Licit to attend weekly NO Masses with abuses?
#41
(04-23-2009, 12:04 AM)mamalove Wrote: 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....

I am concerned that for some of the more egregious abuses I would be complicit in sin or abuse by attendance.
Reply
#42
I think this thread started witha question about a "glass chalice".  The original poster didn't  mention any "egregious abuses" , didn't mention the priest not believing in the Real Presence. I don't understand the "what if game" to steer him away from potentially a wellspring of Living Water. The fact of the matter is we are not obliged to attend Mass on a week day (Holy Days excepted). If we don't want to go to an NO Mass during the week that is fine, but I think we should have the maturity and intestinal fortitude  to own that decision and not  try to shove the responsibility on to the priest celebrating the Mass. "I don't like his chalice. He's not reverent enough." How reverent is reverent enough??  "What if he doesn't believe.....etc "  When did we start reading hearts? All these things are between the priest and the Bishop and Our Lord.  When did we become the judge? I HATE to paraphrase Obama, but these things ARE way above our paygrade. 
Reply
#43
(04-22-2009, 10:35 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: 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.

It would be his sin and his alone if he didn't. Whether he believes or not doesn't matter as long as he is ordained and uses the proper form I think.
Reply
#44
Christ in his earthly life dined with the publicans and sinners.

As for the question I regularly attend New Order Mass which is celebrated reverently. For a while attended less reverent Mass, because of my physical problem, and that too was the sacrifice of Christ, who as above, in his earthly life dined with publicans and sinners. The disciple is not above his master

laszlo


(04-17-2009, 07:44 PM)tradmaverick Wrote: I understand you believe certain things about the New Mass, and I want to say something to you in charity and with the fullest respect for you and youre very commendable desire to receive the Eucharist daily, I think you should do a bit of reading into the New Mass, try googling the Ottaviani Intervention, or read the book the Great sacrilege, or anything by Michael Davies on the New Mass. There is plenty of evidence available to show that not only is the New Mass illicit, but it is immoral, and is indeed is a sin to attend it. It is not so much a matter of the abuses that (do indeed) go on during a new mass, it is the prayers of the New Mass itself (and the lack therof).

Again I dont mean to offend or cause a fight or something heated, but in fraternal charity and with the greatest respect for you I have to point that out.

God bless
Tradmav
Reply
#45
(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.

Well, let's take a look at the reasoning here. If the reasoning is "I am so distracted by the thought that the chalices are glass, not gold, that I can't even properly prepare to receive the Holy Eucharist under the appearance of bread, not wine"--then your subjective disposition would appear to unfit you to receive daily Communion under those circumstances, so long as they persist. But if the reasoning is "I will allow other people to deprive me of daily Communion by using inferior vessels at Mass, because I believe they are doing wrong by using the inferior vessels"--then the reasoning is faulty, and the conclusion is unsound and harmful.

You are not to blame for other people's wrongdoing merely because you observe them engaging in it and you can't very well stop them. You do not give scandal to well-disposed observers merely by receiving Communion at a Mass with glass chalices, needless extraordinary ministers, or whatnot. This is because you can readily explain to them (if they ask) that you only put up with these things to the extent necessary (under the circumstances) to follow the teaching of St. Pius X on daily Communion (Sacra Tridentina, Dec. 20, 1905):
Quote:The Holy Council of Trent, having in view the ineffable riches of grace which are offered to the faithful who receive the Most Holy Eucharist, makes the following declaration: "The Holy Council wishes indeed that at each Mass the faithful who are present should communicate, not only in spiritual desire, but sacramentally, by the actual reception of the Eucharist." These words declare plainly enough the wish of the Church that all Christians should be daily nourished by this heavenly banquet and should derive therefrom more abundant fruit for their sanctification.

