|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 3, 2016 13:25:00 GMT -5
Eric wrote:
Regarding a duly commissioned Catholic priest saying mass in an approved place in our times, whether the precept apples is a good question for discussion. You are not obliged to go to traditionalists, as they do not say mass in approved places, nor do they in almost every case, if not every case in our time, have a commission from the Church.
Eric wrote:
No, Catholics are not obliged to go to places where the mass has not been approved by authority. Catholics are not obliged to go to masses to priests who have no canonical mission , and/or are under censure.
If the priest is Catholic, or at least not named as a heretic, (not under a censure of suspension or excommunication), and is a lawfully commissioned priest saying mass in a approved place, an argument could be made that the precept applies, notwithstanding any other excusing factors. The onus would be on the person to justify his refusal to go to the mass in question.
Eric wrote:
I believe I covered these points in the previous posts. If you would like more elaboration here, and think I did not adequately answered these points, I am happy to come back to this.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2016 19:34:32 GMT -5
I am having great difficulty with a family member who doesn't understand why I won't go to the "Indult" Mass any longer. They just don't understand and I don't know if it is the way I am trying to explain it to them. Any suggestions on how to explain it? (The family member is Novus Ordo but would attend the "Indult" with me). My family members regularly go to a parish that has the Indult all the time, but I don't go with them... They sort of freaked out and asked me... The best way for me to explain this to them was tell them the simple truth: "The novus ordo Ordinations are doubtfully valid. So, even if it is a Tridintine Mass; I can not participate in it." Did you also know that there is a clause in the Indult Mass when it was "allowed" saying that anyone who attended it agreed by their presence there that the novus ordo was the Ordinary Form of the Mass and that there was nothing wrong with it... Hi Rita - The last paragraph above about the "clause" in the "Indult Mass", I am having difficulty understanding. Do you mean the Priest needs to consent that the Novus Ordo is the "Ordinary Form" not the "Indult". Just to clarify, the "Indult" I was attending was by a pre-Vatican II Priest, validly ordained in the 1950's. That is why I went there was because the Priest was validly ordained. I never went to an "Indult" with a young Novus Ordo Priest. My issue with the "Indult" I was attending was regarding the Hosts only.
|
|
|
Post by RitaMarita on Dec 3, 2016 19:43:34 GMT -5
My family members regularly go to a parish that has the Indult all the time, but I don't go with them... They sort of freaked out and asked me... The best way for me to explain this to them was tell them the simple truth: "The novus ordo Ordinations are doubtfully valid. So, even if it is a Tridintine Mass; I can not participate in it." Did you also know that there is a clause in the Indult Mass when it was "allowed" saying that anyone who attended it agreed by their presence there that the novus ordo was the Ordinary Form of the Mass and that there was nothing wrong with it... Hi Rita - The last paragraph above about the "clause" in the "Indult Mass", I am having difficulty understanding. Do you mean the Priest needs to consent that the Novus Ordo is the "Ordinary Form" not the "Indult". Just to clarify, the "Indult" I was attending was by a pre-Vatican II Priest, validly ordained in the 1950's. That is why I went there was because the Priest was validly ordained. I never went to an "Indult" with a young Novus Ordo Priest. My issue with the "Indult" I was attending was regarding the Hosts only. I am sorry if why wording confused you... Basically, when Benedict XVI wrote his "moto proprio" saying that the "Extraordinary Form" of the Mass was allowed; he also stated that anyone who offered or attended an "Extraordinary Form" Mass had to recognize the validity of the Novus Ordo... (Does that help clarify? Hope so! :-) No worries! I totally understood that you only went to an older pre-vatican II priest. I was just trying to suggest some ideas for how to explain everything to your family/husband. I shall be praying for you both! Keep fighting and may God bless you!!! :-)
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2016 22:31:09 GMT -5
Hi Rita - The last paragraph above about the "clause" in the "Indult Mass", I am having difficulty understanding. Do you mean the Priest needs to consent that the Novus Ordo is the "Ordinary Form" not the "Indult". Just to clarify, the "Indult" I was attending was by a pre-Vatican II Priest, validly ordained in the 1950's. That is why I went there was because the Priest was validly ordained. I never went to an "Indult" with a young Novus Ordo Priest. My issue with the "Indult" I was attending was regarding the Hosts only. I am sorry if why wording confused you... Basically, when Benedict XVI wrote his "moto proprio" saying that the "Extraordinary Form" of the Mass was allowed; he also stated that anyone who offered or attended an "Extraordinary Form" Mass had to recognize the validity of the Novus Ordo... (Does that help clarify? Hope so! :-) No worries! I totally understood that you only went to an older pre-vatican II priest. I was just trying to suggest some ideas for how to explain everything to your family/husband. I shall be praying for you both! Keep fighting and may God bless you!!! :-) Rita - I just read Benedict's "Moto Proprio" and unless I'm missing something, I don't see where the document says anything similar to what you are saying. By the way, since Benedict is not even a Pope, I don't believe, listen or buy in to his garbage as he is an anti-Pope.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 4, 2016 13:16:39 GMT -5
Eric quoting James Larrabee wrote:
True and well said.
