Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: WorldsAway on January 24, 2024, 11:14:05 AM
-
Has anyone attended mass here, or does anyone know of Father Bitzer? I believe it is a Resistance chapel. Thank you for your time
(Posted here in case some would like to remain anonymous)
-
Has anyone attended mass here, or does anyone know of Father Bitzer? I believe it is a Resistance chapel. Thank you for your time
(Posted here in case some would like to remain anonymous)
I used to go there when I lived in Louisville, that was about 15 years ago. Fr. Bitzer is awesome.
-
Fr Bitzer was ordained by Lefebvre. He left the sspx at some point and went to help Fr Wathen in Kentucky. He’s independent but friendly with all the Trad groups. Similar to Fr Ringrose in Va.
-
Also he's a Feeneyite.
-
Also he's a Feeneyite.
Proud of yourself there?
-
Proud of yourself there?
Just stating facts. It matters for some :cowboy:
-
Just stating facts. It matters for some :cowboy:
Yeah? Are you a priest?
-
Just stating facts. It matters for some :cowboy:
Well, it's definitely a huge plus, and it's one of the things that makes him awesome, but either way for me I really, really liked OLOP when I was living down there.
-
Yeah? Are you a priest?
Merry, I don't understand why you're so upset :confused: For some it's a plus, for others it's a minus. That's why I stuck to "It matters for some."
Pax tecuм.
-
Thank you all for the responses, I appreciate it. It is good to hear that he maintains that outside the Church there is no salvation. I am reading on the chapel website that newcomers are not allowed Communion unless they "refrain from ever attending the New Mass...even for funerals and weddings". I was under the assumption that Catholics were allowed to be passively present at non-Catholic funerals and weddings, with some exceptions, prior to Vatican 2. Am I incorrect?
-
Merry, I don't understand why you're so upset :confused: For some it's a plus, for others it's a minus. That's why I stuck to "It matters for some."
Pax tecuм.
You made certain to make that point just trying to be helpful. Right.
Would that all priests were as Fr. Feeney - and Fr. Wathen, for that matter. The Trad world would be in better shape. The Church will affirm these priests were correct in their assertions at least post-Fatima Consecration - but it would help to have more such courageous priests now. Souls and Our Lord's worship, would be the better for it.
-
The passive attendance at non-Catholic religious functions was something that was tolerated for a serious reason, rather than simply allowed as a matter of course.
The distinction here is that the Novus Ordo is not merely a non-Catholic religious function, such as a Baptist funeral or a Lutheran wedding, but in fact claims to be and masquerades as Catholic worship. If it is legitimate Catholic worship, then that's where one should be attending Mass, not an independent, canonically illegal venue. If it is not legitimate Catholic worship, then (unlike the Lutheran service) it would be a sacrilege.
That being said, I don't want to derail this thread into another debate about the NO vs Traditional Mass.
-
The passive attendance at non-Catholic religious functions was something that was tolerated for a serious reason, rather than simply allowed as a matter of course.
The distinction here is that the Novus Ordo is not merely a non-Catholic religious function, such as a Baptist funeral or a Lutheran wedding, but in fact claims to be and masquerades as Catholic worship. If it is legitimate Catholic worship, then that's where one should be attending Mass, not an independent, canonically illegal venue. If it is not legitimate Catholic worship, then (unlike the Lutheran service) it would be a sacrilege.
That being said, I don't want to derail this thread into another debate about the NO vs Traditional Mass.
Well said.
-
You made certain to make that point just trying to be helpful. Right.
Would that all priests were as Fr. Feeney - and Fr. Wathen, for that matter. The Trad world would be in better shape. The Church will affirm these priests were correct in their assertions at least post-Fatima Consecration - but it would help to have more such courageous priests now. Souls and Our Lord's worship, would be the better for it.
You said it!
-
You made certain to make that point just trying to be helpful. Right.
Would that all priests were as Fr. Feeney - and Fr. Wathen, for that matter. The Trad world would be in better shape. The Church will affirm these priests were correct in their assertions at least post-Fatima Consecration - but it would help to have more such courageous priests now. Souls and Our Lord's worship, would be the better for it.
This reply was me - Merry
-
Also he's a Feeneyite.
Yet another huge plus in his favor. I'm astonished that so few Trad clergy see the problem with EENS, since EENS-denial is at the root of all the Vatican II errors. In point fact, most of the Trad clergy who denounce V2 ecclesiology as heretical themselves hold the same ecclesiology even if they don't know it. This is easily demonstrable.
-
The passive attendance at non-Catholic religious functions was something that was tolerated for a serious reason, rather than simply allowed as a matter of course.
The distinction here is that the Novus Ordo is not merely a non-Catholic religious function, such as a Baptist funeral or a Lutheran wedding, but in fact claims to be and masquerades as Catholic worship. If it is legitimate Catholic worship, then that's where one should be attending Mass, not an independent, canonically illegal venue. If it is not legitimate Catholic worship, then (unlike the Lutheran service) it would be a sacrilege.
That being said, I don't want to derail this thread into another debate about the NO vs Traditional Mass.
I'm not sure that I agree forbidding a passive attendance at NO funerals. It's well understood that individuals show up to pay their respects and that many are not participating in the religious services. If I had a relative die, I couldn't just no-show to the funeral because there was an NO Mass taking place. I'd sit in the back and not participate, but I'd still attend.
Weddings, I think, are a bit more dicey, since a great number of them are invalid, and I have refused to attend some certainly-invalid marriage of relatives, since showing up to congratulate them would give the impression that I consider them validly married. As a result, I'm not very popular with some extended family on my wife's side. I've also skipped baby showers for bastard children among these relatives. In each case, I have explained why. And, here's the thing. If all our supposedly "Catholic" relatives would have joined in not-attending, that would have sent a strong message to those involved ... but since we were the only ones who wouldn't attend, we were written off a cultist crackpots. Everyone else just celebrated and congratulated the "married" couples even when they basically agreed that the marriage was not valid. They thus became enablers of and accomplices in their sin.
And I agree that the NO is in a bit of a different category than a religion that has been officially declared by the Church to be outside the Church (e.g., Lutherans, Orthodox, etc.) NO has some ambiguity because they still profess to be Catholic, and many Conciliars still do have the Catholic faith, although they are in material error.
-
The passive attendance at non-Catholic religious functions was something that was tolerated for a serious reason, rather than simply allowed as a matter of course.
The distinction here is that the Novus Ordo is not merely a non-Catholic religious function, such as a Baptist funeral or a Lutheran wedding, but in fact claims to be and masquerades as Catholic worship. If it is legitimate Catholic worship, then that's where one should be attending Mass, not an independent, canonically illegal venue. If it is not legitimate Catholic worship, then (unlike the Lutheran service) it would be a sacrilege.
.
This is absurd. Someone who is attending a Novus Ordo funeral or wedding is not attending it as legitimate Catholic worship, but as a non-Catholic service. It is no different from attending a protestant funeral or wedding, if one attends passively the way one would at a protestant service where one is only present to honor the dead and not to worship in common with the ceremony.
