|
Post by Clotilde on Sept 17, 2016 12:35:29 GMT -5
What are the minimum standards for attendance at a chapel? What would make it safe, or rather what is the breaking point which would cause you not to attend a chapel? What are factors in your own life that might change the situation, such as having children?
Example: Your only potential mass location has a liberal priest, you aren't sure if he is a heretic, he messes up minor rubrics and uses words that might reflect inclusive language. He is definitely validly ordained and the liturgy/missal used was/is most assuredly approved by the Church. Do you attend this chapel? Why or why not?
Discuss.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Sept 17, 2016 14:32:25 GMT -5
Well I left my lifelong byzantine Church for the Ukrainian one down the street because of some specific nastiness from prominent parishoners...changing certian words in the liturgy (Mother of God became Theotokos)..anoying people standing during consecration because thats how the "ancient Byzantines did it...and the orthoducks today"....also once at the Ukrainian Church I was given a canting position...(unpaid of course) so I stayed.
|
|
|
Post by Marya Dabrowski on Sept 17, 2016 21:58:29 GMT -5
I'd have to trust the priest. Therefore, any harboring of pedophiles, liasons with women, eye-raising comments about men or boys, obvious or overly effeminate mannerisms, or other various IMO scandals, I wouldn't go.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Sept 18, 2016 8:20:37 GMT -5
Well I left my lifelong byzantine Church for the Ukrainian one down the street because of some specific nastiness from prominent parishoners...changing certian words in the liturgy (Mother of God became Theotokos)..anoying people standing during consecration because thats how the "ancient Byzantines did it...and the orthoducks today"....also once at the Ukrainian Church I was given a canting position...(unpaid of course) so I stayed. I can understand wanting a solid parish with the things we have to handle today and how the overall atmosphere can be a detriment to children, spouses, self, or family members. That is a big item to weigh "Where is this parish/chapel/mass center going, and is it something I can partake in? What is my breaking point?" And what is up with the Theotokos thing? I know what it means and have some idea why it might be used. Is it some backlash against Romanization? I've known ultra liberal and sound Eastern Rite priests, some who use it some who do not, and have not found it to be an indicator of liberalism, though it sounds odd to my ears. Anyhow, would it be fair to say that you look at the overall picture of a parish, and if you sense and observe an unsettling mindset and atmosphere that it could potentially motivate you to find a different place for the sacraments? Or would you continue to go there alone and not recommend it to others?
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Sept 18, 2016 8:37:28 GMT -5
I'd have to trust the priest. Therefore, any harboring of pedophiles, liasons with women, eye-raising comments about men or boys, obvious or overly effeminate mannerisms, or other various IMO scandals, I wouldn't go. This is big. Ten years ago, I would have said we never had these problems in the traditional world. Given a recent event and knowing a few other situations, we actually do have to consider these issues. Any characteristic that sets off my alarm bell, like those you mentioned, I tend to flee from. I would probably add that an unusual fixation on women, in the negative sense, is also one of those symptoms that would cause me to stay away. To summarize what you are saying, the priest must have certain standards of moral behavior (which should be obvious, but it is not these days). You need to be certain that you are placing yourself and your family in good hands. If you cannot rest easy knowing you and others are safe from certain types of immorality, that is the point where you might withdraw from a chapel. Now, what if the priest is manipulative and calculating? What if he interjects his opinions into your home life and your spouse or your children begin to take a disordered view on something? What if the priest gets caught up in the bickering of laymen? What if a priest uses the sacraments as leverage against anyone who disagrees with him or does not comply to his will? What if it happens to someone else, not you? Besides morality surrounding Commandments 6 and 9, what if the priest is of bad character in other ways? You ou don't have to answer if you do not wish. I'm just asking questions to get some thought-provoking discussion going.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Sept 18, 2016 8:42:01 GMT -5
We have two points so far: 1. Morality issues surrounding priests, which can cause distrust and scandal 2. The big picture of a mass location, what is the overall "health" of a chapel
Anyone else care to comment?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Sept 18, 2016 10:38:03 GMT -5