Eric quoting James Larrabee wrote: . True.
Eric quoting James Larrabee wrote:
Yes, and that makes them wrong in their judgment, but not heretics, (not that Mr. Larrabee is asserting that) as they are denying the heresies and errors of Vatican II. Their mechanism of how they get there is flawed, but the end result is at least correct.
Eric quoting James Larrabee wrote:
True.
Eric quoting James Larrabee wrote:
They are correct in rejecting the Council's teaching, so in that they are orthodox. Their mechanism is flawed, and and so long as they do not deny any doctrines in the process, they would not be lacking in orthodoxy. That's why Mr. Larrabee was correct in labeling it a "great danger," and did not go beyond that. Notice that he did not call them non-Catholics. Yes, there is a danger to their position, on that we agree.
Eric quoting James Larrabee wrote:
Agreed.
Eric quoting James Larrabee wrote:
Agreed, but a distinction must be added, that it is not always clear who is part of the sect and who is not. If we have moral certainty, based on evidence, that one has left the Church by embracing the heretical doctrines of the sect, then, with that judgment, we can be certain that they have no authority, and are not deserving of our credence or respect.
For example, I have no data on the remaining Pius XII and John XXIII bishops, so I have no cause to accuse them of being part of a sect.
Eric quoting James Larrabee wrote:
Agreed.
Eric quoting James Larrabee wrote:
This is where things get complicated. Who exactly is a member of this sect? I would agree with avoiding the schools, but when it comes to the reception of Sacraments, we must obey the laws if the Church, and not go beyond that.
Let's look at some examples to illustrate:
Fr. Smith, an 80 year old priest ordained in 1952 says mass according to the Catholic rite at St. Mary's, a church under the control of the undeclared sect. You have no evidence that Fr. Smith has denied any teaching of the Church, meaning to the best your knowledge, Fr. Smith is a Catholic. Fr. Smith has not taught false doctrine in his sermons or in any private conversation. Could a Catholic attend his Mass? I can't see any argument based on the law to avoid this mass.
Fr. Doe, a 78 year old priest, ordained in 1958, also says mass according to the Catholic rite, but he does hold to heretical propositions. The Church has not yet judged the case. Can a Catholic assist at his mass? Again yes, the law and teaching on this is clear: until he is judged one has the right to assist at his mass. A catholic just weigh out the risk of scandal, however, and that may be a good reason to avoid this situation. Such judgments are private, and there may be disagreements among Catholics as to whether the danger is outweighed by the benefits of the graces of the mass, and the reception of Holy Communion.
Eric quoting James Larrabee wrote:
Agreed
Eric quoting James Larrabee wrote:
Agreed.
Eric quoting James Larrabee wrote:
The precept obliges us to contribute according to local custom, which would mean our local parish, but obviously this is not possible.
I do not believe the precept applies to traditional priests, but if one goes to them, and receives the sacraments from them, obviously the priest and chapel will have expenses, so it seems reasonable to me that it would be very selfish to not support something that you are drawing resources from, so it could be argued that there is an implicit obligation.
