|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Nov 17, 2016 16:13:49 GMT -5
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. This would require a seperate thread as it is a different subject....I suppose it would have to be a Fr Cekada thread...which Im wary of because many a fine Trad Catholic has him as the Priest that brought them to tradition.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2016 18:18:44 GMT -5
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. This would require a seperate thread as it is a different subject....I suppose it would have to be a Fr Cekada thread...which Im wary of because many a fine Trad Catholic has him as the Priest that brought them to tradition. Forget about the thread.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Nov 17, 2016 18:44:48 GMT -5
So if a layperson is going to the NO or other possible bread worshipping churches or fake priests on some Sundays, situations that you agree cannot be settled at this time, and the priest advises against it and they persist, I agree absolutely deny them Communion. What kind of priest would allow what is very-likely bread worshipping and turn around and allow them to come and receive a Real Host? What kind of shepherd would that be? But to continue: It doesn't matter how much each lay person thinks they are truly receiving Christ or how much they truly believe it is a valid mass, that has nothing to do with it. It's still wrong because they could be worshipping bread. (No one in this day and age of the internet can honestly claim complete ignorance. When I first read the bulletin at an SSPV chapel I started researching and asking questions.) In your opinion, if we had a hierarchy in operation and were in normal times would a person sometimes worshipping bread or habitually attending mass with a priest with doubtful orders or possible invalid mass be included in the list of persons to be refused communion? I think if in normal times some Catholics were receiving invalid sacraments from what they think is a Catholic priest in a Catholic church, other priests who know about the invalidity would not refuse them the sacraments on this account. It should be assumed that such people think they are receiving valid sacraments, absent evidence to the contrary. Even if they are sinfully negligent and should know better, that's not the kind of sin that would justify their being denied communion. Ordinarily the laity shouldn't have to determine for themselves the validity of priests, Masses, and consecrated hosts. Of course, in normal times the authorities would straighten things out before too long. If a traditionalist priest wants to deny Holy Communion to everyone who attends a Diocesan Latin Mass, I think his reason would need to be that such attendance amounts to heresy or schism, at least presumptively.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Nov 17, 2016 19:18:09 GMT -5
So if a layperson is going to the NO or other possible bread worshipping churches or fake priests on some Sundays, situations that you agree cannot be settled at this time, and the priest advises against it and they persist, I agree absolutely deny them Communion. What kind of priest would allow what is very-likely bread worshipping and turn around and allow them to come and receive a Real Host? What kind of shepherd would that be? But to continue: It doesn't matter how much each lay person thinks they are truly receiving Christ or how much they truly believe it is a valid mass, that has nothing to do with it. It's still wrong because they could be worshipping bread. (No one in this day and age of the internet can honestly claim complete ignorance. When I first read the bulletin at an SSPV chapel I started researching and asking questions.) In your opinion, if we had a hierarchy in operation and were in normal times would a person sometimes worshipping bread or habitually attending mass with a priest with doubtful orders or possible invalid mass be included in the list of persons to be refused communion? I think if in normal times some Catholics were receiving invalid sacraments from what they think is a Catholic priest in a Catholic church, other priests who know about the invalidity would not refuse them the sacraments on this account. It should be assumed that such people think they are receiving valid sacraments, absent evidence to the contrary. Even if they are sinfully negligent and should know better, that's not the kind of sin that would justify their being denied communion. Ordinarily the laity shouldn't have to determine for themselves the validity of priests, Masses, and consecrated hosts.Of course, in normal times the authorities would straighten things out before too long. If a traditionalist priest wants to deny Holy Communion to everyone who attends a Diocesan Latin Mass, I think his reason would need to be that such attendance amounts to heresy or schism, at least presumptively. THIS is still true no matter what the circumstances. Good Post Eric.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Nov 17, 2016 19:27:27 GMT -5
So if a layperson is going to the NO or other possible bread worshipping churches or fake priests on some Sundays, situations that you agree cannot be settled at this time, and the priest advises against it and they persist, I agree absolutely deny them Communion. What kind of priest would allow what is very-likely bread worshipping and turn around and allow them to come and receive a Real Host? What kind of shepherd would that be? But to continue: It doesn't matter how much each lay person thinks they are truly receiving Christ or how much they truly believe it is a valid mass, that has nothing to do with it. It's still wrong because they could be worshipping bread. (No one in this day and age of the internet can honestly claim complete ignorance. When I first read the bulletin at an SSPV chapel I started researching and asking questions.) In your opinion, if we had a hierarchy in operation and were in normal times would a person sometimes worshipping bread or habitually attending mass with a priest with doubtful orders or possible invalid mass be included in the list of persons to be refused communion? Also, here's a relevant quote from John Lane's article that Pacelli linked earlier in the thread.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Nov 17, 2016 19:46:57 GMT -5
