Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2016 17:56:05 GMT -5
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. Thanks Pacelli! Question: The Church I go to has Latin Mass a few days during the week as well as on Sundays. During the week there are only a handful of people that attend. Would it be better if I went when the attendance was very small? In that event would it be less likely to receive a NO host during Communion than going on Sundays when the place is packed? Also, I think I have seen the Priest open the tabernacle, but at which point I'm unsure. Some Sundays when the crowd is real big he has a younger Priest help him distribute Communion. So then there are 2 vessels being used during the distribution of Communion.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2016 19:37:38 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 Just so we are clear, I haven't attended the NO in years. I attend a Church that says the NO as well as the Latin Mass with a pre-Vatican II Priest. While the Church is Una Cum with Francis, that does not mean that everyone that attends is in union with Francis just because they say the Una Cum. As Traditionalists we are urged to check Priests for valid orders on a case by case basis. I believe that Independent Traditional churches who refuse people Communion just based on their attending a Una Cum Mass is not right. Why don't these Churches and Priests take the time to ask the people, who they are refusing Communion to, their circumstances on a case by case basis instead of issuing an out right blanket denial when they do not know the persons particular situation. In my unlearned opinion they are usuruping their authority as well as causing confusion and scaring people half to death. I have been told by a lot of people during my couple of years back to the Roman Catholic Church that it was a sin, heretical, etc. to attend a Una Cum Mass. While this never made sense to me personally as I still attended at the Church I currently go to as well as attending the Ukranian Church. However, I did have an uneasy feeling regarding the Una Cum issue every time I went to Church as I did not possess knowledge on the subject and was only leaning on my common sense to guide me. Being told I could not receive Holy Communion at an independent chapel because of their blanket stance on the Una Cum issue really had me reeling and, I must admit, scared, as it was coming from a church and not just a layperson. However, all things have worked out for the best. Live and LEARN!!
|
|
|
Post by Marya Dabrowski on Nov 16, 2016 17:33:29 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'm not saying for sure the new rites are invalid but there is a doubt there, and a doubtful sacrament is no sacrament. 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.) People who are upset about the SSPV's policies aren't coming straight from the NO and I doubt they'd end up there. They are usually fresh sedevacantists who are upset about not being allowed to go to Thuc-line priests. SSPV doesn't have a problem with going to the sspx. If someone has been warned not to go to such and such chapel because of such and such reason, how can they claim they have no idea? If they don't know the reasons, go to the priest and ask him. If they persist because they feel they are right then they should stop going to that priest's chapel. You will agree that in normal times priests wouldn't have to deal with this? Priests have more to answer to God than laypersons.
|
|
|
Post by Marya Dabrowski on Nov 16, 2016 17:37:21 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. What if you look at it from the other direction? A layperson is demanding that a priest go against his conscience on an unsettled matter. Which one is the shepherd?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 16, 2016 20:30:37 GMT -5
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. What if you look at it from the other direction? A layperson is demanding that a priest go against his conscience on an unsettled matter. Which one is the shepherd? Neither are shepherds. The Shepherds are those with jurisdiction, that have the power to make authoritative judgments and then act upon such judgments using the authority of their office. A priest is governed by Canon law, not his own judgments. He must obey the law, and is not free to ignore or re-interpret it to suit his theological positions. It's true that he must sometimes makes judgments, but they must exist in the confines of the law. Have you ever noticed that all of these problems of denying Holy Communion are all found with "traditional" priests and are not found among the priests trained and commissioned by the Church?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 16, 2016 20:36:42 GMT -5
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. Thanks Pacelli! Question: The Church I go to has Latin Mass a few days during the week as well as on Sundays. During the week there are only a handful of people that attend. Would it be better if I went when the attendance was very small? In that event would it be less likely to receive a NO host during Communion than going on Sundays when the place is packed? Also, I think I have seen the Priest open the tabernacle, but at which point I'm unsure. Some Sundays when the crowd is real big he has a younger Priest help him distribute Communion. So then there are 2 vessels being used during the distribution of Communion. The best advice I can give you is to be certain of sacramental validity in every case. You are right that a priest will almost always consecrate enough hosts for the few people at daily mass, so this would be a better option. Regarding the Sundays, I wouldn't receive unless I was sure it was a host consecrated at that mass. If I could not be sure, I wouldn't receive. It might be better to just go to the Ukrainian rite on Sundays, you will not have to deal with these problems as they have a certainly valid priesthood and from that there is no doubt about their sacraments.
