Husband says NO is endangering his faith
#11
(08-04-2019, 11:00 PM)LionHippo Wrote: Well, fair enough, if those are what the "rules" are.

But honestly, in this case I say:  "man up."  Maybe go through the Stations of the Cross.  You don't like the NO Mass?  Oh, cry me a river.  Sorry.  Maybe just go, and gaze your eyes upon our Lord on the Cross.  Then realize how insignificant your complaining is compared to what Jesus endured.

I don't think you get that it's not just a preference issue for some, but they see that there is a danger to their Faith, and really worry that they are harming their Faith by attendance. For them it is a moral issue, not just a preference or an an "I don't like it".

You can say that's silly and make arguments against why that's not a correct view, and perhaps it is not, but if they truly accept that the only logical and moral conclusion is to omit attendance. One can never intentionally endanger their Faith without serious sin.

Telling people to "man up" is tell them to do what they think is possibly sinful. It's like saying to an alcoholic "Man up! One drink isn't going to kill you."

The proper reply would be to make a case for why this person is incorrect, not to criticize their manhood or resolve.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • LionHippo
Reply
#12
deleted
Reply
#13
(08-04-2019, 11:00 PM)LionHippo Wrote: But honestly, in this case I say:  "man up."  Maybe go through the Stations of the Cross.  You don't like the NO Mass?  Oh, cry me a river.  Sorry.  Maybe just go, and gaze your eyes upon our Lord on the Cross.  Then realize how insignificant your complaining is compared to what Jesus endured.

Having reached the same conclusion of StellaMatutina's husband I think I'm able to respond to this. I too am unable to see the NO as anything other than offensive to God. I try not to bring the subject up because I know I may be wrong and don't want to confuse anyone, although lately I have addressed this more often than I'm comfortable doing. 

After years of the NO I did lose the Faith because I couldn't take any God who approved of it seriously anymore. It may have been that I "wouldn't" rather than "couldn't" but I don't think this was something I was able to control. I have had access to some of the best NO Masses in the US, the potential abuses aren't the problem. The theology at the core of the new rite, the manner it is expressed and the ripples it sends out are the problem. I don't see validity being the issue either, the hierarchy now allows us to attend the Liturgies of the Orthodox (schismatic heretics after all) and only tells us not to receive the Sacraments from them to avoid offending them. 

Correlation is not causation, but there are a boatload of correlations that should scare anyone who takes any of this seriously. We all know the statistics. We know about the collapse of the seminaries and religious life, that Mass attending Catholics abort, use birth control, divorce and remarry at the same rate as the general population. We know about generations of uncatechized children growing up with no faith, generations of priests and bishops who are nothing more than mediocre business administrators. We know homosexual activity is prevalent within the priesthood. All of this and more with zero sense of sinfulness, repentance, guilt or shame. None of this arose in a vacuum and it's all being sustained by something. Most importantly I think, we know we're not better than any of the people in the pews around us. 

The shepherds are actively butchering the sheep. There is nothing special about me that suggests I'll survive having my faith murdered by the wolves and their filth.

I don't think I am strong enough to maintain my Faith without regular attendance at Mass and frequent access to the Sacraments, but I know I'm not strong enough with the constant stream of insanity that pours forth from the Novus Ordo.

None of that however should be taken to indicate I look down on people who are doing what they believe is right, very few of us are on the same page these days; but we're all reading the same book. If you're able to maintain your faith while being immersed in the NO then that's wonderful.
[-] The following 1 user Likes boredoftheworld's post:
  • LionHippo
Reply
#14
(08-04-2019, 04:13 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(08-04-2019, 03:16 PM)StellaMatutina Wrote: I, of course, prefer traditional liturgies. But I also prefer not to go to Hell! So I will be attending the NO mass tonight without him. I am afraid for his soul but also just confused myself as well. I am also wondering if I am doing the right thing.

This is a case of conscience. If he cannot in good conscience justify his attendance at the Novus Ordo Mass, because he believes it would endanger his Faith, then he is making the correct moral call.

