Obligated to go to NO Mass?
#21
(06-15-2020, 12:23 PM)Adventus Wrote:
(06-14-2020, 08:49 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(06-14-2020, 01:18 PM)LionHippo Wrote: That being said, I still do not buy the argument that somebody can miss Mass because it's harmful to their faith.  This confuses me, because on the one hand, Traditionalist Catholics seem to portray themselves as fierce warriors in the Church Militant valiantly fighting against Satan and his minions.  But then, apparently an hour spent at a Mass not to their liking is enough to crumble their faith.

If one puts their Faith in danger they commit a grave sin.

One cannot be obliged to commit a sin.

That's the issue.

The issue is not doing something "that is not to our liking". It is the our duty to avoid sin. To attend a liturgy which is sacrilegious or where the priest preaches against the Catholic Faith would be sinful.

This sounds seriously diabolical. It's one thing to recognize that the NO is lacking and pointing out atrocious abuses, that horn has been tooted loud and clear.....everyone within miles around can hear it. But to tell people stay home and not attend Mass and refuse to participate and fulfill their Sunday obligation where our Lord still resides.......don't get it.........not one bit.

So your telling people they commit a grave sin by going, but yet they commit one by not going? 

I'm sorry but this sounds absolutely ridiculous.

I'd rather take an imperfect presentation, than none at all.

People aren't children where they crumble at the sight of anything disordered. 

I hope God will soften your hearts on this one because it really is incomprehensible.

The only thing that is incomprehensible is your obvious mischaracterization of what I've written.

The principle is that we are never obliged to do something which is sinful. No authority (even God) can oblige what is sinful. Obviously not God because that would say that God wills sin.

The Church says we are obliged to attend Mass on Sunday unless we are morally or physically impeded. If we fail to do so when able we commit a mortal sin.

Now, applying that principle.

If we are physically unable to attend Mass, there is no sin in non-attendance.

If we are morally impeded from attending Mass, there is no sin in non-attendance.

What is a moral impedement. It is where we could physically go, but some other thing prevents us. 

If the particular Mass itself that we could attend were a serious occasion of sin, we could not attend because of that principle, since we cannot willfully put ourselves in a near occasion of serious sin. Sins against the Faith are grave sins. So, we would also not be obliged to attend this particular Mass, because we would be morally impeded from attending. So, there is no sin, because there is no obligation.

A Mass which due to the deviations in doctrine taught, or where the abuses or manner of its offering are sacrilegious, would be a serious occasion of sin.

If that is incorrect, then please point out the flaw in the moral theology or logic, not just call me names.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#22
(06-15-2020, 03:11 PM)1Faith Wrote: Now I can't stand the Novus Ordo and I agree it is harmful to the faith, however, I cannot and will not tell others not to go to it when the Sunday obligation is not dispensed if that is all they have access to.

Okay, but why not?

What is the principle basis on which you object to that?
Reply
#23
Quote:Okay, but why not?
I'm on the fence about whether the obligation pertains to the Novus Ordo. I acknowledge it as a modernist rite potentially dangerous to the faith, and yet it was legally promulgated by a Pope. So if it is a legally authorized rite for the Latin Church, it's not easy to just say the obligation doesn't apply if that's all you have access to.

Then again, I also acknowledge there are compelling arguments that the NO is a schismatic and/or illicit rite contravening the Council of Trent and the decrees of St. Pope Pius V. It is beyond my pay grade to decide such a complex question with any degree of certainty.

So given that, I will not put myself in a position where I'm telling someone not to go to the NO to fulfill their Sunday obligation, when there is a chance i could be leading them into sin by giving that counsel. I wont risk that. All I'd say is someone should exhaust every possible alternative, including even perhaps moving, before they go to a Novus Ordo liturgy.

Sent from my SM-J260T1 using Tapatalk
[-] The following 1 user Likes 1Faith's post:
  • LionHippo
Reply
#24
(06-15-2020, 03:11 PM)1Faith Wrote: Now I can't stand the Novus Ordo and I agree it is harmful to the faith, however, I cannot and will not tell others not to go to it when the Sunday obligation is not dispensed if that is all they have access to.