|
|
|
Post by Marya Dabrowski on Nov 16, 2016 21:16:57 GMT -5
What if you look at it from the other direction? A layperson is demanding that a priest go against his conscience on an unsettled matter. Which one is the shepherd? Neither are shepherds. The Shepherds are those with jurisdiction, that have the power to make authoritative judgments and then act upon such judgments using the authority of their office. A priest is governed by Canon law, not his own judgments. He must obey the law, and is not free to ignore or re-interpret it to suit his theological positions. It's true that he must sometimes makes judgments, but they must exist in the confines of the law. Have you ever noticed that all of these problems of denying Holy Communion are all found with "traditional" priests and are not found among the priests trained and commissioned by the Church? But the point:---What if you look at it from the other direction? A layperson is demanding that a priest go against his conscience on an unsettled matter. Of course these problems are in the "traditional" priests. A. Novus Ordo priests don't care who comes to the communion rail as long as they don't knee, want to receive on the tongue or wear a veil and B. "traditional" priests don't have a hierarchy to go to, before VII these matters were settled quickly, most likely. I don't know anything about the Eastern rites besides that one man I know stopped going to the Ukranian church when he found they were using grape juice because the priest "needed to" but that was many years ago. I only know of one person now who goes to the Byzantine (besides Voxx) and his family is all NO. Would eastern rites appeal to the present hierarchy to determine who can receive? What would they possibly say about people who attend the tridentine mass?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 16, 2016 22:14:50 GMT -5
Neither are shepherds. The Shepherds are those with jurisdiction, that have the power to make authoritative judgments and then act upon such judgments using the authority of their office. A priest is governed by Canon law, not his own judgments. He must obey the law, and is not free to ignore or re-interpret it to suit his theological positions. It's true that he must sometimes makes judgments, but they must exist in the confines of the law. Have you ever noticed that all of these problems of denying Holy Communion are all found with "traditional" priests and are not found among the priests trained and commissioned by the Church? But the point:---What if you look at it from the other direction? A layperson is demanding that a priest go against his conscience on an unsettled matter. Of course these problems are in the "traditional" priests. A. Novus Ordo priests don't care who comes to the communion rail as long as they don't knee, want to receive on the tongue or wear a veil and B. "traditional" priests don't have a hierarchy to go to, before VII these matters were settled quickly, most likely. I don't know anything about the Eastern rites besides that one man I know stopped going to the Ukranian church when he found they were using grape juice because the priest "needed to" but that was many years ago. I only know of one person now who goes to the Byzantine (besides Voxx) and his family is all NO. Would eastern rites appeal to the present hierarchy to determine who can receive? What would they possibly say about people who attend the tridentine mass? You are aware that priests are bound by Canon law in regards to communion rules, correct? The priest's conscience should not be troubled so long as he complies with the law. I just posted a good explanation of the principles involved in the resource library found HEREI was not referrring to "Novus Ordo" priests, rather priests trained and commissioned by the Church who resisted the Conciliar sect. There were a lot of them in the 70's and 80's but not many of them left today. These priests were trained in pre-Vatican II approved seminaries, and there was never even a hint of any of them denying the laity Holy Communion for a difference of judgment on unsettled matters. Eastern rites are governed by their own laws, not the 1983 John Paul Code. They allow Roman Rite Catholics to receive the sacraments from them. Many of the Ukrainian rite priests I have dealt with are sympathetic to Roman Rite "refugees," and are more than happy to provide the sacraments.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Nov 16, 2016 22:20:03 GMT -5
