us.
Reply
#33
(04-22-2009, 07:47 PM)didishroom Wrote: But a NO mass is still a mass. A Black Mass is not a mass at all and must rely on having a previously consecrated Host.

That is not true.  While it certainly isn't a Mass, a host can be consecrated during that ritual (aka the Black Mass) by a bad priest.  The Consecration is independent of the overall liturgy.  The form of the Sacrament are the words of the Consecration, not the liturgy around them.
Reply
#34
(04-22-2009, 08:00 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(04-22-2009, 07:47 PM)didishroom Wrote: But a NO mass is still a mass. A Black Mass is not a mass at all and must rely on having a previously consecrated Host.

That is not true.  While it certainly isn't a Mass, a host can be consecrated during that ritual (aka the Black Mass) by a bad priest.  The Consecration is independent of the overall liturgy.  The form of the Sacrament are the words of the Consecration, not the liturgy around them.

I was just about to say that. Your new forum software prompted me of your post and saved the replies from redundancy.

Looks like I'll have to stop procrastinating and go rate the new forum!  :laughing:

Edit: Typo
Reply
#35
(04-22-2009, 07:50 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: I don't think we can ever have too much respect for the Blessed Sacrament, given what it truly is. Consider the devotion of the Jews to the Tabernacle, and this was just a preparatory dwelling. How much more respect should we show? How much more outraged should we be at the slightest sacrilege? How much more should we fear to give scandal by going to a Mass at which we are unsure of what will be done to the Sacred Body of Our Redeemer? How will the others there know that we don't approve of what is going on (to them, we are there and if we thought it was disrespectful, we wouldn't be there)? How can we claim that obtaining graces for ourselves is more important than attending a Mass at which there is a significant likelihood of Our Lord sustaining abuse at the Unbloody Sacrifice? How can we be so sure of grace when God Himself fears to manifest His Body in the hands of the priest who has almost as little respect for His Body than the Jews did when they crucified Him? Again, the ends never justify the means: willing to witness and attend imminent sacrilege in order to obtain grace. We owe God - He doesn't owe us; He's already paid His price.

Edit: If we have to allow evil in order to obtain a "good" end, then it is not really a good end. God transforms evil into good because He has given us free will to choose and He must allow for our evil choices. We, however, can't abuse this transformation by telling God that we will purposely sin or allow sin so that He can secure a greater good for us.
Whether any of us like it or not, the NO is a licit, valid Mass. I prefer a TLM myself. Why do we try to steer folks away from receiving the Body & Blood of Christ at an NO when a TLM is unavailable? ??? A glass chalice is not hazardous to our salvation, although it probably won't score a lot of points for the priest who uses it. The graces available to us from devout attendance at Mass are innumerable, and we tell others to stay away because of a glass chalice ,a female altar server, use of EMHCs, holding hands at the Pater Noster etc. etc, etc.

I agree, we worship and receive  Almighty God who is worthy of more respect and worship than we'll ever be able to give him. That being said, why don't we give him the best we PERSONALLY are able to with what's available to us and not use others' failings as reasons not to give him what WE are able to. As long as the Mass is valid, all these "reasons" for not going seem to me to be cop outs.

???" How can we be so sure of grace when God Himself fears to manifest His Body in the hands of the priest who has almost as little respect for His Body than the Jews did when they crucified Him? "  ???  I don't understand what this means.

I really don't think there's a whole lot that God fears.  We can be sure of grace because it a valid Mass, the sanctity of the priest has nothing to do with the grace we receive from the sacrament.

Pax.
Reply
#36
I've decided to only attend the glass-chalice-free weekend Masses only. What convinced me was the descriptions in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy about the proper regulations/criteria to be met in performing Old Covenant ritual; and, in more cases than not, vessels that housed sacred objects needed to be made with gold.

How much more sacred are the rites of the New Covenant? If God expected gold for foreshadows of the Eucharist, I'm going to bet He expects gold for the Eucharist itself.
Reply
#37
(04-22-2009, 10:03 PM)NonSumDignus Wrote: I've decided to only attend the glass-chalice-free weekend Masses only. What convinced me was the descriptions in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy about the proper regulations/criteria to be met in performing Old Covenant ritual; and, in more cases than not, vessels that housed sacred objects needed to be made with gold.