Eric quoting James Larrabee wrote:
Agreed, but let it be said that many good books were published even until the early 1960's, along with some horrible texts, so one must be discerning.
Eric quoting James Larrabee wrote:
True, but this is a very short list. One must be very careful even among "traditionalists" and "sedevacantists." There is danger everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by RitaMarita on Dec 4, 2016 15:20:37 GMT -5
I am sorry if why wording confused you... Basically, when Benedict XVI wrote his "moto proprio" saying that the "Extraordinary Form" of the Mass was allowed; he also stated that anyone who offered or attended an "Extraordinary Form" Mass had to recognize the validity of the Novus Ordo... (Does that help clarify? Hope so! :-) No worries! I totally understood that you only went to an older pre-vatican II priest. I was just trying to suggest some ideas for how to explain everything to your family/husband. I shall be praying for you both! Keep fighting and may God bless you!!! :-) Rita - I just read Benedict's "Moto Proprio" and unless I'm missing something, I don't see where the document says anything similar to what you are saying. By the way, since Benedict is not even a Pope, I don't believe, listen or buy in to his garbage as he is an anti-Pope. I completely agree about not needing to listen to Benedict or the Vatican II "popes"... Hmm... Maybe it was a speech Benedict gave when he made the proclamation of the Moto Propio... It has been awhile since I have researched everything though. So, it is possible I just mis-remembered everything. So, just ignore what I previously wrote... :-)
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2016 16:21:04 GMT -5
Voxxkowalski- Thank you so very, very much for your words of wisdom!! They are very well appreciated and received! By the way something has happened. My husband evidently asked the Religion teacher at the school where he teaches if what I was saying about the Ukranian Church and the Eastern Rites being apart of the Roman Catholic Church was true. The Religion teacher evidently affirmed what I had been telling him. Thanks to God! See...God is already working things out for you. Be patient. My husband just told me that he wants to go to Mass at Christmas and HE suggested that we go to the Ukranian Church for Mass!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 4, 2016 16:44:13 GMT -5
See...God is already working things out for you. Be patient. My husband just told me that he wants to go to Mass at Christmas and HE suggested that we go to the Ukranian Church for Mass!!!!!!!!!! It made my day to read this! 😀
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Dec 4, 2016 18:30:31 GMT -5
God is on His Holy Mountain
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Dec 4, 2016 21:55:24 GMT -5
Did you also know that there is a clause in the Indult Mass when it was "allowed" saying that anyone who attended it agreed by their presence there that the novus ordo was the Ordinary Form of the Mass and that there was nothing wrong with it... Basically, when Benedict XVI wrote his "moto proprio" saying that the "Extraordinary Form" of the Mass was allowed; he also stated that anyone who offered or attended an "Extraordinary Form" Mass had to recognize the validity of the Novus Ordo... (Does that help clarify? Hope so! :-) Rita - I just read Benedict's "Moto Proprio" and unless I'm missing something, I don't see where the document says anything similar to what you are saying. By the way, since Benedict is not even a Pope, I don't believe, listen or buy in to his garbage as he is an anti-Pope. I completely agree about not needing to listen to Benedict or the Vatican II "popes"... Hmm... Maybe it was a speech Benedict gave when he made the proclamation of the Moto Propio... It has been awhile since I have researched everything though. So, it is possible I just mis-remembered everything. So, just ignore what I previously wrote... :-) Hi Rita, I think you are right that one of the conditions for the Indult / Motu Mass is acceptance of the New Mass as a valid and Catholic rite. Recognition of Vatican II and the revolutionary "popes" seem to be required as well, at least as a practical matter. I looked at Summorum Pontificum ( link) and the key phrase is "parishes where a group of the faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition stably exists." (Art. 5, §1) Traditionalists who attend sedevacantist chapels (or in pre-Francis times, SSPX chapels) are counted as separatists rather than as a stable group within a Novus Ordo parish. The stronger statement along these lines was in Quattuor Abhinc Annos ( link), the document from John Paul II that originally permitted the Indult Mass:
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 5:39:49 GMT -5