Neither are shepherds. The Shepherds are those with jurisdiction, that have the power to make authoritative judgments and then act upon such judgments using the authority of their office. A priest is governed by Canon law, not his own judgments. He must obey the law, and is not free to ignore or re-interpret it to suit his theological positions. It's true that he must sometimes makes judgments, but they must exist in the confines of the law. Have you ever noticed that all of these problems of denying Holy Communion are all found with "traditional" priests and are not found among the priests trained and commissioned by the Church? But the point:---What if you look at it from the other direction? A layperson is demanding that a priest go against his conscience on an unsettled matter. Of course these problems are in the "traditional" priests. A. Novus Ordo priests don't care who comes to the communion rail as long as they don't knee, want to receive on the tongue or wear a veil and B. "traditional" priests don't have a hierarchy to go to, before VII these matters were settled quickly, most likely. I don't know anything about the Eastern rites besides that one man I know stopped going to the Ukranian church when he found they were using grape juice because the priest "needed to" but that was many years ago. I only know of one person now who goes to the Byzantine (besides Voxx) and his family is all NO. Would eastern rites appeal to the present hierarchy to determine who can receive? What would they possibly say about people who attend the tridentine mass? Laymen have the right to receive sacraments, it has nothing to do with the conscience of the priest. Canon law is clear on what we may ask and what a priest may and may not do. Traditional priests can follow canon canon law to the best of their ability and refer to many books, since they do not have a bishop or access to a member of the hierarchy. The Church sides with the laity on this matter and any priest knows this. If you dont know anything about the Eastern rites, then you are probably out of your depth. Eastern rites have their own hierarchy, and though they mistakenly recognize Francis and try to be loyal sons of the Church, Eastern rite matters never make it that far, meaning the are dealt with at the lowest level possible. They also have their own canon law, if you did not know. I know the Ukranian rite pretty well and I have a lot of Eastern rite contacts, there is no issue with Roman rite Catholics, especially those who also attend the Tridentine Mass attending and receiving Holy Communion. If it were not for icons and feast days, I would not be able to tell the difference between a trad-Latin rite Catholic and an Easterner. Many dress modestly, fast, have big families, cover their heads in church, pray the rosary, and follow the liturgical year.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2016 9:10:18 GMT -5
But the point:---What if you look at it from the other direction? A layperson is demanding that a priest go against his conscience on an unsettled matter. Of course these problems are in the "traditional" priests. A. Novus Ordo priests don't care who comes to the communion rail as long as they don't knee, want to receive on the tongue or wear a veil and B. "traditional" priests don't have a hierarchy to go to, before VII these matters were settled quickly, most likely. I don't know anything about the Eastern rites besides that one man I know stopped going to the Ukranian church when he found they were using grape juice because the priest "needed to" but that was many years ago. I only know of one person now who goes to the Byzantine (besides Voxx) and his family is all NO. Would eastern rites appeal to the present hierarchy to determine who can receive? What would they possibly say about people who attend the tridentine mass? You are aware that priests are bound by Canon law in regards to communion rules, correct? The priest's conscience should not be troubled so long as he complies with the law. I just posted a good explanation of the principles involved in the resource library found HEREI was not referrring to "Novus Ordo" priests, rather priests trained and commissioned by the Church who resisted the Conciliar sect. There were a lot of them in the 70's and 80's but not many of them left today. These priests were trained in pre-Vatican II approved seminaries, and there was never even a hint of any of them denying the laity Holy Communion for a difference of judgment on unsettled matters. Eastern rites are governed by their own laws, not the 1983 John Paul Code. They allow Roman Rite Catholics to receive the sacraments from them. Many of the Ukrainian rite priests I have dealt with are sympathetic to Roman Rite "refugees," and are more than happy to provide the sacraments. 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)!