I have never heard of any traditional priest saying it is wrong to attend a Novus Ordo funeral or wedding if one does so passively and out of respect for the family.
-
... one is only present to honor the dead and not to worship in common with the ceremony.
Precisely. And there's no danger of scandal either, because everyone knows that you're there to honor the dead ... and to offer condolences to their relatives and friends, and no one assumes that everyone present at a funeral or wedding is participating in the religious aspect of the proceedings.
-
Why does one have to attend the wedding itself? Why not just the reception?
Same for funerals. Why not just the wake/viewing and/or the graveside service?
We've been doing that for decades, and everyone is happy.
And with the Novus Ordo, we're not talking about a non-Catholic service. We're talking about an act that CLAIMS to be Catholic worship.
And why are people so stuck on exceptions when it comes to going to the New Mass? Are you concerned about offending men, or offending God?
-
.
This is absurd. Someone who is attending a Novus Ordo funeral or wedding is not attending it as legitimate Catholic worship, but as a non-Catholic service. It is no different from attending a protestant funeral or wedding, if one attends passively the way one would at a protestant service where one is only present to honor the dead and not to worship in common with the ceremony.
I have never heard of any traditional priest saying it is wrong to attend a Novus Ordo funeral or wedding if one does so passively and out of respect for the family.
I agree with this; however, these NO funerals are an occasion of sin for me because oftentimes I can't help getting angry at the content of the "homilies" for the dearly departed or the lack of prayers for the dead or the comments by either the "priest" or the family member/friend that he/she is in Heaven.
-
Why does one have to attend the wedding itself? Why not just the reception?
Same for funerals. Why not just the wake/viewing and/or the graveside service?
We've been doing that for decades, and everyone is happy.
And with the Novus Ordo, we're not talking about a non-Catholic service. We're talking about an act that CLAIMS to be Catholic worship.
And why are people so stuck on exceptions when it comes to going to the New Mass? Are you concerned about offending men, or offending God?
You can do that if you'd like, just attend the wake or the reception, but the question is whether it's prohibited to attend NO weddings or funerals. You beg the question that it is throughout your entire pos.
Yes, the NO Mass is different, and is less forbidden than a Prot Mass precisely because the people profess the Catholic faith.
Your last sentence is extremely arrogant. It's not an "exception" and you absolutely fail to distinguish between a passive presence and active attendance (assisting at the NOM). God is not offended, except that you're begging the question throughout your post. If it were something God were offended by, the Traditional Catholics here on CI would not do it, and it's an arrogant slander to claim that they're doing something to offend God out of human respect.
-
Just stating facts. It matters for some :cowboy:
For some of us it is preferred!
-
For some reason the phrase "puritanized, autistic, trad weirdos" comes to mind. I wonder why? ::)
(Thank you 6 million oreos)
-
I have never heard of any traditional priest saying it is wrong to attend a Novus Ordo funeral or wedding if one does so passively and out of respect for the family.
Fr Wathen held this view and reiterated it many, many times over the years.
-
It's not an "exception"
Yes, passive attendance at the new mass, or any non-catholic service, is a canon law exception. Just like it's a canon law exception to marry a non-catholic. In former times, one had to get permission. Nowadays, there's no one to ask permission from, being the Church hierarchy is unorthodox, so people do what they want.
-
Yes, passive attendance at the new mass, or any non-catholic service, is a canon law exception. Just like it's a canon law exception to marry a non-catholic. In former times, one had to get permission. Nowadays, there's no one to ask permission from, being the Church hierarchy is unorthodox, so people do what they want.
For funerals and weddings, not to attend for any reason.
-
For funerals and weddings, not to attend for any reason.
No. There is no general allowance for catholics to attend non-catholic services. Obviously, active attendance is a sin. Canon Law only permits passive attendance for a good reason, and permission was required. In pre-V2 times, such permission was typically for politicians to attend state funerals, or some other type of reason.
It has never been normal for catholics to attend non-catholic services, just for relative's sake. The reason had to be unique.
-
Fr Wathen held this view and reiterated it many, many times over the years.
This is correct. The Novus Ordo is a sacrilege and a mortal sin, whether said on a Sunday, a Saturday afternoon, or at a wedding, or at a funeral. It is wrong to go to it no matter the reason, as it is a sin against the Divinity directly. It is worse than an abortion (and would we sit in to view an abortion?) Where is our faith? We are required to love God first - "He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me." (Mt. 10:37).
And in case anyone should recoil from having to choose God over relatives, sometimes a hard thing indeed when it comes to funerals and weddings and nasty family reactions, Our Lord immediately says:
"And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me." (Mt. 10:38)
-
This is correct. The Novus Ordo is a sacrilege and a mortal sin, whether said on a Sunday, a Saturday afternoon, or at a wedding, or at a funeral. It is wrong to go to it no matter the reason, as it is a sin against the Divinity directly. It is worse than an abortion (and would we sit in to view an abortion?) Where is our faith? We are required to love God first - "He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me." (Mt. 10:37).
And in case anyone should recoil from having to choose God over relatives, sometimes a hard thing indeed when it comes to funerals and weddings and nasty family reactions, Our Lord immediately says:
"And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me." (Mt. 10:38)
With all due respect to Fr. Wathen, Dimond brothers, et. al., I'll take my Catholic doctrine from Pope St. Pius X and Pope Benedict XV
§ 2. Passive or merely material presence can be tolerated for the sake of honour or civil office, for grave reason approved by the Bishop in case of doubt, at the funerals, weddings, and similar solemnities of non-Catholics, provided danger of perversion and scandal is absent.
While I understand the perspective that the NO may be considered a sacrilege worse than any protestant service and also that one could argue that neither Pope envisaged the NO when promulgating the code, the plain fact is that they DID promulgate the code with the given wording. So that's what we have to work with.
The Popes didn't command Catholics to attend non-Catholic services.
They did not recommend attending them.
But they did tolerate it.
What that means in practice is that a reasonably sane, stable-in-their-Faith Catholic can choose to attend cousin Fred's NO funeral. He can also choose to not attend.
Those that have some kind of scruples over the matter should not attend.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but this situation is difficult enough, do we really need more self-appointed high-priests of the trad-sanhedrin convicting everyone of mortal sin over debatable points?
-
provided danger of perversion and scandal is absent.
Everyone loves to just ignore this part.
-
at the funerals, weddings, and similar solemnities of non-Catholics
The new mass is not a ‘non-catholic’ service; it’s more like a schismatic sect or an orthodox mass. It’s not in the same classification as a Protestant service, because the new mass actually proclaims to be catholic.
It’s funny how the vast majority of Traditional clerics/laity will NOT condemn the new mass 100% and will NOT forbid attendance at it, due to the possibility that it could be valid.