If any ill-disposed observers were to take scandal when you didn't actually give it, this would be the "scandal of the Pharisees"--their problem, not yours. See St. Thomas Aquinas, S.T. II-II, Q. 43, Art. 7:
Quote:A distinction seems necessary among spiritual things which are not necessary for salvation: because the scandal which arises from such things sometimes proceeds from malice, for instance when a man wishes to hinder those spiritual goods by stirring up scandal. This is the "scandal of the Pharisees," who were scandalized at Our Lord's teaching: and Our Lord teaches (Matt. 15:14) that we ought to treat such like scandal with contempt. Sometimes scandal proceeds from weakness or ignorance, and such is the "scandal of little ones." In order to avoid this kind of scandal, spiritual goods ought to be either concealed, or sometimes even deferred (if this can be done without incurring immediate danger), until the matter being explained the scandal cease. If, however, the scandal continue after the matter has been explained, it would seem to be due to malice, and then it would no longer be right to forego that spiritual good in order to avoid such like scandal.

God bless you!

Don McMaster
Reply
#46
(04-23-2009, 12:52 AM)Rosarium Wrote:
(04-22-2009, 10:35 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: 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.

It would be his sin and his alone if he didn't. Whether he believes or not doesn't matter as long as he is ordained and uses the proper form I think.

If we know that it is unlikely and doubtful (due to the actions of the priest) that he truly believes the Eucharist is actually the Body and Blood of Our Lord, then his intention to actually consecrate the Host as the Body and Blood of Our Lord is likewise doubtful. Considering the priests’ actions often provide a probable doubt of this belief, their intentions are often equally dubious (to a participator who seeks to enjoin himself with the Body of Christ).

Yes, it would be very sinful for him; it could likewise be dangerous for us. A doubtful sacrament is no sacrament at all. If one is aware that an objective doubt exists, but fails to acknowledge that doubt, then that sacrament does not bind. If there is an objective doubt manifested in the priests' actions (or lack thereof) as to the intention (and very often matter and form) of the sacrament, one must bear in mind the axiom: "Lex dubia non obligat." (I know you're not stupid, so I don't want to treat you as if you are. But just for clarification, the English translation of the Latin word 'Obligat' is 'Bind').

I mention matter and form because these abuses occur more often than intention. One who knows that there is a likelihood of abuse, whether by commission or omission (given their frequency during the application of the Novus Ordo Missae), would then have to know, with absolute certainty parallel to that of a priest, exactly what constitutes the matter and form of the sacrament in order to eliminate any danger of worshipping bread. Because we know the likelihood of danger, we have a responsibility to avoid the danger. 

This doubt very rarely exists in the Traditional Latin Mass; likewise, the participator does not assume this responsibility. If, however, we knew that a certain priest was treating the Body and Blood of Christ with grave disrespect at a Traditional Latin Mass, which of us would not avoid this priest at all costs for fear of the dangers mentioned above? Further, would our desire to receive grace eliminate the objective doubt of which we were aware?


Reply
#47
(04-23-2009, 10:06 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(04-23-2009, 12:52 AM)Rosarium Wrote:
(04-22-2009, 10:35 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: 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.

It would be his sin and his alone if he didn't. Whether he believes or not doesn't matter as long as he is ordained and uses the proper form I think.

If we know that it is unlikely and doubtful (due to the actions of the priest) that he truly believes the Eucharist is actually the Body and Blood of Our Lord, then his intention to actually consecrate the Host as the Body and Blood of Our Lord is likewise doubtful. Considering the priests’ actions often provide a probable doubt of this belief, their intentions are often equally dubious (to a participator who seeks to enjoin himself with the Body of Christ).

Yes, it would be very sinful for him; it could likewise be dangerous for us. A doubtful sacrament is no sacrament at all. If one is aware that an objective doubt exists, but fails to acknowledge that doubt, then that sacrament does not bind. If there is an objective doubt manifested in the priests' actions (or lack thereof) as to the intention (and very often matter and form) of the sacrament, one must bear in mind the axiom: "Lex dubia non obligat." (I know you're not stupid, so I don't want to treat you as if you are. But just for clarification, the English translation of the Latin word 'Obligat' is 'Bind').

