Licit to attend weekly NO Masses with abuses?
(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 <A HREF="" Target="_blank"><A HREF="" Target="_blank">Modernist</A></A> 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." -

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.

Messages In This Thread
Re: Licit to attend weekly NO Masses with abuses? - by INPEFESS - 04-23-2009, 04:10 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)