Well I left my lifelong byzantine Church for the Ukrainian one down the street because of some specific nastiness from prominent parishoners...changing certian words in the liturgy (Mother of God became Theotokos)..anoying people standing during consecration because thats how the "ancient Byzantines did it...and the orthoducks today"....also once at the Ukrainian Church I was given a canting position...(unpaid of course) so I stayed. I can understand wanting a solid parish with the things we have to handle today and how the overall atmosphere can be a detriment to children, spouses, self, or family members. That is a big item to weigh "Where is this parish/chapel/mass center going, and is it something I can partake in? What is my breaking point?" And what is up with the Theotokos thing? I know what it means and have some idea why it might be used. Is it some backlash against Romanization? I've known ultra liberal and sound Eastern Rite priests, some who use it some who do not, and have not found it to be an indicator of liberalism, though it sounds odd to my ears. Anyhow, would it be fair to say that you look at the overall picture of a parish, and if you sense and observe an unsettling mindset and atmosphere that it could potentially motivate you to find a different place for the sacraments? Or would you continue to go there alone and not recommend it to others? I really think that the Parish your at must have a general atmosphere of Charity to all members ... that is my bottom line (Assuming of course the rest is solid Catholic)..If you come to Church and feel inferior or judged as a general atmosphere then your edification will suffer...and the Point of Mass is to not only save us but also equip us to remain strong in grace in this wicked wicked world. The Mass must be the ONE place at least where the true freedom of Christ exists...where as we sing in the DL we can truly " SET ASIDE ALL EARTHLY CARES" if the Parish is all, busy, worldly, judgmental, fractious, insular and clique filled...time to go. As for the Theotokos thing...it was the way it was done heavy handed without any discussion. And there is a distinction...a wholly human nature one...between "God Bearer"...and MOTHER of God...the distinction being that when life has you down...fearfull...distressed...hurt...one looks to embrace your MOTHER...not your TOKOS...but that was a personal thing for me and I dont think it at all says anything bad about the Priest who Uses the title...especially now that they are ordered by rightful authority to do so...even if the motives behind the original changes were to embrace the schismatics more.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 18, 2016 11:56:31 GMT -5
For myself, I would distinguish between a place to attend Mass and a place to go to confession. I am basing my answer strictly on a place to go to mass and for the eastern Catholics on here, a place to go to the Divine Liturgy.
1. Be certain of the validity of the priest. This is a major problem for Roman Rite Catholics, but is not a problem for eastern rite Catholics with a very rare exception, the only one being a Paul VI ordained Roman Rite priest transferring to an eastern rite. For this reason alone, I would not go to "traditional" groups in full submission to the antipope, (Fraternity of St. Peter, Order of Christ the King, etc.)
2. The liturgical rite has not been significantly tampered with to make it impious or invalid.
3. Moral certainty that the priest is a Catholic, and has not defected into heresy.
4. That the chapel in question is not sectarian/schismatic in fact or in spirit.
5. The chapel must be a place that is not a scandal, especially in regards to children.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Sept 18, 2016 13:17:26 GMT -5
For myself, I would distinguish between a place to attend Mass and a place to go to confession. I am basing my answer strictly on a place to go to mass and for the eastern Catholics on here, a place to go to the Divine Liturgy. 1. Be certain of the validity of the priest. This is a major problem for Roman Rite Catholics, but is not a problem for eastern rite Catholics with a very rare exception, the only one being a Paul VI ordained Roman Rite priest transferring to an eastern rite. For this reason alone, I would not go to "traditional" groups in full submission to the antipope, (Fraternity of St. Peter, Order of Christ the King, etc.) 2. The liturgical rite has not been significantly tampered with to make it impious or invalid. 3. Moral certainty that the priest is a Catholic, and has not defected into heresy. 4. That the chapel in question is not sectarian/schismatic in fact or in spirit. 5. The chapel must be a place that is not a scandal, especially in regards to children. Your #1 is probably the first and formost thought for most Catholics. I don't know what the majority of tradiotnal-minded Cathilics hold as far as the validity of the new rites, but it would seem that the view across the board is to avoid the FSSP and ICK for these reasons, even from sedeplenists. I would say that is a major factor from every direction of this mess. On #2, this is a disputed are amongst Catholics. I would say the majority of those who have just taken the mainline traditionalist opinions in good faith are more likely to get into a tizzy over the wrong minor rubric or bells, get upset and potentially leave. On the other hand, there is also a set of people who have grown up in traditionalism or who hold very strongly to the ideas and ways of their chapel who build and entire church up around their experience. Another would be a third set, who like the first accept traditionalist ideas, and though they do much more research, it is generally to support their own ideas and to support their concept of the Church and her liturgy. This third set is likely to understand that things are lawful but at the same time make them deal breakers--- the rejection of the 1962 missal, acting like a dialogue mass is not allowed, The Holy Week