So you would counsel people to put themselves into an occasion of sin by attending a Mass that puts their Faith in danger? Before I realised that I was not obligated to attend such a Mass, there were times I could not receive Communion, and went directly from Mass to confession, to confess the rage I felt at the abuses taking place.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 1 user Likes jovan66102's post:
  • Mourning Dove
Reply
#25
When does something laced with poison become lethal?
Reply
#26
(06-15-2020, 10:41 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(06-15-2020, 12:23 PM)Adventus Wrote:
(06-14-2020, 08:49 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(06-14-2020, 01:18 PM)LionHippo Wrote: That being said, I still do not buy the argument that somebody can miss Mass because it's harmful to their faith.  This confuses me, because on the one hand, Traditionalist Catholics seem to portray themselves as fierce warriors in the Church Militant valiantly fighting against Satan and his minions.  But then, apparently an hour spent at a Mass not to their liking is enough to crumble their faith.

If one puts their Faith in danger they commit a grave sin.

One cannot be obliged to commit a sin.

That's the issue.

The issue is not doing something "that is not to our liking". It is the our duty to avoid sin. To attend a liturgy which is sacrilegious or where the priest preaches against the Catholic Faith would be sinful.

This sounds seriously diabolical. It's one thing to recognize that the NO is lacking and pointing out atrocious abuses, that horn has been tooted loud and clear.....everyone within miles around can hear it. But to tell people stay home and not attend Mass and refuse to participate and fulfill their Sunday obligation where our Lord still resides.......don't get it.........not one bit.

So your telling people they commit a grave sin by going, but yet they commit one by not going? 

I'm sorry but this sounds absolutely ridiculous.

I'd rather take an imperfect presentation, than none at all.

People aren't children where they crumble at the sight of anything disordered. 

I hope God will soften your hearts on this one because it really is incomprehensible.

The only thing that is incomprehensible is your obvious mischaracterization of what I've written.

The principle is that we are never obliged to do something which is sinful. No authority (even God) can oblige what is sinful. Obviously not God because that would say that God wills sin.

The Church says we are obliged to attend Mass on Sunday unless we are morally or physically impeded. If we fail to do so when able we commit a mortal sin.

Now, applying that principle.

If we are physically unable to attend Mass, there is no sin in non-attendance.

If we are morally impeded from attending Mass, there is no sin in non-attendance.

What is a moral impedement. It is where we could physically go, but some other thing prevents us. 

If the particular Mass itself that we could attend were a serious occasion of sin, we could not attend because of that principle, since we cannot willfully put ourselves in a near occasion of serious sin. Sins against the Faith are grave sins. So, we would also not be obliged to attend this particular Mass, because we would be morally impeded from attending. So, there is no sin, because there is no obligation.

A Mass which due to the deviations in doctrine taught, or where the abuses or manner of its offering are sacrilegious, would be a serious occasion of sin.

If that is incorrect, then please point out the flaw in the moral theology or logic, not just call me names.

MM,

I would appreciate it if you pointed to where I called you any names, otherwise retract.

Putting aside the issue that this clearly puts into question the indefectibility of the Church; what is immensely troubling isn’t that one can’t in good conscience decline attending a particular NO mass due to moral impediments, but that one does it [at great peril] with a broad brush to all NO masses or the NO mass in general. Moral impediments are judgment calls by the person. Assuming the person in question is properly predisposed and catechized; these are matters of ecclesiastical positive law and rubrics. In particular a rubrics in the NO that is rather vague and is typically left to the celebrant to do his due diligence on reverence. 

I can assure you I am making every effort to understand; I’m just not convinced by the regurgitative claim that the NO is deficient to the point of warranting not attending any of them. Problems? Sure. Abuses? Certainly. The Mass is not ours and when it is incomplete, vague, missing prayers, etc. we stay as long as we can and move to another if we must. We don’t dismiss it altogether. Calvary was very irreverent, but Saint John and our Lady remained anyways. 

One can also note that for some, attending the SSPX presents a great spiritual risk of forming a sinful intention (Schismatic in spirit. One of many reasons Sedes hang out in the same watering holes for example). Whether that makes it wrong or falls under a moral impediment depends on the circumstances. E.g. some chapels are going to present you with more overt hostility, others not so much. And there is a difference between someone who lives equidistant between an FSSP and an SSPX chapel, and someone whose only other option is a Mass full of abuses. Of course, few are in either of those situations, and fall in between. But the point is a hard and fast rule may be difficult to assert, though again in general it is to be strongly discouraged that a blanket statement like “attend no NO mass” or “the NO mass is evil”.

