.

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.

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.

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!

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

 

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.  

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".

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).