Yet, when it comes to weddings/funerals, these same clerics/laity will say “Oh, yes, the new mass is 100% non-catholic. So I can attend passively.”
The hypocrisy is outstanding!
-
provided danger of perversion and scandal is absent.
Everyone loves to just ignore this part.
It's hard for me to understand how a stable person sitting in the back praying their Rosary is going to be perverted.
It's also hard for me to understand how anyone who is reasonably stable would be scandalized by that action either. There is such a thing as "taking scandal" though. A malicious ploy of the Pharisees.
-
It’s scandalous to other Trads who think the new mass is a sin. It’s also scandalous to the novus ordo people, who by your attendance, can think/be tempted to think: “Oh, I know that person, and they go to the Latin mass. If they are here, then the new mass must not be as bad as people say.”
There are various degrees and types of scandal, which is a type of sin of bad example. Attending the new mass gives all kinds of bad examples to others. Even if you sit in the back.
Because if you truly understood how offensive to God it was, you wouldn’t be anywhere near the parking lot.
Protestant services, on the other hand, don’t pretend to be catholic, don’t mimic sacraments and don’t have blasphemy/Sacrileges as part of their service.
-
Pius X wasn't dealing with the New Mass. It hadn't been "invented" yet. Indeed, it would never have seen the light of day under his Pontificate.
He condemned Modernism - which is the New Mass in spades.
As for Benedict - ha - he helped invent the thing. No help there. What's wrong with you people who don't get angry, almost to sickness, at this blasphemous effrontery called the New Mass - in any of its incarnations?? You must not know what the REAL Mass is! You otherwise wouldn't tolerate being around its ape-sacrilege. Who sticks up for the New Mass anyway? Get Catholic!
-
Everyone loves to just ignore this part.
BS. I addressed it up front, indicating that there's no such danger because everyone knows that people attend funerals and weddings for social reasons, and not necessarily to participate in the religious aspect of what's taking place.
-
The new mass is not a ‘non-catholic’ service; it’s more like a schismatic sect or an orthodox mass. It’s not in the same classification as a Protestant service, because the new mass actually proclaims to be catholic.
It’s funny how the vast majority of Traditional clerics/laity will NOT condemn the new mass 100% and will NOT forbid attendance at it, due to the possibility that it could be valid.
Yet, when it comes to weddings/funerals, these same clerics/laity will say “Oh, yes, the new mass is 100% non-catholic. So I can attend passively.”
The hypocrisy is outstanding!
This has to be the dumbest post I've seen here in a long time, and this is the second time you've posted this. Who are you anyway, anonymous coward? Put your name to these absurd opinions.
It's precisely because it's "not in the same classification as a Protestant service" that it's even more unclear about whether attendance might be permitted. Church has never authoritatively ruled on its status, and the Conciliars profess the Catholic faith. You're pretending that it's somehow in a "worse" state because it hasn't been condemned officially by the Church.
This is the kind of nonsense that makes many Trads look like adherents of a cult.
-
Everyone loves to just ignore this part.
It's hard for me to understand how a stable person sitting in the back praying their Rosary is going to be perverted.
It's also hard for me to understand how anyone who is reasonably stable would be scandalized by that action either. There is such a thing as "taking scandal" though. A malicious ploy of the Pharisees.
There's almost zero chance of either. Attending funerals to pay respects, for social reasons, is so widely practiced that no one is going to infer from your attendance that you're an adherent of whatever religion is performing the funera service. Agreed on the perversion as well. If someone would be "perverted" by witnessing an isolated NOM his faith is weak indeed.
-
It’s scandalous to other Trads who think the new mass is a sin.
That's not scandal. You don't even know the definition of the term. If some other Trad were to swoon while saying "oh, I do declare" ... that's not scandal. And 99% of all Trads, as another poster said, know that it's permitted to passively attend a wedding or funeral with a NOM. This is absurd. Still too cowardly to de-cloak from anonymity?
-
It’s also scandalous to the novus ordo people, who by your attendance, can think/be tempted to think: “Oh, I know that person, and they go to the Latin mass. If they are here, then the new mass must not be as bad as people say.”
Ridiculous. EVERYONE knows that people attend funeral services at non-Catholic churches without construing it as their endorsement of wherever it's being held.
-
Who sticks up for the New Mass anyway? Get Catholic!
Are you nuts or just a slanderer? Nobody here is "sticking up for the New Mass", just affirming that passive attendance is permitted at weddings and funerals, as nearly all Traditional priests agree. And your calumny in claiming that people affirming this are not Catholic, and need to "Get Catholic!" is over the top.
I'm getting really fed up with the Pharisaical nonsense from some Trads here who have messed-up cult-like mentalities.
-
There's almost zero chance of either. Attending funerals to pay respects, for social reasons, is so widely practiced that no one is going to infer from your attendance that you're an adherent of whatever religion is performing the funeral service. Agreed on the perversion as well. If someone would be "perverted" by witnessing an isolated NOM his faith is weak indeed.
There's a deeper point that seems to be lost in all this as well. Showing up and expressing sincere sympathy to one who is grieving might just be the act of Charity that opens them up to conversion. The more that I have considered this, and tried to practice it, the more I see of our Lord's wisdom in this seemingly small act.
-
So let me understand the distinction here: the man in the back row of the Novus Ordo funeral praying his rosary is "passively" attending, whereas the man in the front row praying his rosary is "actively" attending? It is O.K. morally to passively attend, but not O.K. to actively attend? Who is to distinguish between active and passive attendance?
The popes are perfectly free to give us their opinions on active and passive attendance at either non-Catholic or supposedly Catholic ceremonies, but at the end of the day, it is moral advice, and the pope in his private capacity is just as fallible as any other theologian. Aside from the pope/Holy Office saying a Catholic "must" or "must not" perform an action, anything else is, once again, moral advice, which may be correct or incorrect.
As for me, I told my family many years ago that I would not attend weddings or funerals if there is a Novus Ordo Mass involved; that move has made my life wonderful, because I choose not to participate in that Novus Ordo nonsense anyway.
-
So let me understand the distinction here: the man in the back row of the Novus Ordo funeral praying his rosary is "passively" attending, whereas the man in the front row praying his rosary is "actively" attending? It is O.K. morally to passively attend, but not O.K. to actively attend? Who is to distinguish between active and passive attendance?
Are you joining in the prayers that are part of the service? The gestures; i.e. standing, kneeling, etc? Rocket science it is not.
The popes are perfectly free to give us their opinions on active and passive attendance at either non-Catholic or supposedly Catholic ceremonies, but at the end of the day, it is moral advice, and the pope in his private capacity is just as fallible as any other theologian. Aside from the pope/Holy Office saying a Catholic "must" or "must not" perform an action, anything else is, once again, moral advice, which may be correct or incorrect.
Some were imputing mortal sin to those who choose to follow the Pope's "advice".
As for me, I told my family many years ago that I would not attend weddings or funerals if there is a Novus Ordo Mass involved; that move has made my life wonderful, because I choose not to participate in that Novus Ordo nonsense anyway.
