Last-minute Communion question
#21
Are you arguing that the Novus Ordo is not defective and potentially harmful to one's faith? Because that's the crux of the argument here. Either it is or it isn't. I'm interested to see where you go with this.
Reply
#22
(11-11-2019, 09:32 PM)Filiolus Wrote:
(11-10-2019, 07:19 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: That personal opinion. I make the case against the NO from an objective deficit that allows things which can harm our Faith. There are inherent problems with the rite itself, and so it is objectively lacking. That said, some priests add sufficiently back to the NO liturgy some elements and context which might remedy this, but that's a case-by-case situation. There are principles, but they have to be applied to every concrete situation. It is hard, therefore, to make any general judgement.

The question in my book is whether there is a danger to one's Faith by attending. If there is, one must omit it under pain of grave sin. If there is not, one must go under pain of grave sin. It is a decision every person has to take after a reflection on their own informed conscience (because this is what will determine which option must be chosen). That conscience needs to be truly informed, however, so when the question arises, study needs to be done and advice taken from various camps.

Too many priests (and laity) fall too far to the extremes, trying to over-generalize the cases.

This position makes no sense. The malformation of one's conscience cannot dispense one from adhering to the precepts of the Church.

I'm not saying one's conscience is malformed because he is upset at liturgical abuse. The malformation is evident because of his taking scandal. The threat of one sin (scandal) does not excuse a person from his spiritual duties such as attending Mass. It's a sin caused by another sin (or occasion of sin).

MM I'm usually with you, but I don't understand why you hold this particular opinion.

This is only a problem is one's conscience is "malformed" by judging the Novus Ordo Mass as a possible or real harm to their Faith.

The Divine Law commands to keep the Sunday holy. The human Church law specifies Mass attendance as how this will be done. 

The Divine Law admits of no exceptions (because it considers all particular condition), so there is never an excuse for a conscious person to omit his duty to in some way sanctify his Sundays. 

The human law does admit of exceptions (because it can never consider all particular conditions). Exceptions are due to grave inconvenience (moral impossibility) or physical impossibility.

Thomistic theologians like Prümmer indicate that various kinds of moral impossibility would include the risk of harm to self or a third party, including scandal, provided this harm is proportionate.

The other point to add here is that we must always follow a certain conscience even when it is erroneous, provided this error is at least reasonably and presently invincible.

So, presume I am wrong, but firmly convinced and studied in my conviction that the Novus Ordo is a harm to my Faith. Here and now I cannot go through the alternative theological arguments and evaluate, because it's Sunday morning. I would be obliged to omit Mass attendance, because erroneously or not, I would think it a sin to go to the Novus Ordo Mass. 

Similarly, if I am right and the Novus Ordo is a harm, but one does not see this harm, then his erroneous conscience certainly is not going to be easily convinced in a short talk about the history of the Novus Ordo Mass, the intervention by Cardinal Ottaviani, etc. and so hic et nunc, his error is invincible, and so his certain conscience tells him he has to go to Mass, and he sins if he fails to do so.

The issue is not about taking scandal in objectively good things as St Thomas Aquinas suggest in the passage referenced.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Fionnchu
Reply
#23
Quote:This is only a problem is one's conscience is "malformed" by judging the Novus Ordo Mass as a possible or real harm to their Faith.

If any external influence is a possible or real harm to one's faith, one's conscience is malformed.



Quote:The Divine Law commands to keep the Sunday holy. The human Church law specifies Mass attendance as how this will be done. 

The Divine Law admits of no exceptions (because it considers all particular condition), so there is never an excuse for a conscious person to omit his duty to in some way sanctify his Sundays. 

The human law does admit of exceptions (because it can never consider all particular conditions). Exceptions are due to grave inconvenience (moral impossibility) or physical impossibility.

Thomistic theologians like Prümmer indicate that various kinds of moral impossibility would include the risk of harm to self or a third party, including scandal, provided this harm is proportionate.

"provided thsi harm is proportionate"

Quote:The other point to add here is that we must always follow a certain conscience even when it is erroneous, provided this error is at least reasonably and presently invincible.

St. Thomas actually says we're bound to follow our consciences regardless of whether the error is reasonably and presently invincible; we're bound to follow our consciences regardless (de Veritate 17). However, this does not mean we're "ok" by following our consciences. If we are culpable for the error (by negligence, pride, or something else), we're also culpable for the act we commit (or omit) in following our consciences. Yet, it would also be a sin to disobey one's conscience. So, yes, some people find themselves in a situation (of their own causing) where they will commit a sin no matter what they do. In your example of a person who takes scandal at the NO, this seems to me to be precisely the situation.

