|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 14, 2016 21:59:42 GMT -5
Jurisdiction in regards to validity of ordinations is irrelevant. You may be conflating validity with lawfulness. Roman Rite priests ordained prior to the change in ordination rite, 1970 or so depending on how fast it was implemented, were ordained in the Catholic rite. Those ordained in the new Paul VI rite, even by a lawfully consecrated bishop, are questionable. Since the rite came from outside the Church, only the Holy See can authoritatively tell us whether it is valid or not, until then, I would urge anyone to avoid it like the plague. The "traditionalist" priests, such as SSPX*, CMRI etc., are in my opinion, all validly ordained. There may be some exceptions to this with some of the outlier groups that I remain unsure of such as those that came out of the Palma de Troya group or the Duarte-Costa line. (* with the exception of Paul VI rite ordained priests or ordained through a Paul VI rite consecrated bishop who join the SSPX without conditional ordination.) I understand perfectly regarding the Paul VI rite Priests. What I am concerned about are the Independent Traditional Priests who were ordained by Bishops such as Thuc, Mendez, etc. If they are validly ordained, are their sacraments licit? In my opinion, the priests ordained through +Lefebvre and his four bishops and now +Williamson's new bishops are valid. I also believe that the priests ordained through the + Thuc lines of +Carmona, +Zamora and +Guerard des Lauriers are valid. I also believe those SSPV priests ordained by +Mendez and through the +Mendez-+Kelly line are valid. In my opinion all of these ordinations are illicit, but, when I say that, so we are clear, I am not saying that you cannot go to their masses.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2016 3:03:31 GMT -5
The way I see it my only "safe" recourse is to attend the Eastern Rite. However, I have been advised to avoid them as they are in "union" with Francis, which leads me right back to where I began, the "Una Cum" issue!
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Nov 15, 2016 6:07:09 GMT -5
The way I see it my only "safe" recourse is to attend the Eastern Rite. However, I have been advised to avoid them as they are in "union" with Francis, which leads me right back to where I began, the "Una Cum" issue! Well I am advising you it is perfectly Catholic to attend and that its not your problem if the Priest mentions the wrong name. Also youll notice the Popes insertion in the DL isnt exactly the same as it is in the Latin Mass. We ask the Lord to have Mercy for Francis....think of it as praying for an enemy....tell anyone who tells you different to come to this forum and make their case...we are hardly friends of Francis here...so they couldnt accuse us of being in League with an antipope. These people are committing a grave sin against you...they are as the pharasees....beware the leven of the pharasees
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2016 9:49:36 GMT -5
The way I see it my only "safe" recourse is to attend the Eastern Rite. However, I have been advised to avoid them as they are in "union" with Francis, which leads me right back to where I began, the "Una Cum" issue! Well I am advising you it is perfectly Catholic to attend and that its not your problem if the Priest mentions the wrong name. Also youll notice the Popes insertion in the DL isnt exactly the same as it is in the Latin Mass. We ask the Lord to have Mercy for Francis....think of it as praying for an enemy....tell anyone who tells you different to come to this forum and make their case...we are hardly friends of Francis here...so they couldnt accuse us of being in League with an antipope. These people are committing a grave sin against you...they are as the pharasees....beware the leven of the pharasees I was first told about the Una Cum issue by persons going back a couple of years ago when I first returned to the Faith. I didn't let that stop me from going to the Eastern Rite the two times I attended. I have since ran into persons who still tell me the same, especially regarding the Latin Mass where I currently attend. These persons seem to be very obstinate regarding the Una Cum issue.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 15, 2016 12:01:17 GMT -5
The way I see it my only "safe" recourse is to attend the Eastern Rite. However, I have been advised to avoid them as they are in "union" with Francis, which leads me right back to where I began, the "Una Cum" issue! The arguments of people that say you must avoid masses una-cum Francis are sophistry. To test what I am saying, next time you speak with them ask them to show you a law that forbids what they are saying is forbidden, namely that Catholics cannot go to mass in union with an undeclared heretic. They will not be able to produce this, as it does not exist except in their minds.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2016 12:52:04 GMT -5
The way I see it my only "safe" recourse is to attend the Eastern Rite. However, I have been advised to avoid them as they are in "union" with Francis, which leads me right back to where I began, the "Una Cum" issue! The arguments of people that say you must avoid masses una-cum Francis are sophistry. To test what I am saying, next time you speak with them ask them to show you a law that forbids what they are saying is forbidden, namely that Catholics cannot go to mass in union with an undeclared heretic. They will not be able to produce this, as it does not exist except in their minds. Thanks Pacelli regarding this post about "sophistry". I found it very enlightening. It seems these persons are trying to make and enforce their own laws.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2016 13:11:39 GMT -5
The Church that I attend has a Latin Mass Society. I called the President of the Society today and asked about whether the Hosts from the Novus Ordo get mixed in with the Latin Mass Hosts during the Latin Mass. I was told no. (Did I ask the correct question)? Believe me when I tell you that these people in the Latin Mass Society have no time for the Novus Ordo at all or for Francis. I have talked with them and am a new member. The pre-Vatican II Priest is so very meticulous and lives to say the Latin Mass. I, nevertheless, will keep my eyes wide open during the Mass and sit as close to the front as I can.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 15, 2016 13:44:16 GMT -5
