Traditional organizations?
#31
(11-05-2009, 08:11 AM)damooster Wrote: I never realized it before, but after looking at the map, I see that I pass by St. Athanasius all of the time. I thought that place was a Methodist church so I never glanced at it twice, but I will check it out and report back to you guys. Thanks for all of your help in this thread so far.

As for the community aspect I'm looking for, ImpyTerwilliger hit it right on the head: I'm looking for a community of like-minded people that don't run each other over at the end of Mass because they seem like they can't get out of there fast enough.

Here's my last question, and sorry if it requires a long answer: how is a Mass valid but illicit? Is this the case with St. Athanasius...in other words, would I be fulfilling my Sunday obligation if I attended Mass there?

Damooster,

I would exhaust your licit, diocesan options before resorting to an illicit Mass said by a priest who is in open disobedience to his bishop and to the bishop in whose diocese he resides (this, in itself, is a cause for grave scandal).  I urge you to go to St. John the Beloved in McLean and talk to Fr. Scalia about this.  When I was discerning a vocation to the priesthood, the FSSP was the only organization he was comfortable recommending to me.  That should tell you something about his traditionalist leanings.  He is no modernist, I assure you.  Also, the pastor emeritus, Fr. McAfee, has given retreats to FSSP seminarians in Nebraska, so he is clearly a friend of Tradition as well.

Resorting to an "independent" priest (there really is no such thing in canon law) is a spiritual gamble, in my opinion.  You do not want to go to your judgment and have Christ ask you why you didn't go to His legitimate and licit priests through whom He provided you the traditional Latin Mass.  Obedience is an important (yet oft forgotten) virtue.  I would be more sympathetic if there were no TLMs available in Arlington and if there were a dearth of orthodox priests, but that is not the case.  Do not gamble with your soul.  For safety's sake, remain within the bounds of legitimate Church authority until you have exhausted all options and you have been assured that there are no legitimate priests around who hold the Catholic Faith.

To answer your specific question, a Mass can be valid but illicit if it is said by a validly ordained priest who has no celelebret (i.e. no permission from the local ordinary to say a public Mass).  To give an analogy, Orthodox priests may confect the Blessed Sacrament validly, but they do not do so licitly because they are in schism with the legitimate authority of the Roman Pontiff.
Reply
#32
(11-05-2009, 12:49 PM)rbjmartin Wrote: Obedience is an important (yet oft forgotten) virtue.

Obedience to who? Pope Paul IV's bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio states if someone who's not Catholic (ie: heretic) is chosen to take office, he can't. Canon Law states “Through tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric: ...n.4. Has publicly forsaken the Catholic Faith. No one, unless he profess the Catholic Faith, can hold any office — that is, lay valid claim to authority in the Catholic Church.”

Obedience to someone like "Cardinal" Mahony is not a virtue. He is a heretic. He is neither a cardinal nor the archbishop of Los Angeles. The See of Los Angeles has been vacant for quite some time.

You can have him as your confessor because heresy does not cause loss of Holy Orders, but I would not recommend going to confession to Mahony because he would declare many of your sins as not being sinful.
Reply
#33
(11-05-2009, 01:35 PM)RRR Wrote:
(11-05-2009, 12:49 PM)rbjmartin Wrote: Obedience is an important (yet oft forgotten) virtue.

Obedience to who? Pope Paul IV's bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio states if someone who's not Catholic (ie: heretic) is chosen to take office, he can't. Canon Law states “Through tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric: ...n.4. Has publicly forsaken the Catholic Faith. No one, unless he profess the Catholic Faith, can hold any office — that is, lay valid claim to authority in the Catholic Church.”

Obedience to someone like "Cardinal" Mahony is not a virtue. He is a heretic. He is neither a cardinal nor the archbishop of Los Angeles. The See of Los Angeles has been vacant for quite some time.

You can have him as your confessor because heresy does not cause loss of Holy Orders, but I would not recommend going to confession to Mahony because he would declare many of your sins as not being sinful.

