|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 17, 2016 23:57:39 GMT -5
Eric wrote: The status of this sect is that it is not yet judged. The sect identities itself as the Catholic Church. Therefore, we cannot presume that Catholics who are connected to it are guilty of joining this sect. The sect is not yet known by many Catholics, it hides in plain sight. It's leaders and it's doctrines have not been authoritiavely denounced by the authorities of the Church.
There is no sentence against anyone, so the only thing we can rely on in making judgments in our case is ourselves, applying facts to the relevent theology. Such judgments must be individually made against particular persons, not just assigning guilt to large groups, or they are rash.
Until there is a sentence against such a priest, a Catholic has the right to go to his mass and receive Holy Communion. The only other case would be if the priest left the Church for a known sect, such as the so called "orthodox" then he would be be visibly outside the Church and it would be forbidden to participate at his mass.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2016 1:31:31 GMT -5
Eric wrote: If you are making the assertion that the priest and the people, in this case, who attend the mass are heretics, it is a gratuitous assumption. I don't know if they are or not, but, my starting point is of innocence as I have no basis to presume otherwise, and Veronica made no statements to support a suspicion of heresy against them. Regarding the presumption of heresy and scandal alluded to at the Church I attend, there is none. The Priest was ordained in the early 1950's and is one of the most holy and humble Priests I have ever encountered. There is no one being "grilled" before going to Communion on their stance on a particular Priest or group, etc. I was born in the early 1950's and attended the Latin Mass growing up and the Priest and the Mass are just like the ones I attended in the 1950's and 1960's. There is a dress code. People are asked to dress modestly, women in dresses or skirts that are below the knee and most men wear suits. Women are asked to wear head coverings. (When women show up without a head covering or a woman in pants, no one is "jumping" on them, or refusing them Communion because of it). People going into the church, are cordial to one another and leave. There is no one pushing their "ideas" off on anyone that I have encountered. I find a lot of "Traditional" Catholics quick to point fingers and throw around words such as "heretic" or "scandal" for no unfounded reason. (Could it be they want to feel "superior" or, do they think they possess some "special" knowledge?) (Upon finally finding my way Home to the Church a couple of years ago, I was told over and over that nearly all Priests and Traditional Independent groups were "heretics" and to stay home alone and say the Rosary. Also, I was told not to attend a Mass in Una Cum with Francis. I was also urged to "stay away from the Ukranian Church like it was the "plague".) I'm glad I didn't listen to any of these persons. As I see it, the Devil HATES the Latin Mass said by a validly ordained Priest. My Priest has stated that he will never retire or stop saying the Latin Mass as long as he has good health! He has a Low Mass 3 days a week and High Mass on Sundays. By the way the Priest is "guilty" of constantly urging everyone to go to Confession often!! (Any one have a problem with that??) He has confession for 1/2 hr. everyday prior to Mass. Whenever, the Priest says a high Mass, I sit and cry through the whole Mass as it truly is "the most beautiful thing this side of Heaven", and I am finally Home!!
|
|
|
Post by Marya Dabrowski on Nov 18, 2016 9:34:10 GMT -5
If we had a hierarchy that were correctly using their offices, then yes, they would declare the Conciliar church as sect, and local bishops would command their flocks to avoid it awaiting a universal decision from the Pope who would bind all. The trouble in our situation is that we do not have this, so we are left to work out a myriad of issues relying only on our individual conscience, which binds only ourselves and no other. It is evident that you and I agree that that the Novus Ordo is a rite of a sect, that Catholics are forbidden to go to it, etc. But, the Church has not said this, so no one is obliged by the reason of authority to avoid it. They must be convinced through other reasons, and until they are convinced, they cannot be obliged to avoid it. The same can be said of so many other issues. If someone thinks +Thuc was mentally incapable of consecrating bishops, that is their prerogative. I think they are wrong, but they still have the right to bring the matter to the Holy See for an answer. Until that time, there is no authority that is obliging one to adhere one way or the other. The debate will continue based on the strength of each sides arguments, and if a Catholic chooses to not request scarments from a +Thuc line bishop while awaiting a decision from the Holy See, that is his right. What one cannot do is tell another Catholic, "I bind you to my judgment on this, and by my (non) authority forbid you from receiving Holy Communion, until you agree with me." There weee dozens if not hundreds of diocesan and religious priests in the 70's and 80's that broke with the sect at least to some degree. I have often thought it a worthwhile project to compile a list of all of these priests. Among all of them, not just some of them, I have never, even once come across an allegation that they denied Holy Communion to a layperson who went to their mass. If you like, I can look them up in my notes, and we can go through them one by one. We can start with the late Fr. Fenton, the then Fr. McKenna, and Frs. Carley, Keane, Donahue, Jones, White, etc. I know of some of those priests and their actions in this crisis. Stated simply I believe the SSPV priests are acting in their best judgement, especially concerning the changes in the rites. I think they are not going against their consciences nor being bound by people who don't agree with with them. I will look at the other resources if I haven't read them before. I'm just glad I got the chance to put out there that the SSPV does not forbid going to the SSPX, just as long as the priest isn't ordained in the new rite. I know some people have heard that before.