The Church that I attend has a Latin Mass Society. I called the President of the Society today and asked about whether the Hosts from the Novus Ordo get mixed in with the Latin Mass Hosts during the Latin Mass. I was told no. (Did I ask the correct question)? Believe me when I tell you that these people in the Latin Mass Society have no time for the Novus Ordo at all or for Francis. I have talked with them and am a new member. The pre-Vatican II Priest is so very meticulous and lives to say the Latin Mass. I, nevertheless, will keep my eyes wide open during the Mass and sit as close to the front as I can. What you did is a good start, but I think it better to investigate further. Sometimes well meaning people assume things and speak as though they know it for certain. Since this involves the sacraments, having certainty is important. Either way, in the meanwhile, it may be a good thing to go to the Ukrainian rite from time to time to get used to it. Unfortunately, due to your priest's age, you may have to have a back up plan in place. You most certainly cannot trust any Conciliar diocese to provide you another validly ordained priest if this elderly priest gets sick and can no longer say mass. From my experience, and having known many with the "indult" school of thought, they only care about the Mass, and are not concerned with the orders of the priest, so if there is ever a change in priests, they will just roll with it without any fuss. If you ever ever need to know the ordination date of any priest, pm me, I have a directory of all priests in the U.S., with their ordination dates, and would be happy to provide that to you.
|
|
|
Post by Marya Dabrowski on Nov 15, 2016 14:22:53 GMT -5
The rites of ordination and consecration in the Latin rite were changed, correct? If that change is substantial it renders the orders invalid, correct? If so, then the persons attending mass at those chapels where the priest with the invalid orders is ministering would be worshipping bread, correct? And what would that be called...worshipping bread that is? Yes and your point. This doesnt refute my statement that refusing valid sacraments to the Laity is not Catholic...I guess unless they are under a censure or excommunicated. What I was getting at is that "normal times" a person who was engaging in false worship probably would get spoken to by a priest or bishop and advised to stop. And if they persisted they might be punished or censured (I don't know from whom) or possibly denied the sacraments at the Catholic church until they stopped and repented. And in "normal times" if there was a question of the validity of the orders of a priest what would happen? A layperson or priest could go to the church, their superiors, and over time and ranks it would be straightened out and a layperson and priest would know what priest or non-priest to avoid. Why doesn't that happen today? Because we don't live in "normal times." Because there are no real superiors and hierarchy to go to. We can't petition up through the ranks to Rome. So every priest and layperson needs to use his own good sense to try to figure out what to do. You will agree that in "normal times" a priest wouldn't even have to deal with this because they could appeal to a higher person to settle it. But these aren't normal times. So normally I would agree, you shouldn't deny communion to a Catholic in good standing. While they say SSPV is making the decision who is (isn't) still in good standing I think you could easily say the opposite if you wanted, people who are going to these chapels are making the decision that they are in good standing, it goes both ways. They are making the decision that such and such orders are valid or that such and such Mass is valid. That's just the way it is. Why call "usurping authority" over and over considering that every "independent" chapel, be it SSPX, SSPV, or CMRI is usurping authority by even setting up a chapel in the diocese in which they are operating. But they do it because they feel it is necessary for souls. And what about sins against the Blessed Sacrament? Does no one care? So if a layperson is going to the NO or other possible bread worshipping churches or fake priests on some Sundays, situations that you agree cannot be settled at this time, and the priest advises against it and they persist, I agree absolutely deny them Communion. What kind of priest would allow what is very-likely bread worshipping and turn around and allow them to come and receive a Real Host? What kind of shepherd would that be? They can go to that other chapel if they're so set on it. In normal times you wouldn't have to question who's a priest and who's not or what rite is valid and what is not. You would normally know which Catholic is in good standing. You wouldn't normally be denying Holy Communion. Such is the times we live in.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2016 15:20:33 GMT -5
The Church that I attend has a Latin Mass Society. I called the President of the Society today and asked about whether the Hosts from the Novus Ordo get mixed in with the Latin Mass Hosts during the Latin Mass. I was told no. (Did I ask the correct question)? Believe me when I tell you that these people in the Latin Mass Society have no time for the Novus Ordo at all or for Francis. I have talked with them and am a new member. The pre-Vatican II Priest is so very meticulous and lives to say the Latin Mass. I, nevertheless, will keep my eyes wide open during the Mass and sit as close to the front as I can. What you did is a good start, but I think it better to investigate further. Sometimes well meaning people assume things and speak as though they know it for certain. Since this involves the sacraments, having certainty is important. Either way, in the meanwhile, it may be a good thing to go to the Ukrainian rite from time to time