|
|
|
Post by Marya Dabrowski on Nov 17, 2016 9:18:42 GMT -5
Laymen have the right to receive sacraments, it has nothing to do with the conscience of the priest. Canon law is clear on what we may ask and what a priest may and may not do. Traditional priests can follow canon canon law to the best of their ability and refer to many books, since they do not have a bishop or access to a member of the hierarchy. The Church sides with the laity on this matter and any priest knows this. If you dont know anything about the Eastern rites, then you are probably out of your depth. Eastern rites have their own hierarchy, and though they mistakenly recognize Francis and try to be loyal sons of the Church, Eastern rite matters never make it that far, meaning the are dealt with at the lowest level possible. They also have their own canon law, if you did not know. I know the Ukranian rite pretty well and I have a lot of Eastern rite contacts, there is no issue with Roman rite Catholics, especially those who also attend the Tridentine Mass attending and receiving Holy Communion. If it were not for icons and feast days, I would not be able to tell the difference between a trad-Latin rite Catholic and an Easterner. Many dress modestly, fast, have big families, cover their heads in church, pray the rosary, and follow the liturgical year. They're not just robots are they? Handing out the Saviour of Mankind to whomever comes to the communion rail, even someone who was just before Mass telling what a good time they had at the polka mass last Sunday at the local NO? I guess I do know things about the Eastern rites as I knew what you posted. Mainly what I meant is I didn't know if any Eastern rite priest or bishop has ever expressed reservations or doubt about the new rites for orders, priest or bishop, in the Roman rite. If so it is pertinent to the conversation but if not then possibly just a derailment since why would they not allow everyone to their Communion.
|
|
|
Post by Marya Dabrowski on Nov 17, 2016 9:28:14 GMT -5
But the point:---What if you look at it from the other direction? A layperson is demanding that a priest go against his conscience on an unsettled matter. Of course these problems are in the "traditional" priests. A. Novus Ordo priests don't care who comes to the communion rail as long as they don't knee, want to receive on the tongue or wear a veil and B. "traditional" priests don't have a hierarchy to go to, before VII these matters were settled quickly, most likely. I don't know anything about the Eastern rites besides that one man I know stopped going to the Ukranian church when he found they were using grape juice because the priest "needed to" but that was many years ago. I only know of one person now who goes to the Byzantine (besides Voxx) and his family is all NO. Would eastern rites appeal to the present hierarchy to determine who can receive? What would they possibly say about people who attend the tridentine mass? You are aware that priests are bound by Canon law in regards to communion rules, correct? The priest's conscience should not be troubled so long as he complies with the law. I just posted a good explanation of the principles involved in the resource library found HEREI was not referrring to "Novus Ordo" priests, rather priests trained and commissioned by the Church who resisted the Conciliar sect. There were a lot of them in the 70's and 80's but not many of them left today. These priests were trained in pre-Vatican II approved seminaries, and there was never even a hint of any of them denying the laity Holy Communion for a difference of judgment on unsettled matters. Eastern rites are governed by their own laws, not the 1983 John Paul Code. They allow Roman Rite Catholics to receive the sacraments from them. Many of the Ukrainian rite priests I have dealt with are sympathetic to Roman Rite "refugees," and are more than happy to provide the sacraments. I wish I could trust everything said or written by Fr. Cekada to be true and honestly complete, but I can't. But for the sake of this conversation I will pretend that what he wrote in the article is true. 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? As far as the priests in the 70's and 80's, I don't see how they had to deal with the Indult Mass attendance question or the Thuc line much since most of the Thuc line priests at that point were in Europe. Perhaps they did the Tridentine Mass and also tolerated people attending the Novus Ordo? If yes could you give me an example?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 17, 2016 13:04:09 GMT -5