You are perfectly free to make that choice. However, some think that they are not their own and should at least try to do the Lord's will, not seek their own comfort.
15 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=13&l=15-#x)For I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you do also.
-
Pius X wasn't dealing with the New Mass. It hadn't been "invented" yet. Indeed, it would never have seen the light of day under his Pontificate.
He condemned Modernism - which is the New Mass in spades.
As for Benedict - ha - he helped invent the thing. No help there. What's wrong with you people who don't get angry, almost to sickness, at this blasphemous effrontery called the New Mass - in any of its incarnations?? You must not know what the REAL Mass is! You otherwise wouldn't tolerate being around its ape-sacrilege. Who sticks up for the New Mass anyway? Get Catholic!
Well said Merry! Excellent post!
-
With all due respect to Fr. Wathen, Dimond brothers, et. al., I'll take my Catholic doctrine from Pope St. Pius X and Pope Benedict XV
§ 2. Passive or merely material presence can be tolerated for the sake of honour or civil office, for grave reason approved by the Bishop in case of doubt, at the funerals, weddings, and similar solemnities of non-Catholics, provided danger of perversion and scandal is absent.
While I understand the perspective that the NO may be considered a sacrilege worse than any protestant service and also that one could argue that neither Pope envisaged the NO when promulgating the code, the plain fact is that they DID promulgate the code with the given wording. So that's what we have to work with.
The Popes didn't command Catholics to attend non-Catholic services.
They did not recommend attending them.
But they did tolerate it.
What that means in practice is that a reasonably sane, stable-in-their-Faith Catholic can choose to attend cousin Fred's NO funeral. He can also choose to not attend.
Those that have some kind of scruples over the matter should not attend.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but this situation is difficult enough, do we really need more self-appointed high-priests of the trad-sanhedrin convicting everyone of mortal sin over debatable points?
Negative on this. If we are going to reference CL at all in this, then it most certainly cannot be used to support attending the NO at all because CL says the opposite. And for our purpose, we can eliminate going for the sake of honor or civil office.
Note that the Law purposely excludes passive attendance for peace in the family, or even for social reasons. Contrary to your red text, CL does not leave it up to us to choose at all, there is no getting out of this.
CL essentially states: "You cannot attend at all, but if you are to go, then these are the exceptions."
Additionally, the Law states that approval from the Bishop is required when the reason to attend is a grave reason - because normally the reason to attend is not grave, the default position is you cannot go. That's the Law.
-
As for Benedict - ha - he helped invent the thing. No help there. What's wrong with you people who don't get angry, almost to sickness, at this blasphemous effrontery called the New Mass - in any of its incarnations?? You must not know what the REAL Mass is! You otherwise wouldn't tolerate being around its ape-sacrilege. Who sticks up for the New Mass anyway? Get Catholic!
A rule we lived be since childhood by was, "When you walk into a church and see a table, turn around and leave."
It's a very good rule to live by - always. A long time ago I broke that rule for the NO funeral of a co-worker, never again. What goes on in there is an affront to Almighty God. I could go on with a TLDR about this, but suffice to say, never, never, ever again.
But how to explain it to those who believe passive attendance is allowed or tolerated? Not sure, but even if a trad believes it's ok, we know that our Holy Mother, being ever watchful over her children, does not permit it for a very good reason, this should be good enough to know that there is a real, mortal danger there, stay away.
-
Just stating facts. It matters for some :cowboy:
It should matter to every Catholic. Feeneyism is a dangerous error against the Faith.
-
It should matter to every Catholic. Feeneyism is a dangerous error against the Faith.
Yes it should and no it isn't.
-
Yes it should and no it isn't.
This ^^^
-
It should matter to every Catholic. Feeneyism is a dangerous error against the Faith.
WRONG! So-called Feeneyism is identical to the Catholic Faith. Even orthodox schmatics of the Byzantine ritual Churches believe "Feeneyism", simply replacing "Catholic" Church and Faith with "Orthodox".
Feeneyism (doctrinal)= Catholicism
This does not mean that everything that Fr. Leonard Feeney or his community said or did is impeccable or infallible.
-
So let me understand the distinction here: the man in the back row of the Novus Ordo funeral praying his rosary is "passively" attending, whereas the man in the front row praying his rosary is "actively" attending? It is O.K. morally to passively attend, but not O.K. to actively attend? Who is to distinguish between active and passive attendance?
I am in agreement. The people who claim canon law allows passive attendance at the novus ordo are just emotional. They are wrongly interpreting an isolated permission of the past, and have expanded and corrupted it into a current social norm.
What other areas of moral theology allow passive attendance for family support? Holding someone's hand while they get an abortion? Driving your daughter to the doctor's office to get birth control? Going with your brother to a rock concert because he's sad his dog died? Where does the sentimentality end?
Were catholics allowed to attend Arian weddings and funerals during the Arian crisis? Were catholics allowed to attend Lutheran weddings and funerals during the Protestant revolt? Were catholics allowed to attend weddings and funerals during the Anglican persecution in England?
The overall question is -- why would you want to support a false religion that is actively persecuting you, your Faith and God?
Secondly, why is passive attendance even necessary to support a family member? If they are actively attending and paying attention to the service, why would they care if you are in the back, just sitting there, or if you are in your car, waiting for the gathering afterwards? In either situation, you can't talk to each other?
What's the point of passive attendance? Other than compromising your Catholic principles. There are multiple ways you can support a loved one which don't require passive attendance.
-
I am in agreement. The people who claim canon law allows passive attendance at the novus ordo are just emotional.
False. Relevant papal teaching was cited. YOU are the one who's operating on pure emotion.
-
Canon Law doesn't say anything about not attending Mass at any Catholic Church of your choice.
You have to be careful when talking in absolutes on this topic. The Novus Ordo Missae is VIRTUALLY a new religion. But that word virtually is very important and can't be left out, without exaggerating. And exaggeration of a truth is a lie.
All the other heresies left home and apostatized. This one stayed home and transformed their home instead, keeping the name, buildings, and a huge % of the trappings and terminology. Furthermore, except for a few ACTUAL heretics who deny dogmas, most of the Novus Ordo milieu doesn't *directly* deny any Catholic dogmas. They give lip service to them, or they simply kill them by neglect, and/or by mixing in so much worldliness and modern ideas. So it's not the same thing at all.
When you're talking about the Crisis in the Church, you can't point to any doctrines, except to justify your choice of lifeboat (or course of action). It's a question of PRUDENCE, not DOGMA.
You can talk about what non-Catholic services Canon Law or the Faith permits us to attend under what circuмstances -- but the Crisis and anything touching on it is a whole different ball of wax. A whole different kettle of fish.
Novus Ordo Mass is not "Lutheran" simply speaking (simpliciter).
Yes, it is dangerous to the Faith, imprudent, even sinfully rash to attend if you fully understand the Crisis, Modernism, etc. and are willfully putting your Faith in danger.