There is the question of whether this is a correct assessment. I would say it is, but others would say it is not. It certainly is a debatable topic on which there is clear doubt among good people, so one cannot then say in such a doubt there is a moral obligation.

The danger in the attitude you have above, good-willed as it may be, is that you are now judging him guilty of a mortal sin. That he certainly is not, if he truly (correctly or not) thinks that the Novus Ordo is a harm to his Faith. The Faith must be protected at all costs, so even if external obedience puts our Faith at risk, we cannot obey.

It would be best for you to ask him why he thinks that the Novus Ordo is a danger to his Faith, and then educate yourself on these points. You say you have a preference. Your husband clearly has some principles. Ask what these and and then ask for explanations. Then LISTEN to him and try to understand, not retort or judge. Go do your research, ask questions and then discuss it more with your husband.

Perhaps you will come to understand what he means, or you will find answers for him, but just jumping out and accusing him of grave sin and then patting yourself on the back for your fidelity is a tact that will probably create a lot of unnecessary friction in your marriage.

An impressive answer - I guess took me by surprise a little - but it makes total sense.  

I lived and am living in this.  I came into the Church into a mushy, liberal NO parish.  The priests chair front and center behind the altar and tabernacle in the back closet made no sense, and the preaching matched that layout to a T.  Short social justice messages, and constant accommodation of the world's ways had me dizzy and totally ticked off. 

Multiple times I wanted to leave for Orthodoxy just looking for something more ancient and authentic.  My old baptist church was much more reverent and the music more classic - and they knew enough to not have a guitar and drum band.

The NO can actually repel people looking for something true and authentic, so in that, it can really be dangerous.  We just got a new priest and I'm not sure where he stands on many things, but the preaching is already 100% better, so I have hope.

I used to leave Mass upset and disappointed every week.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Markie Boy's post:
  • mpk1987
Reply
#15
Thank you everyone for your responses. I appreciate the conscience argument and how this could mean that it is not a mortal sin to choose not to go to a Norvus Ordo mass if it is the only available mass.

Every conversation my husband and I have about this and even my own thought process in my own mind goes over the same points over and over and over in this horrible circle and I am getting dizzy at this point. The circle goes like this—> 
- The Church has authority.
- The Church says go to mass.
- The Church says the new mass is an appropriate option.
- But the new mass is obviously flawed and inappropriate.
- So the Church is wrong?
- But the Church can’t be wrong.
- So the new mass must be okay.
- But it is obviously not okay...

This circle of thinking is hurting me. I converted to Catholicism from Protestantism so that I could be in full communion with Christ and His Church and be lead to the fullness of Truth. The Church being wrong about something disturbs my whole belief system basically. 

I realize this strays into a new conversation about the Magisterium and infallibility but I wish this all weren’t this hard... I was relieved to be in a church that promised the fullness of Truth but discouraged that it is not so easy to distinguish what that is.
Reply
#16
Whenever we see a viscous circle like this, there has to be a distinction somewhere in it that is the "out". Often it is a premise which is too simply put and thus while it seems a straightforward statement in fact is false under certain circumstances.

(08-05-2019, 02:29 PM)StellaMatutina Wrote:  The circle goes like this—>
- The Church has authority.

Yes, but authority is not absolute. The State has the authority to write laws, but if they write immoral laws which go against the Natural Law, they have undermined the very foundation of their authority, and so that apparent law is not a law. A law permitting abortion, for instance, is not moral or legal. To pass such a law is an abuse of authority.

So while the Church, Herself has authority over matters spiritual and moral, the individual men who operate under this authority do not just have a bare authority in everything. Christ founded the Church and gave men in the Church an authority by which they were meant to teach and preserve the Faith. If they do something contrary to the Faith, or demand an action or promote a teaching which is false, they they abuse their authority.

Consider the situation with Communion for those living in adultery. Churchmen, including the Pope promote it. It is gravely immoral. They abuse their authority.

(08-05-2019, 02:29 PM)StellaMatutina Wrote: - The Church says go to mass.

