Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Eliza10 on October 05, 2019, 08:33:35 PM
-
Does anyone here go to one of these Masses? We have one opening here soon and I am so glad.
-
Does anyone here go to one of these Masses? We have one opening here soon and I am so glad.
They are A. Invalid B. Heretical
Avoid at all costs.
-
They are A. Invalid B. Heretical
Avoid at all costs.
That's an easy answer for you. No explanation. Would you accept that from a stranger?
-
That's an easy answer for you. No explanation. Would you accept that from a stranger?
I'm not sure why the heretical part, but most Sedevacantists think the New Rites of Ordination are invalid, and the indult priests were ordained by Novus Ordo bishops in almost all cases, that's why.
BTW I'm not agreeing with this position, just explaining it.
-
The Institute uses the old rite of ordination.
-
I'm not sure why the heretical part, but most Sedevacantists think the New Rites of Ordination are invalid, and the indult priests were ordained by Novus Ordo bishops in almost all cases, that's why.
BTW I'm not agreeing with this position, just explaining it.
Not necessarily invalid, but positively doubtful. Now, we are required to avoid doubtful Sacraments except in danger of death ... so in practice it reduces to the same thing, except for a danger of death scenario. One cannot receive certainly invalid Sacraments even in danger of death, but one can receive doubtfully-valid ones in that situation, if no other options can be had.
-
That's an easy answer for you. No explanation. Would you accept that from a stranger?
Yes, I'm sorry; that response was incredibly unhelpful .. and rude.
Some Traditional Catholics (not just sedevacantists) consider the new Rite of Ordination and/or the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration to be at least positively doubtful. I myself consider them doubtful but by no means certainly invalid.
I am not sure of any particular "heresy" that ICK hold. Perhaps the poster said that because ICK accept Vatican II, but I imagine that they hold it by applying a certain "hermeneutic of continuity" to the Council. When people try to apply such a hermeneutic, that's IMO prima facie evidence that they are not heretics, in that they are concerned with conforming to Church teaching. Even if they are materially in error about some point, I seriously doubt that they are heretics.
Because I hold them to be doubtful, I would rather attend an SSPX Mass, if available, or an Eastern Rite Liturgy. Now, the Eastern Rite is different, and it takes "some getting used to" for anyone from a Latin Rite background ... although I've known some people who took to it immediately and ended up preferring it to the Roman.
-
The Institute uses the old rite of ordination.
Yes, but invariably administered by bishops who had themselves been consecrated bishops using the new rite. Initially, it was a mixed bag, as some of the older prelates performing the ordinations were consecrated in the old rite, but there are very few of these left.
-
Not necessarily invalid, but positively doubtful. Now, we are required to avoid doubtful Sacraments except in danger of death ... so in practice it reduces to the same thing, except for a danger of death scenario. One cannot receive certainly invalid Sacraments even in danger of death, but one can receive doubtfully-valid ones in that situation, if no other options can be had.
In my experience MOST Sedes think they're certainly invalid, but I realize that's not part of the essence of sede ideology. And yeah, I see what you mean.
-
In my experience MOST Sedes think they're certainly invalid, but I realize that's not part of the essence of sede ideology. And yeah, I see what you mean.
I've run across some sedes who say that they're positively doubtful, some that they are LIKELY invalid, and others that they are certainly invalid. In particular, most of them are convinced that the episcopal rite of consecration is certainly invalid. Interestingly, in the essential form of the new Rite of Ordination, a SINGLE LATIN WORD was omitted, for some unknown reason, the word "ut". Some think that this could essentially change the meaning; others think that the Traditional meaning could still be understood as implied. But it's very curious. Why drop one seemingly-insignificant word while keeping nearly the entire formula? One could speculate that this was done intentionally to invalidate the rite.
-
I've run across some sedes who say that they're positively doubtful, some that they are LIKELY invalid, and others that they are certainly invalid. In particular, most of them are convinced that the episcopal rite of consecration is certainly invalid. Interestingly, in the essential form of the new Rite of Ordination, a SINGLE LATIN WORD was omitted, for some unknown reason, the word "ut". Some think that this could essentially change the meaning; others think that the Traditional meaning could still be understood as implied. But it's very curious. Why drop one seemingly-insignificant word while keeping nearly the entire formula? One could speculate that this was done intentionally to invalidate the rite.
To my mind, that alone, removing ut”, is enough to give rise to a doubt.
-
Does anyone here go to one of these Masses? We have one opening here soon and I am so glad.
And... another thread immediately devolves into a sede discussion.
Sometimes I wonder if I'm at CathInfo.com or the website for Most Holy Family Monastery. But I digress.
To the O.P., the only personal experience I have with the Institute of Christ the King was a mass I attended a couple of years ago at the St. Francis de Sales Oratory in St. Louis (http://www.institute-christ-king.org/stlouis-home). It was like stepping back in time 100 years. IIRC, the priest was French (but I do not recall whether from Canada or France), and the sermon was something to be remembered. While not located in the best part of town, if I lived in the area, I'd most likely join that parish.
Further, if that mass was indeed invalid, as some here have put forth, then greater than 99% of all masses on any given Sunday are also invalid, and greater than 99.99% of all Catholics are either deceived or have apostatized, leaving only a small number of apparent Catholic intelligenstia, wherein one needs a degree in theology to make head or tails out of anything, remaining. This I refuse to believe as it would mean that Christ's Church has become a joke, and the gates of hell have prevailed thereover.
-
To my mind, that alone, removing ut”, is enough to give rise to a doubt.
I agree. Does it make it certainly invalid? I don't believe so.
-
And... another thread immediately devolves into a sede discussion.
What on earth are you talking about? Most of this discussion has been about validity and not sedevacantism per se. Many non-sedevacantists have doubts about the validity of the New Rites.
-
Further, if that mass was indeed invalid, as some here have put forth, then greater than 99% of all masses on any given Sunday are also invalid, and greater than 99.99% of all Catholics are either deceived or have apostatized, leaving only a small number of apparent Catholic intelligenstia, wherein one needs a degree in theology to make head or tails out of anything, remaining. This I refuse to believe as it would mean that Christ's Church has become a joke, and the gates of hell have prevailed thereover.
Uhm, but their OWN POLLS, 95%+ of the Novus Ordo pew-sitters don't have the faith, but are heretics ... on basic issues and not theological obscurities.
-
What on earth are you talking about? Most of this discussion has been about validity and not sedevacantism per se. Many non-sedevacantists have doubts about the validity of the New Rites.
My comments were primarily directed at Reply #2, which I thought I had quoted, but apparently not.
-
I've run across some sedes who say that they're positively doubtful, some that they are LIKELY invalid, and others that they are certainly invalid. In particular, most of them are convinced that the episcopal rite of consecration is certainly invalid. Interestingly, in the essential form of the new Rite of Ordination, a SINGLE LATIN WORD was omitted, for some unknown reason, the word "ut". Some think that this could essentially change the meaning; others think that the Traditional meaning could still be understood as implied. But it's very curious. Why drop one seemingly-insignificant word while keeping nearly the entire formula? One could speculate that this was done intentionally to invalidate the rite.
What does that mean in English? Like what's the wording of that sentence with the word, and without?
-
My comments were primarily directed at Reply #2, which I thought I had quoted, but apparently not.
Well, one isolated comment that could be construed as having come from a sedevacantist does not mean that the entire discussion had turned in that direction.
-
Uhm, but their OWN POLLS, 95%+ of the Novus Ordo pew-sitters don't have the faith, but are heretics ... on basic issues and not theological obscurities.
Regarding Reply #2, the subjective belief of the 'pew-sitters', as you call them, was not at issue. Instead, Reply #2 asserted that the ICK, as an institute, was both (a) invalid and (b) heretical, with the implication of simply attending said masses was heretical as well, regardless the subjective belief of the mindless 'pew-sitter.'
-
Uhm, but their OWN POLLS, 95%+ of the Novus Ordo pew-sitters don't have the faith, but are heretics ... on basic issues and not theological obscurities.
I think he does have a point though. Everyone knows the Catholic Church teaches that birth control is wrong. Everyone knows the Catholic Church believes the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ (precise details notwithstanding.) You do not need to be a theology nerd to know those things. Most people would never ever ever wonder if an ICKSP mass was invalid on the technical grounds you guys are arguing.
Heck, I think you could make a case that perhaps an ordinary person could figure out that the Novus Ordo is bad, especially if its sufficiently irreverent, but this the average person would never even think to ask.
Does that mean its not true? I mean, IDK, it seems downright apocalyptic if what by all appearances seems to be the Church could do *that much* to us, but I grant that I sometimes change my mind on these matters. This is honestly part of why I picked the Eastern Rite.
-
Well, one isolated comment that could be construed as having come from a sedevacantist does not mean that the entire discussion had turned in that direction.
OTOH, the subtleties between "doubts" as to the validity of ICK masses, and full-blown sedevacantism, seem to be differences with very little distinctions.
-
In one of his talks, Fr. Hesse says regrettably that he himself was instrumental in establishing them, then wholly condemns them. I have tried, but have not heard his reasons though.
-
What does that mean in English? Like what's the wording of that sentence with the word, and without?
Here's the most lengthy discussion I have read of this subject.
https://novusordowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/purging-priesthood.pdf (https://novusordowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/purging-priesthood.pdf)
-
Yes, I'm sorry; that response was incredibly unhelpful .. and rude.
Some Traditional Catholics (not just sedevacantists) consider the new Rite of Ordination and/or the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration to be at least positively doubtful. I myself consider them doubtful but by no means certainly invalid.
I am not sure of any particular "heresy" that ICK hold. Perhaps the poster said that because ICK accept Vatican II, but I imagine that they hold it by applying a certain "hermeneutic of continuity" to the Council. When people try to apply such a hermeneutic, that's IMO prima facie evidence that they are not heretics, in that they are concerned with conforming to Church teaching. Even if they are materially in error about some point, I seriously doubt that they are heretics.
Because I hold them to be doubtful, I would rather attend an SSPX Mass, if available, or an Eastern Rite Liturgy. Now, the Eastern Rite is different, and it takes "some getting used to" for anyone from a Latin Rite background ... although I've known some people who took to it immediately and ended up preferring it to the Roman.
How was my response rude? Unfulfilling maybe, but rude?
They are invalid: yes I have a doubt on the validity of NO sacraments but you treat them as invalid in 99/100 circuмstances.
They are heretics: They are in union with a modernist (“full communion” not in the same as the SSPX. They fully accept Francis and don’t call him out on heresy) they accept V2, they consequently have to accept the new mass, etc
Avoid them and similar groups because they are controlled opposition.
-
Here's the article from Father Cekada regarding episcopal consecration:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf)
His argument is very strong indeed that it's certainly invalid, but I leave it at positive doubt because it does after all depend on human reason.
-
How was my response rude? Unfulfilling maybe, but rude?
Your lack of any detail demonstrates a significant amount of laziness on your part, which comes across as being dismissive of the OP's question.
-
OTOH, the subtleties between "doubts" as to the validity of ICK masses, and full-blown sedevacantism, seem to be differences with very little distinctions.
Nonsense.
-
How was my response rude? Unfulfilling maybe, but rude?
They are invalid: yes I have a doubt on the validity of NO sacraments but you treat them as invalid in 99/100 circuмstances.
They are heretics: They are in union with a modernist (“full communion” not in the same as the SSPX. They fully accept Francis and don’t call him out on heresy) they accept V2, they consequently have to accept the new mass, etc
Avoid them and similar groups because they are controlled opposition.
Avoid them because they can be harmful? Yes. Are they heretics? I seriously doubt it.
-
Nonsense.
It depends on the level of doubt. But if Francis is not even a priest, he is not pope either
-
It depends on the level of doubt. But if Francis is not even a priest, he is not pope either
No, he clearly has an intent to be a bishop as he thinks he is one
-
No, he clearly has an intent to be a bishop as he thinks he is one
So he could be a true pope and an invalid bishop?
-
Nonsense.
Naturally, that is what you believe, as it appears to be your whole raison d'être.
-
So he could be a true pope and an invalid bishop?
Pope- elect? We are getting along the lines of the cassiciacuм thesis.
-
Pope- elect? We are getting along the lines of the cassiciacuм thesis.
Once again, i've categorized Sedeprivationism as a form of Sedevacantism and realized not everyone does this. Novus Ordo Watch definitely does that so its not just me.
-
I agree. Does it make it certainly invalid? I don't believe so.
I am going to read the rest of this thread sometime this long weekend. I have to catch up on work emails first. But I was relieved to see this response as I have been wondering if anything else was to be replied after that first reply, and am just now checking back. I just want to thank you for this response! A voice of reason, to me. I understand the complete sincerity of sede arguments, and believe God honors their conscience and blesses them for their sincere faithfulness and search for purity of truth, but also i think that 99.99% of Catholics are not receiving invalid sacraments in these dark times. I cannot believe that God has deprived the vast majority of Catholics from valid Sacraments when they most need them. Nope. What is going on around us is very bad, but NOT BAD ENOUGH for that. It would be (and will be) horribly much worse when the people cannot receive the Sacraments.
Not that sedes - what little I know of them* - are not blessed with more beautiful, more pure expressions of the Holy Sacraments. The same beauty as those of FSSP and ICKSP, but, more valid and sure. Right? That is a lot more riches to be given to them over what the rest of the Catholic world receives. And to whom much is given, much is expected. The purity of their holiness and blessings of their Christlikeness should be uncomparable. We will certainly know them by their astonishingly rich fruits. And in this forum we will be bowled over by the velvet soft kindness and great charity of their words.
_______________
[*My knowledge is very limited of sede beliefs at this time, and is not likely to soon be enriched, as I am in a very busy time only very recently restarting a career, and recovering from environmentally-induced illness last month while also working long hours. First priority now is to get my prayer life back up to where it was before I got sick in September.]
