Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: ByzCat3000 on July 24, 2021, 01:46:01 PM
-
To be clear, when I say "occasionally" here I'm talking about attendance for non worship purposes, passively attending for a wedding or funeral or what have you. I definitely agree that if you thought it was an appropriate place to worship, you'd for all intents and purposes fall under the Indult label.
I think ultimately the issue doesn't predominately come down to liberalization pre Vatican II, Sede vs non sede, or most of the other things that people are making this about.
I think it ultimately comes down to whether the NO is a Satanic parody of Christ's sacrifice vs if its simply a Protestantized service.
*Perhaps I am ignorant on some level.* I was never an NO Catholic. But from everything I'm aware, the changes were *predominately* designed to make the Mass look more like Cramner's Mass. You've got the communion in the hand, you've got the table replacing the altar, versus populum, deemphasis at least in many cases on the sacrificial character of the mass, etc. Oftentimes cheesy music. Honestly things that remind me of my time in Protestantism. Given that assumption i think the same principles regarding attendance would apply for a Protestant service. I think you could go for a wedding, but you wouldn't commune there.
However, some here seem to think that its more of a Satanic blasphemy than equivalent to a Protestant service. If that's the case than I'm ignorant, but also if that's the case I'd agree with not attending, not even for a wedding or funeral. I couldn't in good conscience "passively attend" a black mass, and I'm not aware of the church ever allowing that (as it has allowed passively attending Protestant churches.)
If its inherently evil to go, then you shouldn't go. The issue is whether the thing itself is a Satanic blasphemy that needs to be avoided at any and all costs (like a black mass) or if its more like a Protestant service (the thing itself is wrong but the Church lets you go for certain social reasons.)
This is ultimately what the debate comes down to IMO.
-
The issue is whether the thing itself is a Satanic blasphemy that needs to be avoided at any and all costs (like a black mass) or if its more like a Protestant service (the thing itself is wrong but the Church lets you go for certain social reasons.)
The protestant service is also itself a satanic blasphemy insofar as it is an intentional rejection of Catholic doctrine. The men who originally created the protestant services were (formerly) Catholics, as were the creators of the NO. That is why traditionalists apply canon 1258, and the expositions of the commentators, to the NO service as well.
-
I forgot to add that the difference between an actual black mass and a protestant/NO service is that the black mass is overt worship offered to satan whereas the protestant/NO purports to be worship of God.
-
I see it as totally equivalent to a Protestant "Mass" and no argument I've heard so far has convinced me at all otherwise, but I'd also be interested in why people think it's on another level of evil entirely.
-
I see it as totally equivalent to a Protestant "Mass" and no argument I've heard so far has convinced me at all otherwise, but I'd also be interested in why people think it's on another level of evil entirely.
It seems like emotion to me, but the best sense I can make of the underlying logic is that some people really do think it's more like a black mass.
-
Protestants sell their service as a protestant supper.
NO sell their supper as a Catholic Mass.
-
It seems like emotion to me, but the best sense I can make of the underlying logic is that some people really do think it's more like a black mass.
I think the intention of those at a black mass are entirely different from most in attendance at the NO.
-
Satanic parody of Christ's sacrifice vs if its simply a Protestantized service.
Both are still a blasphemy. Both are a fake sacrifice. Both are anti-catholic. Etc etc
.
If you read +Ottaviani’s rebuke of the new mass (which is just a summary of problems), you’ll see why he called it anti-Trent. This is proof enough that it’s offensive to God in a great way.
.
+Ottaviani’s study is free online.
-
Any trad priest of any background will give the same answer on this, since it is exactly the answer given in any book of moral theology. A person can attend a non-Catholic wedding or funeral if necessary for social purposes, i.e. if the person getting married/buried is a family member or friend. While attending such a ceremony, someone must not participate actively in the religious activities, but only remain passive, such as by sitting through the whole thing in the back of the church.
.
A Novus Ordo service is a non-Catholic ceremony, and thus comes under the above rule.
.
Anyone saying the Novus Ordo is some exception, such that it would still be a sin even to be passively present and not participating at a wedding or funeral, is incorrect and should be ignored.
.
You don't have to trust me on this. You can ask any trad priest you want and you'll hear the same thing.
-
It seems like emotion to me, but the best sense I can make of the underlying logic is that some people really do think it's more like a black mass.
I can see why people would think that, given it's Freemasonic roots in man-centric worship. Plus the potential for those NO services that may have a valid consecration (mainly in those few offered by the remaining valid priests) of an end towards sacrilege.
