Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on January 14, 2024, 11:52:33 AM
-
A sedevacantist non-una cuм Mass is the only one in my area. As far as I can tell the priests are all validly ordained.
I’ve been wondering if there’s any basis in theology or canon law where one would be obliged NOT to tithe in such places, if you don’t agree with their condemnation of una-cuм Masses?
Also, is there any basis where you can be refused the sacraments for not tithing?
-
You put money in the collection for the support of the priest.
He gave up his life so YOU could have the sacraments, by the way. Not just in the abstract, but YOU personally. Your precious "anti-Una cuм" Cekadite priests don't seem to be taking very good care of your soul, are they now?
A traditional priest is a priest 24/7, and forever. He has zero chance of being able to marry and experience the joys of family life. He DID make a substantial and permanent sacrifice for God. Priests aren't allowed to work a job to earn money. They earn their living by the Gospel, and they can't directly charge money for anything they do. They live off the generosity of the Catholic Faithful.
You are not giving money to an Antipope and/or Francis I. Or any part of the Conciliar Church for that matter. 100% of the money in that collection basket goes to the organization which purchased and maintains the chapel and the support of the priest who says Mass there.
Please don't look for an excuse, let alone a "righteous" one, to be a stingy Jew and not put anything in the collection.
You can also give money directly to the priest, if you have scruples about the organization.
So your second question is a moot point. But to answer that point, a priest can only withhold communion from a PUBLIC (notorious) sinner. Anything else is over-stepping their authority, and giving in to cultism and jingoism, "Groupism", rah-rah my team-ism.
-
A sedevacantist non-una cuм Mass is the only one in my area. As far as I can tell the priests are all validly ordained.
I’ve been wondering if there’s any basis in theology or canon law where one would be obliged NOT to tithe in such places, if you don’t agree with their condemnation of una-cuм Masses?
Also, is there any basis where you can be refused the sacraments for not tithing?
What's your income and how much do you tithe?
-
It’s got nothing to do with being stingy or “not being taken good care of”.
It’s a matter of principle. I would not like my family members to listen to their anti-sspx/una cuм sermons, for instance, because I believe they’re dead wrong and it’s actually extremely harmful for those who only have sspx available. There’s a chance they could mislead them and make the fall into that error etc.
So in a sense I feel somewhat guilty financing such a place. But at the same time, I don’t want to be deprived of the sacraments either just because they have wacky views on certain things.
This is not a sede anti una-cuм thing only, by the way. It would be the same for any other traditionalist clergy that espouses deadly errors.
The fact is, they do not officially represent the Church despite having valid sacraments. You wouldn’t have been put in this situation before Vatican 2 because the clergy would not have been preaching and spreading deadly errors.
So actually, I think the closest historial example to answer this question would be to look at what happened anytime a Catholic priest/bishop fell into heresy and the faithful were left without access to a fully Catholic priest.
Were they never allowed to receive the sacraments from such heretics? If yes, we’re they obliged/allowed to tithe?
-
If the priest isn't so bad you should avoid his Mass, you need to contribute to his support.
Just stop and think about it for a minute. Think of how ridiculous you sound at your suggestion:
Take advantage of a priest's ministrations, take full advantage of his sacrificing his life to offer you the Mass and the sacraments, but "he can starve to death for all I care. He's evil."
TAKE YOUR PICK. You can write him off as a heretic to-be-avoided, or you can go to his Mass and support him. Your very presence there is "voting for" his continued existence and ministry. If you need that ministry, it's frankly a duty in justice for you to give SOMETHING back, in order to not be a stingy Jew and a freeloader.
Or let's take your suggestion to its logical conclusion. Consider this scenario: you succeed in convincing 1/2 the parish that yes, his Una cuм stance is a problem. They all keep going there (because, where else are they going to go?) but like you, they stop putting anything in the collection.
The chapel closes and the priest leaves to start a chapel elsewhere; because he has to support himself somehow. He has to eat. That would be God's will for the priest, in such a hypothetical situation. A priest goes where he's needed -- where he can find sufficient support.
(Or in a group like SSPX it would be done at a corporate level. District HQ would reduce Masses at that location, and/or move the priest elsewhere where a priest is more "needed".)
-
You’re right.
-
And of course I had thought about that scenario before. I just told myself
A) I wouldn’t tell anyone else not to give, this would be for my particular case only
B) The place was doing well before I ever got there, so it doesn’t really need my assistance
C) Of course in the situation where my assistance WOULD really impact the place remaining in operation, then yes I would give
But yes, I grant that you’re right and I’m wrong about this
-
If the priest isn't so bad you should avoid his Mass, you need to contribute to his support.
Agreed. It's not that hard. It he were that bad, you shouldn't go there at all.
-
What's your income and how much do you tithe?
Why is this any of your business and how is this relevant to the question at hand?
