|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Nov 14, 2016 15:59:42 GMT -5
I have another predicament which I am requesting help with. I don't know if this should be under another thread? I have been told because the Church where I attend the Latin Mass says the Novus Ordo as well as the Latin Mass in the Church, that one shouldn't go there because the Novus Ordo is said in there. My thoughts on the matter has been, as I don't have knowledge on the subject, is that I am not responsible for what goes on in the Church. I have been told that the Novus Ordo has defiled the Church. (?). Also, I have been told that since the pre-Vatican II Priest says the Novus Ordo as well as the Latin Mass that he is, therefore, a heretic, and that by attending Mass said by him, I am, therefore, a heretic. My argument has been, as I don't have knowledge on the matter, is that I am not responsible for what the Priest does when he says the Novus Ordo. That is on him, not me. He is a valid Priest, who has valid faculties and that is what concerns me. Is my thinking ok in these regards or am I off the wall? There is the problem sometimes of the Hosts used in the Latin Mass are "leftovers" from the NO...so yeah that can be a concern.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Nov 14, 2016 16:01:02 GMT -5
BTW no need to start a new thread...this theread is going just the way a good thread should.
|
|
|
Post by Marya Dabrowski on Nov 14, 2016 17:00:22 GMT -5
And worshipping bread is what? I obviously refer to valid Sacraments 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?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Nov 14, 2016 17:12:41 GMT -5
I obviously refer to valid Sacraments 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.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2016 17:37:29 GMT -5
I have another predicament which I am requesting help with. I don't know if this should be under another thread? I have been told because the Church where I attend the Latin Mass says the Novus Ordo as well as the Latin Mass in the Church, that one shouldn't go there because the Novus Ordo is said in there. My thoughts on the matter has been, as I don't have knowledge on the subject, is that I am not responsible for what goes on in the Church. I have been told that the Novus Ordo has defiled the Church. (?). Also, I have been told that since the pre-Vatican II Priest says the Novus Ordo as well as the Latin Mass that he is, therefore, a heretic, and that by attending Mass said by him, I am, therefore, a heretic. My argument has been, as I don't have knowledge on the matter, is that I am not responsible for what the Priest does when he says the Novus Ordo. That is on him, not me. He is a valid Priest, who has valid faculties and that is what concerns me. Is my thinking ok in these regards or am I off the wall? There is the problem sometimes of the Hosts used in the Latin Mass are "leftovers" from the NO...so yeah that can be a concern. Is it common for all Churches to use "leftovers"? If I would accidentally get a "leftover" from the NO, how would partaking of "bread" be harmful to me? It is not like I went to a NO Mass on purpose or was there in attendance at the NO Mass.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 14, 2016 18:34:21 GMT -5
I have another predicament which I am requesting help with. I don't know if this should be under another thread? I have been told because the Church where I attend the Latin Mass says the Novus Ordo as well as the Latin Mass in the Church, that one shouldn't go there because the Novus Ordo is said in there. My thoughts on the matter has been, as I don't have knowledge on the subject, is that I am not responsible for what goes on in the Church. I have been told that the Novus Ordo has defiled the Church. (?). Also, I have been told that since the pre-Vatican II Priest says the Novus Ordo as well as the Latin Mass that he is, therefore, a heretic, and that by attending Mass said by him, I am, therefore, a heretic. My argument has been, as I don't have knowledge on the matter, is that I am not responsible for what the Priest does when he says the Novus Ordo. That is on him, not me. He is a valid Priest, who has valid faculties and that is what concerns me. Is my thinking ok in these regards or am I off the wall? I think the best way to deal with your predicament is to take it step by step and understand the principles involved and then apply them as best as one can. 1. The Paul VI rite is worship that was approved for use in an undeclared sect, that claims to be the Catholic Church, by an undeclared heretic and antipope. 2. It is objectively speaking, the rite of worship of a sect, whether people recognize this fact or not. 3. The question at hand is how the Church treats the rites of sects being used in a church. Does it desecrate or violate the church building? The answer to this question is this: the Church prohibits the use of sectarian rites in churches, but it does not desecrate or violate the church. 4. The validity of this rite is questionable, along with the validity of the holy orders of its bishops and priests, meaning that the sacraments that come from the sect are questionable and cannot be trusted until the Holy See authoritatively settles the matter. If, when you go to mass at this church, the priest uses a ciborium of hosts consecrated at the Novus Ordo, unfortunately, I believe it would not be permissible to receive Holy Communion.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2016 18:44:40 GMT -5