The Church obliges us to attend Mass unless it is impossible. Impossibility can be a physical or moral impossibility. So the best way to say this is the Church says that you must attend Mass on Sunday unless there is a serious reason why you cannot.

(08-05-2019, 02:29 PM)StellaMatutina Wrote: - The Church says the new mass is an appropriate option.

Where has the Church said it is "an appropriate option"?

Paul VI allowed it. Benedict XVI confirmed that the previous rites were not forbidden, so at best Paul VI "permitted" the New Mass, and did not "order" it, else that would have forbid the earlier rites.

It is clearly not what the Council Fathers were desiring, so it does not even have the backing of Vatican II for it's appropriateness. The version of the New Mass presented ad experimentum to the bishops was not well received with many votes against, and many votes of reservations. Many bishops said when they saw it for the first time that it was no appropriate. The initial copies of the new Missal had to be recalled because they contained material heresy.

Much more could be said, but I think that suffices to show that it's not exactly as you suggest.

Do realize that Churchmen, even Popes, can allow evil. They cannot bind us to accept it, but they certainly can allow it. The state of the Church today is a perfect example of this.

(08-05-2019, 02:29 PM)StellaMatutina Wrote: - But the new mass is obviously flawed and inappropriate.

So said the head of Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office (Doctrine of the Faith), Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, who joined other theologians in saying that the New Mass "represents as a whole and in detail, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass which was formulated by Session XXII of the Council of Trent."

So orthodox Church men has said this.


(08-05-2019, 02:29 PM)StellaMatutina Wrote: - So the Church is wrong?

No. Various Churchmen are wrong.

(08-05-2019, 02:29 PM)StellaMatutina Wrote: - But the Church can’t be wrong.

Right, but Churchmen can.

(08-05-2019, 02:29 PM)StellaMatutina Wrote: - So the new mass must be okay.

Only if Churchmen are infallible, which they are not. Even the Pope is only infallible (he can't be wrong, not that he's always doing the prudent thing), under extremely limited conditions.

(08-05-2019, 02:29 PM)StellaMatutina Wrote: - But it is obviously not okay...

At some point the Catholic Sense needs to take over and make the distinctions needed, or it is this viscous circle.

(08-05-2019, 02:29 PM)StellaMatutina Wrote: This circle of thinking is hurting me. I converted to Catholicism from Protestantism so that I could be in full communion with Christ and His Church and be lead to the fullness of Truth. The Church being wrong about something disturbs my whole belief system basically. 

I realize this strays into a new conversation about the Magisterium and infallibility but I wish this all weren’t this hard... I was relieved to be in a church that promised the fullness of Truth but discouraged that it is not so easy to distinguish what that is.

Don't confuse any one Pope with the Magisterium. The Magisterium is the doctrinal authority itself and long-standing series of non-contradictory teachings. It is not any one person, but the consistent series. As St Vincent of Lerins wrote : The Catholic Faith is what was believed by always, everywhere and by all. The Magisterium cannot innovate. The Magisterium can only develop by better explaining what is already of Faith. When it appears people who can exercise that Magisterial power teach or act against what was believed always, everywhere and by all, we need to reject it, or at least hold it in high suspicion until it is proven not to be contrary to the Magisterium.

Liturgical law, while it touches on doctrine, is disciplinary.
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Alphonse il Segundo, boredoftheworld, jovan66102
Reply
#17
I might be able to help with that circle. The Church and the hierarchy are not synonymous. Thanks to media and JPII we're all ultramontanes or Guelphs, whatever we are we're so bound by every utterance of the Bishop of Rome that we're practically unable to separate even the idea of the Pope and the bishops from the Church. So while yes, the Church rightly commands regardless, the commands of hierarchs have to be legitimate exercises of their authority. Commanding us to march into hell through endangering (and destroying) our faith is far outside their authority.

There's some horrific irony in the idea that the post VII reforms were allegedly to bring the Church into the modern world for the laity to exercise the faith as "adults" but we ended up with dictatorial totalitarians who demand total obedience on pain of sin in every facet of life.