to get used to it. Unfortunately, due to your priest's age, you may have to have a back up plan in place. You most certainly cannot trust any Conciliar diocese to provide you another validly ordained priest if this elderly priest gets sick and can no longer say mass. From my experience, and having known many with the "indult" school of thought, they only care about the Mass, and are not concerned with the orders of the priest, so if there is ever a change in priests, they will just roll with it without any fuss. If you ever ever need to know the ordination date of any priest, pm me, I have a directory of all priests in the U.S., with their ordination dates, and would be happy to provide that to you. When I get a chance, I will ask the Priest about the Communion Hosts. (Could I ask him in the confessional, or would that be inappropriate?). I do know from experience with some of the people in the Latin Mass Society that they only care about the Mass being said in Latin and don't inquire into the Priest's validly. They only care about the Latin. Then there are some people who do inquire into the Priest's validly. I know some people who, like me, won't go to the Latin Mass when young Priests are filling in. That is great that you have a directory of the Priests and their ordination dates. I am always calling the diocese to check out Priest's ordination dates. I would like a copy. Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 15, 2016 15:56:24 GMT -5
What you did is a good start, but I think it better to investigate further. Sometimes well meaning people assume things and speak as though they know it for certain. Since this involves the sacraments, having certainty is important. Either way, in the meanwhile, it may be a good thing to go to the Ukrainian rite from time to time to get used to it. Unfortunately, due to your priest's age, you may have to have a back up plan in place. You most certainly cannot trust any Conciliar diocese to provide you another validly ordained priest if this elderly priest gets sick and can no longer say mass. From my experience, and having known many with the "indult" school of thought, they only care about the Mass, and are not concerned with the orders of the priest, so if there is ever a change in priests, they will just roll with it without any fuss. If you ever ever need to know the ordination date of any priest, pm me, I have a directory of all priests in the U.S., with their ordination dates, and would be happy to provide that to you. When I get a chance, I will ask the Priest about the Communion Hosts. (Could I ask him in the confessional, or would that be inappropriate?). I do know from experience with some of the people in the Latin Mass Society that they only care about the Mass being said in Latin and don't inquire into the Priest's validly. They only care about the Latin. Then there are some people who do inquire into the Priest's validly. I know some people who, like me, won't go to the Latin Mass when young Priests are filling in. That is great that you have a directory of the Priests and their ordination dates. I am always calling the diocese to check out Priest's ordination dates. I would like a copy. Thank you! I would ask him anywhere you could, but continue to watch during the mass. If he is consecrating a large amount hosts for that mass, he will have a ciborium full of unconsecrated hosts during the consecration on the Altar. If, prior to communion, he opens the tabernacle to take out hosts, then my suspicion is that these most likely came from a Novus Ordo. When you go to the Ukrainian rite, you will not have to deal with this difficulty. Their priests are always ordained through their bishops, always using their own ancient rite, and their bishops are consecrated by other Ukrainian bishops always using their own consecration rite. You will not have to have any concerns about sacramental validity when you go there. This is the directory I am referring to: www.officialcatholicdirectory.com/print-directory.html. You can find older used copies online for a better price.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Nov 15, 2016 16:17:01 GMT -5
Yes and your point. This doesnt refute my statement that refusing valid sacraments to the Laity is not Catholic...I guess unless they are under a censure or excommunicated. What I was getting at is that "normal times" a person who was engaging in false worship probably would get spoken to by a priest or bishop and advised to stop. And if they persisted they might be punished or censured (I don't know from whom) or possibly denied the sacraments at the Catholic church until they stopped and repented. And in "normal times" if there was a question of the validity of the orders of a priest what would happen? A layperson or priest could go to the church, their superiors, and over time and ranks it would be straightened out and a layperson and priest would know what priest or non-priest to avoid. Why doesn't that happen today? Because we don't live in "normal times." Because there are no real superiors and hierarchy to go to. We can't petition up through the ranks to Rome. So every priest and layperson needs to use his own good sense to try to figure out what to do. You will agree that in "normal times" a priest wouldn't even have to deal with this because they could appeal to a higher person to settle it. But these aren't normal times. So normally I would agree, you shouldn't deny communion to a Catholic in good standing. While they say SSPV is making the decision who is (isn't) still in good standing I think you could easily say the opposite if you wanted, people who are going to these chapels are making the decision that they are in good standing, it goes both ways. They are making the decision that such and such orders are valid or that such and such Mass is valid. That's just the way it is. Why call "usurping authority" over and over considering that every "independent" chapel, be it SSPX, SSPV, or CMRI is usurping authority by even setting up a chapel in the diocese in which they are operating. But they do it because they feel it is necessary for souls. And what about sins against the Blessed