I have another predicament which I am requesting help with. I don't know if this should be under another thread? I have been told because the Church where I attend the Latin Mass says the Novus Ordo as well as the Latin Mass in the Church, that one shouldn't go there because the Novus Ordo is said in there. My thoughts on the matter has been, as I don't have knowledge on the subject, is that I am not responsible for what goes on in the Church. I have been told that the Novus Ordo has defiled the Church. (?). Also, I have been told that since the pre-Vatican II Priest says the Novus Ordo as well as the Latin Mass that he is, therefore, a heretic, and that by attending Mass said by him, I am, therefore, a heretic. My argument has been, as I don't have knowledge on the matter, is that I am not responsible for what the Priest does when he says the Novus Ordo. That is on him, not me. He is a valid Priest, who has valid faculties and that is what concerns me. Is my thinking ok in these regards or am I off the wall? I think the best way to deal with your predicament is to take it step by step and understand the principles involved and then apply them as best as one can. 1. The Paul VI rite is worship that was approved for use in an undeclared sect, that claims to be the Catholic Church, by an undeclared heretic and antipope. 2. It is objectively speaking, the rite of worship of a sect, whether people recognize this fact or not. 3. The question at hand is how the Church treats the rites of sects being used in a church. Does it desecrate or violate the church building? The answer to this question is this: the Church prohibits the use of sectarian rites in churches, but it does not desecrate or violate the church. 4. The validity of this rite is questionable, along with the validity of the holy orders of its bishop and priests, meaning that the sacraments that come from the sect are questionable and cannot be trusted until the Holy See authoritatively settles the matter. If, when you go to mass at this church, the priest uses a ciborium of hosts consecrated at the Novus Ordo, unfortunately, I believe it would not be permissible to receive Holy Communion. Would it be ok to ask if the Priest uses hosts in the Latin Mass that are consecrated at the Novus Ordo? Would it still not be permissible to receive Holy Communion even if the Priest was ordained in the 1950's?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 14, 2016 19:48:42 GMT -5
I think the best way to deal with your predicament is to take it step by step and understand the principles involved and then apply them as best as one can. 1. The Paul VI rite is worship that was approved for use in an undeclared sect, that claims to be the Catholic Church, by an undeclared heretic and antipope. 2. It is objectively speaking, the rite of worship of a sect, whether people recognize this fact or not. 3. The question at hand is how the Church treats the rites of sects being used in a church. Does it desecrate or violate the church building? The answer to this question is this: the Church prohibits the use of sectarian rites in churches, but it does not desecrate or violate the church. 4. The validity of this rite is questionable, along with the validity of the holy orders of its bishop and priests, meaning that the sacraments that come from the sect are questionable and cannot be trusted until the Holy See authoritatively settles the matter. If, when you go to mass at this church, the priest uses a ciborium of hosts consecrated at the Novus Ordo, unfortunately, I believe it would not be permissible to receive Holy Communion. Would it be ok to ask if the Priest uses hosts in the Latin Mass that are consecrated at the Novus Ordo? Would it still not be permissible to receive Holy Communion even if the Priest was ordained in the 1950's? There are two separate issues at play here, one is the validity of a priest, the other is the validity of the Paul VI liturgical rite. In your case, there is no doubt about the priest, but there is a doubt as to the hosts consecrated at the Paul VI rite. A validly ordained priest saying the Novus Ordo is still using a possibly invalid rite, so his valid orders will not ensure a valid sacrament. In your situation, I would urge you to have moral certainty on this matter before going to Communion. You could watch the priest closely if you sit up front, and see if he takes another ciborium out of the tabernacle, you could ask the servers who would most certainly notice, or you could ask the priest directly.
|
|
|
Post by Marya Dabrowski on Nov 14, 2016 20:25:49 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. So the new rites were changed and there is a doubt there about their validity and as we all know, "A doubtful sacrament is no sacrament" so what priest wouldn't advise people to not go there? And I would say worshipping bread is worshipping "other gods" or idol worship. So normally, you know in normal times, what would happen to such a Catholic who was going to a church with a let's say "fake priest" and possibly practicing Idol worship?