Did you also know that there is a clause in the Indult Mass when it was "allowed" saying that anyone who attended it agreed by their presence there that the novus ordo was the Ordinary Form of the Mass and that there was nothing wrong with it... Basically, when Benedict XVI wrote his "moto proprio" saying that the "Extraordinary Form" of the Mass was allowed; he also stated that anyone who offered or attended an "Extraordinary Form" Mass had to recognize the validity of the Novus Ordo... (Does that help clarify? Hope so! :-) I completely agree about not needing to listen to Benedict or the Vatican II "popes"... Hmm... Maybe it was a speech Benedict gave when he made the proclamation of the Moto Propio... It has been awhile since I have researched everything though. So, it is possible I just mis-remembered everything. So, just ignore what I previously wrote... :-) Hi Rita, I think you are right that one of the conditions for the Indult / Motu Mass is acceptance of the New Mass as a valid and Catholic rite. Recognition of Vatican II and the revolutionary "popes" seem to be required as well, at least as a practical matter. I looked at Summorum Pontificum ( link) and the key phrase is "parishes where a group of the faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition stably exists." (Art. 5, §1) Traditionalists who attend sedevacantist chapels (or in pre-Francis times, SSPX chapels) are counted as separatists rather than as a stable group within a Novus Ordo parish. The stronger statement along these lines was in Quattuor Abhinc Annos ( link), the document from John Paul II that originally permitted the Indult Mass: When I found the True Catholic Church 2 yrs ago, I started attending the "Indult", I didn't even know it was called an "Indult", to me it was the "Latin Mass". I certainly didn't know anything about "Motu Priopo's" or "Summorum Pontificums". To the best of my knowledge and ability at the time, all I knew was that the so called Popes beginning with Paul VI were anti-Popes, that the Novus Ordo was a "man made Mass" and not Catholic, and that I needed to find a validly ordained Priest. How can I be held responsible for something I didn't know? I also don't believe I'm bound to believe anything that comes from anti-Popes. God knows, I have been navigating this Vatican II, Novus Ordo mess to the best of my ability. Thank God that HE will be my JUDGE.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Dec 5, 2016 7:46:18 GMT -5
Hi Rita, I think you are right that one of the conditions for the Indult / Motu Mass is acceptance of the New Mass as a valid and Catholic rite. Recognition of Vatican II and the revolutionary "popes" seem to be required as well, at least as a practical matter. I looked at Summorum Pontificum ( link) and the key phrase is "parishes where a group of the faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition stably exists." (Art. 5, §1) Traditionalists who attend sedevacantist chapels (or in pre-Francis times, SSPX chapels) are counted as separatists rather than as a stable group within a Novus Ordo parish. The stronger statement along these lines was in Quattuor Abhinc Annos ( link), the document from John Paul II that originally permitted the Indult Mass... When I found the True Catholic Church 2 yrs ago, I started attending the "Indult", I didn't even know it was called an "Indult", to me it was the "Latin Mass". I certainly didn't know anything about "Motu Priopo's" or "Summorum Pontificums". To the best of my knowledge and ability at the time, all I knew was that the so called Popes beginning with Paul VI were anti-Popes, that the Novus Ordo was a "man made Mass" and not Catholic, and that I needed to find a validly ordained Priest. How can I be held responsible for something I didn't know? I also don't believe I'm bound to believe anything that comes from anti-Popes. God knows, I have been navigating this Vatican II, Novus Ordo mess to the best of my ability. Thank God that HE will be my JUDGE. Dear Veronica, I don't mean at all to judge your dispositions or to find fault with people who are doing the best they can with the information they have. It is easy to go wrong with good dispositions, as I know from my own sad experience. It's not likely you've made any blunders as big as mine! I just thought it would be helpful to provide the texts that Rita was referring to. They are one reason why some traditionalists refused to attend the Indult Mass under the old conditions made by John Paul II. We can indeed be held responsible for things we don't know, if the ignorance is our own fault or if our conduct still deserves blame in spite of the ignorance. For example, it's no defense in a secular court to claim ignorance of the law, despite the fact that very few people know it in detail. I don't say this to make you scrupulous, but it deserves to be pointed out because wrong ideas about ignorance are common nowadays. Some people even say that "ignorance is the eighth sacrament." Catechisms and theology books say, on the other hand, that ignorance can be a sin, and a cause of sin, because we are bound to learn what we need to know to fulfill our duties of state ( link). Sometimes this knowledge is not available, and then God will judge us according to our good will in the circumstances; but this is very far from saying that ignorance is a blanket excuse from sin. The past is past; what matters now is to live well in the time that remains to us.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 8:12:38 GMT -5