Quote:So, presume I am wrong, but firmly convinced and studied in my conviction that the Novus Ordo is a harm to my Faith. Here and now I cannot go through the alternative theological arguments and evaluate, because it's Sunday morning. I would be obliged to omit Mass attendance, because erroneously or not, I would think it a sin to go to the Novus Ordo Mass.

Wrongly, and quite vincibly for most Catholics.

Quote:Similarly, if I am right and the Novus Ordo is a harm, but one does not see this harm, then his erroneous conscience certainly is not going to be easily convinced in a short talk about the history of the Novus Ordo Mass, the intervention by Cardinal Ottaviani, etc. and so hic et nunc, his error is invincible, and so his certain conscience tells him he has to go to Mass, and he sins if he fails to do so.

We are bound to obey our consciences, but what our consciences say does not determine the morality of an act. The morality is there and the job of the conscience is to discern it. It is entirely possible for it to be mistaken, and, if this is our own fault, we're culpable for the resulting wrong.

Quote:The issue is not about taking scandal in objectively good things as St Thomas Aquinas suggest in the passage referenced.

St. Thomas isn't just (or even primarily) talking about objectively good things.

Quote: Now nothing by its very nature disposes a man to spiritual downfall, except that which has some lack of rectitude, since what is perfectly right, secures man against a fall, instead of conducing to his downfall. Scandal is, therefore, fittingly defined as "something less rightly done or said, that occasions another's spiritual downfall."
Filioli mei, non diligamus verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate.

Vos omnes amatores pulcherrimae linguae ecclesiae nostrae, videte filum quo de rebus sanctis profanisque colloqui possumus.
Reply
#24
(11-12-2019, 07:11 AM)Filiolus Wrote:
Quote:This is only a problem is one's conscience is "malformed" by judging the Novus Ordo Mass as a possible or real harm to their Faith.

If any external influence is a possible or real harm to one's faith, one's conscience is malformed.

So pornography is okay?

By that logic porn, immodesty, bad books, etc. are all perfectly neutral things and it is the user who is the only sinner, because "no external influence is a possible or real harm to one's faith" or source of sin.

So too with Catholics listening to Protestant preachers, eh? Not a real or possible threat to our Faith, unless we have a malformed conscience.
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • antiquarian, Imperator Caesar Trump, jovan66102
Reply
#25
(11-12-2019, 07:11 AM)Filiolus Wrote: We are bound to obey our consciences, but what our consciences say does not determine the morality of an act. The morality is there and the job of the conscience is to discern it. It is entirely possible for it to be mistaken, and, if this is our own fault, we're culpable for the resulting wrong.

Since we're going Scholastic here :

That "we are bound to obey our consciences," distinguo. That we are bound to obey our certain conscience when right or invincibly erroneous, concedo. That we are bound to obey a doubtful or vincibly erroneous conscience, nego.

Prümmer (a classic Dominican and Thomistic moral theologian) gives principles for action. He says that we are bound to obey our conscience when it is certain, whether correct or invincibly erroneous. He then says that it is sinful to follow a vincibly erroneous (or doubtful) conscience (unless the precept permits this). (Manuale Theologiæ moralis, I, tract. iv., cap. 2)

------

That "what our our consciences say does not determine the morality of the act; The morality is there and the job of the conscience is to discern it," distinguo. That the erroneous conscience cannot vitiate the immorality of an action which is per se immoral, concedo. That the conscience is not a proximate rule of morality for action and thus a kind of "personal law" for the determination of morality, nego.

This is the view of St Alphonus Liguori and pretty much every moral theologian since him, including Dominican and Thomistic ones. St Alphonsus in his Theologia Moralis says that the conscience is the proximate rule for morality, and the Divine Law the remote rule.

Prümmer in his Manuale Theologiæ Moralis writes that conscience is (my translation) "the judgement or dictate of the practical intellect out of common principle regarding the goodness or malice of acts under consideration for being done (or which were already done)." Thus, it would be the proximate rule which determines whether it is moral to act, here and now, in this way or not.

That proximate rule is meant to be, and must, to be correct, aligned with the Divine Law, which is the ultimate rule of morality. But this is what will distinguish the correct and erroneous conscience. And the imputability for that error, and thus the degree to which one sins by acting despite this error will be as a consequence of his ability to remove this error.