It is becoming clear to me from reading books like that of Fr. Fortescue's – A Study of the Roman Liturgy that liturgy clearly has changed over time and it has not always been for the better. Even if it is a starking departure as Ottiviani notes. The NO at worst clouds truths of our faith by its lack of prayers, nowhere in the missal does it preach heresy...there were Eucharistic prayers that were proximate, but they were fixed by Pope Benedict. The Ottaviani interventions no longer apply in my estimation.

At any rate, I’m sure this has been beaten to the ground in this forum, but I don’t particularly agree with said conclusions as I have noted and even having said all this I’m still open and willing to be part of the SSPX community because there is so much there to be elevated from and I think their voices need to be heard as I think Ottaviani’s Letter should have been heard as well. I wouldn’t mind at all if the NO disappeared, but I simply can’t conclude as I understand you are.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Adventus's post:
  • LionHippo
Reply
#27
(06-17-2020, 11:44 AM)Adventus Wrote: I would appreciate it if you pointed to where I called you any names, otherwise retract.

You labeled, quoting what I wrote, as "diabolical", and suggested I needed to have my heart "softened".

There are plenty of ways to say: "I don't agree," or even in stronger term, "I cannot make sense of this," or even "You're wrong." Quoting someone's writing and saying it is diabolical, and biblical terms suggesting impenitence is not a good way of saying that.

(06-17-2020, 11:44 AM)Adventus Wrote: Putting aside the issue that this clearly puts into question the indefectibility of the Church; what is immensely troubling isn’t that one can’t in good conscience decline attending a particular NO mass due to moral impediments, but that one does it [at great peril] with a broad brush to all NO masses or the NO mass in general. Moral impediments are judgment calls by the person. Assuming the person in question is properly predisposed and catechized; these are matters of ecclesiastical positive law and rubrics. In particular a rubrics in the NO that is rather vague and is typically left to the celebrant to do his due diligence on reverence.

I have never been convinced or really heard a good argument that would suggest that the Church's indefectibility would be brought into question by questioning the orthodoxy of the Novus Ordo Missæ, either in particular cases, or in general.

The usual argument is to quote Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma that indefectibility implies "the essential immutability of her teaching, her constitution and her liturgy," and therefore the approval of a rite is a guarantee of it's orthodoxy and goodness. What is never quoted is the very next sentence: "This does not exclude the decay of individual 'churches' (i.e. parts of the Church) and accidental changes." Since the liturgy of the Latin Church is at issue here, and not the Universal Church, it does not follow that even if the Novus Ordo rite were bad, that a promulgation of it would undermine indefectibility. There are many other liturgical rites and particular churches. The Latin Church is not The Church, even if the Patriarch of the West is the head of the whole Catholic Church.

Further, since as Ott says, this principle applies to teaching, constitution and liturgy, we have to also take examples from teaching and constitution to see where the limits of this are.

If a Pope or Council can teach things which are problematic or represent something erroneous, then clearly they could do the same with regard to the liturgy. The limit would be analogically the same in the liturgy as with doctrine. However, we have plentiful examples of Popes and Councils teaching things which are heretical or nearly so, and in a way that undermines the Catholic Faith. John XXII on the Beatific Vision, for instance, as well as the Council of Basel on Conciliarism, are easy examples, but certainly not the only ones. The same with Amoris Lætitia. Why these do not undermine the indefectibility of the Church is that the Universal Church was not being bound to assert something wrong as de fide. So the most extreme principle we could extract from this is that the Church cannot promulgate and bind all Catholics to a rite which teaches error or undermines the Faith.

If that is our principle, then asserting the Novus Ordo Missæ is intrinsically defective, does not fit, and would not undermine indefectibility.

First, there are real questions on its promulgation. The Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum gives various guidelines, but never promulgates a missal. It only promises a future missal, which was then released by the working group on the missal. It was this working group and not the Pope that suggested that it was mandatory, and issued decrees (never specifically approved by the Pope) requiring the Novus Ordo and exemptions for older priests. So, there is a real legal question here.

But, let us assume it was a legal promulgation. At best, it was a derogation of the law to allow the Novus Ordo Missæ, and not impose it. This was confirmed by Pope Benedict XVI who settled that matter in Summorum Pontificum wherein he clearly rejected the notion the privileges of Quo Primum were abolished. So, even if promulgated, the Novus Ordo was not universally imposed, but that would be one of the conditions for the problems with indefectibility.