But, in my opinion, I don't think the creators of the NOM specifically had sacrilege in mind like a Black Mass would. I think the aim was more to dilute and kill the Faith of Catholics and remove the Real Presence over time, especially with the extremely doubtful new rite of the consecration of Bishops which followed. It is most satanic in an implicit way, rather than explicit such as with a Black Mass.
-
Both are still a blasphemy. Both are a fake sacrifice. Both are anti-catholic. Etc etc
.
If you read +Ottaviani’s rebuke of the new mass (which is just a summary of problems), you’ll see why he called it anti-Trent. This is proof enough that it’s offensive to God in a great way.
.
+Ottaviani’s study is free online.
Ottaviani is one of the theologians whose books I'd push -- he's classic Traditional Catholic. The earliest Traditional Catholics were all familiar with the Ottaviani Intervention, and it formed part of the foundation or justification for the whole Traditional Movement.
-
I consider attendance at the novus ordo like attendance at a service of materially heretical Protestants.
In general, neither group is there to deliberately engage in heretical or demonic worship. For a few Catholics, those whom you know who truly have the Faith, but have yet to discover or have access to traditional Mass, I sit with family or friends and pray from my own missal. I definitely draw the line regarding communion or being a sponsor or the like.
Example, I prayed the Rosary with everyone else at my grandmother’s funeral Mass. She was 102. Regardless of it being a novus ordo, she knew and practiced the Catholic faith better than most who today call themselves traditional. At the time, 2001, I had never heard of tradition except as an historical entity. If I went to church at all, it was to whatever Protestant church I was ‘checking out’ in search of God. I’d given up on the Catholics by the mid-1970s. Despite the disdain of many Protestants for the Rosary or anything to do with Mary, I had an attraction to it and Her that I kept to myself for decades.
I did the same at the novus ordo funerals of my Uncle and Aunt, both of whom had the Faith. By then, 2009 and 2013, I had “discovered” tradition. At a Confirmation, a Baptism, and two more novus ordo funerals of non-family members who I didn’t know very well, I did exactly as I’d do at a Protestant service, sat towards the back, present out of professional obligation or respect, and silently prayed the Rosary or sat quietly.
-
Both are still a blasphemy. Both are a fake sacrifice. Both are anti-catholic. Etc etc
.
If you read +Ottaviani’s rebuke of the new mass (which is just a summary of problems), you’ll see why he called it anti-Trent. This is proof enough that it’s offensive to God in a great way.
.
+Ottaviani’s study is free online.
Exactly. A Protestant fake-Mass is a Satanic parody of the Mass just like the NO. So why was it not a sin to attend a Protestant wedding pre-V2 but it's a mortal sin to attend an NO wedding?
-
The last time I attended a NO apart from a funeral, etc. was 1978. I had just become a Catholic and didn't know any better. I found the trad movement 2 months later (back then it consisted of ORCM, SSPX, Ave Maria Chapel in NY, and I think the Abbe de Nantes in France).
The last/only time since 1978 that I attended one was in the 2000s for a funeral.
-
Exactly. A Protestant fake-Mass is a Satanic parody of the Mass just like the NO. So why was it not a sin to attend a Protestant wedding pre-V2 but it's a mortal sin to attend an NO wedding?
If you are comparing simply the NO wedding with a Protestant wedding, you are correct. The difference, which you fail to recognize, is that if the NO wedding also includes a new mass, that is the clinching factor that you cannot attend.
.
It's shocking to me that so many of you have no principles on why we avoid the new mass 100%. That is part of being a Traditional Catholic. If you have some exceptions in mind on why it's ok to attend *sometimes*, then your refusal to attend it is not based on doctrine/theology, but pure sentimentality ("it's not as good", "it's inferior", etc).
.
Again, if you understood what the True Mass is, how holy it is, how perfect in God's eyes it is, then ANYTHING which makes it less holy or less perfect is an ABOMINATION. Let's not forget that God despised Cain's offering, simply because Cain made it with a "not as good" intention.
.
God is perfect and all-holy. Thus, the Mass we offer to Him MUST be perfect and all-holy. This is what He deserves, as Our Creator. If we give scandal by "passively" attending a NO, we sin by 2 of nine ways of being an accessory to sin - silence and consent. Thus, we give scandal to everyone else there.
.
It waters down the whole Trad movement if we give into the new mass, because then we send the message that Traditionalism is simply a "preference". If you can go for weddings/funerals, why can't you go for other special occasions, like Christmas, Easter and New Years? It's a slippery slope of bad logic, poor theology and a betrayal of doctrine.
-
If you are comparing simply the NO wedding with a Protestant wedding, you are correct. The difference, which you fail to recognize, is that if the NO wedding also includes a new mass, that is the clinching factor that you cannot attend.