The Church isn't wrong, the hierarchy have (almost to a man) thrown the Church out the window. Maybe it's about time we steal the war cry of the hell-bent lunatics and point out that (I'm not sure I can even type this) "WE are Chu..." nope, can't do it.

What I wouldn't give to have Alexander VI back for a few decades...
[-] The following 4 users Like boredoftheworld's post:
  • antiquarian, jovan66102, LionHippo, MagisterMusicae
Reply
#18
(08-05-2019, 05:49 AM)boredoftheworld Wrote: If you're able to maintain your faith while being immersed in the NO then that's wonderful.

I will admit that I would like to see the EF in more parishes, and a re-haul of the OF overall. But I think people like the OP's husband are waiting and hoping for a day when every single Mass is either in the EF, or is completely reverent, free of novelties and options, and orthodox. Well, that day is not going to come - any time soon, at least. It is probably safe to say that it is spiritually unhealthy to be preoccupied with worrying about the liturgy to the point where folks are skipping Mass and perhaps losing motivation to live a Catholic life because the liturgy is not to their liking. And I still think it is very presumptuous to claim that the NO is "offensive to God." One's own personal opinions and feelings do not dictate what offends God. Sin offends God, and He told us what sins to avoid. Jesus makes it clear in the Gospels what gets a man into heaven and what keeps him out.

Honestly, I'm quite surprised that folks here think it's ok to essentially be so "self-scandalized" by the NO to actually skip Mass. Is the NO my first choice? No, but I go. I stay in my parish and I teach religious ed (I'm one of 5 men out of a group of 50 catechists). I get to Mass early and my son and I hold our rosaries praying while others chit-chat. I inwardly cringe when I see a group of women approach the altar as EMHCs or see a trio of altar girls serving for the Mass. But I don't run away. I've never heard my priest say a homily talking about sin or hell. This is no exaggeration - not once, in over 5 years. Do I wish I could run up there and give my own homily to talk about the things he omits? Yes, all the time!!! But that isn't my role.

There's never going to be a massive return to Tradition if Traditionalists flee from NO parishes and concentrate themselves in maybe 2-3 churches throughout the diocese. My opinion is that Traditionalists need to be active in NO parishes and lead by example. It's like taking Pope Francis's "going to the margins" tactic and using it in your own parish.
[-] The following 1 user Likes LionHippo's post:
  • Fionnchu
Reply
#19
The numbers say otherwise. I think it's reasonable to expect the whole NO apparatus to be dead and gone in about 20 years. Plummeting attendance, non existent growth through birth, almost total collapse in conversions (yeah, that surprised me too), HUGE numbers of funerals, almost no weddings. It's over and nobody is looking at the numbers. Ordinations to the priesthood? HAH! Almost half the priests in service will reach, or be past, retirement age in 10 years. TEN! We've been fussing about the coming priest shortage for decades, well: It's here. Is there a diocese on the planet with 200 seminarians? Is there a diocese in the US with 50 seminarians even in the pipeline, let alone within 2 years of ordination? Those are the numbers currently needed. We won't need that many priests of course because the pews are emptying faster than the priests are dying. 
Consider a middling US diocese with 120 active priests. On average 30 are already at retirement age (75) and another 30 will hit that in 10 years. Is there anywhere even remotely able to meet the attrition rate? There isn't.
Why anyone would be surprised by any of this is beyond me though. Just go look at the CARA reports, the raw numbers are there. The NO chickens are home to roost, and they're barren.
Reply
#20
(08-05-2019, 08:40 PM)LionHippo Wrote: It is probably safe to say that it is spiritually unhealthy to be preoccupied with worrying about the liturgy to the point where folks are skipping Mass and perhaps losing motivation to live a Catholic life because the liturgy is not to their liking.

Why is the only reply to theologically significant deviations which were purposely designed to harm the Faith always presented as a matter of preference?

If the liturgy and Catholic life is just about preference, then the same argument could be made : nothing will ever change, because you only appealing to taste.

(08-05-2019, 08:40 PM)LionHippo Wrote: And I still think it is very presumptuous to claim that the NO is "offensive to God."  One's own personal opinions and feelings do not dictate what offends God.