I mention matter and form because these abuses occur more often than intention. One who knows that there is a likelihood of abuse, whether by commission or omission (given their frequency during the application of the Novus Ordo Missae), would then have to know, with absolute certainty parallel to that of a priest, exactly what constitutes the matter and form of the sacrament in order to eliminate any danger of worshipping bread. Because we know the likelihood of danger, we have a responsibility to avoid the danger.   

This doubt very rarely exists in the Traditional Latin Mass; likewise, the participator does not assume this responsibility. If, however, we knew that a certain priest was treating the Body and Blood of Christ with grave disrespect at a Traditional Latin Mass, which of us would not avoid this priest at all costs for fear of the dangers mentioned above? Further, would our desire to receive grace eliminate the objective doubt of which we were aware?
I have a question.  Instead of being in the pew scrutinizing every movement and nuance of the priest in an attempt to determine his beliefs and intentiontions,why don't you enjoin in the prayers of the Mass and unite yourself in the Sacrifice?  ???
Reply
#48
(04-23-2009, 10:06 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: This doubt very rarely exists in the Traditional Latin Mass; likewise, the participator does not assume this responsibility. If, however, we knew that a certain priest was treating the Body and Blood of Christ with grave disrespect at a Traditional Latin Mass, which of us would not avoid this priest at all costs for fear of the dangers mentioned above? Further, would our desire to receive grace eliminate the objective doubt of which we were aware?

I think this is a very interesting point.  What traditional Catholic would continue to attend a Latin Mass where the priest began using a glass chalice, for example?  I believe this is forbidden in the NO, actually.  If one went to his local Latin Mass and found people receiving the Host in the hand, would he continue to attend at that parish?  This is allowable in the NO.  What if the priest allowed female altar servers?  This is, apparently, allowable in the NO.  Would all of you traditional Catholics who sometimes attend a NO still attend such a Latin Mass?  I think this is an important question in discovering the root of the licit/illicit issue.  I believe the answer is that no traditional Catholic would ever even consider attending such a Latin Mass, but I could be wrong.  I welcome your comments.

I personally attend a NO, as it is the only Mass available locally.  I have only had the opportunity to attend three Latin Masses.  By and large the extreme abuses are absent in my local diocese.  However, I have seen glass chalices, packs of EMHC's, etc.  I must say that it pains me to see liturgical abuse, even minor things, but I do still think the NO is valid.  I did what Quis suggested above and wrote a letter after seeing what I felt was beyond the pale.  I also moved my family to a new parish because of liturgical abuses.  I would not abandon going to Mass altogether, however, just because of 

edit:grammar
Reply
#49
(04-23-2009, 10:06 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(04-23-2009, 12:52 AM)Rosarium Wrote:
(04-22-2009, 10:35 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: 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.

It would be his sin and his alone if he didn't. Whether he believes or not doesn't matter as long as he is ordained and uses the proper form I think.

If we know that it is unlikely and doubtful (due to the actions of the priest) that he truly believes the Eucharist is actually the Body and Blood of Our Lord, then his intention to actually consecrate the Host as the Body and Blood of Our Lord is likewise doubtful. Considering the priests’ actions often provide a probable doubt of this belief, their intentions are often equally dubious (to a participator who seeks to enjoin himself with the Body of Christ).

Yes, it would be very sinful for him; it could likewise be dangerous for us. A doubtful sacrament is no sacrament at all. If one is aware that an objective doubt exists, but fails to acknowledge that doubt, then that sacrament does not bind. If there is an objective doubt manifested in the priests' actions (or lack thereof) as to the intention (and very often matter and form) of the sacrament, one must bear in mind the axiom: "Lex dubia non obligat." (I know you're not stupid, so I don't want to treat you as if you are. But just for clarification, the English translation of the Latin word 'Obligat' is 'Bind').

