It is TIA policy to not overload traditionalist Catholics who come to us asking for orientation with more moral indictments in these difficult times in which we live, where Catholic have so much to respond to when they want to be faithful.A good policy.
Many traditionalists superficially bombard others with such indictments, even when they have not made sufficient studies on the matter and are not sure of their position. Moved by insecurity they pressure others to come to their side by means of moral threats.
At TIA we give the principles pertinent to each case and leave their moral consequences to be taken by the interested parties. Doing so, we do not force our readers' decisions and we position ourselves outside of these wild skirmishes.
A good policy.
Yes, it makes sense. Even if one has a strong opinion on the matter, no Catholic is in a position to bind others' consciences. There's a tremendous amount of confusion out there and we have a vacuum of Church authority to give us direction.
"...We will not torment you with talking about the atrocities, the falling away from the faith and the renunciation of the faith which goes on progressively in the conciliar church, so that by now, after this many years, it is hard to find a Catholic who knows what he believes, or knows what he's supposed to believe, or knows that he is supposed to believe.TIA's quote in the OP reminds me why I gave up on TIA a long time ago.
We consider that it is a mortal sin to go to the new mass for any reason whatsoever. [...] Stay away from the conciliar church and if it is not wise for me to say so, all you need to do is consider what has happened to the faith of those who have been attending the new mass through the years.
But the main reason you stay away is because of the act itself, it is intrinsically evil because it has as it's intention, and I mean, that it was constructed, devised and imposed, in order to replace the True Mass. That is why it is there, not to worship God. The new mass is the instrumentality to banish the True Mass and all it's doctrine, even the true presence of Christ, and in the process to despoil the people of their richest treasure. Again if you don't believe this, it might be a question of faith..."
One of the reasons for the confusion is exemplified by the confused, non-answer TIA gives.And what happened to the faith of those attending(and saying) the Tridentine Mass, that they let the New Mass come into being in the first place?
"Is it a mortal sin to go to the Novus Ordo Mass when it is the only available? – we simply answer: It depends; it may or may not be a mortal sin."
Snip from a sermon given by Fr. Wathen about 20 years after V2, which is of course, still true today:TIA's quote in the OP reminds me why I gave up on TIA a long time ago.
Even if one has a strong opinion on the matter, no Catholic is in a position to bind others' consciences.
And what happened to the faith of those attending(and saying) the Tridentine Mass, that they let the New Mass come into being in the first place?The point is, like it or not, he gave a crystal clear answer, and also clearly explains the reason for that answer. He did not take the middle ground spinlessly saying "mmmm, well, it depends..." That person and many others needs a clear answer to that clear question. In typical fashion, TIA act like it is unanswerable, or a great mystery, or that it depends on the individual's thoughts and feelings.
Fr. Wathen makes a decent point, but I don't think "people who do X are generally much more lax in faith" is enough proof to say that "doing X" is mortally sinful. It's an indicator to be wary, sure, but not proof it's grave sin by any means.
Giving an opinion on the question, and backing it up with theological reasons, is not "binding" anyone. TIA is playing middle-of-the-road, so they can keep viewership.
I don't think so. I think that they are just making distinctions. So often here on CI distinctions are mis-characterized as compromises even when they are not.The question seeks a Yes or No answer - what was their answer? "Well, it depends..."
The question seeks a Yes or No answer - what was their answer? "Well, it depends..."
That is not making a distinction.
I think that they are just making distinctions.
Both Mgr Williamson and Fr Pfeiffer have said that it is ok to attend the Novus Ordo. Therefore it is not a sin to attend the New Mass.Leaving aside the near certainty that that's taken out of context, this isn't how logic works. The conclusion doesn't flow from the premises at all.
There are many distinctions in play, Stubborn. So, for instance, objective vs. subjective mortal sin. That is a huge distinction. One could be certain that something is objectively a mortal sin but be unsure of the state of that person's conscience and whether that person was actually committing mortal sin before God.Subjective or objective mortal sin does not nullify the sin, it might only change the degree of personal culpability, which only God knows to what degree.