-
(https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=73107.msg922570#msg922570)
And of course I had thought about that scenario before. I just told myself
A) I wouldn’t tell anyone else not to give, this would be for my particular case only
B) The place was doing well before I ever got there, so it doesn’t really need my assistance
C) Of course in the situation where my assistance WOULD really impact the place remaining in operation, then yes I would give
But yes, I grant that you’re right and I’m wrong about this
I've considered those justifications/rationalizations myself. However, this exact argument could be applied to stealing from a physical store. Let me rephrase your statements slightly, to apply to physical theft:
"I wouldn't promote shoplifting to anyone else"
"The store is doing great; they won't go under just because I'm stealing $500 of goods per month"
"If the store would go out of business due to my theft, I wouldn't do it"
See how it's the exact same argument?
Another way of looking at it: why should all the parishioners (minus you) support the chapel, instead of ALL of you, or all of you minus ANOTHER parishioner? Why do YOU get to keep your money, while the other parishioners carry the place? After all, you all receive the same "goods" or benefit from the chapel. See the justice issues here? "A laborer is worthy of his hire."
PS. Of course, all normal rules apply as to how much you should contribute. For purposes of this discussion, let's say each parishioner should contribute "100% of what THEY should, before God, given THEIR specific circuмstances" In other words, let's pass over the issue of "how much should I contribute". That's why I'm keeping it generic "your contribution". We're talking principles here, not dollars and cents.
-
I'd look at it this way: If I don't want to chance losing the only valid mass in town, I'd give.
-
Why is this any of your business and how is this relevant to the question at hand?
If your won't do your part then I can't help you.
-
Your precious "anti-Una cuм" Cekadite priests don't seem to be taking very good care of your soul, are they now?
I don't understand this comment. The OP seems to be saying that he doesn't like the fact that the only Mass in the area is a sedevacantist non-Una cuм Mass. So it would seem that he would rather be going to a non-sedevacantist Una cuм Mass but hasn't one near him.
-
It’s got nothing to do with being stingy or “not being taken good care of”.
It’s a matter of principle. I would not like my family members to listen to their anti-sspx/una cuм sermons, for instance, because I believe they’re dead wrong and it’s actually extremely harmful for those who only have sspx available. There’s a chance they could mislead them and make the fall into that error etc.
So in a sense I feel somewhat guilty financing such a place. But at the same time, I don’t want to be deprived of the sacraments either just because they have wacky views on certain things.
This is not a sede anti una-cuм thing only, by the way. It would be the same for any other traditionalist clergy that espouses deadly errors.
The fact is, they do not officially represent the Church despite having valid sacraments. You wouldn’t have been put in this situation before Vatican 2 because the clergy would not have been preaching and spreading deadly errors.
So actually, I think the closest historial example to answer this question would be to look at what happened anytime a Catholic priest/bishop fell into heresy and the faithful were left without access to a fully Catholic priest.
Were they never allowed to receive the sacraments from such heretics? If yes, we’re they obliged/allowed to tithe?
Not necessarily, there has always been heretic priests who publicly denied dogma, a certain pre Vatican 2 bishop of boston comes to mind.
-
I'd look at it this way: If I don't want to chance losing the only valid mass in town, I'd give.
God is pleased with those who give. What you give is offered up with Christ crucified in the mass. You will benefit more if you have more sacrifices to give. Not just money but money certainly helps, the priests could use that money to help others. Though I am not certain how each organisation uses the collection money.
-
Take advantage of a priest's ministrations, take full advantage of his sacrificing his life to offer you the Mass and the sacraments, but "he can starve to death for all I care. He's evil."
Reminds me of a Sede seminarian a few years back on this site, who was begging for $ to buy seminary books. We emailed a bunch of times and I bought him a bunch of books. Once he no longer needed my help, he called me a heretic (since I didn't see a problem with una-cuм masses) and stopped talking to me. Wow.
TAKE YOUR PICK. You can write him off as a heretic to-be-avoided, or you can go to his Mass and support him. Your very presence there is "voting for" his continued existence and ministry.
Right.
-
If the position of the priest is so distasteful that your conscience is twanged by the very idea of dropping some money in the collection basket, you need to do a hard look at whether you should even be attending the Mass.
-
If the priest isn't so bad you should avoid his Mass, you need to contribute to his support.
Just stop and think about it for a minute. Think of how ridiculous you sound at your suggestion:
Take advantage of a priest's ministrations, take full advantage of his sacrificing his life to offer you the Mass and the sacraments, but "he can starve to death for all I care. He's evil."
TAKE YOUR PICK. You can write him off as a heretic to-be-avoided, or you can go to his Mass and support him. Your very presence there is "voting for" his continued existence and ministry. If you need that ministry, it's frankly a duty in justice for you to give SOMETHING back, in order to not be a stingy Jєω and a freeloader.
Or let's take your suggestion to its logical conclusion. Consider this scenario: you succeed in convincing 1/2 the parish that yes, his Una cuм stance is a problem. They all keep going there (because, where else are they going to go?) but like you, they stop putting anything in the collection.
The chapel closes and the priest leaves to start a chapel elsewhere; because he has to support himself somehow. He has to eat. That would be God's will for the priest, in such a hypothetical situation. A priest goes where he's needed -- where he can find sufficient support.
(Or in a group like SSPX it would be done at a corporate level. District HQ would reduce Masses at that location, and/or move the priest elsewhere where a priest is more "needed".)