Sacrament? Does no one care? So if a layperson is going to the NO or other possible bread worshipping churches or fake priests on some Sundays, situations that you agree cannot be settled at this time, and the priest advises against it and they persist, I agree absolutely deny them Communion. What kind of priest would allow what is very-likely bread worshipping and turn around and allow them to come and receive a Real Host? What kind of shepherd would that be? They can go to that other chapel if they're so set on it. In normal times you wouldn't have to question who's a priest and who's not or what rite is valid and what is not. You would normally know which Catholic is in good standing. You wouldn't normally be denying Holy Communion. Such is the times we live in. I think that assumes too much on the laity...its easy for us to assume its a clear case of bread worshiping because we are informed and educated about the specifics...but not everyone is clear or informed or even generally intelligent. So I would say in order for a trad Priest to refuse an otherwise faithful catholic communion because of going to the tNO...they would have to examine the level of the cognizance of the person involved. If the person is not aware of the crisis to that level...and you deny them communion you will just drive them back to the NO. The Trad Priests are way to UPPITY. They need to show some compassion...and stop being harsh with lost sheep
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 15, 2016 16:38:48 GMT -5
What I was getting at is that "normal times" a person who was engaging in false worship probably would get spoken to by a priest or bishop and advised to stop. And if they persisted they might be punished or censured (I don't know from whom) or possibly denied the sacraments at the Catholic church until they stopped and repented. And in "normal times" if there was a question of the validity of the orders of a priest what would happen? A layperson or priest could go to the church, their superiors, and over time and ranks it would be straightened out and a layperson and priest would know what priest or non-priest to avoid. Why doesn't that happen today? Because we don't live in "normal times." Because there are no real superiors and hierarchy to go to. We can't petition up through the ranks to Rome. So every priest and layperson needs to use his own good sense to try to figure out what to do. You will agree that in "normal times" a priest wouldn't even have to deal with this because they could appeal to a higher person to settle it. But these aren't normal times. So normally I would agree, you shouldn't deny communion to a Catholic in good standing. While they say SSPV is making the decision who is (isn't) still in good standing I think you could easily say the opposite if you wanted, people who are going to these chapels are making the decision that they are in good standing, it goes both ways. They are making the decision that such and such orders are valid or that such and such Mass is valid. That's just the way it is. Why call "usurping authority" over and over considering that every "independent" chapel, be it SSPX, SSPV, or CMRI is usurping authority by even setting up a chapel in the diocese in which they are operating. But they do it because they feel it is necessary for souls. And what about sins against the Blessed Sacrament? Does no one care? So if a layperson is going to the NO or other possible bread worshipping churches or fake priests on some Sundays, situations that you agree cannot be settled at this time, and the priest advises against it and they persist, I agree absolutely deny them Communion. What kind of priest would allow what is very-likely bread worshipping and turn around and allow them to come and receive a Real Host? What kind of shepherd would that be? They can go to that other chapel if they're so set on it. In normal times you wouldn't have to question who's a priest and who's not or what rite is valid and what is not. You would normally know which Catholic is in good standing. You wouldn't normally be denying Holy Communion. Such is the times we live in. I think that assumes too much on the laity...its easy for us to assume its a clear case of bread worshiping because we are informed and educated about the specifics...but not everyone is clear or informed or even generally intelligent. So I would say in order for a trad Priest to refuse an otherwise faithful catholic communion because of going to the tNO...they would have to examine the level of the cognizance of the person involved. If the person is not aware of the crisis to that level...and you deny them communion you will just drive them back to the NO. The Trad Priests are way to UPPITY. They need to show some compassion...and stop being harsh with lost sheep I would take it one step further: even if he (the priest) thinks the layperson knows better, he cannot bind their conscience on an unsettled matter. Whether anyone likes it or not, Catholics must resolve these unsettled matters for themselves until the hierarchy returns and binds them with authoritative judgments. This is the reality of out situation in an ungoverned Church. Those few with authority are not using it, and no one can step into their place, and if they do, they are usurpers.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Nov 15, 2016 16:53:36 GMT -5
So by denying communion are they binding their conscience?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 15, 2016 17:31:05 GMT -5
So by denying communion are they binding their conscience? Yes, the reason for denying them communion in these cases in non-compliance to the priests private judgment on an unsettled matter. The priest is binding a person, therefore forcing his conscience to accept the judgment he has made on a matter. The denial of communion or other sacraments is merely the consequence of not submitting to said judgment of the priest. So we are clear, I am not here arguing that a priest cannot in some cases deny Holy Communion, but if that happens he must only use reasons described in the Code, such as the denial to public sinners, not differences in judgment on unsettled matters.
|
|