-----------

That, "It is entirely possible for it to be mistaken, and, if this is our own fault, we're culpable for the resulting wrong," Concedo, with an addition.

If this is true that the contradictory is also true : if we are not at fault for the mistake/error, then we are not culpable for the resulting error. (Which is the foundation of my position described above).


-----------

By the way, Filiolus, I do hope that this reply, but with this, intentionally adapted (for the sake of good fun) style of reply shows that I'm happy to enjoy a good argument in a good spirit here, and mean nothing personal. If I had a glass of whiskey (good spirit) and some cigars (to create a nebulous and ethereal environment) to share in this discussion, I'd happily offer them.

Sadly I'm dry and out right now, and trying to send them via the Internet won't work too well.
Reply
#26
(11-12-2019, 03:21 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(11-12-2019, 07:11 AM)Filiolus Wrote:
Quote:This is only a problem is one's conscience is "malformed" by judging the Novus Ordo Mass as a possible or real harm to their Faith.

If any external influence is a possible or real harm to one's faith, one's conscience is malformed.

So pornography is okay?

By that logic porn, immodesty, bad books, etc. are all perfectly neutral things and it is the user who is the only sinner, because "no external influence is a possible or real harm to one's faith" or source of sin.

So too with Catholics listening to Protestant preachers, eh? Not a real or possible threat to our Faith, unless we have a malformed conscience.

The first things you've listed don't do harm to a person's faith per se. They certainly harm you morally, and only per accidens harm the virtue of faith (which is what I assumed we were talking about).

The second - well, yes, listening to a Protestant preacher is only a threat to your faith if your conscience is malformed.

I appreciate the whisky wishes and cigar surprises (eh, need a better word to keep the alliteration). I don't have time this moment to respond to the other things. My three-year old is saying, "Dada, aren't you going to spend time with the family?" Smile
Filioli mei, non diligamus verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate.

Vos omnes amatores pulcherrimae linguae ecclesiae nostrae, videte filum quo de rebus sanctis profanisque colloqui possumus.
Reply
#27
(11-12-2019, 05:10 PM)Filiolus Wrote: The first things you've listed don't do harm to a person's faith per se. They certainly harm you morally, and only per accidens harm the virtue of faith (which is what I assumed we were talking about).

Agreed, the example is against a different virtue, but we were also talking about scandal. Scandal is a double sin (at least) against firstly, Justice, and then secondly against whatever virtue the sin caused or encouraged by the external influence. So showings someone porn is a mortal sin against Justice (for providing a temptation), and also a mortal sin against Temperance (Chastity) by presenting the temptation to sins against chastity.

So yes Faith is not Temperance, but the principles as regards scandal would be the same. It should not matter against which virtue the evil wars, unless you want to make a distinction as to why scandal against Faith is somehow different to scandal against Temperance.

(11-12-2019, 05:10 PM)Filiolus Wrote: The second - well, yes, listening to a Protestant preacher is only a threat to your faith if your conscience is malformed.

Here I would fall back on the traditional practice of the Church in judging this a mortal sin against the Faith for people to listen to Protestant preachers, and holding those who would frequently do so to be suspect of heresy.

Jone (Moral Theology), for instance, says listening to non-Catholic sermons is forbidden because of scandal and danger to the faith. He gives the exception for passive attendance for proportionate reasons (e.g. attending a funeral/wedding/ceremony for politeness and when there is some just reason to go) provided that the danger of perversion and scandal is precluded. He cites the 1917 Canon Law, Canon 1258) which agrees with this principle.

Reading of such works (and so listening as well) was forbidden by Canon Law and considered a grave sin, except when permission was given by an ecclesiastical authority for a just cause (research) who could then ensure the danger of perversion was gone.

So I would disagree with this statement you make, and revert to point one. I don't see how in principle pornography is much different than a non-Catholic preacher as regards scandal, except that pornography would not admit of exceptions since the danger cannot be removed.

Again, if you know of a distinction between the virtues as regards scandal that I am missing, I would be happy to be informed of it.

(11-12-2019, 05:10 PM)Filiolus Wrote: I appreciate the whisky wishes and cigar surprises (eh, need a better word to keep the alliteration). I don't have time this moment to respond to the other things. My three-year old is saying, "Dada, aren't you going to spend time with the family?" Smile

Go, spend time with the family. Duty of State, man.

We'll be here, and look forward to the discussion when your duties allow. Same on my side. I wish I could take my own advice sometimes ...
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)