Licit to attend weekly NO Masses with abuses?
#51
(04-23-2009, 04:10 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: 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.

Here here!!
it was one of the main reason I stopped going to the Novus Ordo years ago, theres just way too much uncertainty, you know i might sit here debating theology and thinking i know something about something when really  i know very little, you have to stick with what your sure about in conscience wouldnt you think?

Btw thanks for the latin of that - ill use defo use it!!
Reply
#52
(04-17-2009, 07:03 PM)NonSumDignus Wrote: Hello all,

I have the incredible fortune of being able to attend a TLM every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation, and for that I am grateful. However, the TLM is only offered on Sundays; if I want to receive the Eucharist during the week, I have to attend the NO (at a different Church). The problem is, the Masses there are abusive (glass chalices for the Precious Blood, lots of EM's, etc.) and in general hard to sit through- you've all been there.

A few things to consider: Glass, wood, copper and brass chalices are forbidden by Canon Law. So if you see one, it is not the fault of the so-called "Novus Ordo" but of a particular priest. Notify the bishop and let the ball be in his court.

Secondly, most "Novus Ordo" weekday Masses lack the usual Sunday extravaganza. They are low-keyed and quieter, have fewer or no EEM's, no music, no processionals, no bringing up of the gifts, etc. There are fewer people (most of them elderly) and less distractions. So it should be more tolerable.

Thirdly, whether the item(s) of distraction for you are liturgically proper or improper, if you're going to allow them to distract you to the point of sin, then you'd be better off staying home, imho (weekday Mass is not obligatory anyway). But remember WHY you are feeling the desire to go and WHO you are there to receive! Keep your focus on CHRIST as much as you can.

Finally, when you return to your pew after receiving Holy Communion, bow your head and close your eyes tight and keep them closed. This way you won't see what others are wearing (or not wearing), how they're receiving, whether on the tongue or in the hand, etc.. Use that time to talk to Jesus and everything else will disappear. You might even come away blessed.

- Lisa
Reply
#53
In all fairness (as it has come to my attention due to someone who was nice enough to send me a private message), I have to make a retraction and clarification for a comment I made earlier.

StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:A few things to consider: Glass, wood, copper and brass chalices are forbidden by Canon Law. So if you see one, it is not the fault of the so-called "Novus Ordo" but of a particular priest. Notify the bishop and let the ball be in his court.

It looks like in the U.S., the sacred vessels needn't be gold if authorized by the Bishop - after having obtained permission from the Holy See.

Quote: 329. In the Dioceses of the United States of America, sacred vessels may also be made from other solid materials that, according to the common estimation in each region, are precious, for example, ebony or other hard woods, provided that such materials are suited to sacred use and do not easily break or deteriorate. This applies to all vessels which hold the hosts, such as the paten, the ciborium, the pyx, the monstrance, and other things of this kind.
http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter6.shtml

Further, from the Vatican website, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament: Redemptionis Sacramentum - includes the exception, which I'll bold.

Quote: [117.] Sacred vessels for containing the Body and Blood of the Lord must be made in strict conformity with the norms of tradition and of the liturgical books.[205]The Bishops’ Conferences have the faculty to decide whether it is appropriate, once their decisions have been given the recognitio by the Apostolic See, for sacred vessels to be made of other solid materials as well. It is strictly required, however, that such materials be truly noble in the common estimation within a given region,[206]

So, NonSumDignus, I would wait before firing off that angry letter to the bishop.  :laughing:  But I still stand in amazement at how the US Bishops keep doing their best to make the "American Catholic Church" the exception to every rule - in almost what seems to be an effort to distance themselves as far as possible from Rome. As this person in PM pointed out - and I agree - it appears the document was referring to "exceptions" being applied to Third World nations who are a lot less affluent than we are. In my opinion there is no excuse for something like this in the United States.

- Lisa
Reply
#54
tradmaverick Wrote: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.

St. Thomas Aquinas explains why this is so, in discussing the following objection (S.T. III, Q. 64, Art. 8, obj. 2):
Quote:one man's intention cannot be known to another. Therefore if the minister's intention were required for the validity of a sacrament, he who approaches a sacrament could not know whether he has received the sacrament. Consequently he could have no certainty in regard to salvation

To this, St. Thomas replies (ibid., reply obj. 2):
Quote:On this point there are two opinions. For some hold that the mental intention of the minister is necessary; in the absence of which the sacrament is invalid: and that this defect in the case of children who have not the intention of approaching the sacrament, is made good by Christ, Who baptizes inwardly: whereas in adults, who have that intention, this defect is made good by their faith and devotion.

This might be true enough of the ultimate effect, i.e. justification from sins; but as to that effect which is both real and sacramental, viz. the character, it does not appear possible for it to be made good by the devotion of the recipient, since a character is never imprinted save by a sacrament.

Consequently, others with better reason hold that the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the whole Church, whose minister he is; while in the words uttered by him, the intention of the Church is expressed; and that this suffices for the validity of the sacrament, except the contrary be expressed on the part either of the minister or of the recipient of the sacrament.

In short, we can know that we have received the sacrament if we don't express a contrary intention, unless the minister does express a contrary intention, in which case we can know the sacrament isn't valid. In no event are we left in uncertainty, at least in principle.