The Church that I attend has a Latin Mass Society. I called the President of the Society today and asked about whether the Hosts from the Novus Ordo get mixed in with the Latin Mass Hosts during the Latin Mass. I was told no. (Did I ask the correct question)? Believe me when I tell you that these people in the Latin Mass Society have no time for the Novus Ordo at all or for Francis. I have talked with them and am a new member. The pre-Vatican II Priest is so very meticulous and lives to say the Latin Mass. I, nevertheless, will keep my eyes wide open during the Mass and sit as close to the front as I can. What you did is a good start, but I think it better to investigate further. Sometimes well meaning people assume things and speak as though they know it for certain. Since this involves the sacraments, having certainty is important. Either way, in the meanwhile, it may be a good thing to go to the Ukrainian rite from time to time to get used to it. Unfortunately, due to your priest's age, you may have to have a back up plan in place. You most certainly cannot trust any Conciliar diocese to provide you another validly ordained priest if this elderly priest gets sick and can no longer say mass. From my experience, and having known many with the "indult" school of thought, they only care about the Mass, and are not concerned with the orders of the priest, so if there is ever a change in priests, they will just roll with it without any fuss. Pacelli, I guess I'm slow on the uptake, but I'm surprised you are recommending attendance at an Indult Mass (or whatever they call it nowadays). Do I understand you correctly, that as long as the Mass and the Communion hosts are valid, and the place still calls itself Roman Catholic, it cannot be absolutely off limits even if the priest and the vast majority of the people are heretics, as long as there is no danger of scandal or of perversion of faith (if such a combination of conditions is even possible)? Do you say that Catholics are not obligated to attend such a Mass because the priest is a heretic, or because a heretic is named in the una cum clause, or for some other reason? Based on your principles I don't see why attendance would be optional, if the priest professes the Catholic faith, is a lawful pastor because his appointment was validated by supplied jurisdiction, and is merely mistaken about the identity of the pope. I don't see how such a place can be attended at all, because it's a heretical church and congregation, regardless of the presence of some individuals who are material heretics or who actually profess the Catholic faith. This is apart from the una cum clause; I wouldn't attend even if no V-2 pope or bishop were named, as happens when the Novus Ordo church thinks the local diocese and the Roman See are both vacant. It seems to me that if the Novus Ordo diocesan congregations and churches were Catholic, the universal church would have defected. That they occasionally have a valid Tridentine Mass is inconsequential in the big picture.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Nov 17, 2016 20:24:53 GMT -5
Once Again assuming the Sect Represents the entire Church simply because it has most numbers. The Roman sect...and in FACT even the TRUE Roman rite does not constitute the entirety of the Universal Church. If The Roman rite (the true or the false) were to somehow become extinct...there still would be the Universal Catholic Church
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Nov 17, 2016 20:54:55 GMT -5
Once Again assuming the Sect Represents the entire Church simply because it has most numbers. The Roman sect...and in FACT even the TRUE Roman rite does not constitute the entirety of the Universal Church. If The Roman rite (the true or the false) were to somehow become extinct...there still would be the Universal Catholic Church My understanding is that the Church would defect if the vast majority of her members were to profess heretical doctrine or to use invalid or sacrilegious rites, whether intentionally or not. So if the Novus Ordo congregations and churches were Catholic, they would be a sufficiently large portion of the Church to make it defect, no matter what the Eastern rites do. The Church can't defect, so the Novus Ordo congregations and churches must not belong to it.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 17, 2016 21:18:53 GMT -5
Once Again assuming the Sect Represents the entire Church simply because it has most numbers. The Roman sect...and in FACT even the TRUE Roman rite does not constitute the entirety of the Universal Church. If The Roman rite (the true or the false) were to somehow become extinct...there still would be the Universal Catholic Church My understanding is that the Church would defect if the vast majority of her members were to profess heretical doctrine or to use invalid or sacrilegious rites, whether intentionally or not. So if the Novus Ordo congregations and churches were Catholic, they would be a sufficiently large portion of the Church to make it defect, no matter what the Eastern rites do. The Church can't defect, so the Novus Ordo congregations and churches must not belong to it. Let's look at the sources for your understanding and we can go from there.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Nov 17, 2016 21:44:16 GMT -5