How much more sacred are the rites of the New Covenant? If God expected gold for foreshadows of the Eucharist, I'm going to bet He expects gold for the Eucharist itself.

May God bless and watch over you.
Reply
#38
(04-22-2009, 08:37 PM)Sinner Wrote:
(04-22-2009, 07:50 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: I don't think we can ever have too much respect for the Blessed Sacrament, given what it truly is. Consider the devotion of the Jews to the Tabernacle, and this was just a preparatory dwelling. How much more respect should we show? How much more outraged should we be at the slightest sacrilege? How much more should we fear to give scandal by going to a Mass at which we are unsure of what will be done to the Sacred Body of Our Redeemer? How will the others there know that we don't approve of what is going on (to them, we are there and if we thought it was disrespectful, we wouldn't be there)? How can we claim that obtaining graces for ourselves is more important than attending a Mass at which there is a significant likelihood of Our Lord sustaining abuse at the Unbloody Sacrifice? How can we be so sure of grace when God Himself fears to manifest His Body in the hands of the priest who has almost as little respect for His Body than the Jews did when they crucified Him? Again, the ends never justify the means: willing to witness and attend imminent sacrilege in order to obtain grace. We owe God - He doesn't owe us; He's already paid His price.

Edit: If we have to allow evil in order to obtain a "good" end, then it is not really a good end. God transforms evil into good because He has given us free will to choose and He must allow for our evil choices. We, however, can't abuse this transformation by telling God that we will purposely sin or allow sin so that He can secure a greater good for us.
Whether any of us like it or not, the NO is a licit, valid Mass. I prefer a TLM myself. Why do we try to steer folks away from receiving the Body & Blood of Christ at an NO when a TLM is unavailable? ??? A glass chalice is not hazardous to our salvation, although it probably won't score a lot of points for the priest who uses it. The graces available to us from devout attendance at Mass are innumerable, and we tell others to stay away because of a glass chalice ,a female altar server, use of EMHCs, holding hands at the Pater Noster etc. etc, etc.

I agree, we worship and receive   Almighty God who is worthy of more respect and worship than we'll ever be able to give him. That being said, why don't we give him the best we PERSONALLY are able to with what's available to us and not use others' failings as reasons not to give him what WE are able to. As long as the Mass is valid, all these "reasons" for not going seem to me to be cop outs.

???" How can we be so sure of grace when God Himself fears to manifest His Body in the hands of the priest who has almost as little respect for His Body than the Jews did when they crucified Him? "  ???   I don't understand what this means.

I really don't think there's a whole lot that God fears.  We can be sure of grace because it a valid Mass, the sanctity of the priest has nothing to do with the grace we receive from the sacrament.

Pax.

Would it concern you if you weren't even sure whether or not the priest even believed in the Real Presence? My doubts about the priest's intention to effect the Sacrifice of the Mass would be layed to rest the moment he began to treat the Body of Blood of Christ like he actually believed it was the Body and Blood of Christ.
Reply
#39
(04-22-2009, 10:03 PM)NonSumDignus Wrote: I've decided to only attend the glass-chalice-free weekend Masses only. What convinced me was the descriptions in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy about the proper regulations/criteria to be met in performing Old Covenant ritual; and, in more cases than not, vessels that housed sacred objects needed to be made with gold.

How much more sacred are the rites of the New Covenant? If God expected gold for foreshadows of the Eucharist, I'm going to bet He expects gold for the Eucharist itself.
If the Church precribes it ,(bound on earth, bound in heaven ) I'm sure He does, but if the priest disobeys, I doubt He wants us to withhold our worship from Him. I think according to Chptr VI para. 329 & 330 of the GIRM referenced below a chalice could be hardwood with a bowl inlay of waterford crystal, with the Bishop's approval.http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter6.shtml What do you think? I'd go with gold myself.
Reply
#40
our very conservative TLM priest told a friend that going to the NO mass for a weekday mass was fine, and to offer up the suffering caused by the "abuses" for the intention of your choice....
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)