But you can't just drop in "Novus Ordo Mass" in place of "Lutheran" in every prohibition against non-Catholic sects, heresies, etc. because it's different. None of those heresies is called "The Roman Catholic Church", nor can any of them show continuity going back to the Apostles. Therefore, there CAN be people of good will who just don't understand the Crisis -- nor the need to refrain 100% from the Novus Ordo.
-
What other areas of moral theology allow passive attendance for family support? Holding someone's hand while they get an abortion? Driving your daughter to the doctor's office to get birth control? Going with your brother to a rock concert because he's sad his dog died? Where does the sentimentality end?
Idiotic. As already explained to you numerous times, while these other activities you describe can be construed as condoning the activity, it's very widely understood that people attend funerals and weddings in a social capacity rather than a religious one. It's why Catholic priests themselves do not generally distribute Holy Communion during these events, because non-Catholics are usually in attendance and might be unacquainted with Catholic rules regarding the Sacraments and may be tempted (out of ignorance) to come up for Holy Communion.
Nobody is scandalized or construes it as a sign of adherence to a false religion for someone to show up at a wedding or funeral.
One exception here that might be analogous to your examples is attending a wedding that you know to be invalid or highly doubtful. That could be construed as aiding / abetting / enabling a non-marriage, giving the impression that you accept it as a marriage. I've refused to attend such weddings, whereas I have no problem passively attending a valid marriage ... and only being present (not participating) in any religious aspects of the ceremony. This is not sentimentalism, as you falsely allege, but a rational distinction. If I were motivated by "sentimentalism", I would just go to the invalid marriages as well ... which I don't and wouldn't.
-
And besides, most of the time these Novus Ordo funerals are occasions of sin anyway: Bobby is sitting in the back hanging his head, saying his rosary, while sexy Cindy, who wears a miniskirt is sitting right in front of him, showing her arse to the whole church. Bobby sits there and listens to the Fr. Jimmy talk about dead Aunt Suzy, how good she was (when in reality she has not been to church in ten years), meanwhile the church breaks out in song, "Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine...." Not to mention the fact that Fr. Jimmy has an entire history of saying nothing about the corrupt bishop in the diocese who permits and conceals the crimes of the perverted priests in the diocese. How is it that Bobby just sits there and does not have some pains of conscience within his soul?
-
The novus ordo is a blasphemy against God. It's also illicit. The non-catholic services which canon law allows passive attendance at, are not blasphemous, nor illicit.
There are other canon laws which overrule this one, and forbid attendance at illicit sacraments.
-
WRONG! So-called Feeneyism is identical to the Catholic Faith. Even orthodox schmatics of the Byzantine ritual Churches believe "Feeneyism", simply replacing "Catholic" Church and Faith with "Orthodox".
Feeneyism (doctrinal)= Catholicism
This does not mean that everything that Fr. Leonard Feeney or his community said or did is impeccable or infallible.
Except that the Council of Trent taught Baptism of desire. Deny it all you want, it's your salvation you are playing with.
It so easy to just say, "I believe everything the Church teaches and deny nothing."
-
The novus ordo is a blasphemy against God. It's also illicit. The non-catholic services which canon law allows passive attendance at, are not blasphemous, nor illicit.
There are other canon laws which overrule this one, and forbid attendance at illicit sacraments.
Ridiculous. There's no difference between the NOM and, say, Cramner's services, and very little difference from the Lutheran ones either. How about Baptist services?
If anything, the NOM enjoys superior footing because these other ones are used by sects that are officially outside the Church, whereas the Conciliar Church and the NOM have never been condemned by any Church authorities, and Conciliars profess the Catholic faith, and many of them do have the faith.
-
Except that the Council of Trent taught Baptism of desire. Deny it all you want, it's your salvation you are playing with.
It so easy to just say, "I believe everything the Church teaches and deny nothing."
Trent taught no such thing. I'm sick of the anonymous cowards on this thread. At least show a bit of fortitude and de-cloak from anonymity.
-
And besides, most of the time these Novus Ordo funerals are occasions of sin anyway: Bobby is sitting in the back hanging his head, saying his rosary, while sexy Cindy, who wears a miniskirt is sitting right in front of him, showing her arse to the whole church. Bobby sits there and listens to the Fr. Jimmy talk about dead Aunt Suzy, how good she was (when in reality she has not been to church in ten years), meanwhile the church breaks out in song, "Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine...." Not to mention the fact that Fr. Jimmy has an entire history of saying nothing about the corrupt bishop in the diocese who permits and conceals the crimes of the perverted priests in the diocese. How is it that Bobby just sits there and does not have some pains of conscience within his soul?
No more an occasion of sin than going to a grocery store. If it's an occasion of sin for you, then by all means stay away.
And ... how are these types of things different from what might happen at a Prot church? And, from the theological aspect, Prots take it a step further even, claiming that anyone who "believes" is saved, and the more "boldly" they sinned, the greater their glory in Heaven.
Of course, we don't even know who's saying what because of all the anonymous cowards on this thread.
-
Ridiculous. There's no difference between the NOM and, say, Cramner's services, and very little difference from the Lutheran ones either. How about Baptist services?
And catholics were not allowed to attend Cramner's services or Lutheran ones. Many became martyrs to avoid attendance. Yet we can attend the NOM to celebrate a wedding???? My, how weak and unprincipled are modern day catholics!
-
And, from the theological aspect, Prots take it a step further even, claiming that anyone who "believes" is saved, and the more "boldly" they sinned, the greater their glory in Heaven.
It was never a normal thing, before 1960, for catholics to attend protestant weddings and funerals. Using this canon law is revisionist history.
-
No more an occasion of sin than going to a grocery store. If it's an occasion of sin for you, then by all means stay away.
And ... how are these types of things different from what might happen at a Prot church? And, from the theological aspect, Prots take it a step further even, claiming that anyone who "believes" is saved, and the more "boldly" they sinned, the greater their glory in Heaven.
Of course, we don't even know who's saying what because of all the anonymous cowards on this thread.
What you're not getting is what the NOM is and it's only purpose, i.e. why it is. It's not comparable to a prot service, or a Hindu service for that matter.
It's a demon that crudely dresses up as, and mocks the Holy Sacrifice of Calvary so all those in attendance get a belly full of it's eternally putrid fruits. Now if you want to go - go ahead, but stop posting that Holy Mother the Church ever permits her faithful children to attend the damned thing for any reason.
-
This passive attendance argument is just another result of the further decline of the doctrine of EENS. If most anyone can be saved outside of catholicism, including the novus ordo, due to BOD, then the danger of going to weddings and funerals becomes minimal.
In orthodox times, catholics stayed away from illicit masses out of respect for the Church and the True Mass. Now, the idea of illicitness is put aside, for social reasons. Forgetting that Christ told us that if anyone choose a family member over Him, we aren't worthy of Him.