I mention matter and form because these abuses occur more often than intention. One who knows that there is a likelihood of abuse, whether by commission or omission (given their frequency during the application of the Novus Ordo Missae), would then have to know, with absolute certainty parallel to that of a priest, exactly what constitutes the matter and form of the sacrament in order to eliminate any danger of worshipping bread. Because we know the likelihood of danger, we have a responsibility to avoid the danger. 

This doubt very rarely exists in the Traditional Latin Mass; likewise, the participator does not assume this responsibility. If, however, we knew that a certain priest was treating the Body and Blood of Christ with grave disrespect at a Traditional Latin Mass, which of us would not avoid this priest at all costs for fear of the dangers mentioned above? Further, would our desire to receive grace eliminate the objective doubt of which we were aware?


............This is not the case, it is not the teaching of the Church, the Priest merely has to do 'what the Church has always done', regardless of his subjective intention, an FSSP Priest in Rome told me once (correcting me when I made your point) that it could be likened to someone playing a part in Shakespeares Julius Caesar - even if the character of Brutus has no intention in stabbing Caesar, even if he doesnt believe in murder even if he doesnt want to stab Caesar - the play requires him to, he is forced to 'do what the play has always done', it has always been the teaching of the church that heretics can administer valid sacraments - unless they specifically declare their intention to only give an external sign...and not the sacrament.


"It is certainly true, as St. Thomas Aquinas explains, that faith is not required of necessity in the minister for the sacraments he administers to be valid (ST, IIIa, Q. 64, a. 9). In the same way that a heretic can validly administer the sacrament of baptism (e.g., a Protestant), and even the fact that he does not believe in original sin does not invalidate this sacrament, so also can a heretic celebrate a valid Mass. He does not have to intend what the Church intends, but only what the Church does, which latter is possible even when he has a gross misunderstanding of what the Church really does.

However, this being the case, the existence of heresy can certainly place a shadow of doubt over the intention of the minister giving a sacrament. Before Vatican II it was always the practice to baptize under condition any adult converts from Protestantism. There were several reasons to doubt to some degree Protestant baptisms, one of which is a defective intention of the minister. If the minister had an explicitly contrary intention, namely if he had explicitly formulated the intention of not doing what the Catholic Church has always done, then the sacrament would be invalid. It is not the fact that he does not believe in original sin that could make the sacrament of baptism invalid, but the fact that his explicit intention is just to give an outward sign, and not to administer a sacrament that removes original sin and infuses sanctifying grace.

The same can be the case with the New Mass, and this even if the priest still believes in the Real Presence. He could have a contrary intention to that of the Church. This would be the case if his intention explicitly refuses offering a true sacrifice, the unbloody renewal of Calvary, and explicitly considers that it is to be only a meal and a commemoration of the Last Supper. Such an intention would be directly contrary to the intention of doing what the Church does. We do not know how often this happens, but it is very reasonable to believe that it is a common occurrence. Consequently, there are probably many celebrations of the New Mass, by priests who are convinced of modernist theories, that are invalid.

This is one reason that we cannot have anything to do with the New Mass. However, the more universal reason is that it is insulting and injurious to Almighty God and to Our Lord Jesus Christ, even if it happens to be valid." - sspx.org




Reply
#50
(04-23-2009, 01:21 PM)tradmaverick Wrote:
(04-23-2009, 10:06 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(04-23-2009, 12:52 AM)Rosarium Wrote:
(04-22-2009, 10:35 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: 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.

It would be his sin and his alone if he didn't. Whether he believes or not doesn't matter as long as he is ordained and uses the proper form I think.

If we know that it is unlikely and doubtful (due to the actions of the priest) that he truly believes the Eucharist is actually the Body and Blood of Our Lord, then his intention to actually consecrate the Host as the Body and Blood of Our Lord is likewise doubtful. Considering the priests’ actions often provide a probable doubt of this belief, their intentions are often equally dubious (to a participator who seeks to enjoin himself with the Body of Christ).