reforms of Pius XII, and so on. I do not think there has ever been much discussion online, that I have read, regarding the bottom line regarding the liturgy, even what theoretically could be allowed by lawful authority so this is a broad and interesting topic. Point #3 is pretty obvious but what if there is absolutely no other option and what if the priest is a heretic in some areas, but definitely not with regards to the sacraments? What if there are no other options? What if you don't have children or a spouse? What if you are just a single person willing to tough it out for the sacraments? I think your points 4 and 5 overlap what has been said by both Vox and Maraya, and what I summarized above. I think we have some bottom line for the behavior of all things concerning a chapel and any priests at said chapel. That is actually pretty good. If more people thought about these standards they could greatly help their fellow Catholics by holding themselves and priests to such standards. I think sometimes we might look the other way when what we really need to do is upset the status quo a little to keep things honest and from slipping into what we wish to avoid. I would be interested in hearing your take on point #2, particularly with regards to what is lawful and what could be tolerated, even if it was not allowed previously, due to the circumstances we find ourselves living under. I think that it is critical to know these points because we recognize the true problems with the Novus Ordo but also it is useful in thinking about the future and what it might take to restore the Church yet keep generations of souls who have been unwittingly duped.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 18, 2016 23:11:37 GMT -5
Clotilde wrote:
If a Catholic logically applies the correct principles, the confusion over this issue clears up. Any practice or modification approved by a legitimate Pope cannot be evil or harmful to souls. It is our duty as Catholics to trust the Pope's judgment and not our own opinion.
The "dialogue mass" was approved and even used by Pope Benedict XV and Pius XI and further supported by Pius XII. It is our duty to trust the Popes and not speak against what they have permitted.
The same principle applies to the Holy Week reforms and other liturgical laws approved by Pius XII in the 1950's.
Regarding John XXIII, as much as he may have been a liberal, he was not a public heretic, and there has never been a good argument presented that he lost his office due to public heresy. John XXIII was universally recognized as Pope, and he had never publicly defected making his Pontificate a dogmatic fact. From this fact, we can be certain that his laws are safe and cannot be harmful to souls, and this includes the 1962 missal.
There is only one office created by God that has the power to govern the Church, to bind and to loosen the laws of the universal Church, and that is St. Peter and his successors. The Church is not a democracy, in which priests and laypeople are free to veto the Pope's laws, refuse to obey them, and openly dissent with contrary opinions.
Any open dissent against papal laws is at a minimum a form of liberalism, placing the individual over the God given authority. This attitude and mentality was strongly condemned by Pope St. Pius X who explicitly stated that there is no holiness when there is dissent from the Pope.
More later.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 19, 2016 13:03:41 GMT -5
Clotilde wrote: Well, you are highlighting the fact that this situation is complex and there are no simple answers. It is permissible to receive the sacraments from an undeclared heretic, but one cannot be ignorant of the dangers involved in doing this. It is very likely that the heretic will try to impose his heretical ideas on the Catholics who are going to him. This is especially relevant for parents with children. Heretics, in their defiance to authority, have a "mark" on them, and that is a perverse pride, a trust of their own judgment and a refusal to learn from the Church in the way the Church wishes her children to learn. Heretics are like the contagiously diseased, with the exception that they often try to infect others, as they are full of themselves, with an arrogance and pride that energizes them to promote their new "truth" and bring others to think as they do. Some do this very overtly and openly, others through guile. In every case, however, they are a danger to Catholics. The Church regards the reception of the sacraments of such a high importance that a Catholic for a good reason could approach an undeclared heretic if necessary. So, in this case, it is important to weigh out the risks in dealing with the heretic, such as how aggressive he is in promoting his heresy, are you exposing your children to him, and how much you are able to just go to his mass/other sacraments and be left alone by him otherwise. A few points to consider: I think it is good to be very cautious in making any determination against any other Catholic on the charge of heresy. The person may be a liberal but still believe the Faith, for example. The person may hold a lessor error, but not heresy, so the danger may be less. Lastly, the person may only be materially in heresy, not aware of the conflict between his idea and the teaching of the Church.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 19, 2016 22:56:57 GMT -5
Clotilde wrote:
Well, I think some of this ground was covered in the previous posts, but I will add a few points.