-
Once again, i've categorized Sedeprivationism as a form of Sedevacantism and realized not everyone does this. Novus Ordo Watch definitely does that so its not just me.
I think that's because the majority of its proponents emphasize the vacancy parts, having converted (for various reasons) to sedeprivationism later. Nevertheless, it's closest in reality to Father Chazal's sedimpoundism ... except that Father Chazal emphasizes the occupancy more and renounces sedeprivationism for the same reason, its having become known in popular thinking as just a slight variant on sedevacantism. So you could look on sedeprivationism as a slightly sedevacantist-leaning and sedeimpoundism as a sedeplenist-leaning version of the same thing. You're going to have that where such a distinction is in play ... whether the See is both vacant and occupied at the same time, in different respects.
-
I am going to read the rest of this thread sometime this long weekend. I have to catch up on work emails first. But I was relieved to see this response as I have been wondering if anything else was to be replied after that first reply, and am just now checking back. I just want to thank you for this response! A voice of reason, to me. I understand the complete sincerity of sede arguments, and believe God honors their conscience and blesses them for their sincere faithfulness and search for purity of truth, but also i think that 99.99% of Catholics are not receiving invalid sacraments in these dark times. I cannot believe that God has deprived the vast majority of Catholics from valid Sacraments when they most need them. Nope. What is going on around us is very bad, but NOT BAD ENOUGH for that. It would be (and will be) horribly much worse when the people cannot receive the Sacraments.
Not that sedes - what little I know of them* - are not blessed with more beautiful, more pure expressions of the Holy Sacraments. The same beauty as those of FSSP and ICKSP, but, more valid and sure. Right? That is a lot more riches to be given to them over what the rest of the Catholic world receives. And to whom much is given, much is expected. The purity of their holiness and blessings of their Christlikeness should be uncomparable. We will certainly know them by their astonishingly rich fruits. And in this forum we will be bowled over by the velvet soft kindness and great charity of their words.
_______________
[*My knowledge is very limited of sede beliefs at this time, and is not likely to soon be enriched, as I am in a very busy time only very recently restarting a career, and recovering from environmentally-induced illness last month while also working long hours. First priority now is to get my prayer life back up to where it was before I got sick in September.]
We can trust God that He has everything under control. If some are sincere in the Novus Ordo making Holy Communion, God can provide graces from their spiritual communion that nearly approach those of actual Communion. Some Catholics have fled to the Traditional Latin Mass, others to the Eastern Rites, where they also still have valid Sacraments. Even if the Novus Ordo is invalid nearly 100% of the time, God can still provide grace to those who seek it. So worry not.
Just a quick note on "sede beliefs". Logically speaking, the question of sedevacante and the validity of the Sacraments are not necessarily tied together. Not a few in the R&R camp also doubt the validity of the NO Sacraments. But R&R does tend to push in favor of validity, since it's hard to imagine a legitimate Pope promulgating an invalid Sacramental Rite. Of course, it's equally hard to imagine a legitimate Pope promulgating a bad or harmful Rite also, which is why you have sedevacantists. I myself hold that it is NOT possible for a legitimate Pope to promulgate EITHER an invalid OR a harmful Rite, which is why I lean in that direction, toward sedeprivationism, but I add the qualification that I am not competent to make this decision, and only the Church is. I only go so far as I need to in order to justify, in my conscience, having severed Communion with the visible/material hierarchy.
Even among sedevacantists, you'll find some who say that it's possible the Rites are valid, but that they are positively doubtful. Of course, you will find those also who assert that they are certainly invalid.
-
Naturally, that is what you believe, as it appears to be your whole raison d'être.
No, this is simple logic. Validity and the Legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants are two logically separate questions.
-
Pope- elect? We are getting along the lines of the cassiciacuм thesis.
Well, yes, I think so. Sedeprivationists actually use this very analogy. If you had a layman who was elected Pope, and he refused to be consecrated a bishop, I actually believe that he would be materially but not formally Pope, and the Church could then withdraw the election, since the form was never joined to the matter by God ... just like a non-consummated marriage can be annulled. By definition the Pope must be a Bishop, the Bishop of Rome. Otherwise, he's no successor to the Apostles, and cannot exercise any teaching authority. And what is a Pope without teaching authority but a hollow shell?
-
Just a quick note on "sede beliefs". Logically speaking, the question of sedevacante and the validity of the Sacraments are not necessarily tied together. Not a few in the R&R camp also doubt the validity of the NO Sacraments. But R&R does tend to push in favor of validity, since it's hard to imagine a legitimate Pope promulgating an invalid Sacramental Rite. Of course, it's equally hard to imagine a legitimate Pope promulgating a bad or harmful Rite also, which is why you have sedevacantists. I myself hold that it is NOT possible for a legitimate Pope to promulgate EITHER an invalid OR a harmful Rite, which is why I lean in that direction, toward sedeprivationism, but I add the qualification that I am not competent to make this decision, and only the Church is. I only go so far as I need to in order to justify, in my conscience, having severed Communion with the visible/material hierarchy.
Even among sedevacantists, you'll find some who say that it's possible the Rites are valid, but that they are positively doubtful. Of course, you will find those also who assert that they are certainly invalid.
I personally find it a lot easier to believe a true Pope could promulgate a bad or harmful rite than a truly invalid one. Though saying its bad and harfmul while also valid has gradations. Like what do we mean by harmful exactly? if its valid it has the possiblity of someone receiving true grace through it, which is a separate question from whether its harmful *compared* to the alternative of attending a Tridentine or Eastern liturgy, which is a separate question from whether the mass itself is pleasing to God.
-
We can trust God that He has everything under control. If some are sincere in the Novus Ordo making Holy Communion, God can provide graces from their spiritual communion that nearly approach those of actual Communion. Some Catholics have fled to the Traditional Latin Mass, others to the Eastern Rites, where they also still have valid Sacraments. Even if the Novus Ordo is invalid nearly 100% of the time, God can still provide grace to those who seek it. So worry not.
Just a quick note on "sede beliefs". Logically speaking, the question of sedevacante and the validity of the Sacraments are not necessarily tied together. Not a few in the R&R camp also doubt the validity of the NO Sacraments. But R&R does tend to push in favor of validity, since it's hard to imagine a legitimate Pope promulgating an invalid Sacramental Rite. Of course, it's equally hard to imagine a legitimate Pope promulgating a bad or harmful Rite also, which is why you have sedevacantists. I myself hold that it is NOT possible for a legitimate Pope to promulgate EITHER an invalid OR a harmful Rite, which is why I lean in that direction, toward sedeprivationism, but I add the qualification that I am not competent to make this decision, and only the Church is. I only go so far as I need to in order to justify, in my conscience, having severed Communion with the visible/material hierarchy.
Even among sedevacantists, you'll find some who say that it's possible the Rites are valid, but that they are positively doubtful. Of course, you will find those also who assert that they are certainly invalid.
I see. Thanks for the explanation. But what is R&R? (I assume not rest & relaxation.;D )
What holds me back from looking any closer is the idea that the vast, vast majority of Catholics are receiving invalid Sacraments, and only a less than 1% of Catholics have what Protestants don't. That is the Holy Spirit withdrawing in a huge way. I had an rich faith with just me, Jesus, my Bible and my local church of faithful believers. Jesus through unexpected circuмstance showed me the truth of the Catholic faith. For it I gave up what had been central in my faith life - friends, community, fellowship, identity and all things I loved about worship. But to be Catholic was worth the loss. I used to wonder, "How does one grow in holiness?" as I strived to do so through Bible studies, conferences, retreats and spiritual reading. Now I knew! God gave us the Sacraments to grow in holiness. It is his ordinary way of pouring out extraordinary graces. These Sacraments are real, and not my imagination.
-
Heck, I think you could make a case that perhaps an ordinary person could figure out that the Novus Ordo is bad, especially if its sufficiently irreverent, but this the average person would never even think to ask.
Sorry for this OT.
ByzCat3000... as a newbie here and a Catholic who just opened his eyes, you have no idea how much I mirror myself in your comment!
You put your finger on the wound. "...but this the average person would never even think to ask.". The average Joe, as myself, would never even have dared to ask. A parishoner questioning his own minister on the validity of his Mass' liturgy?
I often had doubts but I could never bring myself to even imagine debating about the liturgy, let alone challenging it. It is not out of fear of the priest but out of (a) sheer, culpable, unforgivable, ignorance of our Faith and (b) obedience to the powers that be. Ignorance is the tool used by dictators to acquiesce its populus.
Already 40 years ago, Catechism was a very watered down study course that did not require proficiency to be passed. Modernism accepted the faithfuls' ignorance.
This is why I argue that, perhaps, Catholic schools are more important that Catholic Churches.
I +1 the OP, as I find myself in her very same shoes and I am assailed by doubts, every night, as I make my evening prayers... "can I receive communion from this priest or that priest?", "should I confess my horrendous (heretic) thoughts about the Holy Father's unreceivable words?", "am I leading my family astray?". etc., etc..
It is simple for the educated to feel so confident about their choices. But those of us who just opened their eyes need the educated's support, patience, understanding, love and praiers.
I am not making a case for our justification or for pity as I deserve neither: I was intellectually indolent. But my error is common, not because modernism is easier and faster, but because Catholics, in good faith, have no reason to doubt Mother Church and follow those who lead it.
So, please, condone our seemingly silly questions... this forum may be an instrument of God and those more knowledgeable may be His tool.
-
Well, yes, I think so. Sedeprivationists actually use this very analogy. If you had a layman who was elected Pope, and he refused to be consecrated a bishop, I actually believe that he would be materially but not formally Pope, and the Church could then withdraw the election, since the form was never joined to the matter by God ... just like a non-consummated marriage can be annulled. By definition the Pope must be a Bishop, the Bishop of Rome. Otherwise, he's no successor to the Apostles, and cannot exercise any teaching authority. And what is a Pope without teaching authority but a hollow shell?
But, if I understand this community correctly, today it proposes the opposite: ... you have a Bishop who was elected Pope, and refused to adhere to Catholic fundamental principles ... he would be formally but not materially Pope.
-
Sorry for this OT.
ByzCat3000... as a newbie here and a Catholic who just opened his eyes, you have no idea how much I mirror myself in your comment!
You put your finger on the wound. "...but this the average person would never even think to ask.". The average Joe, as myself, would never even have dared to ask. A parishoner questioning his own minister on the validity of his Mass' liturgy?
I often had doubts but I could never bring myself to even imagine debating about the liturgy, let alone challenging it. It is not out of fear of the priest but out of (a) sheer, culpable, unforgivable, ignorance of our Faith and (b) obedience to the powers that be. Ignorance is the tool used by dictators to acquiesce its populus.
Already 40 years ago, Catechism was a very watered down study course that did not require proficiency to be passed. Modernism accepted the faithfuls' ignorance.
This is why I argue that, perhaps, Catholic schools are more important that Catholic Churches.
I +1 the OP, as I find myself in her very same shoes and I am assailed by doubts, every night, as I make my evening prayers... "can I receive communion from this priest or that priest?", "should I confess my horrendous (heretic) thoughts about the Holy Father's unreceivable words?", "am I leading my family astray?". etc., etc..
It is simple for the educated to feel so confident about their choices. But those of us who just opened their eyes need the educated's support, patience, understanding, love and praiers.
I am not making a case for our justification or for pity as I deserve neither: I was intellectually indolent. But my error is common, not because modernism is easier and faster, but because Catholics, in good faith, have no reason to doubt Mother Church and follow those who lead it.
So, please, condone our seemingly silly questions... this forum may be an instrument of God and those more knowledgeable may be His tool.
I’m a new convert myself, this year. I went Byzantine rite as it seemed safer to me. Not that there are zero problems but everything is at least unquestionably valid
-
I see. Thanks for the explanation. But what is R&R? (I assume not rest & relaxation.;D )
What holds me back from looking any closer is the idea that the vast, vast majority of Catholics are receiving invalid Sacraments, and only a less than 1% of Catholics have what Protestants don't. That is the Holy Spirit withdrawing in a huge way. I had an rich faith with just me, Jesus, my Bible and my local church of faithful believers. Jesus through unexpected circuмstance showed me the truth of the Catholic faith. For it I gave up what had been central in my faith life - friends, community, fellowship, identity and all things I loved about worship. But to be Catholic was worth the loss. I used to wonder, "How does one grow in holiness?" as I strived to do so through Bible studies, conferences, retreats and spiritual reading. Now I knew! God gave us the Sacraments to grow in holiness. It is his ordinary way of pouring out extraordinary graces. These Sacraments are real, and not my imagination.
You have to ask yourself WHY do you want to go to ICKSP mass? one of your earlier points had much to do with what I would call "sentiments" , adjectives like "beautiful" or MORE PURE. All of this can be answered by asking t question "Is the Novus Ordo, in all it's accouterments CATHOLIC or NOT. IT IS REALLY AS SIMPLE AS THAT. If it is, you are obligated to attend your local parish and support all "Community" stuff you can. You really aren't justified in going any where else are you? if this was 1937 an you asked your Pastor, what would he say? I think you know. Oh but bergoglio says it's now ok to go to a latin mass? Read what they say!!k ONLY for such sentimental attachments as you've described and you are not ALLOWED to question the doctrinal purity of the VII church, something all of us "trads" DO. We are ultimately all sede, whether via honestly or practicaly, fusing what ever mental gymnastics we can muster to leave us a fallback. Be advised it is DOGMA that the church cannot feed poison to it's children. So either the N.O. is Catholic 100% or it is NOT 100%. A thing cannot be and not be at the same time, Hamlet not withstanding.