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2016 21:12:55 GMT -5
Would it be ok to ask if the Priest uses hosts in the Latin Mass that are consecrated at the Novus Ordo? Would it still not be permissible to receive Holy Communion even if the Priest was ordained in the 1950's? There are two separate issues at play here, one is the validity of a priest, the other is the validity of the Paul VI liturgical rite. In your case, there is no doubt about the priest, but there is a doubt as to the hosts consecrated at the Paul VI rite. A validly ordained priest saying the Novus Ordo is still using a possibly invalid rite, so his valid orders will not ensure a valid sacrament. In your situation, I would urge you to have moral certainty on this matter before going to Communion. You could watch the priest closely if you sit up front, and see if he takes another ciborium out of the tabernacle, you could ask the servers who would most certainly notice, or you could ask the priest directly. What about Independent "Traditional" Priests who were "ordained" post-Vatican II by Bishops who did not have jurisdiction to ordain? They may be saying a Latin Mass, not in Union with Francis, but I don't see how their Holy Communion is not just "bread" as a result of questionable Orders?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 14, 2016 21:28:04 GMT -5
There are two separate issues at play here, one is the validity of a priest, the other is the validity of the Paul VI liturgical rite. In your case, there is no doubt about the priest, but there is a doubt as to the hosts consecrated at the Paul VI rite. A validly ordained priest saying the Novus Ordo is still using a possibly invalid rite, so his valid orders will not ensure a valid sacrament. In your situation, I would urge you to have moral certainty on this matter before going to Communion. You could watch the priest closely if you sit up front, and see if he takes another ciborium out of the tabernacle, you could ask the servers who would most certainly notice, or you could ask the priest directly. What about Independent Priests who were "ordained" post-Vatican II by Bishops who did not have jurisdiction to ordain? They may be saying a Latin Mass, not in Union with Francis, but I don't see how their Holy Communion is not just "bread" as a result of invalid orders? 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.)
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Nov 14, 2016 21:39:46 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. So the new rites were changed and there is a doubt there about their validity and as we all know, "A doubtful sacrament is no sacrament" so what priest wouldn't advise people to not go there? And I would say worshipping bread is worshipping "other gods" or idol worship. So normally, you know in normal times, what would happen to such a Catholic who was going to a church with a let's say "fake priest" and possibly practicing Idol worship? Marya we are talking around each other. Honestly I agree with what yoir sayong I just cant figure out it pertains to my statement.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2016 21:42:33 GMT -5
What about Independent Priests who were "ordained" post-Vatican II by Bishops who did not have jurisdiction to ordain? They may be saying a Latin Mass, not in Union with Francis, but I don't see how their Holy Communion is not just "bread" as a result of invalid orders? 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?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 14, 2016 21:46:21 GMT -5
So the new rites were changed and there is a doubt there about their validity and as we all know, "A doubtful sacrament is no sacrament" so what priest wouldn't advise people to not go there? And I would say worshipping bread is worshipping "other gods" or idol worship. So normally, you know in normal times, what would happen to such a Catholic who was going to a church with a let's say "fake priest" and possibly practicing Idol worship? Marya we are talking around each other. Honestly I agree with what yoir sayong I just cant figure out it pertains to my statement. It seems to me that the point of contention is the term, "advise." It is the duty of all of us in charity to advise those who will hear us go avoid the Novus Ordo rite, and the partaking of sacraments from Paul VI rite ordained priests or those ordained in the Catholic rite by a Paul VI rite consecrated bishops. Where some (many?) go wrong, is that it goes beyond "advise" and is elevated into a command, and in the cases of "traditional" priests carries with it sanctions for non-compliance. This is an (unlawful) act of jurisdiction by binding a Catholic on a unsettled matter.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Nov 14, 2016 21:53:05 GMT -5
My comment was in reference to the SSPV folks denying Veronica sacraments...not in reference telling her to avoid the NO. She should absolutly avoid the NO
|
|