Both Mgr Williamson and Fr Pfeiffer have said that it is ok to attend the Novus Ordo.Poche, they are both wrong. They aren’t infallible.
Leaving aside the near certainty that that's taken out of context, this isn't how logic works. The conclusion doesn't flow from the premises at all.If they permit it then especially in cases where there are no TLM options then it must be that it is not a mortal sin to go to the Novus Ordo mass. Also it should be noted that while Matthew supports the TLM he has also said, But among those who claim to be against Vatican II, there is one group that really boils my blood, and that is the "dogmatic home-aloners". " This also implies that in cases where there is no viable TLM option where you live or in your personal circuмstance then it is ok to go to the Novus Ordo.
If they permit it then especially in cases where there are no TLM options then it must be that it is not a mortal sin to go to the Novus Ordo mass. Also it should be noted that while Matthew supports the TLM he has also said, But among those who claim to be against Vatican II, there is one group that really boils my blood, and that is the "dogmatic home-aloners". " This also implies that in cases where there is no viable TLM option where you live or in your personal circuмstance then it is ok to go to the Novus Ordo.I've read that thread. That is manifestly not what Matthew meant. I know what dogmatic home aloners are. They're strict sedes who for some reason don't believe independent/sedevacantist priests have supplied jurisdiction to administer the sacraments, so they basically think we should just stay home and pray and not attend mass anywher,e period. There is no way Matthew had in mind attendance at the Novus Ordo.
I've read that thread. That is manifestly not what Matthew meant. I know what dogmatic home aloners are. They're strict sedes who for some reason don't believe independent/sedevacantist priests have supplied jurisdiction to administer the sacraments, so they basically think we should just stay home and pray and not attend mass anywher,e period. There is no way Matthew had in mind attendance at the Novus Ordo.If there is no viable TLM available then it stands to reason that one should go to the Novus Ordo.
And for what its worth, I don't believe its a mortal sin to attend the NO in most, if not all circuмstances. For it to possibly be a mortal sin, I think you'd have to not only be aware of the problems with it, but you'd also have to be solidly convinced in your conscience that the service is an out and out sacrilege, and to the point where it truly is more pleasing to God to just stay home, but choose to attend it anyway for no reason. That's *my* position, and I'll probably get some flack for some here. But whatever your view, its dishonest to quote at least Bishop Williamson or Matthew in this fashion, and I suspect Fr. Pfeifer as well.
If there is no viable TLM available then it stands to reason that one should go to the Novus Ordo.If you want to argue that as your own opinion, fine. But Matthew has not said this, nor did Bishop Williamson.
If you want to argue that as your own opinion, fine. But Matthew has not said this, nor did Bishop Williamson.Matthew said that being home alone is not good. He said that that is one of his pet peeves. So in the case of someone who has no access to the TLM, no access to an eastern rite liturgy, what else is left if not the Novus Ordo? And who knows, God could be calling that person to bring a sense of Tradition into that part of the world.
Matthew said that being home alone is not good. He said that that is one of his pet peeves. So in the case of someone who has no access to the TLM, no access to an eastern rite liturgy, what else is left if not the Novus Ordo? And who knows, God could be calling that person to bring a sense of Tradition into that part of the world."all you need to do is consider what has happened to the faith of those who have been attending the new mass through the years". ^^
Matthew said that being home alone is not good. He said that that is one of his pet peeves. So in the case of someone who has no access to the TLM, no access to an eastern rite liturgy, what else is left if not the Novus Ordo? And who knows, God could be calling that person to bring a sense of Tradition into that part of the world.No, Matthew was talking about a movement called "dogmatic home aloners." These people won't attend mass *anywhere*. He specifically distinguished these people from people who are home alone only due to circuмstance. Since I don't think many, if any people can't find an NO, it stands to reason that at a minimum, Matthew is not *targeting* people who would only attend a TLM. Rather he is attacking people that think due to a power vaccuм in the Church, there isn't ANY mass that could be lawfully attended.