Who has said it is "one's own personal opinion or feeling opinion"?

When Protestants design a Catholic ceremony for the purposes of removing anything overtly Catholic, it's hardly a completely subjective complaint. There is an objective problem.

(08-05-2019, 08:40 PM)LionHippo Wrote: Sin offends God, and He told us what sins to avoid.  Jesus makes it clear in the Gospels what gets a man into heaven and what keeps him out.  

Honestly, I'm quite surprised that folks here think it's ok to essentially be so "self-scandalized" by the NO to actually skip Mass.

Did not Christ suggest that it were better for a man who would scandalize others, especially children, that he be drowned in the sea?

People don't "work themselves" up to taking scandal from the Novus Ordo. The problem is the Novus Ordo itself which can cause it. No one has argued that everyone needs to be so scandalized, but this lady who asked the question really ought to try to understand her husband's principles and the arguments.

If he (or I) am wrong, the correct reply is to show where and how, not to plead how stupefied you are at the position. Point out the problem with the arguments made, or ask for clarification.

(08-05-2019, 08:40 PM)LionHippo Wrote: Is the NO my first choice?  No, but I go.

Because you don't see anything inherently wrong with it, so that is the logical moral decision. If you, prudently, judge that there is some serious issue and a danger to your Faith, then the only moral thing to do is omit attendance. You cannot do evil that good may come of it. But to expose your Faith to danger, in order to fulfill an obligation of a lower virtue (obedience), is to do evil that good may come of it.

If you are not convinced of this argument, then your moral decision is easy. For others who struggle with this it is not so easy, so it is a bit patronizing to pooh-pooh such a struggle, and again, the proper tactic would be to show why they are wrong, not to virtue signal.

(08-05-2019, 08:40 PM)LionHippo Wrote: I inwardly cringe when I see a group of women approach the altar as EMHCs or see a trio of altar girls serving for the Mass.  But I don't run away.

So you are saying this action of these women is not a serious problem and in no way affects your Faith or that of your son, that the Novus Ordo allows this?

If it is seriously wrong, perhaps you should run away, or at least consider the arguments. People are no scandalized without some foundation.

(08-05-2019, 08:40 PM)LionHippo Wrote: I've never heard my priest say a homily talking about sin or hell.  This is no exaggeration - not once, in over 5 years.  Do I wish I could run up there and give my own homily to talk about the things he omits?  Yes, all the time!!!  But that isn't my role.  

So the priest is omitting speaking about an integral part of the Faith, and this does not affect your Faith or your sons? Not at all?

Can you not see that that omission might be a real danger for other people who perhaps are not as strong in their Faith as you?

(08-05-2019, 08:40 PM)LionHippo Wrote: There's never going to be a massive return to Tradition if Traditionalists flee from NO parishes and concentrate themselves in maybe 2-3 churches throughout the diocese.  My opinion is that Traditionalists need to be active in NO parishes and lead by example.  It's like taking Pope Francis's "going to the margins" tactic and using it in your own parish.

Sure there would.

If people vote with their feet, as everything around dies and darkeness sets in, people will begin to see the light on the hill and flock to it.

It's precisely the story with why the Traditional Mass is as accessible as it is today. A handful of people throughout the world, plus a handful of priests. Now you can number priests of traditional institutes in the thousands. You can number the faithful who exclusively attend the traditional Mass in the millions, all because a handful of people drew a line in the sand 50 years ago.

To be clear, though, I would be very happy to hear those arguments against this case. I think that does people a great service to air out those concerns, because many people who will not say do struggle with these decisions and matters. The fault is not theirs, nor ours, but the bad clergy who created this crisis. They deserve the blame. People in such a mess without an orthodox Pope and clergy guiding us will make varied decisions. The key is that we are trying to take counsel like the virtue of prudence demands. We may make opposite decisions, but then we are doing exactly what God expects of us : we are following an informed conscience in good will. That protects from sin, and it would be a sin to violate it.
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • antiquarian, Fionnchu, jovan66102
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)