If half the people there would suddenly realize the anti una cuм is a problem and, frankly, schismatic, then that could probably lead to a discussion among everyone there and perhaps the clergy would rethink their position.
-
If half the people there would suddenly realize the anti una cuм is a problem and, frankly, schismatic, then that could probably lead to a discussion among everyone there and perhaps the clergy would rethink their position.
Schismatic my foot. And why don't you show yourself instead of posting Anon?
-
anti una cuм is a problem and, frankly, schismatic
Yes, it is schismatic-like. If sedevacantists hadn’t gone this extreme, then clerics like Bishop Williamson would probably be less opposed to the idea.
-
The "una cuм" is not an audible part of Mass. The priest might not even tell his stance on the "Una cuм" part of Mass. And why does it need to be an either/or scenario. What if the priest is conflicted and says, "Hell, I don't know if Francis is pope or not." Oftentimes is takes humility to say "I do not know." And the simple fact is, apart from a certain, divine, private revelation, no one knows certainly.
-
And why does it need to be an either/or scenario.
Because certain sedevacantist priests want to force people into 2 camps. Pope or no pope.
-
If the position of the priest is so distasteful that your conscience is twanged by the very idea of dropping some money in the collection basket, you need to do a hard look at whether you should even be attending the Mass.
I mean, that doesn’t make any sense. One doesn’t have anything to do with the other.
-
Schismatic my foot. And why don't you show yourself instead of posting Anon?
You don’t think it is schismatic to refuse the sacraments to people based on their going to an una cuм Mass?
-
And why don't you show yourself instead of posting Anon?
My answer is what you told the one asking about salary and contribution amount.
-
Though I am not certain how each organisation uses the collection money.
If it's a Trad organization of ANY stripe, you can be morally certain that approx. 0% of it goes to the Conciliar Church.
-
Act like you have been there. Ever run a budget before? So put up or hold your peace.
-
Yes, it is schismatic-like. If sedevacantists hadn’t gone this extreme, then clerics like Bishop Williamson would probably be less opposed to the idea.
Less opposed to what idea?
-
Less opposed to sedevacantism in general.
-
Because certain sedevacantist priests want to force people into 2 camps. Pope or no pope.
And I would like people to not believe that people can be saved in invincible ignorance and that BoD/BoB are false speculations. Una cuм is a meme tier worry. I can't force em either.
-
I've considered those justifications/rationalizations myself. However, this exact argument could be applied to stealing from a physical store. Let me rephrase your statements slightly, to apply to physical theft:
"I wouldn't promote shoplifting to anyone else"
"The store is doing great; they won't go under just because I'm stealing $500 of goods per month"
"If the store would go out of business due to my theft, I wouldn't do it"
See how it's the exact same argument?
Another way of looking at it: why should all the parishioners (minus you) support the chapel, instead of ALL of you, or all of you minus ANOTHER parishioner? Why do YOU get to keep your money, while the other parishioners carry the place? After all, you all receive the same "goods" or benefit from the chapel. See the justice issues here? "A laborer is worthy of his hire."
PS. Of course, all normal rules apply as to how much you should contribute. For purposes of this discussion, let's say each parishioner should contribute "100% of what THEY should, before God, given THEIR specific circuмstances" In other words, let's pass over the issue of "how much should I contribute". That's why I'm keeping it generic "your contribution". We're talking principles here, not dollars and cents.
Always be generous when you attend Mass.
-
You don’t think it is schismatic to refuse the sacraments to people based on their going to an una cuм Mass?
Uhm, you didn't say this before, just that the "anti-una-cuм" position was schismatic without any additional qualifications. Learn how to actually make precise statements, would you?
-
Uhm, you didn't say this before, just that the "anti-una-cuм" position was schismatic without any additional qualifications. Learn how to actually make precise statements, would you?
One doesn’t go without the other (an una cuм mass and people going to it), and it’s no secret they aggressively push this idea.
-
One doesn’t go without the other (an una cuм mass and people going to it), and it’s no secret they aggressively push this idea.
False. I cited some very clear examples. It's actually the minority that are dogmatic "non una cuм". Even the Dimond Brothers, dogmatic about almost everything else, are not. Why don't you de-cloak from Anonymity so we can see who's pushing these lies.
-
False. I cited some very clear examples. It's actually the minority that are dogmatic "non una cuм". Even the Dimond Brothers, dogmatic about almost everything else, are not. Why don't you de-cloak from Anonymity so we can see who's pushing these lies.
How do you determine this is a minority position?
-
If the position of the priest is so distasteful that your conscience is twanged by the very idea of dropping some money in the collection basket, you need to do a hard look at whether you should even be attending the Mass.
.
And the OP responded:
I mean, that doesn’t make any sense. One doesn’t have anything to do with the other.
:laugh1:
Yeah, and not putting money in the collection basket doesn't have anything to do with the priest's policies on "una cuм" either. In your words, "One doesn't have anything to do with the other."
The law of the Church requires the faithful to contribute to the support of their pastors. If you attend this church and receive the sacraments from this priest, then he is your pastor.