-
I personally find it a lot easier to believe a true Pope could promulgate a bad or harmful rite than a truly invalid one. Though saying its bad and harfmul while also valid has gradations. Like what do we mean by harmful exactly? if its valid it has the possiblity of someone receiving true grace through it, which is a separate question from whether its harmful *compared* to the alternative of attending a Tridentine or Eastern liturgy, which is a separate question from whether the mass itself is pleasing to God.
but a true Pope can do NEITHER and that is DOGMA, so you would be incorrect.
-
You have to ask yourself WHY do you want to go to ICKSP mass? one of your earlier points had much to do with what I would call "sentiments" , adjectives like "beautiful" or MORE PURE. All of this can be answered by asking t question "Is the Novus Ordo, in all it's accouterments CATHOLIC or NOT. IT IS REALLY AS SIMPLE AS THAT. If it is, you are obligated to attend your local parish and support all "Community" stuff you can. You really aren't justified in going any where else are you? if this was 1937 an you asked your Pastor, what would he say? I think you know. Oh but bergoglio says it's now ok to go to a latin mass? Read what they say!!k ONLY for such sentimental attachments as you've described and you are not ALLOWED to question the doctrinal purity of the VII church, something all of us "trads" DO. We are ultimately all sede, whether via honestly or practicaly, fusing what ever mental gymnastics we can muster to leave us a fallback. Be advised it is DOGMA that the church cannot feed poison to it's children. So either the N.O. is Catholic 100% or it is NOT 100%. A thing cannot be and not be at the same time, Hamlet not withstanding.
ICKSP is in regular communion so even given the assumptions you make she could attend mass there.
Though I don't agree with the argument anyways.
-
You have to ask yourself WHY do you want to go to ICKSP mass? one of your earlier points had much to do with what I would call "sentiments" , adjectives like "beautiful" or MORE PURE. All of this can be answered by asking t question "Is the Novus Ordo, in all it's accouterments CATHOLIC or NOT. IT IS REALLY AS SIMPLE AS THAT. If it is, you are obligated to attend your local parish and support all "Community" stuff you can. You really aren't justified in going any where else are you? if this was 1937 an you asked your Pastor, what would he say? I think you know. Oh but bergoglio says it's now ok to go to a latin mass? Read what they say!!k ONLY for such sentimental attachments as you've described and you are not ALLOWED to question the doctrinal purity of the VII church, something all of us "trads" DO. We are ultimately all sede, whether via honestly or practically, fusing what ever mental gymnastics we can muster to leave us a fallback. Be advised it is DOGMA that the church cannot feed poison to it's children. So either the N.O. is Catholic 100% or it is NOT 100%. A thing cannot be and not be at the same time, Hamlet not withstanding.
Interesting argument, Clarkaim. To answer your question, yes, I do think the Novus Ordo Masses are Catholic. I think they are generally (or all) illicit, but valid. I attended a beautiful, holy Novus Ordo Mass in my old diocese/state. By beautiful and holy I mean reverent and worshipful. I don't know of one here. I asked a devout Catholic (online) who lives in my state in a neighboring town, who runs a website on Catholic mystics, about whether there was a reverent, devout Catholic Mass to be found anywhere in this archdiocese, or a neighboring one, and he said he didn't know of one (I am thinking he has a busy family life and church-shopping isn't on the agenda). He called the Masses in our diocese "Pretty meat and potatoes". Yes. No outright modern inventions which was par for the course in my old diocese. But I get distracted by perceiving lack of holiness in the priests. I see the good in them too usually. But I also see the lack of reverence and lack of moral teaching in the homilies and it distracts and upsets me. So I began to take to the Latin Mass that I don't understand much of (my husband understands it all). It helps me think on holy things instead of what is wrong. It helps me take Holy Communion more worthily, with more awareness. Now I am looking forward to a Sunday morning Mass finally. And the option of Daily Mass those rare times I can go to it.
I disagree that in these times, and with all I know of what is wrong with the Novus Ordo, that I am obliged to go to it and support all the "community stuff". I remember being told that in my old diocese (attend your local parish and support it) but I never felt that was right. Because I was seeking God's will in the matter, i believe He would have put it on my heart if that was His will, and He did not. I believe that because when you truly seek God will He reveals it, and I wanted to know His will on that. So, not agreeing with you on that. I do think I am obliged to serve my "neighbors" and "community", and I can do that best by being the best Catholic I can. And the Latin Mass helps me with that more than the local Novus Ordo.
Yes, its really, really bad what is going on in the worldwide Catholic Church. l avoided the Amazon news because I knew how bad it would be, and I don't have time or energy to be upset about anything. But I watched a 20 min. Church Militant video on it yesterday and I am encouraged to know that many folk are unimpressed (or outraged) with the Amazon agenda. That is encouraging.
Our Church in these days is crippled and outwardly ugly. One has to have faith to see beyond horrendous appearances. When Jesus was carrying His cross, He also looked crippled and outwardly ugly BTW. I have heard it explained that the Church is going through a passion, and I agree with that assessment. It probably will end in a kind of death before a rebirth. And like the Passion, it will probably get worse before the death. It's definitely getting worse. And I am wondering after the CM video if our Pope is sort of a hapless misled pawn. We certainly need to pray for his conversion.
-
Interesting argument, Clarkaim. To answer your question, yes, I do think the Novus Ordo Masses are Catholic....No outright modern inventions which was par for the course in my old diocese.
In case, for any reason, you ever decide to return to a NO service as many often do, consider that the front-and-center table in the NO sanctuary is the NO victory flag, an outright modern invention prominently on display and firmly planted where it cannot be missed by anyone that enters the building. The table is their flag, their proclamation of victory over another formerly Catholic building.
When it comes to going to a NO service for any reason, the procedure Catholics adhere to is: "Walk in, see flag, turn around and leave". If all Catholics ("the many") would have practiced this procedure in the late 60s instead of just "the few" who did (and still do), the enemy's diabolical plan would have been defeated before it ever got off the ground. You want to be one of "the few", not one of "the many".
-
But I also see the lack of reverence and lack of moral teaching in the homilies and it distracts and upsets me.
There is worse than lack of reverence.
In my Parish, our local priest openly recommended to vote against certain parties, in the future (now past) 2019 May general elections, citing the motive that one political leader of the coalition was: "... too open in professing his faith (*) and admitting to praying the rosary, which he carried in Parliament, as a help and guide so that his decisions and his proposed laws would bow to the kingship of Christ, imploring Our Lady too often in public, ending phrases with "our good God willing", etc., which is all very oppressive and counterproductive for dialogue with our brothers of different ideas".
(*) the irony is that the priest is, technically, correct. This leader is a frevent, pure Catholic which, one may argue, the priest saying N.O. Mass is not.
When you get to this level of preaching, it is no longer a matter of the NO Mass being valid or invalid but preaching against the real Church's interests.
The worse part of it all being that our Diocesis' Archibishop not only is well aware of these sermons, but he even lauds them...
I try to discern between formal and substantial errors.
My local priest is in both formal and substantial error. He celebrates N.O. Mass with the intent of modifying our traditional doctrine and Faith.
Other local priests, as yours seems to be, celebrates N.O. Mass without the intent of subverting our Faith and, probably, with good intentions, convinced (as I was too) that N.O. is perfectly legitimate and valid simply because your priest (as I too) is merely intellectually indolent and revers Rome's given authority which he has no reason to question (until he will open his eyes).
Having said that, priest carry an aggravating responsibility as they studied in seminar and, should, in theory, be able to discern errors. One might question what he was taught in seminar but, that is another topic alltogether.
P.S.:
OT: the leader in question is Matteo Salvini who leads Italy's Lega Party that has risen in the past tthree years from 4% before 2016, to 17% in 2016 elections and now polls between 34% and 38%. He is conservative and liberal (in the real economic interpretation of economic liberalism) and has become the first party in Italy. Our second party polls at 21%. He openly agrees that state should be lay as long as our laws reflect and are not inconflict with Catholic values. He recognizes the kinship of Our Lord and is not afraid to say so publicly. He insists on closing mosques and promoting catholic schools. He recognizes that other denominations are welcome "guests" in Italy if they pay taxes and respect our laws but minorities must accept that their freedom and the protection of their values and identities must end where the freedom and protection of the values and identity of the majority begins.
-
We are ultimately all sede, whether via honestly or practicaly, fusing what ever mental gymnastics we can muster to leave us a fallback. Be advised it is DOGMA that the church cannot feed poison to it's children. So either the N.O. is Catholic 100% or it is NOT 100%. A thing cannot be and not be at the same time, Hamlet not withstanding.
You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But we are NOT ultimately all sedes, as you say above.
-
You want to be one of "the few", not one of "the many".
I want to be one of the righteous, not the few or the many.
The OP exposes the challenges of the poster, challenges that i can recognize. It is difficult to abandon Rome outright because some of us still have nightmares and acute moral doubts as to what is the right thing to do as a Catholic re the Mass per se.
This community's members have evidently matured their internal struggles and reached a personal comfort zone with their individual morality regarding V2 and its consequences.
Some of us have just started to awake and open our eyes. One must appreciate (a) the pain and anguish of renouncing what some of us love as own Mother because we realize that she may not be such and (b) the agonizing doubts of what is actually the righteous thing to do regariding the liturgy itself.
-
Not necessarily invalid, but positively doubtful. Now, we are required to avoid doubtful Sacraments except in danger of death ... so in practice it reduces to the same thing, except for a danger of death scenario. One cannot receive certainly invalid Sacraments even in danger of death, but one can receive doubtfully-valid ones in that situation, if no other options can be had.
So are we to understand by this, that if one is in danger of death and the only sacraments that can be had are doubtfully valid, we may receive them?
And would this mean, for instance, that if I am in danger of death, and the only priest available is a "continuing Anglican" or vagus Orthodox priest, who insists that his orders and apostolic lines of succession are valid in the eyes of Rome, I may receive the sacraments? What if he has celebrated a Mass and offers you viaticuм consecrated in that Mass? It may be valid, it probably is valid, but you do not know that for a fact. Do you risk committing idolatry and sacrilege by worshiping a Eucharist that could possibly be nothing more than bread (because invalid)?
Let me be clear that I do not view the sacraments of the ICKSP as invalid or doubtfully valid.
-
Yes, Eliza, the parishes of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest is a great place to assist at Holy Mass. Many of their Priests, I believe, were ordained by Cardinal Burke. Some of the founders of that Fraternity were close to conservative Tradition-leaning Cardinal Siri. You'll certainly encounter solid doctrine, traditional praxis, and above all, give glory to God by assisting at the Traditional Mass, and obtain the graces you need for the sanctification of your soul and those of your family. God bless.
-
In case, for any reason, you ever decide to return to a NO service as many often do, consider that the front-and-center table in the NO sanctuary is the NO victory flag, an outright modern invention prominently on display and firmly planted where it cannot be missed by anyone that enters the building. The table is their flag, their proclamation of victory over another formerly Catholic building.
When it comes to going to a NO service for any reason, the procedure Catholics adhere to is: "Walk in, see flag, turn around and leave". If all Catholics ("the many") would have practiced this procedure in the late 60s instead of just "the few" who did (and still do), the enemy's diabolical plan would have been defeated before it ever got off the ground. You want to be one of "the few", not one of "the many".
https://www.facebook.com/AdaltareDei1/videos/2388354101492686/?t=240 (https://www.facebook.com/AdaltareDei1/videos/2388354101492686/?t=240)
Today we had our first ICKSP Mass at the the new beautiful church. Two things I particularly noticed were: As I walked in, the most beautiful stations of the cross I ever saw, and when we got to the front, "No table!". I made me unexpectedly SO HAPPY to see no table. I stared for a long time, and wondered why this made me so happy. I think it was the unobstructed view towards the Tabernacle.
Everything about it was more beautiful than I expected. I feel blessed. I am so happy about this being our new parish.
-
Yes, Eliza, the parishes of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest is a great place to assist at Holy Mass. Many of their Priests, I believe, were ordained by Cardinal Burke. Some of the founders of that Fraternity were close to conservative Tradition-leaning Cardinal Siri. You'll certainly encounter solid doctrine, traditional praxis, and above all, give glory to God by assisting at the Traditional Mass, and obtain the graces you need for the sanctification of your soul and those of your family. God bless.
Thanks for encouraging thoughts, XavierSem. I think we are so blessed to have this.
-
Some words of wisdom, Eliza, from Bishop Williamson. This is the common sense teaching one always heard, until recently, from the SSPX:
Eleison Comments 263 (28 July 2012): Conciliar Infection
May Catholics who wish to keep the Faith attend a Tridentine Mass celebrated by a priest who is part of the Conciliar Church, for instance by his belonging to the Institute of Christ the King or to the Fraternity of St Peter? The answer has to be that, as a rule, a Catholic may not attend such a Mass, even if it is a Tridentine Mass, and even if it is worthily celebrated. What can be the justification for such a seemingly strict rule?
The basic reason is that the Catholic Faith is more important than the Mass. For if through no fault of my own even for a long time I cannot attend Mass but I keep the Faith, then I can still save my soul, whereas if I lose the Faith but for whatever reason go on attending Mass, I cannot save my soul (“Without faith it is impossible to please God” – Heb. XI, 6). Thus I attend Mass in order to live my Faith, and, belief going with worship, I attend the true Mass in order to keep the true Faith. I do not keep the Faith in order to attend Mass.