You are setting up a straw man.  I'm not talking about Cardinal Mahoney.  I'm talking about diocesan clerics in Arlington.  Unless all of them are heretics, failing to attend their legitimate TLMs in favor of an "independent" priest's Mass is disobedience to the legitimate Catholic authority of the local ordinary.

Don't try to prove your point by using the most extreme example you can find.  I know what the limits of obedience are.  There is plenty of room for a Catholic in Arlington to stay within the canonical structure of the Church while remaining 100% faithful to the perennial teachings of the Church.
Reply
#34
(11-05-2009, 01:45 PM)rbjmartin Wrote:
(11-05-2009, 01:35 PM)RRR Wrote:
(11-05-2009, 12:49 PM)rbjmartin Wrote: Obedience is an important (yet oft forgotten) virtue.

Obedience to who? Pope Paul IV's bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio states if someone who's not Catholic (ie: heretic) is chosen to take office, he can't. Canon Law states “Through tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric: ...n.4. Has publicly forsaken the Catholic Faith. No one, unless he profess the Catholic Faith, can hold any office — that is, lay valid claim to authority in the Catholic Church.”

Obedience to someone like "Cardinal" Mahony is not a virtue. He is a heretic. He is neither a cardinal nor the archbishop of Los Angeles. The See of Los Angeles has been vacant for quite some time.

You can have him as your confessor because heresy does not cause loss of Holy Orders, but I would not recommend going to confession to Mahony because he would declare many of your sins as not being sinful.

You are setting up a straw man.  I'm not talking about Cardinal Mahoney. 

Not a strawman. Not everyone posting here is in the Diocese of Arlington. The See of Rochester, NY has been vacant for a long while. I have not researched Loverde, but if he is a heretic, there's another see vacant. Too many sees are vacant because heresy is so widespread. Mahony is not the only heretical man claiming a see.
Reply
#35
(11-05-2009, 01:58 PM)RRR Wrote:
(11-05-2009, 01:45 PM)rbjmartin Wrote:
(11-05-2009, 01:35 PM)RRR Wrote:
(11-05-2009, 12:49 PM)rbjmartin Wrote: Obedience is an important (yet oft forgotten) virtue.

Obedience to who? Pope Paul IV's bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio states if someone who's not Catholic (ie: heretic) is chosen to take office, he can't. Canon Law states “Through tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric: ...n.4. Has publicly forsaken the Catholic Faith. No one, unless he profess the Catholic Faith, can hold any office — that is, lay valid claim to authority in the Catholic Church.”

Obedience to someone like "Cardinal" Mahony is not a virtue. He is a heretic. He is neither a cardinal nor the archbishop of Los Angeles. The See of Los Angeles has been vacant for quite some time.

You can have him as your confessor because heresy does not cause loss of Holy Orders, but I would not recommend going to confession to Mahony because he would declare many of your sins as not being sinful.

You are setting up a straw man.  I'm not talking about Cardinal Mahoney. 

Not a strawman. Not everyone posting here is in the Diocese of Arlington. The See of Rochester, NY has been vacant for a long while. I have not researched Loverde, but if he is a heretic, there's another see vacant. Too many sees are vacant because heresy is so widespread. Mahony is not the only heretical man claiming a see.

This thread has been solely about Arlington.  And do you think you are competent to judge the heretical status of bishops?  Leave that to legitimate church authority, rather than risking wrongly judging a bishop (and condemning yourself).
Reply
#36
(11-05-2009, 01:58 PM)RRR Wrote:
(11-05-2009, 01:45 PM)rbjmartin Wrote:
(11-05-2009, 01:35 PM)RRR Wrote:
(11-05-2009, 12:49 PM)rbjmartin Wrote: Obedience is an important (yet oft forgotten) virtue.

