|
Post by Didymus on Aug 8, 2023 13:23:39 GMT -5
Hello everyone, I ask this question in case someone has read a theologian about this:
Context: I have a one person adult who has been a practicing Catholic since he was a child since the time of Pius XII, but since most Catholics were deceived by the sect of which he is a practicing Catholic today (he plays guitar in Novus Ordo Missae ceremonies with the parish priest), He is a person who lives righteously, unfortunately his confessions have been made in modernism and priests ordained under the rite of Paul VI, therefore there is a possibility that they are invalid. In one instance this person agreed to attend a holy hour at the SSPX with me after the Holy Mass, but I told him no since a scrupulous thought came to me about whether I am participating in sending a person to receive communion that perhaps his sins have not been absolved by a true and valid priest and I could commit an act of sacrilege and I a mortal sin, but I also thought the opposite pole. Am I not denying you the grace to receive Communion validly perhaps after a long time? however given that the situation is complex I like to read your comments and opinions about it, the best thing that could happen is to persuade this person to confess to a priest of the SSPX and then accompany me to a mass, this is certainly very difficult since ¿how do you explain to an older person that they must make a general confession when they have already confessed in the novus ordo many times or for years without raising suspicions or doubts?? Since he is not a person prepared to understand all this theological mess and the crisis, he is a simple and sincerely person who only wants to live according to the Law of God and be Catholic.
Questions :
1) Do you think I should persuade him to accompany me to an SSPX mass without making a confession?
2) Would you be contributing to something illegal, or to some serious offense (sin) by encouraging a deceived Catholic to commune with an SSPX priest with past sins that perhaps have not received a valid or at least dubious absolution?
3) In the best case that this person agreed to confess an actual venial sin, for example, the valid absolution of the Catholic priest also absolves all confessed sins made before an invalidly ordained priest, whom the penitent believed in good faith to be was he a validly ordained Catholic priest? Would this be enough to commune?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 8, 2023 18:59:46 GMT -5
I have been thinking a lot on this, and I think the safer course, considering that we do not know if the Conciliar priests are validly ordained is to try to encourage your grandfather to make a general confession of his sins of his life to the SSPX priest. I think this would be the safest option, and hopefully he would be receptive to that.
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Aug 8, 2023 20:18:40 GMT -5
I think he is not receptive to that, it is a last option to try, so consider inviting him to a Mass of the FSSPX at the time.
|
|
|
Post by sdwright on Aug 9, 2023 6:23:19 GMT -5
I have been thinking a lot on this, and I think the safer course, considering that we do not know if the Conciliar priests are validly ordained is to try to encourage your grandfather to make a general confession of his sins of his life to the SSPX priest. I think this would be the safest option, and hopefully he would be receptive to that. This is indeed the course of action that several of us have made, and would make again too. However, I'm not sure that it can be binding in anyway. Here are some reasons. 1. Subjectively, when thinking about this years ago, I asked priests of a few different stripes. None of them thought it was necessary or binding, even if it might be a good thing to do. Indeed, one pointed out that such a course of action has never been the norm since V2. 2. Consciousness of mortal sin (and certain mortal sin) is what is needed to prevent someone going to Holy Communion (all other things being equal). Is it not a standard view that one who receives Holy Communion in good faith, believing himself sincerely to be in a state of grace, has his sins remitted by this act? Take a similar, though not identical case. In the short English book, Prummer writes of when a priest is obliged to repeat the sacrament after an error causing invalidity: 699. ... A confessor who forgets to absolve any other penitent who has duly confessed his sins has a serious obligation to correct his omission, but not if this would cause him grave inconvenience, because in normal circumstances such a penitent would not incur such great harm from not receiving absolution, since he obtains the state of grace - if he does not already possess it - probably in his next Holy Communion, certainly in his next confession. Cf. the author's Man. Theol. mor. III, 440.3. McHugh and Callan write the following: 2744. Completion or Repetition of Past Incomplete Confessions.—(a) Completion of past confessions must be made when they lacked material integrity, if the impossibility has ceased.(b) Particular repetition is necessary when a confession lacked formal integrity or other essential; that is, if a sin was unlawfully concealed or unrepented of in confession, the sacrilege must be confessed and the previous confession made over, since it was invalid. But if the new confession is made to the same confessor and he has a general remembrance of it, the new confession may be made summarily.(c) General repetition is necessary when several past confessions were certainly invalid on account of lack of formal integrity or other defect. Thus, he who has made bad confessions for three months must make a general confession of that period of time. General confession is advisable when there is a prudent doubt about the worth of past confessions; it is permissible when it will help a penitent to be more contrite and lead a better life; it is not lawful when it will do harm, as when a scrupulous penitent will be harrowed and maddened by the thought of his past sins.So, three points from this. - No matter how certain someone might be of invalidity of Holy Orders, the real lie of the land would be doubtfulness. But this excludes them being *certainly* invalid. One reason is that the sins that would need to be confessed would be optional matter, given that their status under the keys is doubtful. - General confession is advisable, as we all agree I think, when there is a prudent doubt - but given the next point, this does not apply to everyone in our milieu. - It is not even lawful when it will be harmful - not just for scruples, but also perhaps for scandal. People dipping their toes into this world should be encouraged and not scandalised away, and I propose that this could do just that for many. This is especially a very heavy burden to lay on the back of an older person - we need to make sure we have *certainty* before doing such things. A late convert - yes. A pious conservative coming to the traditional Mass - I would not. Some more from McHugh and Callan of interest: 2682. Repetition of a Sacrament on Account of Invalid Administration.—(a) This is unlawful when the fear of invalidity is groundless and foolish; for it is seriously disrespectful to a Sacrament and disedifying to others to repeat the rite without reason. But scrupulous persons are sometimes free of grave sin, since they mean well in repeating and are not accountable for their fears.