Now we have sedevacantists who will condemn other Trads for going to an UNA cuм mass, but there's no condemnation for going to a novus ordo wedding.
The world is truly backwards.
-
(https://biblehub.com/catholic/matthew/10-34.htm)
34 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/matthew/10-34.htm)Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. 35 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/matthew/10-35.htm)For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/matthew/10-36.htm)And a man's enemies shall be they of his own household.
He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me
Certainly these quotes apply to attending novus ordo services --- for family reasons.
-
People who post under the cloak of anonymity are not always dishonest cowards. It could be that a man does not want his priest to know that he is a promoter of Fr. Feeney or a promoter of New Mass is a mortal sin. Those of us long-in-the-fight know a great multitude of cases where traditional priests have kicked out trads on precisely these grounds.
Perhaps a man is being prudent because he does not want his wife and ten children to get kicked out of the church because they are dirty Feeneyites, or because they tell their children that they will not go to grandma's NO funeral. Of the natural virtues, Prudence is master.
-
Most trads today seem to have no concept of the Majesty of God, the true Divinity of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, and the stupendous mystery that is the Holy Mass. If we spent a mere fraction of our time meditating on these things rather than slinging our opinion around on the internet, the situation regarding the Novus Ordo, what it truly is, would become clear as a bell.
-
It was never a normal thing, before 1960, for Catholics to attend protestant weddings and funerals. Using this canon law is revisionist history.
Seems to have been normal enough that it was a subject dealt with in a publication in the 30's.
https://archive.org/details/sim_homiletic-pastoral-review_1937-10_38_1/page/71/mode/1up?
https://archive.org/details/sim_homiletic-pastoral-review_1938-04_38_7/page/737/mode/1up?
-
Seems to have been normal enough that it was a subject dealt with in a publication in the 30's.
https://archive.org/details/sim_homiletic-pastoral-review_1937-10_38_1/page/71/mode/1up?
https://archive.org/details/sim_homiletic-pastoral-review_1938-04_38_7/page/737/mode/1up?
https://archive.org/details/sim_homiletic-pastoral-review_1928-08_28_11/page/1214/mode/1up?
-
Seems to have been normal enough that it was a subject dealt with in a publication in the 30's.
I meant, it was not normal for GOOD Catholics to attend. There were millions of bad Catholics before 1960 and even in the 20s. Their bad actions and religious indifferentism were punished by the Great Depression, WW2 and then Vatican 2.
Religious indifference leads to liberalism. Which is why the SSPX is in the state it’s in today.
If you aren’t 100% against the NOM, then you’ll eventually become indifferent to its evils, which is what is proved by this thread.
-
I meant, it was not normal for GOOD Catholics to attend. There were millions of bad Catholics before 1960 and even in the 20s. Their bad actions and religious indifferentism were punished by the Great Depression, WW2 and then Vatican 2.
Religious indifference leads to liberalism. Which is why the SSPX is in the state it’s in today.
If you aren’t 100% against the NOM, then you’ll eventually become indifferent to its evils, which is what is proved by this thread.
I doubt that you are aware of or intend to be but this is what you sound like:
And the Pharisees and the scribes murmured, saying: This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.
[Luke 15:2 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=15&l=2#x)]
It's become apparent to me personally that wrapping myself in a bubble of self-righteousness (really selfishness), justifying the same (falsely) as part of being a GOOD Catholic, has been a serious error and a stumbling block to souls.
The NO errs in the direction of throwing out Truth in the name of a false Charity, too many trads err in the direction of taking the Law as an end in itself. I doubt very much that our Lord is served well with either.
"But woe to you, Pharisees, because you tithe mint and rue and every herb; and pass over judgment, and the charity of God. Now these things you ought to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
[Luke 11:42 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=11&l=42#x)]
When the "good" Catholics are so confused that they can't even show those outside the Faith a modicuм of compassion, it is no wonder that society is in the state that it is.
To Hell with the tradhedrin.
-
When the "good" Catholics are so confused that they can't even show those outside the Faith a modicuм of compassion
:facepalm: Your false hypothesis is that the only way to show compassion is to go to the NOM. One can simply skip the new mass and go to the reception/wake/funeral.
-
When the "good" Catholics are so confused that they can't even show those outside the Faith a modicuм of compassion, it is no wonder that society is in the state that it is.
To Hell with the tradhedrin.
Good Catholics avoid evil. The NOM is evil. Those outside of the faith see a good Catholic that does not go and they might ask why? HERE is the opportunity to charitably unconfuse those outside the faith. HERE is your opportunity to "show those outside the Faith a modicuм of compassion."
OTOH, those who see a "good" Catholic at a NOM means they will see no reason whatsoever to question, much less ever learn of any reason to avoid the NOM.
-
I meant, it was not normal for GOOD Catholics to attend.
.
Yes, it was. Can't you read? The article said it was perfectly fine for Catholics to attend a non-Catholic funeral if they don't participate.
You are the one going against canon law and what the Church has taught, by rejecting these clear, simple rules and inventing your own and pretending other people are required to observe them.
Instead, you should be keeping what was taught before Vatican 2, especially when it is presented to you clearly, as in this Catholic publication.
-
The 2nd false premise is to equate the new mass with Protestantism. They aren’t the same and canon laws for Protestant rites are DIFFERENT than canon laws related to schism/illicit activity.
Canon law SOMETIMES allows attendance at Protestant services.
Canon law NEVER allows attendance at illicit, schismatic rites.
-
.
Yes, it was. Can't you read? The article said it was perfectly fine for Catholics to attend a non-Catholic funeral if they don't participate.
You are the one going against canon law and what the Church has taught, by rejecting these clear, simple rules and inventing your own and pretending other people are required to observe them.
Instead, you should be keeping what was taught before Vatican 2, especially when it is presented to you clearly, as in this Catholic publication.
I don't know what you're reading, but from one of the links, it first clearly states the Church forbids active participation, which is a no brainer.
THEN it says that passive or merely material presence may be tolerated (then again it may not) for a grave reason. And if you don't know if your reason is grave or not, you have to get permission from the bishop - who may not give you permission. There must be a serious reason to be there even passively. That is Canon Law. These are the clear, simple rules. CL in no way states it's ok to attend passively depending upon who is in the casket.
Question: May a priest assist at the funeral of a non-Catholic or of a Catholic to whom ecclesiastical burial was denied by saying prayers and giving a talk? PASTOR.
Answer: Canon 1258 forbids all the faithful to assist actively in any manner at the religious services of non-Catholics. Then the same Canon goes on to say that passive or merely material presence on account of a civil office or for the purpose of showing respect to a person at funerals of non-Catholics, at marriages, or similar solemnities, may be tolerated for a grave reason;*if* it is doubtful whether one is justified in assisting, the bishop is to be consulted.