|
|
|
Post by Marya Dabrowski on Nov 18, 2016 9:42:07 GMT -5
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? But to continue: It doesn't matter how much each lay person thinks they are truly receiving Christ or how much they truly believe it is a valid mass, that has nothing to do with it. It's still wrong because they could be worshipping bread. (No one in this day and age of the internet can honestly claim complete ignorance. When I first read the bulletin at an SSPV chapel I started researching and asking questions.) In your opinion, if we had a hierarchy in operation and were in normal times would a person sometimes worshipping bread or habitually attending mass with a priest with doubtful orders or possible invalid mass be included in the list of persons to be refused communion? I think if in normal times some Catholics were receiving invalid sacraments from what they think is a Catholic priest in a Catholic church, other priests who know about the invalidity would not refuse them the sacraments on this account. It should be assumed that such people think they are receiving valid sacraments, absent evidence to the contrary. Even if they are sinfully negligent and should know better, that's not the kind of sin that would justify their being denied communion. Ordinarily the laity shouldn't have to determine for themselves the validity of priests, Masses, and consecrated hosts. Of course, in normal times the authorities would straighten things out before too long. If a traditionalist priest wants to deny Holy Communion to everyone who attends a Diocesan Latin Mass, I think his reason would need to be that such attendance amounts to heresy or schism, at least presumptively. Thank you for your post. I don't think it's the laity so much determining. I think it is first brought up by the priests. If the laity doesn't agree with the priest, why don't they just go to the other chapel?
|
|
|
Post by Marya Dabrowski on Nov 18, 2016 9:53:21 GMT -5
I just read the article Pacelli posted, "The Right to Receive Communions" by Fr. Cedaka. I recently came across an article written by Fr. Cedaka entitled: "The Grain of Incense". In The Grain of Incense he tries to prove that persons should not attend a Mass "Una Cum". Would he then refuse Communion to persons who were attending a "Una Cum" Mass? (Seems like a lot of hypocrisy going on among Traditional Priests)! Crazy, isn't it? Fr. Cekada has changed his mind on many things. I think you need to find a priest or chapel whom you trust. If you don't notice anything wonky at the Ukranian Mass maybe you will be happy there.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Nov 18, 2016 10:53:16 GMT -5
I think if in normal times some Catholics were receiving invalid sacraments from what they think is a Catholic priest in a Catholic church, other priests who know about the invalidity would not refuse them the sacraments on this account. It should be assumed that such people think they are receiving valid sacraments, absent evidence to the contrary. Even if they are sinfully negligent and should know better, that's not the kind of sin that would justify their being denied communion. Ordinarily the laity shouldn't have to determine for themselves the validity of priests, Masses, and consecrated hosts. Of course, in normal times the authorities would straighten things out before too long. If a traditionalist priest wants to deny Holy Communion to everyone who attends a Diocesan Latin Mass, I think his reason would need to be that such attendance amounts to heresy or schism, at least presumptively. Thank you for your post. I don't think it's the laity so much determining. I think it is first brought up by the priests. If the laity doesn't agree with the priest, why don't they just go to the other chapel? The priests may bring the validity question to people's attention, but people must still form their own opinions about it, as long as no ecclesiastical authority is available to settle the matter. The problem is that most aren't able to investigate it for themselves, so their only practical option is to follow someone who seems trustworthy, such as a traditionalist priest or writer. In the end, such people's opinions on validity depend on who they happened to come in contact with, and who they trust. Of course there is no shortage of mistaken priests in the world, not to mention con artists, and it's easy to misplace one's trust. As far as going to the other chapel, or avoiding the chapel where someone disagrees with the priest, I agree that's a possibility. I don't go to any chapel myself, crazy as that may sound, and I'm still trying to sort through the issue. It sounds to me like Pacelli is only asking that priests who celebrate Masses open to the public follow the standing law of the Church as to who may receive Holy Communion. Not an unreasonable request, right? Then all that's left to debate, once we have read the law, is how it might need to be applied differently in today's extraordinary circumstances. I think traditionalist priests could bypass this whole approach by saying that they are not operating public churches at all, but rather are in effect private clubs where an emergency sacramental ministry is carried on. Under that view, nobody has a right to attend, and the priests can make whatever conditions they see fit in order to promote the common good. I think Fr. Cekada might agree with this. I've read that his church has banned people whom it perceives to be undermining its whole operation in a serious way. If some such people have not disqualified themselves from receiving Holy Communion, then it would follow that Fr. Cekada doesn't consider his church to be obliged to accommodate everyone who has a legal right to receive Communion.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Nov 18, 2016 10:58:25 GMT -5