It follows that if the celebration of a Tridentine Mass is surrounded by circuмstances that threaten to undermine my faith, then depending on the gravity of the threat, I may not attend such a Mass. That is why Masses celebrated by schismatic Orthodox priests may be valid, but the Church in her right mind used to forbid Catholics to attend on pain of grave sin, because, belief and worship going together, the non-Catholic worship threatened the Catholics’ faith. Now Orthodoxy has in the course of centuries caused huge harm to the Catholic Church, but can anything compare with the devastation wrought upon that Church within mere tens of years by Conciliarism? If then Catholics were forbidden to attend Mass in Orthodox circuмstances, would not the same Church in her right mind forbid to attend a Tridentine Mass celebrated in Conciliar circuмstances?
Then what is meant by Conciliar circuмstances? The answer must be, any circuмstances which, over a shorter or longer period of time, are going to make me think that the Second Vatican Council was not an utter disaster for the Church. Such a circuмstance might be a charming and believing priest who has no problem with celebrating either the new or the old Mass, and who preaches and acts as though the Council presents no serious problem. Conciliarism is so dangerous because it can so be made to seem Catholic that I can lose the Faith without – or almost without – realizing it.
Of course common sense will take into account a variety of special circuмstances. For instance a good priest trapped for now within the Conciliar church may need encouragement to start on his way out of it by my attending his first celebrations of the true Mass. But the general rule must remain that I can have nothing to do with even the true Mass being celebrated in a Conciliar context. For confirmation, notice how Rome began by allowing the Institute of the Good Shepherd to celebrate exclusively the true Mass, because Rome knew that once the Institute had swallowed the official hook, eventually Rome could be sure of pulling the Institute into their Conciliar net. Sure enough. It took only five years.
That is the danger of any practical agreement without a doctrinal agreement between Rome and the Society of St Pius X. So long as Rome believes in its Conciliar doctrine, it is bound to use any such agreement to pull the SSPX in the direction of the Council, and the context of every SSPX Mass would become Conciliar, if not rapidly, at least in the long run. Forewarned is forearmed.
Kyrie eleison.
Bishop Richard Williamson
In a book published by the Fathers of Holy Cross Seminary (The SSPX Australian Seminary) - Most Asked Questions About The SSPX (beware of modern sanitized version) - We read in response to the question of what we are to think of the FSSP (which by extension we could apply to the ICKSP):
"This being so, attending their Mass is:
- accepting the compromise on which they are based,
- accepting the direction taken by the Conciliar Church
and the consequent destruction of the Catholic Faith and practices, and
- accepting, in particular, the lawfulness and doctrinal soundness
of the Novus Ordo Missae and Vatican II.
That is why a Catholic ought not to attend their Masses"
We can certainly add to this, as mentioned by others, at least some doubt as to the validity of their priestly ordinations.
The ICK are obedient sons of the Conciliar Church and will be as traditional as "obedience" allows them to be and no more. It is a compromise, quite simply, to say the least.
We must never lose sight of the fact that we are in a fight for the Faith, first and foremost.
-
I attended a beautiful, holy Novus Ordo Mass in my old diocese/state. By beautiful and holy I mean reverent and worshipful. I don't know of one here. I asked a devout Catholic (online) who lives in my state in a neighboring town, who runs a website on Catholic mystics, about whether there was a reverent, devout Catholic Mass to be found anywhere in this archdiocese, or a neighboring one, and he said he didn't know of one (I am thinking he has a busy family life and church-shopping isn't on the agenda). He called the Masses in our diocese "Pretty meat and potatoes".
Up until the invention (yes itself an innovation) of the Novus Ordo nobody, that's NO body , ever went shopping for Holy Mass (shopping for a Holy Mass is also an innovation).
Yes. No outright modern inventions which was par for the course in my old diocese.
Well, because you have no idea what is the Church without the attacks by the modernists you think that there ae no outright modern inventions in your old diocese.
..... Now I am looking forward to a Sunday morning (Latin) Mass finally. And the option of Daily Mass those rare times I can go to it.
I disagree that in these times, and with all I know of what is wrong with the Novus Ordo, that I am obliged to go to it and support all the "community stuff". I remember being told that in my old diocese (attend your local parish and support it) but I never felt that was right.
Isn't it because you know in your hearty of hearts the the NO is wrong that you feel that way? If was right you would feel right about supporting it.
...
Our Church in these days is crippled and outwardly ugly. One has to have faith to see beyond horrendous appearances. When Jesus was carrying His cross, He also looked crippled and outwardly ugly BTW. I have heard it explained that the Church is going through a passion, and I agree with that assessment. It probably will end in a kind of death before a rebirth. And like the Passion, it will probably get worse before the death. It's definitely getting worse.
Well said, Eliza!
And I am wondering after the CM video if our Pope is sort of a hapless misled pawn.
No, he is willingly acting as a pawn of Satan. He knows what he is doing and why..
We certainly need to pray for his conversion.
No prayer is ever wasted, so yes pray for his conversion.
-
So are we to understand by this, that if one is in danger of death and the only sacraments that can be had are doubtfully valid, we may receive them?
And would this mean, for instance, that if I am in danger of death, and the only priest available is a "continuing Anglican" or vagus Orthodox priest, who insists that his orders and apostolic lines of succession are valid in the eyes of Rome, I may receive the sacraments? What if he has celebrated a Mass and offers you viaticuм consecrated in that Mass? It may be valid, it probably is valid, but you do not know that for a fact. Do you risk committing idolatry and sacrilege by worshiping a Eucharist that could possibly be nothing more than bread (because invalid)?
Let me be clear that I do not view the sacraments of the ICKSP as invalid or doubtfully valid.
If one accepts the NO as Catholic and attends the NO service at all, then why would one *not* expect to have a NO priest (more likely it would be a NO lay minister) bring them a NO viaticuм in their danger of death? During their life, this person put themself in an awful position when it comes time for their danger of death - of this there is no doubt whatsoever.
By the same token, that particular scary thought should not really even enter into a trad's mind. I mean, who here believes that God would send a NO lay minister to give a NO viaticuм to a faithful traditional Catholic, one who altogether rejects and has sworn off the NO and lived their life faithful to only the true faith, Mass and sacraments?
-
I want to be one of the righteous, not the few or the many.
The OP exposes the challenges of the poster, challenges that i can recognize. It is difficult to abandon Rome outright because some of us still have nightmares and acute moral doubts as to what is the right thing to do as a Catholic re the Mass per se.
This community's members have evidently matured their internal struggles and reached a personal comfort zone with their individual morality regarding V2 and its consequences.
Some of us have just started to awake and open our eyes. One must appreciate (a) the pain and anguish of renouncing what some of us love as own Mother because we realize that she may not be such and (b) the agonizing doubts of what is actually the righteous thing to do regariding the liturgy itself.
The fact that after +50 years of immersion in a multitude of false teachings which have manifested themselves in everything and are found literally everywhere, people like yourself that are still waking up serve as proof of the Church's indefectibility.
-
Yes, Eliza, the parishes of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest is a great place to assist at Holy Mass. Many of their Priests, I believe, were ordained by Cardinal Burke. Some of the founders of that Fraternity were close to conservative Tradition-leaning Cardinal Siri. You'll certainly encounter solid doctrine, traditional praxis, and above all, give glory to God by assisting at the Traditional Mass, and obtain the graces you need for the sanctification of your soul and those of your family. God bless.
Fr. Hesse was a key player and said that he deeply regretted his participation in the establishing of ICK, which was before he knew better. The reason for his regret is, because like all of the conciliar Indult clergy, all ICK clergy and hierarchy must first profess their acceptance of the NO in order for there to even be an indult at all.
Fr. Wathen:
People should know that attending the Indult Mass represents a very serious compromise of their faith. Before a bishop allows the Traditional Latin Mass in one of his Novus Ordo churches, according to papal direction, he exacts this commitment: Those to whom the Mass is made available must give a verbal acceptance to the Second Vatican Council and to the new mass. Whether they know it or not, everyone who attends the Indult Mass makes the same implicit commitment. In the days of the Rome persecutions, a Catholic could escape martyrdom if he would burn the tiniest pinch of incense before one of the countless Roman gods. The commitment which the pope and bishops require is that pinch of incense.
-
I am torn in doubts regarding attending NO, ICK and FSSPX specifically for Mass and Eucharist (not for Confession, as it has recently been permitted by the Holy Father).
I do not wish to burn even the tiniest pinch of incense, but I still have profound doubts as to where the Truth lies.
My character is very much black and white and, therefore, I am led to understand that either conciliar Mass and Eucharist are sacrilegious or FSSPX conciliar Mass and Eucharist are sacrilegious.
I cannot reconcile the idea that both may be right at the same time as one should excludes the other, unless one can help me understand that this is not the case. Please do argue this case.
If my "one excludes the other" understanding is correct, then I will sin if I participate in the wrong Mass/Eucharist.
My challenge lies in that I still doubt that (i) conciliar, NO, ICK, etc., Masses and Eucharist are sacrilegious, just as I still doubt that (ii) FSSPX Masses and Eucharist are not sacrilegious.
Am I sinning if I participate in a Mass/Eucharist that is sacrilegious, if I think that it could be sacrilegious but I really, truly, am not yet sure that it is?
Does sin not require three elements?
(i) Grave matter;
(ii) Full knowledge;
(iii) Deliberate consent.
Am I sinning if I attend either, not fully knowing which is correct and which is in error?
Should I abstain from both until I fully know in my heart which is correct? What if this doubt will last for my entire life? Will my soul be lost because I could not determine which was error/correct and, therefore, abstain from Mass/Eucharist until I die?
Some of us may have good interntions and firm determination to seek the Truth for the salvation of our souls but may lack the knowledge and may be inadequately furnished to reach the correct determination regarding what to do about NO, ICK and FSSPX Mass and Eucharist.
I reached a point where I an no longer certain that V2 Masses are not sacrilegious but I have not yet reached the point where I am certain that FSSPX are not sacrilegious either!
Damned if I do and damned if I don't...
???
Help!
-
I am torn in doubts regarding attending NO, ICK and FSSPX specifically for Mass and Eucharist (not for Confession, as it has recently been permitted by the Holy Father).
This is a very good video you need to watch; What we have lost and the road to restoration (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJxM7Lo2URw&list=PLadm-izv1llR2p8mFCnBYljtD33vOL1f7). It's 48 minutes long but will give you an idea of why we are in this mess. BTW, one thing you will need to do in your quest is be prepared to read a lot, even entire books, and watch videos that are often over an hour long. Everyone would like 5 to 10 minute snips, but that is normally insufficient, especially for those in your shoes.
Am I sinning if I participate in a Mass/Eucharist that is sacrilegious, if I think that it could be sacrilegious but I really, truly, am not yet sure that it is?
Does sin not require three elements?
(i) Grave matter;
(ii) Full knowledge;
(iii) Deliberate consent.
Am I sinning if I attend either, not fully knowing which is correct and which is in error?
Our Lord warned us to "beware" because when we follow those who are wrong, then we will suffer the consequences of being wrong right along with them. Everyone knows this. The Baltimore Catechism is good, but the three conditions needs to be corrected.
Have you read The Great Sacrilege (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-great-sacrilege-pdf/) yet? If not, you need to read this book, it sounds as though you are ready for it. If you don't like reading PDFs,you can order the book from here (https://fatherwathen.com/).
All I can say is to stay completely away from the NO and it's "mass" and attend only the True Mass, pray your rosary every day and study from orthodox teachers. In time your head should clear to the point that you will no longer have such doubts.
-
Thank you for all the time and knowledge that you are willing to share. I will watch the video and buy the book although I don't know when i will be able to find the time for a whole book. This community already suggested 5 that have gone on my reading list (and I have not read in years).
-
This is a very good video you need to watch
I watched the video and it was interesting. Unfortunately it did not answer my question:
A faithful who cannot be certain of which Mass/Eucharist is sacrilegious (SSPX or N.O.), what should he do?
Should he abstain from both or partake in either?
Is it sinful to partake in a Sacrament, if one doubts that it may be sacrilegious, but has no full knowledge that it actually is sacrilegious?
-
I watched the video and it was interesting. Unfortunately it did not answer my question:
A faithful who cannot be certain of which Mass/Eucharist is sacrilegious (SSPX or N.O.), what should he do?
Should he abstain from both or partake in either?
Is it sinful to partake in a Sacrament, if one doubts that it may be sacrilegious, but has no full knowledge that it actually is sacrilegious?
We are supposed to know before hand lest we sin. That's why God gave us all brains and the use of reason, He expects us to use them to figure out how best to know, love and serve Him so we do not offend Him on account of our being too lazy to find out first. That is the main reason He gave us all brains.
You should have no doubt that the conciliar religion is not Catholic, but if you do have doubts about that, then what you need to do is to compare it to that which it replaced, then believe your eyes. This is key because none of it will ever make sufficient sense and will likely only leave you in worse doubt if you do not believe your own eyes.
We are all obliged to constantly beware, and to seek the truth, doing so leads all who do this to the Catholic Church. God's promise to us is that He will show us the way if we seek it when He told us; "Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you. For every one that asketh, receiveth: and he that seeketh, findeth: and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened". Do what He says and you will be holding Him to His promise - and He will keep His promise and you will find what you need and you will lose your doubts.
And no, we are not permitted to partake of doubtful sacraments. Danger of death aside, nor are we permitted to partake of valid sacraments [confected] outside of the Church lest we sin. The sacraments are owned by the Church, as such She makes the rules concerning them - and that's one of Her rules. We do not need to prove the sacrament's invalidity, all we need to do is, after sufficient investigation, have reasonable doubt - which doubt abounds within the conciliar church.
Stick with pre-V2 papal encyclicals - which for the most part, unlike V2 docs, are clearly written and are understood to mean what they say. Stick with the writings from only orthodox teachers, i.e. popes, priests, bishops, saints and theologians etc,. They will get you on the path you need to be on, but you still need to beware, being only human there are some things they got wrong. In time you will come to discern the difference and all the pieces will fit together.
And there's always this forum for when you get stuck - just ask.