1. I think Catholics should try their best to receive the sacraments unless they are forced by a greater good (avoiding schism, heresy, and grave scandal) to avoid them.
2. Catholics do not have to request the sacraments from priests under censure, but may, in prudence, wish to do so.
3. Roman rite Catholics should be open to receiving the sacraments from eastern Catholic priests during this crisis, but must exercise prudence in applying the principles enunciated above.
Practically speaking, for example, for myself, I believe pernicious and aggressive heretics, even undeclared should be avoided. The same can be said of usurpers, who advocate schism by practically, or also in reality, usurping the God given power of the hierarchy.
In my opinion, parents must apply these principles with a greater rigor as they must protect their children who may be more vulnerable to wolves as their minds are unformed and not well educated to defend themselves.
|
|
|
Post by mithrandylan on Sept 27, 2016 17:17:13 GMT -5
For myself, I would distinguish between a place to attend Mass and a place to go to confession. I am basing my answer strictly on a place to go to mass and for the eastern Catholics on here, a place to go to the Divine Liturgy. 1. Be certain of the validity of the priest. This is a major problem for Roman Rite Catholics, but is not a problem for eastern rite Catholics with a very rare exception, the only one being a Paul VI ordained Roman Rite priest transferring to an eastern rite. For this reason alone, I would not go to "traditional" groups in full submission to the antipope, (Fraternity of St. Peter, Order of Christ the King, etc.) 2. The liturgical rite has not been significantly tampered with to make it impious or invalid. 3. Moral certainty that the priest is a Catholic, and has not defected into heresy. 4. That the chapel in question is not sectarian/schismatic in fact or in spirit. 5. The chapel must be a place that is not a scandal, especially in regards to children. Hard to argue with this list. About number 4, can you elaborate about schismatic "in spirit?" I know what group you're referring to. Say you were attending the chapel of a priest who belonged to that group, but didn't enforce their "bulletin policies"? (i.e., he didn't announce "the rules" from the pulpit, "strangers" were not subject to an inquisition, etc.).
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 28, 2016 14:19:29 GMT -5
For myself, I would distinguish between a place to attend Mass and a place to go to confession. I am basing my answer strictly on a place to go to mass and for the eastern Catholics on here, a place to go to the Divine Liturgy. 1. Be certain of the validity of the priest. This is a major problem for Roman Rite Catholics, but is not a problem for eastern rite Catholics with a very rare exception, the only one being a Paul VI ordained Roman Rite priest transferring to an eastern rite. For this reason alone, I would not go to "traditional" groups in full submission to the antipope, (Fraternity of St. Peter, Order of Christ the King, etc.) 2. The liturgical rite has not been significantly tampered with to make it impious or invalid. 3. Moral certainty that the priest is a Catholic, and has not defected into heresy. 4. That the chapel in question is not sectarian/schismatic in fact or in spirit. 5. The chapel must be a place that is not a scandal, especially in regards to children. Hard to argue with this list. About number 4, can you elaborate about schismatic "in spirit?" I know what group you're referring to. Say you were attending the chapel of a priest who belonged to that group, but didn't enforce their "bulletin policies"? (i.e., he didn't announce "the rules" from the pulpit, "strangers" were not subject to an inquisition, etc.). I think it is good for Catholics to have their "radar" on during this crisis. For example, the good Catholics who went to CMRI under Schuckardt were not being careful, and were accepting him as an authority. Catholics need to grasp that these bishops and priests are not their pastors, and can never get overly comfortabe with them, as they have no commision or supervision from the Church. What happened to CMRI during that period could easily happen again in other groups or chapels. Be careful of any "traditional" group or priest who presents itself/himself as an authority. Be careful if the priest identifies himself as a "pastor," or the mass location as a "church." Be careful if you are told that you cannot exercise your rights under canon law and attend other chapels/rites/priests. Be careful if people at the chapel, even if it is not you, are being denied holy communion for reasons not specifically described in the Code. These things are obviously not in and of themselves schismatic, but they are warning signs to be careful, as they have a spirit of schism. If you chose to go to such a place, I would urge additional caution.
|
|