My understanding is that the Church would defect if the vast majority of her members were to profess heretical doctrine or to use invalid or sacrilegious rites, whether intentionally or not. So if the Novus Ordo congregations and churches were Catholic, they would be a sufficiently large portion of the Church to make it defect, no matter what the Eastern rites do. The Church can't defect, so the Novus Ordo congregations and churches must not belong to it. Let's look at the sources for your understanding and we can go from there. Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, Errors of the Synod of Pistoia (Denz. 1501) Obscuring of Truths in the Church 1. The proposition, which asserts "that in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ." – heretical. Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, 1943 66. And if at times there appears in the Church something that indicates the weakness of our human nature, it should not be attributed to her juridical constitution, but rather to that regrettable inclination to evil found in each individual, which its Divine Founder permits even at times in the most exalted members of His Mystical Body, for the purpose of testing the virtue of the Shepherds no less than of the flocks, and that all may increase the merit of their Christian faith. For, as We said above, Christ did not wish to exclude sinners from His Church; hence if some of her members are suffering from spiritual maladies, that is no reason why we should lessen our love for the Church, but rather a reason why we should increase our devotion to her members. Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary grace through which with inexhaustible fecundity,[130] she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors. But it cannot be laid to her charge if some members fall, weak or wounded. In their name she prays to God daily: "Forgive us our trespasses;" and with the brave heart of a mother she applies herself at once to the work of nursing them back to spiritual health. When, therefore, we call the Body of Jesus Christ "mystical," the very meaning of the word conveys a solemn warning. It is a warning that echoes in these words of St. Leo: "Recognize, O Christian, your dignity, and being made a sharer of the divine nature go not back to your former worthlessness along the way of unseemly conduct. Keep in mind of what Head and of what Body you are a member." Council of Trent, Sess. XXII, Can. 7 (Denz. 954) If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Nov 17, 2016 21:51:03 GMT -5
Narrow is the way and few are they who find it....numbers are irrelevant...if you had a dozen Catholics left on the whole planet...thats the Church.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 17, 2016 23:13:54 GMT -5
Let's look at the sources for your understanding and we can go from there. Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, Errors of the Synod of Pistoia (Denz. 1501) Obscuring of Truths in the Church 1. The proposition, which asserts "that in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ." – heretical. Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, 1943 66. And if at times there appears in the Church something that indicates the weakness of our human nature, it should not be attributed to her juridical constitution, but rather to that regrettable inclination to evil found in each individual, which its Divine Founder permits even at times in the most exalted members of His Mystical Body, for the purpose of testing the virtue of the Shepherds no less than of the flocks, and that all may increase the merit of their Christian faith. For, as We said above, Christ did not wish to exclude sinners from His Church; hence if some of her members are suffering from spiritual maladies, that is no reason why we should lessen our love for the Church, but rather a reason why we should increase our devotion to her members. Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary grace through which with inexhaustible fecundity,[130] she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors. But it cannot be laid to her charge if some members fall, weak or wounded. In their name she prays to God daily: "Forgive us our trespasses;" and with the brave heart of a mother she applies herself at once to the work of nursing them back to spiritual health. When, therefore, we call the Body of Jesus Christ "mystical," the very meaning of the word conveys a solemn warning. It is a warning that echoes in these words of St. Leo: "Recognize, O Christian, your dignity, and being made a sharer of the divine nature go not back to your former worthlessness along the way of unseemly conduct. Keep in mind of what Head and of what Body you are a member." Council of Trent, Sess. XXII, Can. 7 (Denz. 954) If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema. Those sources are not supporting the understanding that you have described yourself having above.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 17, 2016 23:32:38 GMT -5
Eric wrote:
Terms like "indult mass," or "motu mass," etc. are slang and have no relevance. What we must look at is what theologians teach about the mass. The facts in this case are clear:
1. There is no sentence against this priest. 2. We do not know if he is a heretic or schismatic, but even if he is, there is no sentence against him. See below. 3. Until such a time, laypeople have a right to attend his mass and receive Holy Communion from him in good conscience. 4. I would always recommend that Catholics go to mass and receive the sacraments, unless a grave counter reason prevents them. 5. In this case, you may argue that there is a risk of scandal, and that is a possibility, but each Catholic must weigh that risk for himself against losing the benefits of the graces of the mass and the reception of Holy Communion. 6. In our present case, Veronica does not seem concerned about scandal, telling me implicitly that the priest is not causing any scandal. If I am wrong about this, I invite her to comment.
Saint Thomas taught:
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 17, 2016 23:39:34 GMT -5
Eric wrote: If you are making the assertion that the priest and the people, in this case, who attend the mass are heretics, it is a gratuitous assumption. I don't know if they are or not, but, my starting point is of innocence as I have no basis to presume otherwise, and Veronica made no statements to support a suspicion of heresy against them.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 17, 2016 23:44:12 GMT -5
Eric wrote: If you are making the assertion that the priest and the people, in this case, who attend the mass are heretics, it is a gratuitous assumption. I don't know if they are or not, but, my starting point is of innocence as I have no basis to presume otherwise, and Veronica made no statements to support a suspicion of heresy against them. Whether or not the precept of HolyDay mass attendance applies is a separate question than what we are discussing. In order to prove that the precept applies, every excusing factor must be absent.
|
|