(b) This is lawful but not obligatory when there is a prudent misgiving about a useful Sacrament (Confirmation, Matrimony, anointing of one who is conscious); also when there is a slight reason of law or fact for fear about a necessary or more important Sacrament (Baptism, Orders, absolution of a dying person, anointing of an unconscious person, consecration of the Eucharist). For the Sacraments are for men. But if only a small loss or an unlikely loss will be caused by their non-repetition, the duty of repeating them cannot be insisted on.
(c) This is gravely obligatory when there is a prudent fear about a necessary or more important Sacrament; it is gravely or lightly obligatory (to be determined in each case) when there is a well-founded fear about a useful Sacrament, if charity, justice or religion calls for repetition and the inconvenience will not be too great. In Matrimony the alternate methods of convalidation or sanation may be used as the case demands. Again, the Sacraments are for men, and hence, if man will likely be subjected to a notable loss by the minister’s neglect of repetition, the duty of repetition is clear.
So, all in all, in my opinion - a random unknown person on the internet: 1) Do you think I should persuade him to accompany me to an SSPX mass without making a confession? I do not think that you need to enforce pious Novus Ordo attendees into confession before receiving the Holy Communion from certainly valid priests.2) Would you be contributing to something illegal, or to some serious offense (sin) by encouraging a deceived Catholic to commune with an SSPX priest with past sins that perhaps have not received a valid or at least dubious absolution? I do not think so, if the person is otherwise of the opinion that he has been leading a regular Catholic life with regular reception of the sacraments.3) In the best case that this person agreed to confess an actual venial sin, for example, the valid absolution of the Catholic priest also absolves all confessed sins made before an invalidly ordained priest, whom the penitent believed in good faith to be was he a validly ordained Catholic priest? Would this be enough to commune? Yes, I think so.All that said, I repeat that it's a good thing to do for oneself, and perhaps to discuss with those whom one prudently thinks would be receptive to it. There we are, for whatever it's worth.
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Aug 9, 2023 22:58:33 GMT -5
I have been thinking a lot on this, and I think the safer course, considering that we do not know if the Conciliar priests are validly ordained is to try to encourage your grandfather to make a general confession of his sins of his life to the SSPX priest. I think this would be the safest option, and hopefully he would be receptive to that. This is indeed the course of action that several of us have made, and would make again too. However, I'm not sure that it can be binding in anyway. Here are some reasons. 1. Subjectively, when thinking about this years ago, I asked priests of a few different stripes. None of them thought it was necessary or binding, even if it might be a good thing to do. Indeed, one pointed out that such a course of action has never been the norm since V2. 2. Consciousness of mortal sin (and certain mortal sin) is what is needed to prevent someone going to Holy Communion (all other things being equal). Is it not a standard view that one who receives Holy Communion in good faith, believing himself sincerely to be in a state of grace, has his sins remitted by this act? Take a similar, though not identical case. In the short English book, Prummer writes of when a priest is obliged to repeat the sacrament after an error causing invalidity: 699. ... A confessor who forgets to absolve any other penitent who has duly confessed his sins has a serious obligation to correct his omission, but not if this would cause him grave inconvenience, because in normal circumstances such a penitent would not incur such great harm from not receiving absolution, since he obtains the state of grace - if he does not already possess it - probably in his next Holy Communion, certainly in his next confession. Cf. the author's Man. Theol. mor. III, 440.3. McHugh and Callan write the following: 2744. Completion or Repetition of Past Incomplete Confessions.—(a) Completion of past confessions must be made when they lacked material integrity, if the impossibility has ceased.(b) Particular repetition is necessary when a confession lacked formal integrity or other essential; that is, if a sin was unlawfully concealed or unrepented of in confession, the sacrilege must be confessed and the previous confession made over, since it was invalid. But if the new confession is made to the same confessor and he has a general remembrance of it, the new confession may be made summarily.(c) General repetition is necessary when several past confessions were certainly invalid on account of lack of formal integrity or other defect. Thus, he who has made bad confessions for three months must make a general confession of that period of time. General confession is advisable when there is a prudent doubt about the worth of past confessions; it is permissible when it will help a penitent to be more contrite and lead a better life; it is not lawful when it will do harm, as when a scrupulous penitent will be harrowed and maddened by the thought of his past sins.So, three points from this. - No matter how certain someone might be of invalidity of Holy Orders, the real lie of the land would be doubtfulness. But this excludes them being *certainly* invalid. One reason is that the sins that would need to be confessed would be optional matter, given that their status under the keys is doubtful. - General confession is advisable, as we all agree I think, when there is a prudent doubt - but given the next point, this does not apply to everyone in our milieu. - It is not even lawful when it will be harmful - not just for scruples, but also perhaps for scandal. People dipping their toes into this world should be encouraged and not scandalised away, and I propose that this could do just that for many. This is especially a very heavy burden to lay on the back of an older person - we need to make sure we have *certainty* before doing such things. A late convert - yes. A pious conservative coming to the traditional Mass - I would not. Some more from McHugh and Callan of interest: 2682. Repetition of a Sacrament on Account of Invalid Administration.—(a) This is unlawful when the fear of invalidity is groundless and foolish; for it is seriously disrespectful to a Sacrament and disedifying to others to repeat the rite without reason. But scrupulous persons are sometimes free of grave sin, since they mean well in repeating and are not accountable for their fears.