I wasn't aware that Protestant weddings don't include Prod "Masses". That's a very good point. My argument has been that a Prod pseudo-Mass is equivalent to a NO pseudo-Mass, so since Prods don't have fake Masses as part of their weddings, then I stand corrected and apologise for the false assumption there.
-
If you are comparing simply the NO wedding with a Protestant wedding, you are correct. The difference, which you fail to recognize, is that if the NO wedding also includes a new mass, that is the clinching factor that you cannot attend.
.
It's shocking to me that so many of you have no principles on why we avoid the new mass 100%. That is part of being a Traditional Catholic. If you have some exceptions in mind on why it's ok to attend *sometimes*, then your refusal to attend it is not based on doctrine/theology, but pure sentimentality ("it's not as good", "it's inferior", etc).
.
Again, if you understood what the True Mass is, how holy it is, how perfect in God's eyes it is, then ANYTHING which makes it less holy or less perfect is an ABOMINATION. Let's not forget that God despised Cain's offering, simply because Cain made it with a "not as good" intention.
.
God is perfect and all-holy. Thus, the Mass we offer to Him MUST be perfect and all-holy. This is what He deserves, as Our Creator. If we give scandal by "passively" attending a NO, we sin by 2 of nine ways of being an accessory to sin - silence and consent. Thus, we give scandal to everyone else there.
.
It waters down the whole Trad movement if we give into the new mass, because then we send the message that Traditionalism is simply a "preference". If you can go for weddings/funerals, why can't you go for other special occasions, like Christmas, Easter and New Years? It's a slippery slope of bad logic, poor theology and a betrayal of doctrine.
.
Pax, if you have a pre-Vatican 2 book of theology, you can look this up for yourself. It's right there in Jone, if you have that. Someone attending a funeral or wedding is not actively participating in the false worship. He is merely being present at an important occasion, and shows his lack of acknowledgment of the false worship by refusing to participate in it. This isn't exactly a new question that no one ever heard of. This is the universal teaching before Vatican 2.
.
If you have some exceptions in mind on why it's ok to attend *sometimes*, then your refusal to attend it is not based on doctrine/theology, but pure sentimentality ("it's not as good", "it's inferior", etc).
.
You are confusing two different things. Certainly you are correct in saying someone cannot attend the New Mass, ever, period, if by that you mean attending it as a religious service. But when someone is passively present at a non-Catholic family member's funeral or wedding, he is attending the funeral/wedding, he is not attending (in the normal sense of the term) the "religious" ceremony taking place. He shows this by not participating actively. He simply sits there and is present only physically, but not uniting himself spiritually to what is taking place. That is permissible and is taught by all the moralists before Vatican 2.
-
You're a convert, so how would you know everything? Fr Wathen wrote his book "The Great Sacrilege" in 1971. He was against the new mass 100% from the get-go. There were many other priests in the 70s and 80s that agreed with him. But most are now dead. Once Tradition merged into mainly the sspx and sspv in the 90s, the large majority of independent priests died out and were replaced by younger ones, most of whom were wimpy on the new mass. That's why most of you on here are wishy-washy on it.
.
If anyone wants to read Fr Wathen's book, for free, there is a website which has it posted:
http://www.dailycatholic.org/indextgs.htm (http://www.dailycatholic.org/indextgs.htm)
It would have saved a tremendous amount of time if you had admitted from the beginning that you have taken Fr. Wathen's book from 1971 as your primary guide.
2. All churches where the "New Mass" is "celebrated" must be regarded as desecrated sanctuaries, in that "impious and sordid actions" have been committed there. (Canon 1172, Par. 1.3.). Therefore, the True Mass should not be offered in them, nor should anyone attend the True Mass offered in them. Further, other services which are held in such churches must be avoided if they have any connection with the "celebration" of the "New Mass." These include Benediction, Confirmations, marriages, funerals, etc. It would seem that the only acceptable reasons one might have for entering these churches at all is to attend a Baptism or go to Confession. At this statement, some may find themselves bestirred as they have not been from the beginning of this writing until now. They will say: "Now, this is too much! We may not even attend weddings and funerals in our own churches? Why, we have always been allowed to go to Protestant churches for such occasions!" My answer is: Eureka! Now you are catching on! It is permissible to go to Protestant churches for social reasons. But such services, no matter how greatly they differ fro the Catholic liturgy, or how greatly they resemble it, and no matter how dissident their doctrine, are not to be regarded as irreverent Mimicries of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Of set purpose, Protestant services are not and explicitly claim not to be the Eternal Sacrifice of the Mass. Perhaps before we are finished here, the meaning of the Revolution will have become clearer. For, truly, this is our situation: Though the "New Mass," those who treasure the Faith and who fear God have been virtually excluded from their own places of worship, just as Christ Himself, His Mother, and the angels and saints have been rudely cast out. Surely we should not be surprised. Did not our Divine Redeemer warn us: "The servant is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted Me, they will also persecute you" (Jn. 15:20).