(06-17-2020, 11:44 AM)Adventus Wrote: ... it is to be strongly discouraged that a blanket statement like “attend no NO mass” or “the NO mass is evil”.

I agree that "evil" is bound to be misunderstood, and "defective" is probably better, explaining that the defects touch on the very essence of the Mass.

The problem is that really, the Novus Ordo Missæ is not a "Catholic" rite in itself.

It was one of the six Protestants that help draft it, Max Thurian, who said, "With the New Liturgy, non-Catholic communities will be able to celebrate the Lord's Supper with the same prayers as the Catholic Church."

It can be "Catholicized" by an ordained priest offering it, confecting the Eucharist within it, adding the notion of a propitatory Sacrifice, showing that the priestly actions within it are restricted to the ordained, but the essential rite itself is as easily used by a Catholic or a Protestant.

It is amorphous, and can be molded to suit both a Catholic and non-Catholic context, and so can be said that the Novus Ordo Missæ, as it is in itself, does not teach the Catholic Faith in the Mass, Eucharist and Priesthood. Those teaching can be added, but are inherently lacking.

I appreciate that people misunderstand "evil" as a moral evil when words like "intrinsically evil" are used, but I think an honest assessment will show that this is not a false statement, even if it has its problems.

(06-17-2020, 11:44 AM)Adventus Wrote: It is becoming clear to me from reading books like that of Fr. Fortescue's – A Study of the Roman Liturgy that liturgy clearly has changed over time and it has not always been for the better. Even if it is a starking departure as Ottiviani notes. The NO at worst clouds truths of our faith by its lack of prayers, nowhere in the missal does it preach heresy...there were Eucharistic prayers that were proximate, but they were fixed by Pope Benedict. The Ottaviani interventions no longer apply in my estimation.

But the objections of Msgr Lefebvre and others (which is what the Ottaviani Intervention is, since it was Lefebvre's work, which Ottaviani agreed to present), were not limited to a few problems with Eucharistic prayers or translations.

The main objections were that it undermines the dogmatic notion of the Mass as a Sacrifice, and instead substitutes the Protestant and heretical notion of Mass as a meal; it undermines the ordained priesthood, and substitutes a popular priesthood of each believer; and that it undermines the belief in the Real Presence, substituting the notion of a spiritual presence.

Those objections were to the Latin exemplar from which translations were made, and are not part of translations. Those objections were to the rite in its "raw" form.

Revisions have done nothing to fix this, so I fail to see how the "Ottaviani interverntions no longer apply." They were made to a Latin rite which has not changed since those objections were written.
Reply
#28
(06-14-2020, 03:42 PM)Credidi Propter Wrote: I guess it depends on your needs.  I will not wear a mask, and I will not go wherever they are required.
The Los Angeles archdiocese does not permit anyone to enter church doors without a temperature check and a mask. If you do not have one, they will give you one to put on then and there. This will not be waived, I reckon, when the TLM closest to me is allowed to open on July 5th. It's a mandate. I guess, in other dioceses, there will not be any "free pass" for approved Masses, whomever says them, Latin or N.O. Or are there "exceptions to the rule" (not counting SSPX)? I cannot see how any rite would trump the public orders in place that the Church has had to also enforce to resume Mass.

P.S. Communion on the tongue is also explicitly prohibited in our Archdiocesan guidelines, no ifs ands or buts apparently.
The deeds you do may be the only sermon some people may hear today (Francis of Assisi); Win an argument, lose a soul (Fulton Sheen)
Reply
#29
(06-17-2020, 08:31 PM)Fionnchu Wrote: P.S. Communion on the tongue is also explicitly prohibited in our Archdiocesan guidelines, no ifs ands or buts apparently.

Which breaks Church Law, and defies both common sense and science. But of course, they're not really concerned about the CCP virus. It's just another way to attack reverent reception of the Sacrament and undermine belief in the Real Presence.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 2 users Like jovan66102's post:
  • antiquarian, Bushum
Reply
#30
Well I can say here in Detroit, all is pretty much normal at the Institute of Christ the King parish. Still packed every Sunday mass, though they've double the number of masses. Almost no one wears masks, communion is on the tongue as usual, the only difference now is the number of masses and some bottles of hand sanitizer sitting around.

Archbishop Vigneron is a pretty decent bishop though, to his credit he reopened public masses relatively early without all that many restrictions. By the sound of things in California and elsewhere im definitely fortunate to be in Michigan.

Sent from my SM-J260T1 using Tapatalk
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)