-
I am torn in doubts regarding attending NO, ICK and FSSPX specifically for Mass and Eucharist (not for Confession, as it has recently been permitted by the Holy Father).
I do not wish to burn even the tiniest pinch of incense, but I still have profound doubts as to where the Truth lies.
My character is very much black and white and, therefore, I am led to understand that either conciliar Mass and Eucharist are sacrilegious or FSSPX conciliar Mass and Eucharist are sacrilegious.
I cannot reconcile the idea that both may be right at the same time as one should excludes the other, unless one can help me understand that this is not the case. Please do argue this case.
They do not automatically exclude each other. From a conciliar Church perspective, there is no reason to think that an SSPX Mass is sacrilegious. There have been conciliar bishops who have claimed that the Mass is not licit. There are also conciliar bishops and Vatican authorities who say that Catholics may attend the SSPX Mass. (You may have noticed that the conciliar Church is characterized by contradictions and confusion.) But they all recognize that it is a valid Mass. I am not sure where you have gotten the idea that the conciliar Church teaches that SSPX Masses are sacrilegious. As I recall, an ICK priest has already told you that it is not a sin to attend an SSPX Mass. Why do you question this?
There are good reasons to be concerned about the Novus Ordo Mass and to only attend the Tridentine Mass. If you have not yet reached a conclusion about the status of the conciliar Church, the second Vatican Council, etc., you can nevertheless attend an SSPX Mass. Attending Mass is not the same as choosing sides. All you need is to be reasonably sure that it is a valid Mass.
You need to attend Mass. You need the Eucharist. This is the primary means that God uses to impart grace to us. To stop attending Mass while you try to figure this out will put you into a state of spiritual starvation. You need to be nourished as you try to sort your way through the confusion. You can figure out which group is the most correct later. For now, just go a traditional Latin Mass.
The more sources you go to for information, the more confused you will be. Even asking at this forum means that you will receive a variety of contradictory answers from different perspectives. There are major theological differences among forum members here. I think that somebody has already recommended Archbishop Lefebvre's Letter to Confused Catholics. (Online at http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/ (http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/) ) The author, as you may know, was a wise and saintly man. I consider him a better source than anyone who posts to this forum (and certainly far superior to me.)
Just start with that. Read it many times and absorb it. Pray. Attend Mass and Confession. Focus on your duties of your state of life. You could tie yourself into knots trying to understand all the various ideas about the crisis in the Church. You already seem to be heading towards scrupulosity, fretting that you will sin no matter what you do. Would God really put us in such a situation? That sort of worry comes from the Father of Lies. Do your best and trust in God.
-
1.
....
As I recall, an ICK priest has already told you that it is not a sin to attend an SSPX Mass. Why do you question this?
...
2.
If you have not yet reached a conclusion about the status of the conciliar Church, the second Vatican Council, etc., you can nevertheless attend an SSPX Mass. Attending Mass is not the same as choosing sides. All you need is to be reasonably sure that it is a valid Mass.
You need to attend Mass. You need the Eucharist. This is the primary means that God uses to impart grace to us. To stop attending Mass while you try to figure this out will put you into a state of spiritual starvation. You need to be nourished as you try to sort your way through the confusion. You can figure out which group is the most correct later. For now, just go a traditional Latin Mass.
...
3.
The more sources you go to for information, the more confused you will be. Even asking at this forum means that you will receive a variety of contradictory answers from different perspectives. There are major theological differences among forum members here. I think that somebody has already recommended Archbishop Lefebvre's Letter to Confused Catholics. (Online at http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/ (http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/) ) The author, as you may know, was a wise and saintly man. I consider him a better source than anyone who posts to this forum (and certainly far superior to me.)
4.
Just start with that. Read it many times and absorb it. Pray. Attend Mass and Confession. Focus on your duties of your state of life. You could tie yourself into knots trying to understand all the various ideas about the crisis in the Church. You already seem to be heading towards scrupulosity, fretting that you will sin no matter what you do. Would God really put us in such a situation? That sort of worry comes from the Father of Lies. Do your best and trust in God.
Thank you for your time and precious help.
1.
Yes, and ICK priest confirmed that SSPX Masses are valid but he may be misrepresenting Rome as other priests (Diocesis Ministers) in this same city told me the exact contrary.
To appreciate why I still question this concern, one must understand the struggle of Catholics like me, who just recently realised the crisis in which we are.
If you detach yourself from your convictions (I wish I had them), your knowledge and your understanding, then you can imagine how a faithful who is not erudite in Church matters and has just started studying and researching, feels overwhelmed with the enormity of what this community is presenting him and cannot elaborate his own firm opinion. Letting go of 54 years of convictions and beliefs takes time and strength.
I have not yet reached your level of confidence and while, YES, I do posses a brain, as Stubborn correctly points out, not everyone moves at the same speed.
2.
This is an excellent point. Thank you for the advice.
The ICK Mass should be safe from both perspectives. Someone who feels that either SSPX or NO must be sacrilegious, can attend ICK and feel safe because ICK is neither in the SSPX camp (possible sacrilege for lack of jurisdiction) nor in the N.O. camp (possible sacrilege for error in doctrine or Faith).
Thank you. Your advice offers me some respite. I had stopped receiving Eucharist since when I discovered this community and begun researching its claims and stances. It has been a very painful period. I look forward to Sunday ICK Mass and Eucharist.
3.
I purchased the book and I am waiting for it to be delivered. In the mean time I am watching videos concerning Card. Lefevbre and I can see exposed many contradictions within Rome itself but, recently, I see contradicionts even between the SSPX and its founder (which, as you mention, confuses me even more).
4.
Funny that you should say: "Focus on your duties of your state of life" as it was my new condition as Father of a four year old girl that triggered my research as I felt inadequate to be her moral guide.
Curiously, it was my super modernist (*) parish priest who caused my awakening. When I asked him to catechize me for my daughter's benefit he suggested that I research Catholic cathechism online. By pure chance (providence) I mispelled the words and this cathinfo forum came up.
(*) He offers Eucharist to the divorced, he finds that the cultural background of infanticide in Amazzonia makes the act understandable, tells me to stop going to confession so often, etc.).
I truly appreciate this community's patience with my questions and my annoying nitpicking because your endurance may be saving a soul. Actually two souls. My daughter depends on my re-version.
And let me add that the different perspectives of this community are the best part of it. These different opinions, at time belligerantly so, force me to elaborate my own, personal, opinion. A self generated opinion is always the best foundation for a belief and a conviction. If the Grace of God blesses this belief then it can withstand any future assault.
Please be patient with my enquiries and may God bless you for your advice and help, Jaynek.
Tommaso
-
We are supposed to know before hand lest we sin. That's why God gave us all brains and the use of reason, He expects us to use them to figure out how best to know, love and serve Him so we do not offend Him on account of our being too lazy to find out first. That is the main reason He gave us all brains.
You should have no doubt that the conciliar religion is not Catholic, but if you do have doubts about that, then what you need to do is to compare it to that which it replaced, then believe your eyes. This is key because none of it will ever make sufficient sense and will likely only leave you in worse doubt if you do not believe your own eyes.
We are all obliged to constantly beware, and to seek the truth, doing so leads all who do this to the Catholic Church. God's promise to us is that He will show us the way if we seek it when He told us; "Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you. For every one that asketh, receiveth: and he that seeketh, findeth: and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened". Do what He says and you will be holding Him to His promise - and He will keep His promise and you will find what you need and you will lose your doubts.
And no, we are not permitted to partake of doubtful sacraments. Danger of death aside, nor are we permitted to partake of valid sacraments [confected] outside of the Church lest we sin. The sacraments are owned by the Church, as such She makes the rules concerning them - and that's one of Her rules. We do not need to prove the sacrament's invalidity, all we need to do is, after sufficient investigation, have reasonable doubt - which doubt abounds within the conciliar church.
Stick with pre-V2 papal encyclicals - which for the most part, unlike V2 docs, are clearly written and are understood to mean what they say. Stick with the writings from only orthodox teachers, i.e. popes, priests, bishops, saints and theologians etc,. They will get you on the path you need to be on, but you still need to beware, being only human there are some things they got wrong. In time you will come to discern the difference and all the pieces will fit together.
And there's always this forum for when you get stuck - just ask.
Thank you Stubborn for your perseverance in helping me work all this mess out.
Yes, you are correct, God endowed us with a brain but our brains tick in different ways and at different speeds. I do feel like a simpleton but this does not discourage me. To the contrary it propells me to erudite myself.
I am overwhelmed by the amount of books and links that I have to study but I will add pre-V2 encyclicals to the mountan of literature to the pile. I read a few by Pius XII and Pius IX and, in fact, they do contradict modern Catholic practices.
... and yes, this forum is precious. Thanks for sticking with me as you may be saving a soul!
-
Thank you for your time and precious help.
1.
Yes, and ICK priest confirmed that SSPX Masses are valid but he may be misrepresenting Rome as other priests (Diocesis Ministers) in this same city told me the exact contrary.
The official conciliar view is that the SSPX Mass is valid but illicit. Here is a letter from the late Monsignor Perl writing on behalf of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (the Vatican organization in charge of the issue) that gives the details of their position: http://salbert.tripod.com/SSPXMasses.htm (http://salbert.tripod.com/SSPXMasses.htm) The ICK priest is the one who has correctly represented Rome.
A valid Mass is one in which the Eucharist is really the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. Illicit means that it breaks Church law. A Mass might be illicit for many different reasons, some more serious than others.
There is no basis (as far as Rome is concerned) for claiming that an SSPX Mass is invalid. Conciliar priests/bishops discourage people from attending because they consider it illicit. The distinction between valid and licit confuses some people so the priests might not have explained this in a clear way. Or they may have deliberately mislead you about the Mass being invalid to prevent you from going.
Attending an illicit Mass might or might not be sinful depending on the circuмstances. It is not inherently sacrilegious to attend an illicit Mass.
(possible sacrilege for lack of jurisdiction)
Could you explain what you mean this? I cannot think of how this would be sacrilege.
-
Thank you Stubborn for your perseverance in helping me work all this mess out.
Yes, you are correct, God endowed us with a brain but our brains tick in different ways and at different speeds. I do feel like a simpleton but this does not discourage me. To the contrary it propells me to erudite myself.
I am overwhelmed by the amount of books and links that I have to study but I will add pre-V2 encyclicals to the mountan of literature to the pile. I read a few by Pius XII and Pius IX and, in fact, they do contradict modern Catholic practices.
... and yes, this forum is precious. Thanks for sticking with me as you may be saving a soul!
You're welcome. Perhaps it would be better to listen to good sermons and talks rather than to read so much. St. Paul tells us that faith comes by hearing, Fr. Gregory Hesse died in 2006 and was a very orthodox teacher. In this talk he gives, it seems most of the people in the audience are in a circuмstance similar to yours. He talks about some of the things you've questioned here like excommunications, the NO, SSPX, FSSP, ICK and many other things you need to learn about.
There are a lot of his videos posted on Youtube, even if you only listen to 5 minutes at a time, you would do well to listen to him. In the below video, Fr. Trinchard puts everything in a nutshell in the first 5 minutes or so, but listen to the whole thing as you can.
Return to tradition and sanity part 1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuJlBJHYYWI)
-
The official conciliar view is that the SSPX Mass is valid but illicit. Here is a letter from the late Monsignor Perl writing on behalf of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (the Vatican organization in charge of the issue) that gives the details of their position: http://salbert.tripod.com/SSPXMasses.htm (http://salbert.tripod.com/SSPXMasses.htm) The ICK priest is the one who has correctly represented Rome.
A valid Mass is one in which the Eucharist is really the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. Illicit means that it breaks Church law. A Mass might be illicit for many different reasons, some more serious than others.
There is no basis (as far as Rome is concerned) for claiming that an SSPX Mass is invalid. Conciliar priests/bishops discourage people from attending because they consider it illicit. The distinction between valid and licit confuses some people so the priests might not have explained this in a clear way. Or they may have deliberately mislead you about the Mass being invalid to prevent you from going.
Attending an illicit Mass might or might not be sinful depending on the circuмstances. It is not inherently sacrilegious to attend an illicit Mass.
Could you explain what you mean this? I cannot think of how this would be sacrilege.
Allow me to start from your last question, as it is the most pertinent to the thread and most important to me.
And, please, allow me to turn your question to you as my inability to answer it is causing my doubts: is it sacrilegious to attend a valid but illicit Mass? Is it sacrilegious to partake an illicit or even invalid Eucharist?
This question is my biggest concern and it is what is stopping me from participating fully in an SSPX Mass.
Your distinction between "valid" and "licit" helped me to better understand this mess but not if it is sacrilegious to attend a valid, but illicit Mass. More importantly, my concern is about Eucharist. Is it sacrilegious to assume Eucharist with the knowledge that it may be illicit?
This community's arguments basically convinced me that it is permitted to attend an SSPX Mass as saying Mass does not require the priest's jurisdiction. But it is a completely different matter with the seven Sacraments which do require jurisdiction (am I wrong?). My doubt is that it is not sacrilegious to participate in an illicit Mass but it is sacrilegious to participate in an illicit sacrament.
As for the letter from Monsignor Perl, thank you, it was very useful even if circuмstances have changed recently with the Pope allowing SSPX priests to offer confession.
Conciliar priests lie knowingly to scare the faithful into doubt. I have been told that I will be automatically excommunicated if I take Holy Communion from an SSPX priest because they can only say Mass if authorized but cannot transubstantiate a host into the body of Christ which - even a simpleton as myself - understands to be a contradiction. The Sacrament of Ordination is not intermittent. Either one is, or is not, an ordained priest. And, if a priest can be legitimately and validly permitted to say Mass, even if only at times, then this implies that his Sacramental Ordination must be valid and legitimate always. Consequentially such priest always has the power to transubstantiate a host into the body of our Saviour, regardless of whether he is permitted or not to do so.