Obedience to who? Pope Paul IV's bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio states if someone who's not Catholic (ie: heretic) is chosen to take office, he can't. Canon Law states “Through tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric: ...n.4. Has publicly forsaken the Catholic Faith. No one, unless he profess the Catholic Faith, can hold any office — that is, lay valid claim to authority in the Catholic Church.”

Obedience to someone like "Cardinal" Mahony is not a virtue. He is a heretic. He is neither a cardinal nor the archbishop of Los Angeles. The See of Los Angeles has been vacant for quite some time.

You can have him as your confessor because heresy does not cause loss of Holy Orders, but I would not recommend going to confession to Mahony because he would declare many of your sins as not being sinful.

You are setting up a straw man.  I'm not talking about Cardinal Mahoney. 

Not a strawman. Not everyone posting here is in the Diocese of Arlington. The See of Rochester, NY has been vacant for a long while. I have not researched Loverde, but if he is a heretic, there's another see vacant. Too many sees are vacant because heresy is so widespread. Mahony is not the only heretical man claiming a see.

For what it's worth, you're exactly wrong.  rbjmartin's post was directed to a specific poster (damooster) who had a specific question about Mass in a specific area.

Take your grandstanding to some other thread.
Reply
#37
(11-05-2009, 02:00 PM)rbjmartin Wrote: And do you think you are competent to judge the heretical status of bishops?

The laity had the right to reject Arian heretics who held offices, we have the right to reject Modernist heretics. Previous popes have given us the right to "steal" modernist books from Church libraries.

Following a heretic (who "holds" a Church office) to hell is not something I would be recommending to Catholics.

Is Loverde a modernist? Does he believe in (the "liberal interpretations" of) Vatican II? Telling someone to have blind obedience to that is sending someone to hell.
Reply
#38
(11-05-2009, 02:14 PM)RRR Wrote:
(11-05-2009, 02:00 PM)rbjmartin Wrote: And do you think you are competent to judge the heretical status of bishops?

The laity had the right to reject Arian heretics who held offices, we have the right to reject Modernist heretics. Previous popes have given us the right to "steal" modernist books from Church libraries.

Following a heretic (who "holds" a Church office) to hell is not something I would be recommending to Catholics.

Is Loverde a modernist? Does he believe in (the "liberal interpretations" of) Vatican II? Telling someone to have blind obedience to that is sending someone to hell.

Yes, you have the right to reject perceived heretics and have nothing to do with them, but you don't have the right to pronounce judgment on them, unless they have already clearly pronounced judgment on themselves.  Err on the side of humility and leave it up to competent Church authority to pronounce judgment.
Reply
#39
(11-05-2009, 02:25 PM)rbjmartin Wrote: Err on the side of humility

Err on the side of Truth.

Does Loverde believe it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained? This is condemned heresy.

Does Loverde believe liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. This is condemned heresy.

Does Loverde believe in freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people. This is condemned heresy.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g....htm#par14

There are literally dozens, if not hundreds of heresies these modernists believe. A very high number of bishops and clerics are modernists, all the way up into the Vatican. That is why nothing is done. They serve on all the committees, boards, and courts.

And you demand the laity give obedience to these heretics? Obedience to heretics leads to hell.
Reply
#40
(11-05-2009, 06:25 AM)ImpyTerwilliger Wrote:
(11-05-2009, 01:05 AM)nsper7 Wrote: Well, an "Independent" means they have rejected the authority of the Pope (most likely, said Independent is Sedevacantist) and I would just stay away from that mess. One would hope their Holy Orders are valid, but I don't know where you'd honestly look that hope.

St. Athanasius Chapel is most certainly not sedevacantist...

Additionally...

I doubt the SSPX would have a sedevacantist lead a retreat for their priests.

http://www.sspx.org/RCRpdfs/2006_rcrs/june_2006_rcr.pdf



Moreover, not every so-called "Independent" priest rejects the Pope.  Such sweeping (and inaccurate) generalizations are not beneficial to one's soul...

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)