Post by Pacelli on Jun 26, 2017 12:56:59 GMT -5
Getting to Mass during this Crisis:
I have always held the belief that Catholics during this crisis must try to get to mass as long as it remains possible, and not to form reasons against going that are not solidly grounded in doctrine and canon law.
The opposing schools of thought can be described as:
1. The home-aloners: you can no longer go to mass anywhere.
2. You can only go to mass to those with canonical standing.
3. You can not go to "una cum" masses.
4. You can't go to CMRI or any mass of the +Thuc line.
5. You can't go to SSPX, since they have "compromised."
6. You can go to old, validly ordained diocesan or religious priests.
7. You can't go to Eastern Rites
8. You can only go to masses approved by my group.
9. You cannot go to "Resistance" masses
10. You can't go to mass because the priest doesn't believe in "my made up pet doctrine," (Feeneyism, lawfulness of rhythm method, etc.)
I hold the view that so long as the mass:
1. Is valid, that is said by a validly ordained priest.
2. Is said by a priest who is Catholic, that he is not a heretic.
3. Uses the approved Catholic rite, that exists without essential defect.
4. And there is no other grave cause to avoid this priest or chapel,
Then Catholics should go to that Mass.
There are obviously clear-cut cases, where one may form a judgment that a certain mass or chapel is safe, and other that are unsafe. There are other cases where it is harder to make a determination. My point is this: we must be very careful before we determine that we or others cannot go to a particular church, chapel, or priest. What if we are wrong and have caused ourselves or another Catholic to live without the sacraments unnecessarily?
With all of this said, there are sometimes grave reasons to avoid a mass: we are not sure about the orders of the priest, the rite is clearly with essential defect (the Novus Ordo), the priest is certainly a heretic, or there is a strong risk of scandal to oneself or to others, especially children.
All of this must be weighed out carefully, judgments that are formed should be made slowly, and all biases must be examined
I will leave off with this:
It is very possible that if anyone leads another away from masses, that would be otherwise acceptable, and the reception of Holy Communion for that soul is by that unnecessarily lost, the person who foolishly persuaded someone to avoid acceptable masses is culpable for the resulting damage to that soul.
I have always held the belief that Catholics during this crisis must try to get to mass as long as it remains possible, and not to form reasons against going that are not solidly grounded in doctrine and canon law.
The opposing schools of thought can be described as:
1. The home-aloners: you can no longer go to mass anywhere.
2. You can only go to mass to those with canonical standing.
3. You can not go to "una cum" masses.
4. You can't go to CMRI or any mass of the +Thuc line.
5. You can't go to SSPX, since they have "compromised."
6. You can go to old, validly ordained diocesan or religious priests.
7. You can't go to Eastern Rites
8. You can only go to masses approved by my group.
9. You cannot go to "Resistance" masses
10. You can't go to mass because the priest doesn't believe in "my made up pet doctrine," (Feeneyism, lawfulness of rhythm method, etc.)
I hold the view that so long as the mass:
1. Is valid, that is said by a validly ordained priest.
2. Is said by a priest who is Catholic, that he is not a heretic.
3. Uses the approved Catholic rite, that exists without essential defect.
4. And there is no other grave cause to avoid this priest or chapel,
Then Catholics should go to that Mass.
There are obviously clear-cut cases, where one may form a judgment that a certain mass or chapel is safe, and other that are unsafe. There are other cases where it is harder to make a determination. My point is this: we must be very careful before we determine that we or others cannot go to a particular church, chapel, or priest. What if we are wrong and have caused ourselves or another Catholic to live without the sacraments unnecessarily?
With all of this said, there are sometimes grave reasons to avoid a mass: we are not sure about the orders of the priest, the rite is clearly with essential defect (the Novus Ordo), the priest is certainly a heretic, or there is a strong risk of scandal to oneself or to others, especially children.
All of this must be weighed out carefully, judgments that are formed should be made slowly, and all biases must be examined
I will leave off with this:
The doctrine of the Church is that Holy Communion is morally necessary for salvation, that is to say, without the graces of this sacrament it would be very difficult to resist grave temptations and avoid grievous sin (Morrisroe, P. (1910). Holy Communion. The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.)
It is very possible that if anyone leads another away from masses, that would be otherwise acceptable, and the reception of Holy Communion for that soul is by that unnecessarily lost, the person who foolishly persuaded someone to avoid acceptable masses is culpable for the resulting damage to that soul.