-
@ Jaynek
You quoted different parts of my post and replied pertinently to each one. How does one do this?
-
Allow me to start from your last question, as it is the most pertinent to the thread and most important to me.
And, please, allow me to turn your question to you as my inability to answer it is causing my doubts: is it sacrilegious to attend a valid but illicit Mass? Is it sacrilegious to partake an illicit or even invalid Eucharist?
This question is my biggest concern and it is what is stopping me from participating fully in an SSPX Mass.
Your distinction between "valid" and "licit" helped me to better understand this mess but not if it is sacrilegious to attend a valid, but illicit Mass. More importantly, my concern is about Eucharist. Is it sacrilegious to assume Eucharist with the knowledge that it may be illicit?
I will give my understanding of the conciliar perspective on answers to your questions, but I hope you will check with a trustworthy priest. (The ICK priest who told you that SSPX Masses are valid sounds trustworthy. I would not trust diocesan priests who tell you that SSPX Masses are not valid.)
Usually sacrilege against the Eucharist refers to treating the Hosts with disrespect or irreverence (for example, during Communion in the hand) or receiving Communion in a state of mortal sin. Here is a conciliar source at https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=36218 (https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=36218) that gives examples of "deliberate invalid reception of the sacraments, simulation of Mass, grave irreverence to the Eucharist." Here is a pre-conciliar source http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13321a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13321a.htm) that says "the administration or reception of the sacraments (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm) (or in the case of the Holy Eucharist (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05572c.htm) by celebration) in the state of mortal sin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm), as also by advertently doing any of those things invalidly."
I have never heard of a principle that participating in an illicit Mass is automatically sacrilegious, although, as you can see, it is sacrilege to deliberately participate in an invalid Sacrament. In my experience, conciliar arguments against receiving Sacraments from SSPX typically rest on claims that the organization is in schism. Participating, therefore, is an act of schism (a difficult position to support) or, at least, puts one in danger of developing a schismatic mentality. Even so, there is a good argument from the conciliar perspective that it is permissible. Here is an example of the argument: https://onepeterfive.com/sspx-mass-shelter/ (https://onepeterfive.com/sspx-mass-shelter/)
This community's arguments basically convinced me that it is permitted to attend an SSPX Mass as saying Mass does not require the priest's jurisdiction. But it is a completely different matter with the seven Sacraments which do require jurisdiction (am I wrong?). My doubt is that it is not sacrilegious to participate in an illicit Mass but it is sacrilegious to participate in an illicit sacrament.
There used to be a question concerning the efficacy of the Sacrament of Confession when celebrated by SSPX priests on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction although I don't recall claims that it was sacrilegious. The SSPX made an argument (which I personally found convincing) that they had supplied jurisdiction. However, this is no longer an issue, since they now have jurisdiction by papal decree.
The other Sacrament affected by jurisdiction is that of Matrimony. Again there is an SSPX argument for supplied jurisdiction. If you are actually contemplating marriage, you may want to do the research to reach your own position on this. If you are not getting married, then you can probably leave this question until later.
Conciliar priests lie knowingly to scare the faithful into doubt. I have been told that I will be automatically excommunicated if I take Holy Communion from an SSPX priest because they can only say Mass if authorized but cannot transubstantiate a host into the body of Christ which - even a simpleton as myself - understands to be a contradiction. The Sacrament of Ordination is not intermittent. Either one is, or is not, an ordained priest. And, if a priest can be legitimately and validly permitted to say Mass, even if only at times, then this implies that his Sacramental Ordination must be valid and legitimate always. Consequentially such priest always has the power to transubstantiate a host into the body of our Saviour, regardless of whether he is permitted or not to do so.
Here is an article from a conciliar perspective by a canon lawyer explaining why the 5 Sacraments not affected by jurisdiction are all validly performed by SSPX priests: https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/08/01/are-sspx-sacraments-valid-part-i/ (https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/08/01/are-sspx-sacraments-valid-part-i/) As you can see, he says that SSPX priests have valid ordinations and can validly consecrate. As you say, it makes no sense to claim that they can only validly consecrate when they have permission. That is simply not how the Eucharist works.
Any conciliar priest who makes such claims cannot be trusted. You pretty much need to throw out any information you have received from such sources. You cannot base decisions or doubts on it. I have cited reasonable representatives of conciliar positions in this post. Obviously, there is still disagreement between conciliar and SSPX positions, but it is not correct, even from the conciliar perspective, to claim that that receiving Holy Communion from an SSPX priest means automatic excommunication.
-
Tommaso,
I hesitate to offer my advice on the issue of where to attend Mass, since you've already received many good replies on the subject, and it can be confusing to have differing opinions.
Have you tried praying about the issue? That would be the first and foremost thing that you should do. Implore the help of Our Lady. She won't steer you wrong.
My personal opinion is that it's fine to attend either an SSPX TLM, or a diocesan TLM. I attend both, but there was a time when I was worried about it, as you do. Resistance Masses are good, but they are few and far between.
There's a serious Crisis in the Church. God doesn't expect us to know everything regarding the Crisis. Do what seems right, and realize that you may never really know for certain about what Mass is best to attend. It's okay to be confused, and to just do our best.
-
@ Jaynek
You quoted different parts of my post and replied pertinently to each one. How does one do this?
When one selects the quote option, it opens a composing screen with the entire quoted post. Delete the sections of the post that one wishes to leave for later and respond to what remains. Then look below the composing screen in the Topic Summary and find the post that one is responding to there. At the upper right of the post are the words "insert quote". When one clicks this, the entire post is inserted into the composing screen at the cursor. Again, delete the parts one does not want to respond to and then respond to what is left. Keep repeating this process until all the different parts have a response.
-
When one selects the quote option, it opens a composing screen with the entire quoted post. Delete the sections of the post that one wishes to leave for later and respond to what remains. Then look below the composing screen in the Topic Summary and find the post that one is responding to there. At the upper right of the post are the words "insert quote". When one clicks this, the entire post is inserted into the composing screen at the cursor. Again, delete the parts one does not want to respond to and then respond to what is left. Keep repeating this process until all the different parts have a response.
Dear Jaynek,
Thank you. This instruction is very helpful. I appreciate that you invested time for my benefit.
Tommaso
-
Usually sacrilege against the Eucharist refers to treating the Hosts with disrespect or irreverence (for example, during Communion in the hand) or receiving Communion in a state of mortal sin. Here is a conciliar source at https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=36218 (https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=36218) that gives examples of "deliberate invalid reception of the sacraments, simulation of Mass, grave irreverence to the Eucharist." Here is a pre-conciliar source http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13321a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13321a.htm) that says "the administration or reception of the sacraments (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm) (or in the case of the Holy Eucharist (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05572c.htm) by celebration) in the state of mortal sin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm), as also by advertently doing any of those things invalidly."
Thank you Jaynek, I studied these links and the devotion with which I would approach SSPX (or any other) Eucharist seems to exclude that I commit sacrilege.
I have never heard of a principle that participating in an illicit Mass is automatically sacrilegious, although, as you can see, it is sacrilege to deliberately participate in an invalid Sacrament.
And, this, has my concern. Is an SSPX Eucharist valid or invalid?
As you later confrim, Rome explicitly authorizes SSPX to offer liberally only the Sacrament of confession and requires special permission for the sacrament of Marriage. Rome makes no mention of other Sacraments. On this concern, therefore, I should assume that the sacrament of Eucharist is not permitted. If this assumption, regarding this particular concern, were to be correct, then an SSPX Eucharist would be invalid on this "count". Are my assumptions and deductions correct based on this particular concern?
However, other concerns, that you discuss later on in your post, overcome this particular concern of explicit permission.
And, in addition to the other concerns discussed later, this concern of permission, would not be worrisome, if I were to believe that the circuмstances are exceptional and that we (I) are (am) in a state of necessity. A specific Canon (which is it?) law provides for this, correct?.
I am slowly convincing myself that we are in a state of necessity and this would be confirmed by (a) the papal revocation of the SSPX excommunication consequent to the four bishops' creation (although the excommunication could have been revoked for other reasons by Pope Bergoglio), (b) Pope Francis behaviour and convictions and, possibly, (c) the malefic fruits generated by V2.
In my experience, conciliar arguments against receiving Sacraments from SSPX typically rest on claims that the organization is in schism.
I do not believe SSPX to be in schism even if cardinal Burke, Voris/Vortex and others affirms that it is.
... puts one in danger of developing a schismatic mentality.
To this, I admit.
I fear that I am developing a schismatic mentality. However, it is important to underline that this would not be because the of the SSPX Mass but because of my own studies. The SSPX Mass is only a consequence, not a cause, of my studies.
I am becoming convinced that the hierarchy of Rome is no longer representative of our Church, validly or licitly. It is also important to underline that the convictions that I am developing do not want to be schismatic in intention! They would be shismatic in conseqence: Rome would excommunicate me because I would refuse to recognize the Pope as a legitimate authority because of his errors and heresies.
I am beginning to believe that this Pope is in error concerning doctrine and may be in heresy concerning dogmas. Jaynek, I am in tears at night during my prayers. I do not want to harbour the thoughts that I harbour. I try to push them away by talking about mundane matters to my wife or watching a film or... but they keep coming back. I cannot stop thinking that this Pope is violating so many principles on which my Faith is founded.
... if I were to consolidate, in my heart and mind, the conviction of such heresies then, automatically, this would have the consequence that:
i) I would enter a condition of extraordinary necessity, and
ii) I could disregard any determination deriving from an invalid or illicit Pope, including my automatic excommunication for participating in a Sacrament/Eucharist which He deems invalid. This based on the assumption that an invalid/illicit Pope's determination would be worthless.
A question arises, here: who or what determines the state of extraordinary of necessity (as per Canon laws)? Can a faithful determine this in his own heart?
The other Sacrament affected by jurisdiction is that of Matrimony. Again there is an SSPX argument for supplied jurisdiction. If you are actually contemplating marriage, you may want to do the research to reach your own position on this. If you are not getting married, then you can probably leave this question until later.
I am already married.
I was under modernist convictions when I married an Orthodox who, I am blessed, is the perfect, devout, adorable, loving wife (except for her religion, but her beliefs are closer to a Catholic than the beliefs of a modern Catholic). It took us three years to obtain dispensation from the Orthodox Church (that tried to convert me in every possible way during very long interviews) at the condition that I would omit the word Catholic during the Credo and that we would raise our children Orthodox.
Incredibly, Rome considered the marriage to an Orthodox to be "canonic" and the Catholic priest who celebrated the marriage even said that I could omit the word "Catholic" and that I would not invalidate my Credo and, ultimately absurd, I could raise our daughter Christian, not necessarily Catholic.
In the end I said the word Catholic in my Credo, disregarding the Orthodox Church condition and my wife and I reached an agreement: I would never try to convert her and she would let me raise our daughter Catholic (and my wife has been keeping her promise perfectly).
Here is an article from a conciliar perspective by a canon lawyer explaining why the 5 Sacraments not affected by jurisdiction are all validly performed by SSPX priests: https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/08/01/are-sspx-sacraments-valid-part-i/ (https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/08/01/are-sspx-sacraments-valid-part-i/) As you can see, he says that SSPX priests have valid ordinations and can validly consecrate. As you say, it makes no sense to claim that they can only validly consecrate when they have permission. That is simply not how the Eucharist works..
I have no words to thank you for your time and expertise. You are helping to relieve my heart from an enormous burden and this last piece of information will be instrumental in my study. You are confirming my logical deductions and you supplying me with corroborating and scholarly opinions.
I am just so @#*!%# frustrated that a simple Catholic with no ambition to become a canon scholar and who only wants to feed his soul with the Eucharist to be close to Jesus, should go through such an intellectual ordeal. I wonder how other Catholics, with less time and less predisposition for studying, will cope. How can everyday Catholics know what to do, assuming that they even have the chance in the fist place to question these matters?
Any conciliar priest who makes such claims cannot be trusted. You pretty much need to throw out any information you have received from such sources. You cannot base decisions or doubts on it. I have cited reasonable representatives of conciliar positions in this post. Obviously, there is still disagreement between conciliar and SSPX positions, but it is not correct, even from the conciliar perspective, to claim that that receiving Holy Communion from an SSPX priest means automatic excommunication.
Yes, you are correct. Even conciliar apologists have no grounds to affirm that an SSPX priest cannot offer valid and licit Eucharist.
As a last comment, in order to sin or commit sacrilege there must be knowledge and intention. The time and care that I have devoted to ensure that I would not offend our Lord, sin or commit sacrilege should vouch for my soul's safety and my intellectual integrity. What I fear is that these studies are distancing me more and more from our Holy Father and this hurts me immensely as my family has had special and formal ties with the Church's hierarchy for many generations. The only thing that comforts my prayers is that I am acting in good faith and with pure intentions.
Jaynek, thank you. You have been instrumental in helping me and I owe you a huge debt of gratitude. I will pray for you, please pray for me.
Tommaso
-
DELETE
-
Tommaso,
I hesitate to offer my advice on the issue of where to attend Mass, since you've already received many good replies on the subject, and it can be confusing to have differing opinions.
Meg,
Do not hesitate. The more replies, the better. I like to create my own opinion after listening to as many different perspectives as possible. Yes, it is confusing, but I always welcome the additonal informatoin.
Have you tried praying about the issue?
Yes! Hours and hours. Tears and tears.
My personal opinion is that it's fine to attend either an SSPX TLM, or a diocesan TLM. I attend both, but there was a time when I was worried about it, as you do. Resistance Masses are good, but they are few and far between.