To say such attendance is a mortal sin depends on too many circuмstances to make a general rule. Three things are required for mortal sin, grave matter, awareness of the gravity of the matter and full consent. If these are all there it is a mortal sin. But let us say they are not all there and it is not a mortal sin. Does that mean God wants me to go to the NO Mass? I think not.Are you suggesting that the confused trad who asked the question to TIA, does not recognize attendance as a grave matter? Or is unaware of the gravity, or would go with only partial consent (thereby nullifying the danger)? If that was the case, then why would he ask the question at all?
Matthew said...Bishop Williamson said...etcPoche, you find people who will say what you want to hear. I'm sure you've found some novus ordo "priests" who agree with you on other topics. You're just a cafeteria catholic.
Poche, you find people who will say what you want to hear. I'm sure you've found some novus ordo "priests" who agree with you on other topics. You're just a cafeteria catholic.Correction: he finds people who he thinks said something sort of like what he wants to hear, and then rips them completely out of topic.
Correction: he finds people who he thinks said something sort of like what he wants to hear, and then rips them completely out of topic.This is the question in its entirety and Matthew's answer;
I read that thread from Matthew, and that wasn't what he said. And I seriously would trust Matthew over Poche on what Bishop Williamson meant too.
Poche, what’s worse - your reading comprehension or your lukewarm catholic principles? You cannot serve both God (True Mass) and mammon (V2’s new mass). Be a man. Take a stand.AMGD
Poche, what’s worse - your reading comprehension or your lukewarm catholic principles? You cannot serve both God (True Mass) and mammon (V2’s new mass). Be a man. Take a stand.Sad to say that poche is CI's shining example - and should be used as such - as to what happens to those who go to the NO. Use him as our example as to what happens to those who attend the NO, hence why we must never attend it for any reason whatsoever lest we too become infected with the same liberalism and lose our faith without even knowing it.
Sad to say that poche is CI's shining example - and should be used as such - as to what happens to those who go to the NO. Use him as our example as to what happens to those who attend the NO, hence why we must never attend it for any reason whatsoever lest we too become infected with the same liberalism and lose our faith without even knowing it.I don't buy it. I don't think an intelligent person would argue as badly as him, no matter what position they held to. And I don't think a stupid person would argue much better than him, regardless of what position they held to. I've seen Feeneyites who argue as poorly as he does, but of course I wouldn't castigate Fr. Feeney or someone like Ladislaus who obviously went to seminary and is obviously intelligent, even though I disagree with him, just on that ground.
I don't buy it. I don't think an intelligent person would argue as badly as him, no matter what position they held to. And I don't think a stupid person would argue much better than him, regardless of what position they held to. I've seen Feeneyites who argue as poorly as he does, but of course I wouldn't castigate Fr. Feeney or someone like Ladislaus who obviously went to seminary and is obviously intelligent, even though I disagree with him, just on that ground.I do not think he is stupid at all, what he is, is he is simply NO. It is NO liberalism, false love and false ecuмenism that comes out in his posts - which identifies him as a NOer, because those things are among the traits of and uniquely typical of devotees of the NO. They are not traits of all NOers, but they are traits of NOers who take their conciliar religion seriously.
I suspect, though I could be wrong, increasingly, that Poche is just simple minded and he does have the faith.
I do not think he is stupid at all, what he is, is he is simply NO. It is NO liberalism, false love and false ecuмenism that comes out in his posts - which identifies him as a NOer, because those things are among the traits of and uniquely typical of devotees of the NO. They are not traits of all NOers, but they are traits of NOers who take their conciliar religion seriously.He lacks very rudimentary logic.
He lacks very rudimentary logic.He does when he wants to seem pious, and he answers a logical question with sentimentalism, or dodges it altogether.
He does when he wants to seem pious, and he answers a logical question with sentimentalism, or dodges it altogether.Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but I've never really seen him reason properly. If I wanted to argue that people should attend NO masses in the absenece of a TLM option, I could do so far more reasonably than he could. Not to say I'd be right, but I could do so in a way that at least makes logical sense given the premises. Poche's argument literally doesn't follow from his premises at all. Neither Bishop Williamson nor Fr. Pfeifer would even claim juridical authority over souls anyways.
Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but I've never really seen him reason properly. If I wanted to argue that people should attend NO masses in the absenece of a TLM option, I could do so far more reasonably than he could. Not to say I'd be right, but I could do so in a way that at least makes logical sense given the premises. Poche's argument literally doesn't follow from his premises at all. Neither Bishop Williamson nor Fr. Pfeifer would even claim juridical authority over souls anyways.What you are not accepting is that his reasoning is derived from his conciliar faith. You (and the rest of us on CI ?), correctly see that his reasoning is improper, but you are not connecting where he gets his reasoning from, which is his conciliar faith, which is drenched and permeated in Modernism, more specifically, Liberalism. These are the traits he reasons with, the same as all avid NOers, which is why you will rarely ever see him reason properly.
Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but I've never really seen him reason properly.
He has in the past, with surprising coherence. It surprised us all. So either 1) Poche hides behind his fake-pious-sentimentalism to spread disorder and confusion (let's not forget that he's been kicked off other sites), or 2) there are multiple people behind his account (which would explain a lot), or 3) both.That's a favourite of everyone in the NO. You'll see priests and bishops doing it 24/7, and there's not a single sentence that Francis has ever uttered that wasn't "fake-pious-sentimentalism". It's a convenient way of dodging a question.
Well, I've asked poche repeatedly to state his principles, i.e. explain where he goes to Mass and why he hangs out on a Traditional Catholic forum.
90% of his activity is justifying even the most outrageous misbehavior of the V2 papal claimants., but the arguments are often disingenuous if not mendacious, and so it makes me question his sincerity.
Has anyone ever wondered if the reason Poche has never been banned but people have been banned for complaining about Poche even though he is very unpopular is because Poche is really Matthew and that Poche's views are Matthew's real views and his main account is a psy-op and this forum is set up for nefarious purposes.LOL
I don't believe it but it would be funny if it were true.
Sad to say that poche is CI's shining example - and should be used as such - as to what happens to those who go to the NO. Use him as our example as to what happens to those who attend the NO, hence why we must never attend it for any reason whatsoever lest we too become infected with the same liberalism and lose our faith without even knowing it.Can't agree more with my brother Stubborn.
Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but I've never really seen him reason properly. If I wanted to argue that people should attend NO masses in the absenece of a TLM option, I could do so far more reasonably than he could. Not to say I'd be right, but I could do so in a way that at least makes logical sense given the premises. Poche's argument literally doesn't follow from his premises at all. Neither Bishop Williamson nor Fr. Pfeifer would even claim juridical authority over souls anyways.Fr. Pfeiffer travels around saying mass in various places. He may not claim a 'juridical authority' but he certainly claims a moral authority. There are people who listen to what he has to say.
The wrong question is being asked.I agree. We should always ask ourselves, "Is this what God wants me to do?"
We should not ask "is this a mortal sin?" Something may be venial sin. Then we cannot do it.
We should ask "Is this what God wants me to do?"
Does God want me to go to this NO mass?
In my opinion, and it is only an opinion, the answer is no. God would not want me to go to this NO Mass.
The NO Mass is not a sacrifice giving honour to God. It is a community meal where we sit down with Jesus Christ as an equal and enjoy ourselves.
God doesn't want me attending such a meal.
To say such attendance is a mortal sin depends on too many circuмstances to make a general rule. Three things are required for mortal sin, grave matter, awareness of the gravity of the matter and full consent. If these are all there it is a mortal sin. But let us say they are not all there and it is not a mortal sin. Does that mean God wants me to go to the NO Mass? I think not.
Has anyone ever wondered if the reason Poche has never been banned but people have been banned for complaining about Poche even though he is very unpopular is because Poche is really Matthew and that Poche's views are Matthew's real views and his main account is a psy-op and this forum is set up for nefarious purposes.I am not Matthew.
I don't believe it but it would be funny if it were true.