I just read the article Pacelli posted, "The Right to Receive Communions" by Fr. Cedaka. I recently came across an article written by Fr. Cedaka entitled: "The Grain of Incense". In The Grain of Incense he tries to prove that persons should not attend a Mass "Una Cum". Would he then refuse Communion to persons who were attending a "Una Cum" Mass? (Seems like a lot of hypocrisy going on among Traditional Priests)! Crazy, isn't it? Fr. Cekada has changed his mind on many things. I don't see an incompatibility here. One could say that it's wrong to attend any una cum Mass without saying that all una cum attendees should be refused Communion at a sedevacantist Mass. I thought this was Fr. Cekada's current position, but I don't know for sure.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2016 11:36:36 GMT -5
I just read the article Pacelli posted, "The Right to Receive Communions" by Fr. Cedaka. I recently came across an article written by Fr. Cedaka entitled: "The Grain of Incense". In The Grain of Incense he tries to prove that persons should not attend a Mass "Una Cum". Would he then refuse Communion to persons who were attending a "Una Cum" Mass? (Seems like a lot of hypocrisy going on among Traditional Priests)! Crazy, isn't it? Fr. Cekada has changed his mind on many things. I think you need to find a priest or chapel whom you trust. If you don't notice anything wonky at the Ukranian Mass maybe you will be happy there. Just so we are clear on the matter, I trust my Priest and am very "happy" where I go to Latin Mass. The Priest is 89 yrs old and I know that I will at some point have to go elsewhere as the Diocese will bring in a young NO Priest. I will go to the Ukranian Church at some point in time. As for now the issue is finding out if the Novus Ordo hosts are being mixed in with the Latin Mass Hosts at Communion. If I don't see the Priest to ask him this weekend, I am going to ask to set up an appointment to talk with him regarding this matter.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Nov 18, 2016 16:12:48 GMT -5
Crazy, isn't it? Fr. Cekada has changed his mind on many things. I don't see an incompatibility here. One could say that it's wrong to attend any una cum Mass without saying that all una cum attendees should be refused Communion at a sedevacantist Mass. I thought this was Fr. Cekada's current position, but I don't know for sure. On what Basis could one make that statement?
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Nov 18, 2016 17:25:14 GMT -5
I don't see an incompatibility here. One could say that it's wrong to attend any una cum Mass without saying that all una cum attendees should be refused Communion at a sedevacantist Mass. I thought this was Fr. Cekada's current position, but I don't know for sure. On what Basis could one make that statement? I just meant that there wasn't a contradiction between the two statements. I would rather not say more about the una cum question, at least until after I reply to Pacelli's recent posts.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2016 14:47:14 GMT -5
Upon doing some reading on the Una Cum, I came across an article written by Bp. Sanborn and he states: "When any act is intrinsically wrong, it is always forbidden. It admits no exceptions. In fact, we would have to accept death before poisting the act. An example is abortion." The whole article can be found at the following link: inveritateblog.com/2014/09/03/can-we-go-to-the-una-cum-mass-in-a-pinch/Am I correct in interpreting that Bp. Sanborn is equating attendance at the Una Cum with an abortion? If so, wouldn't that exclude persons who attend an Una Cum from receiving Communion at his Masses? He also states in the above referenced article not to attend Masses at certain chapels that have the Una Cum as well as Indult. The article also cites Fr. Cekada's article entitled: "Should I Assist at a Mass that names Benedict XVI in the Canon?"
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Nov 19, 2016 18:14:57 GMT -5
The laity arent causing the error. Irrelevent
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2016 18:54:28 GMT -5
The laity arent causing the error. Irrelevent Yes, but some of the laity have been "affected" by these errors, haven't they? No disrespect intended - just asking?
|
|
|
Post by Marya Dabrowski on Nov 19, 2016 19:31:59 GMT -5
Crazy, isn't it? Fr. Cekada has changed his mind on many things. I don't see an incompatibility here. One could say that it's wrong to attend any una cum Mass without saying that all una cum attendees should be refused Communion at a sedevacantist Mass. I thought this was Fr. Cekada's current position, but I don't know for sure. Sorry, didn't mean to imply that I equate attending a possible invalid mass with a Mass that has Francis' name in it.
|
|
|
Post by Marya Dabrowski on Nov 19, 2016 19:32:53 GMT -5
Crazy, isn't it? Fr. Cekada has changed his mind on many things. I think you need to find a priest or chapel whom you trust. If you don't notice anything wonky at the Ukranian Mass maybe you will be happy there. Just so we are clear on the matter, I trust my Priest and am very "happy" where I go to Latin Mass. The Priest is 89 yrs old and I know that I will at some point have to go elsewhere as the Diocese will bring in a young NO Priest. I will go to the Ukranian Church at some point in time. As for now the issue is finding out if the Novus Ordo hosts are being mixed in with the Latin Mass Hosts at Communion. If I don't see the Priest to ask him this weekend, I am going to ask to set up an appointment to talk with him regarding this matter. Yes, I just realize at 89 he may not be around too much longer. You sounded like you were very happy with him. Good Luck.
|
|