It is important to notice that the presence of a Catholic, all the more so of a Catholic priest, must be passive; he is not permitted to take an active part in the religious services. Ordinarily the non-Catholics themselves understand that their Catholic friends come to pay their respects to them, not to participate in Protestant religious services. It must also be noted that the Church requires a serious reason for this presence at the above-mentioned religious services of non-Catholics. Evidently so, for ordinarily the Church forbids Catholics to be present at non-Catholics’ prayer meetings, sermons and other religious services either in their churches or elsewhere. Our correspondent speaks of a priest being present at the funeral of a Catholic who has been denied ecclesiastical burial. There would have to be very special reasons to justify the presence of a priest at such a funeral. It is not good sense to say that a Catholic funeral is forbidden and to have a Catholic priest present at it. Besides, the priest is put into the awkward position of being present at the funeral of a Catholic, while some minister or the undertaker performs some kind of religious service. Circuмstances may, of course, arise under which a priest cannot stay away from such a funeral because of family ties or because of civic honors paid a man for his public services to town, city or state. In such cases everybody knows why the priest is present and sensible people will take no scandal.
-
Good post. This proves the point that prior to the 1960s, it was not a normal practice for good Catholics to attend non-catholic weddings/funerals.
The modern-day ignoring of the necessity of permission and grave reasons, only exists because modern Trads have no hierarchy to guide us.
Priests like Fr Wathen, we grew up, and went to the seminary, prior to Vatican 2, always disapproved of attendance at the new mass (for any reason). He also disapproved of even going to PROTESTANT weddings and funerals.
He was a priest prior to V2. He would know.
-
THEN it says that passive or merely material presence may be tolerated (then again it may not) for a grave reason.
Who are you, schismatic cult-like Pharisaical Anonymous Coward and why don't you have the fortitude to reveal yourself?
You need some lessons in reading comprehension, as the "grave reason" qualifier does not apply to the listed circuмstances. Pay attention now (as if you were in second grade learning to read) to where the commas are.
§ 2. Passive or merely material presence can be tolerated
1) for the sake of honour or civil office,
2) for grave reason approved by the Bishop in case of doubt,
3) at the funerals, weddings, and similar solemnities of non-Catholics,
... provided danger of perversion and scandal is absent.
Funerals, Weddings, and similar solemnities are called out by the law explicitly, provided there's no danger of perversion and scandal (which there isn't). Outside of funerals, weddings, and similar, or situations where some public official is being honored, some grave reason approved by the bishop (in cases of doubt) is necessary. In other words, you can't just show up at an Orthodox Liturgy or Lutheran Sunday service for no particular reason. If there were some ceremony for, say installing a civil official, or in the cases of funerals and weddings ... it's well understood that people attend for the civil aspect, or in the cases of funerals, weddings, etc. ... the social aspect, and no one is going to construe a passive attendance as showing up to engage in the religious rites themselves. Now, if you were, say, a Doctoral student studying Liturgy, and just wanted to attend non-Catholic services just to study them academically, etc., that isn't enumerated here and would require permission from the Bishop, which would probably give to those would not likely be persuaded by the ceremonies.
This is the accurate translation of the Latin as well.
§2. Tolerari potest praesentia passiva seu mere materialis, civilis officii vel
honoris causa, ob gravem rationem ab Episcopo in casu dubii probandam, in
acatholicorum funeribus, nuptiis similibusque sollemniis, dummodo perversionis et
scandali periculum absit.
-
the social aspect, and no one is going to construe a passive attendance as showing up to engage in the religious rites themselves.
No reason to show up at all. Just go to the reception or burial.
For Traditional catholics to claim that the Vatican 2 church is so bad, and the popes so heretical, that they must abandon their dioceses, start their own independent chapels, and seminaries...but...it's not so bad for weddings and funerals. (!!!) This exception -in relation to Vatican 2- is just so, so bad and weak. It's comically hypocritical.
-
Good post. This proves the point that prior to the 1960s, it was not a normal practice for good Catholics to attend non-catholic weddings/funerals.
The modern-day ignoring of the necessity of permission and grave reasons, only exists because modern Trads have no hierarchy to guide us.
Priests like Fr Wathen, we grew up, and went to the seminary, prior to Vatican 2, always disapproved of attendance at the new mass (for any reason). He also disapproved of even going to PROTESTANT weddings and funerals.
He was a priest prior to V2. He would know.
I agree and well said.
IMO, I think that most (not all) folks coming into tradition from the NO, or who were raised NO, or were otherwise once NO, these are mainly the ones who are prone to misapply this CL to the NOM, as if all the NOM is, is a non-catholic ceremony, or is comparable to a prot service.
It's funny in a way because you'd think that having "seen the light" after being within and playing a part of the destruction of the faith themselves, that these faithful would be among the first to warn against attending the evil thing under any circuмstance no matter what. But apparently, instead they got used to it, in a way they've been conditioned to it because they lived within in it, so they either refuse or do not see it for what it actually is.
All we can say is that if the wrath of God comes while they're materially only sitting in the back, Lord have mercy!
-
Good post. This proves the point that prior to the 1960s, it was not a normal practice for good Catholics to attend non-catholic weddings/funerals.
I thought this part of the quote was interesting:
Our correspondent speaks of a priest being present at the funeral of a Catholic who has been denied ecclesiastical burial. There would have to be very special reasons to justify the presence of a priest at such a funeral. It is not good sense to say that a Catholic funeral is forbidden and to have a Catholic priest present at it. Besides, the priest is put into the awkward position of being present at the funeral of a Catholic, while some minister or the undertaker performs some kind of religious service. Circuмstances may, of course, arise under which a priest cannot stay away from such a funeral because of family ties or because of civic honors paid a man for his public services to town, city or state. In such cases everybody knows why the priest is present and sensible people will take no scandal.
It appears a priest can attend such a funeral under certain circuмstances like when there are family ties, etc. It goes on to say that sensible people will take no scandal.
If a Catholic priest can (passively) attend such a funeral under these circuмstances, why wouldn't a Catholic lay person?
-
I thought this part of the quote was interesting:
Our correspondent speaks of a priest being present at the funeral of a Catholic who has been denied ecclesiastical burial. There would have to be very special reasons to justify the presence of a priest at such a funeral. It is not good sense to say that a Catholic funeral is forbidden and to have a Catholic priest present at it. Besides, the priest is put into the awkward position of being present at the funeral of a Catholic, while some minister or the undertaker performs some kind of religious service. Circuмstances may, of course, arise under which a priest cannot stay away from such a funeral because of family ties or because of civic honors paid a man for his public services to town, city or state. In such cases everybody knows why the priest is present and sensible people will take no scandal.
It appears a priest can attend such a funeral under certain circuмstances like when there are family ties, etc. It goes on to say that sensible people will take no scandal.
If a Catholic priest can (passively) attend such a funeral under these circuмstances, why wouldn't a Catholic lay person?