Quote: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 quotation uses language in a highly misleading way, and actually contradicts the teaching of St. Thomas set forth above. In the text from St. Thomas, what is "expressed" by the minister must be the same as what is thereby made known to the recipient; otherwise the whole basis of his teaching on this point--the need for certainty regarding the sacraments--would be overthrown. But in the quotation just above, it is conjectured that a priest's "intention explicitly refuses" offering a true sacrifice, etc., although we "do not know how often this happens." Since we would know if the priest said so, the notion here must be that a priest's so-called "explicit," but actually undisclosed, contrary intention can invalidate a sacrament without the recipient knowing it. This is exactly the error that St. Thomas explodes.

Quote: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

Wow, good thing "sspx.org" has not been divinely appointed as the supreme arbiter of what is and what isn't injurious to Almighty God and to Our Lord Jesus Christ!

God bless you!

Don McMaster
Reply
#55
INPEFESS Wrote: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.

From the maxim "lex dubia non obligat," it follows only that "participation thereof" is not obligatory under those circumstances--not that participation isn't justified, since an action can be justified without being required. But the more important point, set forth in the teaching of St. Thomas quoted above, is that there is seldom, if ever, a real doubt about whether a sacrament is valid. There would be a real doubt only if it were uncertain whether the minister had or had not "expressed" (i.e., made known to the recipient) a contrary intention. Mere conjecture about undisclosed contary intentions would not suffice to create a real doubt.

God bless you!

Don McMaster
Reply
#56
(04-23-2009, 08:11 PM)McMaster Wrote: Wow, good thing "sspx.org" has not been divinely appointed as the supreme arbiter of what is and what isn't injurious to Almighty God and to Our Lord Jesus Christ!

Please keep this type of discussion in the "vs" subforum.
Reply
#57
So, McMaster, if an inward intention or lack thereof doesn't matter as long as the proper form and there is no outward lack of intention, please explain the following:

If a priest has 3 hosts on the altar, and he intends to Consecrate 2, only 2 are Consecrated, correct?  Likewise, it may be a practice "Mass" (e.g., to instruct Seminarians) and he will in fact say the words of Consecration with no Consecration taking place because he intends none.

Neither has an outward show of intent, only an inward one, and proper form is used.  By how you are interpreting Aquinas, it seems that these other hosts would be Consecrated even though, AFAIK, they are not.

Please explain 1) If these hosts in my example(s) would be Consecrated or not, and, 2) please explain your answer in light of your interpretation of St. Thomas.
Reply
#58
(04-23-2009, 07:53 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: In all fairness (as it has come to my attention due to someone who was nice enough to send me a private message), I have to make a retraction and clarification for a comment I made earlier.

StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:A few things to consider: Glass, wood, copper and brass chalices are forbidden by Canon Law. So if you see one, it is not the fault of the so-called "Novus Ordo" but of a particular priest. Notify the bishop and let the ball be in his court.

It looks like in the U.S., the sacred vessels needn't be gold if authorized by the Bishop - after having obtained permission from the Holy See.

Quote: 329. In the Dioceses of the United States of America, sacred vessels may also be made from other solid materials that, according to the common estimation in each region, are precious, for example, ebony or other hard woods, provided that such materials are suited to sacred use and do not easily break or deteriorate. This applies to all vessels which hold the hosts, such as the paten, the ciborium, the pyx, the monstrance, and other things of this kind.
http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter6.shtml

Further, from the Vatican website, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament: Redemptionis Sacramentum - includes the exception, which I'll bold.

Quote: [117.] Sacred vessels for containing the Body and Blood of the Lord must be made in strict conformity with the norms of tradition and of the liturgical books.[205]The Bishops’ Conferences have the faculty to decide whether it is appropriate, once their decisions have been given the recognitio by the Apostolic See, for sacred vessels to be made of other solid materials as well. It is strictly required, however, that such materials be truly noble in the common estimation within a given region,[206]

So, NonSumDignus, I would wait before firing off that angry letter to the bishop.  :laughing:  But I still stand in amazement at how the US Bishops keep doing their best to make the "American Catholic Church" the exception to every rule - in almost what seems to be an effort to distance themselves as far as possible from Rome. As this person in PM pointed out - and I agree - it appears the document was referring to "exceptions" being applied to Third World nations who are a lot less affluent than we are. In my opinion there is no excuse for something like this in the United States.

- Lisa

I hesitate to call wine glasses "noble in our common estimation". Glass is relatively cheap, considering that the standard is gold. I wonder if anyone could se if glass has been approved? I would be really surprised, given that the GIRM specifically points out glass as a bad vessel.
Reply
#59
NonSumDignus Wrote:I hesitate to call wine glasses "noble in our common estimation". Glass is relatively cheap, considering that the standard is gold. I wonder if anyone could se if glass has been approved? I would be really surprised, given that the GIRM specifically points out glass as a bad vessel.

I don't think glass/crystal is noble... and I don't think they're allowed because they are breakable. I was clarifying my post which implied that material other than precious metals could never be used.

For a short time our church - under a lax pastor - used glass chalices until we got a new pastor who put an end to that. Keep in mind too that a lot of priests received crystal chalices as gifts before the rules changed. They may have permission from their bishops to use them on occasion.

- Lisa
Reply
#60
NonSumDignus wrote:

I could attend a 6:15 AM Mass that is marginally better, but I always have to leave that Mass right after communion (or I'd be late to class), and I don't like having to do that.
_______________________________________________________________

If the margin is wide enough to make it worth attending this other Mass, why not go to the priest who celebrates it and explain that you would like to attend his Mass but would have to leave right after Communion to get to class on time.  He'd probably tell you that that was fine.  I realize it's not ideal but it may be your best option.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)