(b) This is lawful but not obligatory when there is a prudent misgiving about a useful Sacrament (Confirmation, Matrimony, anointing of one who is conscious); also when there is a slight reason of law or fact for fear about a necessary or more important Sacrament (Baptism, Orders, absolution of a dying person, anointing of an unconscious person, consecration of the Eucharist). For the Sacraments are for men. But if only a small loss or an unlikely loss will be caused by their non-repetition, the duty of repeating them cannot be insisted on.
(c) This is gravely obligatory when there is a prudent fear about a necessary or more important Sacrament; it is gravely or lightly obligatory (to be determined in each case) when there is a well-founded fear about a useful Sacrament, if charity, justice or religion calls for repetition and the inconvenience will not be too great. In Matrimony the alternate methods of convalidation or sanation may be used as the case demands. Again, the Sacraments are for men, and hence, if man will likely be subjected to a notable loss by the minister’s neglect of repetition, the duty of repetition is clear.
So, all in all, in my opinion - a random unknown person on the internet: 1) Do you think I should persuade him to accompany me to an SSPX mass without making a confession? I do not think that you need to enforce pious Novus Ordo attendees into confession before receiving the Holy Communion from certainly valid priests.2) Would you be contributing to something illegal, or to some serious offense (sin) by encouraging a deceived Catholic to commune with an SSPX priest with past sins that perhaps have not received a valid or at least dubious absolution? I do not think so, if the person is otherwise of the opinion that he has been leading a regular Catholic life with regular reception of the sacraments.3) In the best case that this person agreed to confess an actual venial sin, for example, the valid absolution of the Catholic priest also absolves all confessed sins made before an invalidly ordained priest, whom the penitent believed in good faith to be was he a validly ordained Catholic priest? Would this be enough to commune? Yes, I think so.All that said, I repeat that it's a good thing to do for oneself, and perhaps to discuss with those whom one prudently thinks would be receptive to it. There we are, for whatever it's worth. Thank you very much for your replies Pacelli and SDRight, I appreciate it very much, I am considering inviting my grandfather to the FSPPX for a mass, I think he will not accept confession as I feel that due to the modernist propaganda he is a bit suspicious of Mons Lefebvre's group, so I think it is most prudent for him to attend without confession at first, although I will try to persuade him to at least confess his actual sins. I also have a question, unfortunately my grandfather comes from a father who was Orthodox and a Catholic mother, once when he was a child or youth he took communion with the Orthodox as his father was an Eastern Orthodox , but he told me that a Catholic priest told him that this was wrong etc, he seems to indicate having resolved this issue in the past. However given the religious indifferentism of Vatican II, and given that he is a very practicing Catholic in his modernist parish , he has been influenced by this thought of religious freedom , but he is a simple person without theological knowledge and so on, he has the error and believes in that the Orthodox believe the same as we do for example , but he is moved by the heart and a tolerance towards people rather than by a reasonable theological foundation I consider it is the fact of "respecting" others rather than adhering to a theological schism or something like that, maybe a liberalism or also out of ignorance he falls into excecive goodisms. Does this error amount to explicit heresy to avoid communion or take it to the FSSPX for example?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 10, 2023 16:21:06 GMT -5
Didymus wrote:
You're welcome.
From your description it sounds like he doesn't understand the matter. In order to be guilty of heresy, one must understand the conflict between the proposition he holds on one hand and the opposing teaching of the Church on the other.
Many people, at least among the laity, in our times, do not grasp these matters sufficiently enough, at least on many points of Church teaching, to be guilty of heresy. The teaching on communicatio in sacris is a more complicated matter, and more easy to be misunderstood, especially when the men thought to be the lawful pastors of the Church, up to and including the "pope" allow this practice, and even encourage it. How many Catholics will be able to make the distinction that this discipline is unchangeable as it is grounded in the Faith itself, as opposed to being a changeable discipline which the Pope can modify?
I think your description of your grandfather answers your own question: "but he is a simple person without theological knowledge and so on," and "but he is moved by the heart and a tolerance towards people rather than by a reasonable theological foundation I consider it is the fact of "respecting" others rather than adhering to a theological schism or something like that, maybe a liberalism or also out of ignorance..."
|
|