You are aware that priests are bound by Canon law in regards to communion rules, correct? The priest's conscience should not be troubled so long as he complies with the law. I just posted a good explanation of the principles involved in the resource library found HEREI was not referrring to "Novus Ordo" priests, rather priests trained and commissioned by the Church who resisted the Conciliar sect. There were a lot of them in the 70's and 80's but not many of them left today. These priests were trained in pre-Vatican II approved seminaries, and there was never even a hint of any of them denying the laity Holy Communion for a difference of judgment on unsettled matters. Eastern rites are governed by their own laws, not the 1983 John Paul Code. They allow Roman Rite Catholics to receive the sacraments from them. Many of the Ukrainian rite priests I have dealt with are sympathetic to Roman Rite "refugees," and are more than happy to provide the sacraments. 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)! You are right to notice the inconsistency. As I see it, there is the "old Fr. Cekada," who I had once held to be a excellent Catholic thinker and researcher. Something happened to him at some point, and there was a noticeable shift. This became evident when he defended Terri Shiavo's murder that was carried out by dehydration and starvation, his promotion and defense of the idea that one cannot attend Mass una cum with an undeclared heretic, and lastly, his assertion of the heresy that the hierarchy can cease to exist, with only vacant offices continuing the apostolic succession. Prior to this shift, I used to hold Fr. Cekada in the highest regard, now, I am cautious about even posting his earlier and good writings as they may give his erroneous and heretical ideas credibility, by giving him credibility. The article I posted dealing with the SSPV's violation of Canon law is excellent, and the same article also destroys the arguments of many priests who deny communion to people who go to una cum masses. The reason is that Cekada is basing his arguments on very clear points in canon law, and was on a solid foundation. I will also post some scans from Ayrinhac which will also show the same thing, so those that those who will not trust Fr. Cekada, can read it directly from a highly respected canonist. Fr. Cekada did not make up these principles, but the "old him" used to have a masterful way of explaining and applying them.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 17, 2016 13:55:00 GMT -5
You are aware that priests are bound by Canon law in regards to communion rules, correct? The priest's conscience should not be troubled so long as he complies with the law. I just posted a good explanation of the principles involved in the resource library found HEREI was not referrring to "Novus Ordo" priests, rather priests trained and commissioned by the Church who resisted the Conciliar sect. There were a lot of them in the 70's and 80's but not many of them left today. These priests were trained in pre-Vatican II approved seminaries, and there was never even a hint of any of them denying the laity Holy Communion for a difference of judgment on unsettled matters. Eastern rites are governed by their own laws, not the 1983 John Paul Code. They allow Roman Rite Catholics to receive the sacraments from them. Many of the Ukrainian rite priests I have dealt with are sympathetic to Roman Rite "refugees," and are more than happy to provide the sacraments. I wish I could trust everything said or written by Fr. Cekada to be true and honestly complete, but I can't. But for the sake of this conversation I will pretend that what he wrote in the article is true. 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? As far as the priests in the 70's and 80's, I don't see how they had to deal with the Indult Mass attendance question or the Thuc line much since most of the Thuc line priests at that point were in Europe. Perhaps they did the Tridentine Mass and also tolerated people attending the Novus Ordo? If yes could you give me an example? I understand your reservations about Fr. Cekada, so I will add more resources for you from approved canonists on this matter. I can assure you, though, that principles will be the same. 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.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2016 14:23:26 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)! You are right to notice the inconsistency. As I see it, there is the "old Fr. Cekada," who I had once held to be a excellent Catholic thinker and researcher. Something happened to him at some point, and there was a noticeable shift. This became evident when he defended Terri Shiavo's murder that was carried out by dehydration and starvation, his promotion and defense of the idea that one cannot attend Mass una cum with an undeclared heretic, and lastly, his assertion of the heresy that the hierarchy can cease to exist, with only vacant offices continuing the apostolic succession. Prior to this shift, I used to hold Fr. Cekada in the highest regard, now, I am cautious about even posting his earlier and good writings as they may give his erroneous and heretical ideas credibility, by giving him credibility. The article I posted dealing with the SSPV's violation of Canon law is excellent, and the same article also destroys the arguments of many priests who deny communion to people who go to una cum masses. The reason is that Cekada is basing his arguments on very clear points in canon law, and was on a solid foundation. I will also post some scans from Ayrinhac which will also show the same thing, so those that those who will not trust Fr. Cekada, can read it directly from a highly respected canonist. Fr. Cekada did not make up these principles, but the "old him" used to have a masterful way of explaining and applying them. May I ask what "his assertion of the heresy that the hierarchy can cease to exist, with only vacant offices continuing the apostolic succession" is about? Could you explain it as I have never heard of it so far.
|
|