The question the user posted is asking whether a priest can assist at the funeral of a non-Catholic or Catholic denied burial by saying prayers or giving a talk. This is of course denied because the presence of a Catholic must be passive. The reason given as to why a priest could attend, or may even be compelled to attend, falls right in line with the the situations tolerated by the 1917 Code, namely family ties or civic honors
Canon 1258
§ 1. It is not licit for the faithful by any manner to assist actively or to have a part in the sacred
[rites] of non-Catholics.
§ 2. Passive or merely material presence can be tolerated for the sake of honor or civil office,
for grave reason approved by the Bishop in case of doubt, at the funerals, weddings, and similar
solemnities of non-Catholics, provided danger of perversion and scandal is absent
-
It goes on to say that sensible people will take no scandal.
People wouldn’t take scandal at a priest showing up at a Protestant service because…he’s obviously not Protestant.
The novus ordo is different because (on the surface) it’s similar to true Catholicism. So if a Trad priest shows up at a novus ordo mass and sits in the back. How would anyone know he’s a Trad and not novus ordo? You wouldn’t. So the possibility of scandal remains. This is doubly-so for the laity.
-
People wouldn’t take scandal at a priest showing up at a Protestant service because…he’s obviously not Protestant.
The novus ordo is different because (on the surface) it’s similar to true Catholicism. So if a Trad priest shows up at a novus ordo mass and sits in the back. How would anyone know he’s a Trad and not novus ordo? You wouldn’t. So the possibility of scandal remains. This is doubly-so for the laity.
For the 1917 CL we can say that up until about V2 everyone most likely knew pretty quick why a Catholic priest was at a non-Catholic ceremony. Back then even prots respected priests and what he stood for.
So seems like the main scandals would be the priest putting himself in a predicament of being scandalized, or the faithful in seeing priests going to prot services. But it seems to me that such a thing, if it ever happened at all, would be very rare. But even in the 40s +Cushing was holding interfaith gatherings, so there's that. He's at least one who for sure participated actively in prot services - against CL, and no one did anything about it.
The problem with using CL for the situation we have today is that the NOM is not a prot service, it's a blasphemous service.
-
The problem with using CL for the situation we have today is that the NOM is not a prot service, it's a blasphemous service.
If the NOM is ok, simply because people want to re-define it as non-catholic, then going to a satanic mass is ok too. As long as you sit in the back.
-
Also he's a Feeneyite.
That makes him the only alive cleric with valid orders that holds EENS, at least that I know of. Is there anybody else?
Also, I wonder where he gets his oils from, since all valid bishops (that I know of) condemn "Feeneyism".
-
That makes him the only alive cleric with valid orders that holds EENS, at least that I know of. Is there anybody else?
Also, I wonder where he gets his oils from, since all valid bishops (that I know of) condemn "Feeneyism".
I, Poenitens, wrote this
-
That makes him the only alive cleric with valid orders that holds EENS, at least that I know of. Is there anybody else?
Also, I wonder where he gets his oils from, since all valid bishops (that I know of) condemn "Feeneyism".
Well, there are a small number of living Trad clerics who hold EENS, while holding to a limited version of BoD (for catechumens and those with explicit faith). I wouldn't categorize those as not holding EENS. There's also a Father Dominic Crawford who left CMRI over the EENS issue along with NFP. Finally, there's Bishop Neal Webster, who, although he appears to have messed up the consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer, is himself a valid priest/bishop.
But, certainly, nearly all other Trad clergy (bishops, priests) believe that non-Catholics can be saved (even putting the BoD issue aside). Sadly, they don't realize that this belief of their is the very foundation of Vatican II ecclesiology. If I came to believe as they do, I would have to put aside all theological opposition to Vatican II (with the Mass being a separate question).
-
Also, I wonder where he gets his oils from, since all valid bishops (that I know of) condemn "Feeneyism".
I assume by the "he" in the last sentence, you mean Fr. Bitzer. If I recall correctly, Bp. Williamson went to do Confirmations at his chapel ~10-11 years ago. I have no idea where Fr. Bitzer gets his oils, but it would not surprise me at all if he got them from +BW, or another bishop associated with +BW.
-
Well, there are a small number of living Trad clerics who hold EENS, while holding to a limited version of BoD (for catechumens and those with explicit faith). I wouldn't categorize those as not holding EENS. There's also a Father Dominic Crawford who left CMRI over the EENS issue along with NFP. Finally, there's Bishop Neal Webster, who, although he appears to have messed up the consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer, is himself a valid priest/bishop.
Ave María,
Who are some of those trad clerics who believe in BOD only for unbaptized-but-with-explicit-faith catechumens? Do they also condemn the "anonymous Christian" heresy?
I thought that Bishop (?) Webster's orders were doubtful and hence Fr. (?) Dominic Crawford's (since Bp. Webster ordained him, am I correct?). I'm willing to change my mind. Is there any evidence that their orders are valid?
-
Ave María,
Who are some of those trad clerics who believe in BOD only for unbaptized-but-with-explicit-faith catechumens? Do they also condemn the "anonymous Christian" heresy?
I thought that Bishop (?) Webster's orders were doubtful and hence Fr. (?) Dominic Crawford's (since Bp. Webster ordained him, am I correct?). I'm willing to change my mind. Is there any evidence that their orders are valid?
I knew a couple SSPX priests who taught what was simply St. Thomas' teaching that explicit faith was necessary for salvation, but, no they did not "condemn" the implicit faith theory. They're no longer with the SSPX.
I think Bishop Webster's orders are good. Bishop Webster was consecrated a Bishop by Bishop Slupski, who in turn was consecrated by Bishop McKenna, who was consecrated by Bishop Guerard des Lauriers, who was consecrated by Archbishop Thuc. So there's no issue there. Bishop Webster was ordained to the priesthood by Bishop Henneberry. Bishop Henneberry was ordained a priest by Bishop Carmona, who had been consecrated by Archbishop Thuc. Bishop Henneberry was then consecrated by Bishop Terrasson.
So the weakest link would be the link between Bishop Webster's priestly ordination through +Henneberry through +Terrasson.
+Terrasson was consecrated by the famous or infamous Clemente Dominguez, of Palmar de Troya fame. Now, Clemente was certainly a valid bishop, but the question might be whether Clemente could validly perform a consecration, since it's a bit of a complicated rite, and Clemente had zero seminary training. But one of the co-consecrators was a Bishop Puga (also consecrated by +Thuc). +Puga had been trained as a priest before Vatican II, so he could be presumed to know what he's doing and validly consecrate.
So the one remaining question is that +Terrasson was ordained originally by some Old Catholics, and I didn't know if there had been any record of a conditional ordination (since OC orders are doubtful), but someone here on CI posted/presented the certificate of Terrasson's conditional ordination on the day before his consecration. So that was the last missing link.
So, based on all that, the weakest link would be whether +Dominguez was able to correctly perform the conditional ordination of +Terrasson. He did also have assistants from pre-V2-ordained priests for the ordination, though those priests would not have been officially co-ordaining him. But this would appear to be a merely negative doubt, and so validity should be presumed.