There's a serious Crisis in the Church. God doesn't expect us to know everything regarding the Crisis. Do what seems right, and realize that you may never really know for certain about what Mass is best to attend. It's okay to be confused, and to just do our best.
Thank you, Meg. Jaynek and others have provided me intellectual and docuмental instruments to conclude that receiving Eucharist from SSPX is not a sin or a sacrilege.
I still harbour a small doubt, in my heart, as I fear God. In Italy, when I was a child, one used to say: "He is fearful of God" meaning that a person was a good character. Today this is no longer a compliment, but I still believe in hell and I am still scared of God's wrath. I still talk to him with a mixture of fear, love and confidence that if I get in trouble, he will help me. But this confidence that he will support me, still cannot bring me to see God as a friend with whom I can have a pal to pal chat, as many suggest that I should do.
It is strange, but I would like my daughter to see me with the same mix: respect (perhaps not fear), love and certainty that I will always support and forgive her.
Jaynek provided me a link where it states: "... Indeed deliberate and notable irreverence towards the Holy Eucharist (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05572c.htm) ...". My irreverence would not be deliberate as I am doing all in power to ensure that I am not irreverent. So, in the end, your last comment is what sets my heart to rest: I am in good faith and the Lord will recognize this pure intention and absolve me of my sin, if sin it is.
-
As you later confrim, Rome explicitly authorizes SSPX to offer liberally only the Sacrament of confession and requires special permission for the sacrament of Marriage. Rome makes no mention of other Sacraments. On this concern, therefore, I should assume that the sacrament of Eucharist is not permitted. If this assumption, regarding this particular concern, were to be correct, then an SSPX Eucharist would be invalid on this "count". Are my assumptions and deductions correct based on this particular concern?
When asking whether the Eucharist is valid, the only question is whether Transubstantiation really occurs. Validity comes from correct matter, correct form, and correct intent of the minister (who must be a validly ordained priest). It is not affected by permission. This is why there is no basis to question the validity of an SSPX Mass. It very clearly meets those requirements.
The question of state of necessity does not affect the validity of the Mass. In practice, a conclusion that there is a state of necessity satisfies ones conscience that there is justification to attend the SSPX in spite of the lack of permission. Normally it is wrong to attend an unauthorized Mass. But you do not need to worry about whether it is valid.
I am beginning to believe that this Pope is in error concerning doctrine and may be in heresy concerning dogmas. Jaynek, I am in tears at night during my prayers. I do not want to harbour the thoughts that I harbour. I try to push them away by talking about mundane matters to my wife or watching a film or... but they keep coming back. I cannot stop thinking that this Pope is violating so many principles on which my Faith is founded.
I too find the behaviour of the Pope distressing. It has reached a point where I avoid thinking about him because it is simply too painful. I try to focus on prayer, Sacraments, and duties of my state of life. These are the crucial matters in living as a Catholic.
A question arises, here: who or what determines the state of extraordinary of necessity (as per Canon laws)? Can a faithful determine this in his own heart?
There is a principle in Canon Law found in canon 1323 which discusses the situations in which people "are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept." One of these is acting "due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls." The canon also includes "without negligence" thinking that these conditions exist. Therefore, for purposes of this canon, genuinely thinking that one is in a state of necessity is the equivalent of objectively being in a state of necessity. I think that, in effect, this means that the faithful can determine this in their own hearts.
As a last comment, in order to sin or commit sacrilege there must be knowledge and intention. The time and care that I have devoted to ensure that I would not offend our Lord, sin or commit sacrilege should vouch for my soul's safety and my intellectual integrity. What I fear is that these studies are distancing me more and more from our Holy Father and this hurts me immensely as my family has had special and formal ties with the Church's hierarchy for many generations. The only thing that comforts my prayers is that I am acting in good faith and with pure intentions.
Jaynek, thank you. You have been instrumental in helping me and I owe you a huge debt of gratitude. I will pray for you, please pray for me.
Tommaso
I compare our situation to that of a child with an abusive father. The child has a duty to love and obey his father, but the child needs to prioritize his own survival. We need to consider what is necessary for our spiritual survival in our situation.
I am grateful for your prayers and will pray for you too.
-
The question of state of necessity does not affect the validity of the Mass. In practice, a conclusion that there is a state of necessity satisfies ones conscience that there is justification to attend the SSPX in spite of the lack of permission. Normally it is wrong to attend an unauthorized Mass. But you do not need to worry about whether it is valid.
Ah, but according to the New Code of Canon Law one may assist at and even fulfill one's obligation at any VALID Mass ... if there's a (vague) "just" cause to attend. So if I state that the Tridentine Mass at an SSPX chapel is more edifying and therefore conducive to my spiritual welfare, I can apply Canon Law to assist at it.
-
Jaynek, I thank you for your time. I wish that you could really feel how much I am grateful to you.
When asking whether the Eucharist is valid, the only question is whether Transubstantiation really occurs. Validity comes from correct matter, correct form, and correct intent of the minister (who must be a validly ordained priest). It is not affected by permission. This is why there is no basis to question the validity of an SSPX Mass. It very clearly meets those requirements.
Yes. Now I better understand and accept your logic. I therefore agree with your argument: validity cannot be questioned if ordination is not questioned.
Pope Francis revoked excommunication and, therefore, ordinations are valid and, consequentially, Eucharist offered by these priests too, is valid. Validity cannot be questioned if ordination is valid.
The matter or legitimacy, remains less clear.
The question of state of necessity does not affect the validity of the Mass. In practice, a conclusion that there is a state of necessity satisfies ones conscience that there is justification to attend the SSPX in spite of the lack of permission. Normally it is wrong to attend an unauthorized Mass. But you do not need to worry about whether it is valid.
and
There is a principle in Canon Law found in canon 1323 which discusses the situations in which people "are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept." One of these is acting "due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls." The canon also includes "without negligence" thinking that these conditions exist. Therefore, for purposes of this canon, genuinely thinking that one is in a state of necessity is the equivalent of objectively being in a state of necessity. I think that, in effect, this means that the faithful can determine this in their own hearts.
The canon law that you cite does not remove penalty, it only reduces it. I found this: http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P4U.HTM
"Can. 1324 (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/2/1Y.HTM) §1 (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/H.HTM) The perpretrator of a violation (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/ZV.HTM) is not exempted (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/2/DY.HTM) from penalty (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/4F.HTM), but the penalty (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/4F.HTM) prescribed (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/67.HTM) in the law (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/R.HTM) or precept (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/CB.HTM) must be diminished, or a penance (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/B8.HTM) substituted in its place (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/29.HTM), if the offence (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/8N.HTM) was committed (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/F4.HTM) by ... "
Please help me understand if this quote is flawed. I found identical wording in other webpages.
If this wording were correct, then your deduction would be only partially correct. Correct insofar that the active party who can determine the condition could, in fact, be the faithful, as you deduce, but incorrect insofar as the passive party who suffers the penalty, the same faithful, could not be exempted from the consequence and would still suffer a penalty, albeit, diminished.
I compare our situation to that of a child with an abusive father. The child has a duty to love and obey his father, but the child needs to prioritize his own survival. We need to consider what is necessary for our spiritual survival in our situation.
This last comment is self evident to any Catholic and, in my opinion, it would surpass any Canon law, even if Can. 1324 were not created. But I am not a scholar and I may be wrong.
-
Ah, but according to the New Code of Canon Law one may assist at and even fulfill one's obligation at any VALID Mass ... if there's a (vague) "just" cause to attend. So if I state that the Tridentine Mass at an SSPX chapel is more edifying and therefore conducive to my spiritual welfare, I can apply Canon Law to assist at it.
Ladislaus, thank you for helping us, here. I appreciate it.
The challenge lies in the fact that this thread discusses ICK Mass and, in relation to that, I harbour doubts about the alternative SSPX Mass. Following your argument I would not be justified to seek SSPX Mass if Tridentine liturgy were the motive, as ICK Mass is available in my city.
One member suggested that I attend ICK Mass and Eucharist instead of NO or SSPX since I am worried that I sin if I do one thing (SSPX Mass/Eucharist) and sin if I do the opposite (conciliar N.O. Mass/Eucharist).
I have found conviction that SSPX Mass is both valid and legitimate while I found conviction that SSPX Eucharist is only valid and I still harbour some doubts as it its legitimacy.
-
Ah, but according to the New Code of Canon Law one may assist at and even fulfill one's obligation at any VALID Mass ... if there's a (vague) "just" cause to attend. So if I state that the Tridentine Mass at an SSPX chapel is more edifying and therefore conducive to my spiritual welfare, I can apply Canon Law to assist at it.
You see, Ladislaus, in my heart I want to attend SSPX Mass and Eucharist for the "wrong" reason...
The reason being that I doubt that conciliar priests can be in communion with Christ and I am still unsure as to whether conciliar priests can even be in communion with the Church! I do not understand yet if the Church is legitimately represented by the Pope and its conciliar clergy. Another member rebuked me, correctly, for criticising the Church as She is victim, not culprit.
So, given I that I have doubts, but not certainty, I am at risky of sin either way: if my doubts are correct, then, by attending conciliar Mass/Eucharist, I would sin. On the other hand, if my doubts are wrong, then, by attending SSPX, I would sin. I would sin if I do one thing and sin if I do the other depending on what is the Truth.
One member suggested that I am wrong to doubt that ICK Society priests are not in communion with Christ because the errors that would distance from Christ derive from the interpretation of V2 and from doctrinal errors in NO liturgy.
I have spoken to my city ICK Prior who confirmed that, while ICK does not reject V2, its does not adhere to all the V2 interpretation and to the NO liturgy.
Therefore, if ICK rejects both the interpretation errors of V2 and NO liturgy, then ICK Msss and Eucharist would be a safe bet for me in both cases (i.e. in case that conciliar priests are in error and in case that conciliar priests are not in error).
Jaynek is helping me address my concerns regardin legitimacy of SSPX Eucharist vis a vis ICK Eucharist.
-
Ladislaus, thank you for helping us, here. I appreciate it.
The challenge lies in the fact that this thread discusses ICK Mass and, in relation to that, I harbour doubts about the alternative SSPX Mass. Following your argument I would not be justified to seek SSPX Mass if Tridentine liturgy were the motive, as ICK Mass is available in my city.
Consider that it is an indisputable fact that if it weren't for the SSPX, there would not be an ICK at all. You do not know the history involved here but many of us who tell you to stay away from all things NO do.
The reality of the situation is that the ICK is the alternative Mass, not the SSPX. The ICK mass is the NO's alternative to the new "mass" - they refer to it as the "extraordinary form of mass." As far as Rome is concerned, they would rejoice if ICK and the other indults were to completely die off. So don't worry about what the conciliar church says.
-
The matter or legitimacy, remains less clear.
and
The canon law that you cite does not remove penalty, it only reduces it. I found this: http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P4U.HTM
"Can. 1324 (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/2/1Y.HTM) §1 (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/H.HTM) The perpretrator of a violation (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/ZV.HTM) is not exempted (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/2/DY.HTM) from penalty (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/4F.HTM), but the penalty (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/4F.HTM) prescribed (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/67.HTM) in the law (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/R.HTM) or precept (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/CB.HTM) must be diminished, or a penance (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/B8.HTM) substituted in its place (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/29.HTM), if the offence (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/8N.HTM) was committed (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/F4.HTM) by ... "
Please help me understand if this quote is flawed. I found identical wording in other webpages.
I cited canon 1323 but you are looking at 1324. Canon 1323 discusses not being liable to a penalty at all, while 1324 is about liability being diminished. Both consider the question of state of necessity. In 1323, one is not liable at all if there is actually a state of necessity or one thinks through no fault of one's own that such necessity exists. In 1324, liability is diminished if one culpably holds a mistaken belief that there is a state of necessity.
Both consider the situation in which a person is objectively mistaken about the state of necessity. The difference is whether he is at fault for making the mistake. Did he investigate thoroughly and think about it carefully? Is there some reason he should have known better? This is related to a theological concept called "culpable ignorance". If you want to pursue this, I can help you to find some resources on this topic.
If it would help to consider some arguments applying these canons, this comes up often in discussions of the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre. This was done on the grounds that he ordained bishops without permission. He, however, believed that it was necessary. This raises the questions of whether he was correct or mistaken and, if mistaken, whether he was culpable for the mistake. According to these canons, even if he were culpably mistaken, the penalty should have been reduced. Therefore the excommunicaton was unjust, perhaps invalid. (Personally, I think his belief that it was necessary was justified.) Anyhow, if exploring this would shed some light, I can probably find some articles for you.
By the way, even before the excommunications on these bishops were removed, they were still considered to have valid (but illicit) ordinations and the ordinations that they later conferred were also considered valid. In most situations being licit does not affect validity.
Jaynek is helping me address my concerns regardin legitimacy of SSPX Eucharist vis a vis ICK Eucharist.
It may comfort you to know that I spent years attending SSPX celebrated Masses before I reached the conclusion that it would be OK to receive the Eucharist at them. I can understand why you find this difficult.
-
Consider that it is an indisputable fact that if it weren't for the SSPX, there would not be an ICK at all. You do not know the history involved here but many of us who tell you to stay away from all things NO do.
I have studied the ICKSS case and I agree on this point, 100%. Similarly other societies too, owe their existence to Card Lefebvre.
The reality of the situation is that the ICK is the alternative Mass, not the SSPX. The ICK mass is the NO's alternative to the new "mass" - they refer to it as the "extraordinary form of mass." As far as Rome is concerned, they would rejoice if ICK and the other indults were to completely die off. So don't worry about what the conciliar church says.
I agree also about this.