He unambiguously admits what several people have pointed out:
It is permissible to go to Protestant churches for social reasons.
His objection is that he thinks the NO mass is a special form of blasphemy that is beyond what any protestant has tried to do. While I respect Fr. Wathen, I think it is possible for someone of good will and knowledge to disagree with some of his assessments and practical conclusions (as almost all trad clergy do).
As has been pointed out the early protestants were Catholic Bishops and Priests who created rites designed to destroy particular Catholic doctrines while still claiming to be the Church of Christ. Other than the NO has succeeded in occupying the Vatican I don't see that much difference.
Notice that Fr. Wathen says it is permissible to witness a NO baptism and even to go to confession in the NO. Do you agree with that?
In the exchanges on this subject you have fallen into hurling insults and questioning the sincerity of Faith of other members.
Does Tradition/Truth not matter to you?
I think it a reasonable assumption that most of the regular posters on CI are here because they take the Faith seriously. Your behavior towards them is reprehensible.
You need to study/pray more.
As I politely suggested before: "take your own counsel."
-
Other than the NO has succeeded in occupying the Vatican I don't see that much difference.
:facepalm: You can disagree with Fr Wathen all you want; he’s not infallible. But don’t act like the NO is the same as a Protestant service. The NO is “protestantized”, but that doesn’t mean it’s the same as a Protestant service. If you can’t tell the difference, theologically, then you don’t understand the Mass.
-
I think it is possible for someone of good will and knowledge to disagree with some of his assessments and practical conclusions (as almost all trad clergy do)
"As most all trad clergy do"...Now, today, at the present moment. It was not always so.
.
These are the kind of bad-willed, half-truth arguments that tick me off. If you want to debate fairly, then don't sneak in phrases which are stupidly unaware of history.
-
In the exchanges on this subject you have fallen into hurling insults and questioning the sincerity of Faith of other members.
I think it a reasonable assumption that most of the regular posters on CI are here because they take the Faith seriously. Your behavior towards them is reprehensible.
As I politely suggested before: "take your own counsel."
Well said, Emille.
-
Well said, Emille.
Ditto
-
In the exchanges on this subject you have fallen into hurling insults and questioning the sincerity of Faith of other members.
And people are saying Stubborn and I are against Canon Law, and are extremists. That's an attack on our Faith too.
.
Pot meet kettle.
.
I think it a reasonable assumption that most of the regular posters on CI are here because they take the Faith seriously. Your behavior towards them is reprehensible.
:laugh2: Grow up. We're all adults here.
-
Pax, if you have a pre-Vatican 2 book of theology, you can look this up for yourself. It's right there in Jone, if you have that.
:facepalm: Applying pre-V2 rules to V2.
.
Someone attending a funeral or wedding is not actively participating in the false worship.
A protestant wedding doesn't have "false worship". It's a saturday wedding; it's a natural law good act. Quit comparing a Sunday protestant service to a protestant wedding.
.
He is merely being present at an important occasion, and shows his lack of acknowledgment of the false worship by refusing to participate in it.
:laugh1: If you truly want to show a "lack of acknowledgement" then you don't show up. "I'm going to cancel plans to attend a wedding, dress up in a suit, drive to a church...all to "not acknowledge" something." :facepalm:
This isn't exactly a new question that no one ever heard of. This is the universal teaching before Vatican 2.
It is a new question, because saturday protestant weddings didn't have fake masses.
-
"As most all trad clergy do"...Now, today, at the present moment. It was not always so.
.
These are the kind of bad-willed, half-truth arguments that tick me off. If you want to debate fairly, then don't sneak in phrases which are stupidly unaware of history.
Did you ever consider posting evidence that most or many trad clergy used to hold the position that you are advocating?
-
And people are saying Stubborn and I are against Canon Law, and are extremists. That's an attack on our Faith too.
Where have I said these things?
:laugh2: Grow up. We're all adults here.
Yes we are adults, maybe we should try to act like it.
-
Where have I said these things?
:facepalm: Are you the only one on this thread?
-
Someone attending a funeral or wedding is not actively participating in the false worship. He is merely being present at an important occasion..
I don't mean to derail the thread, but how is the funeral or wedding of a heretic an "important occasion"?