When I found the True Catholic Church 2 yrs ago, I started attending the "Indult", I didn't even know it was called an "Indult", to me it was the "Latin Mass". I certainly didn't know anything about "Motu Priopo's" or "Summorum Pontificums". To the best of my knowledge and ability at the time, all I knew was that the so called Popes beginning with Paul VI were anti-Popes, that the Novus Ordo was a "man made Mass" and not Catholic, and that I needed to find a validly ordained Priest. How can I be held responsible for something I didn't know? I also don't believe I'm bound to believe anything that comes from anti-Popes. God knows, I have been navigating this Vatican II, Novus Ordo mess to the best of my ability. Thank God that HE will be my JUDGE. Dear Veronica, I don't mean at all to judge your dispositions or to find fault with people who are doing the best they can with the information they have. It is easy to go wrong with good dispositions, as I know from my own sad experience. It's not likely you've made any blunders as big as mine! I just thought it would be helpful to provide the texts that Rita was referring to. They are one reason why some traditionalists refused to attend the Indult Mass under the old conditions made by John Paul II. We can indeed be held responsible for things we don't know, if the ignorance is our own fault or if our conduct still deserves blame in spite of the ignorance. For example, it's no defense in a secular court to claim ignorance of the law, despite the fact that very few people know it in detail. I don't say this to make you scrupulous, but it deserves to be pointed out because wrong ideas about ignorance are common nowadays. Some people even say that "ignorance is the eighth sacrament." Catechisms and theology books say, on the other hand, that ignorance can be a sin, and a cause of sin, because we are bound to learn what we need to know to fulfill our duties of state ( link). Sometimes this knowledge is not available, and then God will judge us according to our good will in the circumstances; but this is very far from saying that ignorance is a blanket excuse from sin. The past is past; what matters now is to live well in the time that remains to us. I am in no way "saying that ignorance is a blanket excuse for sin". All I am saying is that after researching and learning to the best of my ability and the knowledge that I had attained at the time, I did not know or was I aware of certain things. It is impossible given the state of the Novus Ordo mess to be aware of every obstacle that stands in our road all at once. I am not looking for a "pass", I'm just stating the facts of the situation I found myself in at the time. There are twists and turns and wolves in sheep's clothing everywhere seeking the ruination of souls. We live in a very perilous and dangerous time and the "Traditionalists" are forever finding fault with one another. I am in no way trying to find an excuse for "sin". I am NOT a genius, it is impossible for me to learn all this theological stuff even at the rate I would like to. I am an average person with an average IQ. I do not possess a college degree, nor even a Catholic education for that matter. God knows I wish I could learn more, faster, but unfortunately I have to learn at and with the capacity and abilities that was bestowed upon me. Sometimes, experience is the best teacher and not just theological books. Also, a good dose of common sense goes along way too!! LIVE and LEARN. Also, I do not listen, believe or accept anything that comes out of an anti-Pope's mouth or from his writing pen!!
|
|
|
Post by Damaged Goods on Dec 5, 2016 8:39:05 GMT -5
They rarely go that far, but for what it's worth one of my friends who attended an Indult Mass in the 1990s recalls having to sign a form that certified one's acceptance of the legitimacy of Vatican II and the liturgical reform.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 9:06:23 GMT -5
They rarely go that far, but for what it's worth one of my friends who attended an Indult Mass in the 1990s recalls having to sign a form that certified one's acceptance of the legitimacy of Vatican II and the liturgical reform. Damaged Good's friend's experience having to sign a "form" certifying their acceptance of the legitimacy of Vatican II and the liturgical reforms, shows the lack of continuity or consistency in the whole Vatican II, Novus Ordo, and "Indult" mess. We desperately need a true Pope or else the end is very near (just my opinion).
|
|