But these truths do not address this concern to Ladislaus' recommendation: "The challenge lies in the fact that this thread discusses ICK Mass and, in relation to that, I harbour doubts about the alternative SSPX Mass. Following your argument I would not be justified to seek SSPX Mass if Tridentine liturgy were the motive, as ICK Mass is available in my city."
-
... owe their existence to Card Lefebvre.
But these truths do not address this concern to Ladislaus' recommendation: "The challenge lies in the fact that this thread discusses ICK Mass and, in relation to that, I harbour doubts about the alternative SSPX Mass. Following your argument I would not be justified to seek SSPX Mass if Tridentine liturgy were the motive, as ICK Mass is available in my city."
It's no big deal, I just want to say that +Lefebvre was never a cardinal, he was an Archbishop.
The ICK Mass is related to the SSPX Mass in that there would be no ICK Mass if it weren't for the SSPX Mass. This is because the ICK Mass exists only to draw the people into the control of the conciliar church. The main reason for it's existence is to draw the people away from all things anti-conciliar, which at present, describes the SSPX.
That is the only purpose of the ICK. It is not a question of "if", but rather "when" the ICK will be dissolved. The crooks in Rome want to control the Mass so they can get rid of it - that is their only purpose in allowing it. If you can accept that they want to destroy the Church, then you should understand they can only tolerate the TLM for so long.
Pretend you are one of the conciliar crooks, you are offering the people the TLM with all the bells and whistles for one reason, to draw them out of the SSPX and *all* the other trad groups so that there are no more trad groups - because you want them to all come over to the ICK or FSSP. Once that happens, you will get rid of the TLM altogether. It may take a few more generations, but the goal remains the same - eradicate the true Mass and faith.
The above is a very short and crude - but accurate description, but only if you can get yourself to think like a conciliar crook.
In short, the ICK exists to eradicate the True Mass and faith, the SSPX exists to preserve the True Mass and faith. That is the relationship between the ICK Mass and the SSPX Mass.
-
Jaynek, thank you for correcting me re 1323/4.
I truly appreciate your time and determination to help me and not to let go. I understand that I am very meticulous and annoying so I appreciate your help doubly.
I wish i could express my gratitude more tangibly; your time is greatly progressing my studies and convictions to the point that my NO priests insists that I must absolutely stop communicating on this forum which, to me is a good indication that I am on the right road and should continue! :P
I cited canon 1323 but you are looking at 1324. Canon 1323 discusses not being liable to a penalty at all, while 1324 is about liability being diminished. Both consider the question of state of necessity. In 1323, one is not liable at all if there is actually a state of necessity or one thinks through no fault of one's own that such necessity exists. In 1324, liability is diminished if one culpably holds a mistaken belief that there is a state of necessity.
You are correct (of course), canon 1323 does remove liability alltogether. You refer to comma 2/a, correct? It states that: "a person who, without negligence was ignorant that he or she violated a law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance;"
In other words:
i. negligent: I would not be negligent because I am making every reasonable effort to determine truth in order to follow the Church (*), by investing days and hours in non prejudiced studies. In other words I am not constructing an artificial justification to pursue what I feel is right and I am truly prepared to accept wherever my quest for truth leads me.
ii. error: If I make a mistake the second phrase "error is equivalent to ignorance" comes into effect.
At the end of my quest whatever I determine I should, therefore, not be liable to canonic penalties.
You have removed my last earthly restraint.
THANK YOU
Now the only remaining restraint would be sin itself which, from our previous conversations, I understand that I should not be incurring into, because in order to sin, one must have knowledge that that action is a sin.
(*) here, in good faith I determine that the Church is not legitimately or correctly governed and, therefore, the decision to withhold jurisdiction from the SSPX is not licit. But this generates another doubt... can a faithful usurp the decision/ruling that should rest ptoper only with an Ecclesiastical court? Is it not pride to substitute oneself because one's opinions contradict that of the church? Sorry for this never ending chain of questoins...
If it would help to consider some arguments applying these canons, this comes up often in discussions of the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre. This was done on the grounds that he ordained bishops without permission. He, however, believed that it was necessary. This raises the questions of whether he was correct or mistaken and, if mistaken, whether he was culpable for the mistake. According to these canons, even if he were culpably mistaken, the penalty should have been reduced. Therefore the excommunicaton was unjust, perhaps invalid. (Personally, I think his belief that it was necessary was justified.) Anyhow, if exploring this would shed some light, I can probably find some articles for you.
Thank you for offering but I have red lots about how the Secretary of State usurped the right to decide if to accept or refuse Card Lefebvre appeal to the Ecclesiastic Supreme Court (I forgot its name) which appeal was, therefore, never heard and/or ruled on.
I admit that I agree with you. There were no grounds for excommunication in the first place but, even if there had been, then canon 1323 would have removed the penalty.
It may comfort you to know that I spent years attending SSPX celebrated Masses before I reached the conclusion that it would be OK to receive the Eucharist at them. I can understand why you find this difficult.
How long did you wait and what did you do inbetween? No Eucharist? No Confession? Only Mass?
-----------------------------------
This brings into light a new topic, the martyrs... Canon 1323 #4 suggests that martyrs could have saved themselves without incurring in canonic liability. Would this assumption be correct?
-
It's no big deal, I just want to say that +Lefebvre was never a cardinal, he was an Archbishop.
Uhps, apologies for my mistake. Anyway, cardinal or bishop, one day he will be a Saint.
The ICK Mass is related to the SSPX Mass in that there would be no ICK Mass if it weren't for the SSPX Mass. This is because the ICK Mass exists only to draw the people into the control of the conciliar church. The main reason for it's existence is to draw the people away from all things anti-conciliar, which at present, describes the SSPX.
:o I Had never thought of it this way but it makes absolute sense. Of course! People like me are drawn away from anticonciliar thoughts. This would also explain why they are so wealthy and have the most beautiful church in Naples after the Cathedral.
That is the only purpose of the ICK. It is not a question of "if", but rather "when" the ICK will be dissolved. The crooks in Rome want to control the Mass so they can get rid of it - that is their only purpose in allowing it. If you can accept that they want to destroy the Church, then you should understand they can only tolerate the TLM for so long.
Pretend you are one of the conciliar crooks, you are offering the people the TLM with all the bells and whistles for one reason, to draw them out of the SSPX and *all* the other trad groups so that there are no more trad groups - because you want them to all come over to the ICK or FSSP. Once that happens, you will get rid of the TLM altogether. It may take a few more generations, but the goal remains the same - eradicate the true Mass and faith.
The above is a very short and crude - but accurate description, but only if you can get yourself to think like a conciliar crook.
I can see your perspective and I can appreciate that it makes perfect sense. Hence the name of this community, "The Resistence"?
The more I study, the worse it gets...
-
:( How have you guys resisted for so long... ?
-
:( How have you guys resisted for so long... ?
It's not so much a matter of resisting as it is a matter of just always doing what's right. Toward that end, the #1 rule is to *always* avoid all things Novus Ordo because of what it is - what it is, is ultimately against us doing what is right.
-
Pretend you are one of the conciliar crooks, you are offering the people the TLM with all the bells and whistles for one reason, to draw them out of the SSPX and *all* the other trad groups so that there are no more trad groups - because you want them to all come over to the ICK or FSSP. Once that happens, you will get rid of the TLM altogether. It may take a few more generations, but the goal remains the same - eradicate the true Mass and faith.
I was recommended a video catechism series by the Society of St Pius V. Do you consider these to be part of "*all* the other trad groups" too?
-
I was recommended a video catechism series by the Society of St Pius V. Do you consider these to be part of "*all* the other trad groups" too?
Yes, although I personally would never attend an SSPV Mass, the SSPV certainly represent that which the crooks are hell bent on destroying - the traditional Catholic faith, which faith the crooks want to completely eradicate from the face of the earth as if it never even existed.
"...Just because they wear sacerdotal vestments and they wear pectoral crosses and because they seem to be Catholic, is no indication whatsoever of what they are. When you see them before the television cameras and you hear them making their pontifical statements, think of ravening wolves, think of men with forked tongues, think of men who are trained to deceive, who have cultivated the talent..." - Fr. Wathen from This sermon you should listen to (https://www.dropbox.com/s/5tjrofmzr23p1rn/Archbishop-Lefebvre-And-The-Conciliar-Church-237%207_3_88.mp3?dl=0)
-
Yes, although I personally would never attend an SSPV Mass, the SSPV certainly represent that which the crooks are hell bent on destroying - the traditional Catholic faith, which faith the crooks want to completely eradicate from the face of the earth as if it never even existed.
"...Just because they wear sacerdotal vestments and they wear pectoral crosses and because they seem to be Catholic, is no indication whatsoever of what they are. When you see them before the television cameras and you hear them making their pontifical statements, think of ravening wolves, think of men with forked tongues, think of men who are trained to deceive, who have cultivated the talent..." - Fr. Wathen from This sermon you should listen to (https://www.dropbox.com/s/5tjrofmzr23p1rn/Archbishop-Lefebvre-And-The-Conciliar-Church-237%207_3_88.mp3?dl=0)
Yes, vigorous language.
1. Does this society recognize the Pope?
2. Are their video catechism and book catechism correct (https://wcbohio.com/videos/catechism (https://wcbohio.com/videos/catechism))?
-
Yes, vigorous language.
1. Does this society recognize the Pope?
2. Are their video catechism and book catechism correct (https://wcbohio.com/videos/catechism (https://wcbohio.com/videos/catechism))?
The SSPV, far as I know, still do not recognize the pope.
Their catechism is fine, but you're likely to still find things in need of correction. You're better off to use The Catechism of the Council of Trent, sometimes called "The Roman Catechism", which is actually meant for priests, but we can, and these days should, use it. It is the best catechism out there today in my opinion.
-
The SSPV, far as I know, still do not recognize the pope.
Thank you.
Their catechism is fine, but you're likely to still find things in need of correction.
I imagine I don't have to fear a modernist slant. What kind of errors should I look out for?
You're better off to use The Catechism of the Council of Trent, sometimes called "The Roman Catechism", which is actually meant for priests, but we can, and these days should, use it. It is the best catechism out there today in my opinion.
Yes, I was so told. I spend many hours in the car, every day, and I wanted to take advantage of it and reading will cause seasickness. I am looking for a podcast or video. You have no idea how much literature I have been recommended and I have bought ... I must prioritize and use the available time. I think that catechism is paramount and, hence, I want to invest there the time that I sit in a car every day.
Again, thank you.
-
Yes, I was so told. I spend many hours in the car, every day, and I wanted to take advantage of it and reading will cause seasickness. I am looking for a podcast or video. You have no idea how much literature I have been recommended and I have bought ... I must prioritize and use the available time. I think that catechism is paramount and, hence, I want to invest there the time that I sit in a car every day.
Again, thank you.
You will do well by listening to these (https://spideroak.com/browse/share/Hesse/MP3-Remastered/Fr.%20Gregory%20Hesse%20Audio%20Files%20(Remastered)/) - you can download them all very easily to your computer or phone and listen on the road, just click the download button at the bottom. Fr. Hesse is a very good speaker and is very orthodox. He was ordained in the NO but he came to the truth and since then, the true faith is all he speaks.
I imagine I don't have to fear a modernist slant. What kind of errors should I look out for?
Just go with Trent's catechism and you won't have to look out for anything. Otherwise, there are at least two things, one is the three things necessary to make a sin mortal, and the other is the teaching that there are three kinds baptism. Both need to be corrected to conform to dogma, scripture and tradition - although most will disagree that any correction is needed.
-
Thank you! I appreciated your time and expertise. I will download the podcasts and listen to them.
-
(*) here, in good faith I determine that the Church is not legitimately or correctly governed and, therefore, the decision to withhold jurisdiction from the SSPX is not licit. But this generates another doubt... can a faithful usurp the decision/ruling that should rest ptoper only with an Ecclesiastical court? Is it not pride to substitute oneself because one's opinions contradict that of the church? Sorry for this never ending chain of questoins...
Lay people have a duty to make practical judgments on those matters which affect our daily lives. As parents, we are obliged to pass on the Faith to our children. As Catholics, we have an obligation to attend Mass. We must judge how to best do these things in our personal circuмstances. The Church has authority to make general rulings, but we have the authority to apply them to our own lives.
We are in a time of confusion and chaos. Many people faces situations in which following official rulings seems wrong for various good reasons. For example, a person might need to choose between attending a Mass that endangers his faith or one that lacks "official" approval. Such a person is not usurping authority or acting from pride. He is forced by circuмstances to make the decision.
How long did you wait and what did you do inbetween? No Eucharist? No Confession? Only Mass?
During the years before I concluded that I could rightly participate in Sacraments offered by the SSPX, I went through a slow process. First I went to both Novus Ordo and "Indult" Masses. Then I reached a point where my husband basically forbade me to attend Novus Ordo Masses because I would become so upset by them. I attended both SSPX and "indult" Masses but only received Sacraments from "indult". Eventually I decided that it would be right to receive Sacraments from the SSPX. (Technicially, after Summorum Pontificuм in 2007 these were not indult Masses, but they were similar enough that this is a reasonable way to refer to them.)
Sorry it took so long to get back to you. I was babysitting grandchildren this week and it took up the time and energy that I might otherwise have spend on forums.
-
During the years before I concluded that I could rightly participate in Sacraments offered by the SSPX, I went through a slow process. First I went to both Novus Ordo and "Indult" Masses. Then I reached a point where my husband basically forbade me to attend Novus Ordo Masses because I would become so upset by them. I attended both SSPX and "indult" Masses but only received Sacraments from "indult". Eventually I decided that it would be right to receive Sacraments from the SSPX. (Technicially, after Summorum Pontificuм in 2007 these were not indult Masses, but they were similar enough that this is a reasonable way to refer to them.)
... the same path that I am walking now.