Yes, it would be very sinful for him; it could likewise be dangerous for us. A doubtful sacrament is no sacrament at all. If one is aware that an objective doubt exists, but fails to acknowledge that doubt, then that sacrament does not bind. If there is an objective doubt manifested in the priests' actions (or lack thereof) as to the intention (and very often matter and form) of the sacrament, one must bear in mind the axiom: "Lex dubia non obligat." (I know you're not stupid, so I don't want to treat you as if you are. But just for clarification, the English translation of the Latin word 'Obligat' is 'Bind').

I mention matter and form because these abuses occur more often than intention. One who knows that there is a likelihood of abuse, whether by commission or omission (given their frequency during the application of the Novus Ordo Missae), would then have to know, with absolute certainty parallel to that of a priest, exactly what constitutes the matter and form of the sacrament in order to eliminate any danger of worshipping bread. Because we know the likelihood of danger, we have a responsibility to avoid the danger.   

This doubt very rarely exists in the Traditional Latin Mass; likewise, the participator does not assume this responsibility. If, however, we knew that a certain priest was treating the Body and Blood of Christ with grave disrespect at a Traditional Latin Mass, which of us would not avoid this priest at all costs for fear of the dangers mentioned above? Further, would our desire to receive grace eliminate the objective doubt of which we were aware?


............This is not the case, it is not the teaching of the Church, the Priest merely has to do 'what the Church has always done', regardless of his subjective intention, an FSSP Priest in Rome told me once (correcting me when I made your point) that it could be likened to someone playing a part in Shakespeares Julius Caesar - even if the character of Brutus has no intention in stabbing Caesar, even if he doesnt believe in murder even if he doesnt want to stab Caesar - the play requires him to, he is forced to 'do what the play has always done', it has always been the teaching of the church that heretics can administer valid sacraments - unless they specifically declare their intention to only give an external sign...and not the sacrament.


"It is certainly true, as St. Thomas Aquinas explains, that faith is not required of necessity in the minister for the sacraments he administers to be valid (ST, IIIa, Q. 64, a. 9). In the same way that a heretic can validly administer the sacrament of baptism (e.g., a Protestant), and even the fact that he does not believe in original sin does not invalidate this sacrament, so also can a heretic celebrate a valid Mass. He does not have to intend what the Church intends, but only what the Church does, which latter is possible even when he has a gross misunderstanding of what the Church really does.

However, this being the case, the existence of heresy can certainly place a shadow of doubt over the intention of the minister giving a sacrament. Before Vatican II it was always the practice to baptize under condition any adult converts from Protestantism. There were several reasons to doubt to some degree Protestant baptisms, one of which is a defective intention of the minister. If the minister had an explicitly contrary intention, namely if he had explicitly formulated the intention of not doing what the Catholic Church has always done, then the sacrament would be invalid. It is not the fact that he does not believe in original sin that could make the sacrament of baptism invalid, but the fact that his explicit intention is just to give an outward sign, and not to administer a sacrament that removes original sin and infuses sanctifying grace.

The same can be the case with the New Mass, and this even if the priest still believes in the Real Presence. He could have a contrary intention to that of the Church. This would be the case if his intention explicitly refuses offering a true sacrifice, the unbloody renewal of Calvary, and explicitly considers that it is to be only a meal and a commemoration of the Last Supper. Such an intention would be directly contrary to the intention of doing what the Church does. We do not know how often this happens, but it is very reasonable to believe that it is a common occurrence. Consequently, there are probably many celebrations of the New Mass, by priests who are convinced of Modernist theories, that are invalid.

This is one reason that we cannot have anything to do with the New Mass. However, the more universal reason is that it is insulting and injurious to Almighty God and to Our Lord Jesus Christ, even if it happens to be valid." - sspx.org

Ok - very good; very good post. But consider that my entire chain of reasoning is founded upon the truth: "lex dubia non obligat (a doubtful law does not bind)" which is the teaching of the Church. If one knows there is a likelihood or probability of doubt concerning a sacrament performed, participation thereof is not justified.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)