-
I don't mean to derail the thread, but how is the funeral or wedding of a heretic an "important occasion"?
Your fellow Marine, who is a heretic, gets killed saving your life. Do you attend his funeral?
-
Your fellow Marine, who is a heretic, gets killed saving your life. Do you attend his funeral?
Yes, you attend his funeral at the cemetery. You skip the mass at the NO church or protestant building.
.
Emile, your failure to make distinctions is your problem. It's "all or none" for you. That's not how life works.
You also, because you're a woman, put too much emphasis on society/family and not enough emphasis on principles/facts. God made women to be this way, but it's not all good. You need to recognize you have this built in bias and beware.
-
It's "all or none" for you. That's not how life works.
That has been YOUR position on this entire subject, not mine.
-
You also, because you're a woman, put too much emphasis on society/family and not enough emphasis on principles/facts. God made women to be this way, but it's not all good. You need to recognize you have this built in bias and beware.
I'm not a woman. You might want to have your vision checked.
-
Pax Vobis:
I've cited docuмentation promulgated under three Popes, one of which is canonized. They have seen fit to make a distinction between active and passive attendance and place it in canon law. If a future Pope says that is wrong I'll accept his teaching. Until then I will stand by it because I believe it to be the teaching of the Church.
You have cited a book in which the author unhesitatingly declares that Catholics may attend a protestant wedding or funeral. His objection is that the NO mass is somehow a greater sacrilege that a protestant one. I'm not convinced by his assessment and you have not provided anything, other than your own opinion, to bolster his claim. Instead you have made several factually erroneous statements regarding protestantism, have not provided evidence that most trad clergy used to hold said position, and have insulted everyone who disagrees with you.
If you would like to provide actual evidence, I am open to considering it.
-
That has been YOUR position on this entire subject, not mine.
No, it's not. If the question is:
.
1. Can we attend a new mass, ever? Never. No exceptions.
.
2. Can we attend a novus ordo wedding? Yes, if there's no new mass, and as long as it's not overly "progressive". If it becomes scandalous, then you have to leave, even if in the middle.
.
3. Can we attend a protestant wedding? According to canon law, yes, provided there is a just reason and you get permission from your bishop.
-
I've cited docuмentation promulgated under three Popes, one of which is canonized. They have seen fit to make a distinction between active and passive attendance and place it in canon law.
That's a half-truth, and based on your repeated half-truths, i'll assume it's now dishonesty.
.
Yes, they have made a distinction between passive attendance, but such is allowed only under certain conditions. 1) protestant wedding (not a protestant service), 2) if there is a grave reason for attendance, 3) with permission of your bishop.
.
If a future Pope says that is wrong I'll accept his teaching. Until then I will stand by it because I believe it to be the teaching of the Church.
You'll stand by your personal interpretation of it, which is wrong. Go right ahead, no one can stop you. God knows your heart and your hard-headedness in the matter. I'll pray for you to accept humility at some point.
.
You have cited a book in which the author unhesitatingly declares that Catholics may attend a protestant wedding or funeral.
Yep, and i've not objected to this once. Notice, neither this priest nor canon law says you can attend a protestant service, only the wedding/funeral. A distinction you repeatedly ignore.
.
His objection is that the NO mass is somehow a greater sacrilege that a protestant one. I'm not convinced by his assessment and you have not provided anything, other than your own opinion, to bolster his claim.
Ok, so you don't trust a priest who grew up pre-V2, went to a pre-V2 orthodox seminary, recognized the errors of V2 as they were happening in the 60s, refused to ever say the new mass and left his diocese, with no where to go, and with no $, when his bishop wouldn't let him continue to say the TLM. Then he wrote a book against the new mass, one of the first on the topic, only 2 years after this blasphemy was forced on the laity across the globe.
.
...This is a priest, as orthodox as they come, whom you won't listen to. Wow. I have no words...
.
Instead you have made several factually erroneous statements regarding protestantism, have not provided evidence that most trad clergy used to hold said position, and have insulted everyone who disagrees with you.
If you would like to provide actual evidence, I am open to considering it.
I'm not going to write a history book to explain to you the common-knowledge of how Traditionalism started in the 60s and 70s. If you don't already know this, then you're woefully uneducated on the topic and shouldn't even be talking about it.
.
Suffice it to say, from the period of 1969 (when the new mass came out) til the period of 1988 (when new-rome started the indult mass), there were almost no TLMs said in parishes or dioceses across the globe. Everything was the new mass. Except those Trad priests who had left new-rome and found Trad laity, where mass was said in garages, hotel rooms, basements and rental halls. Until they saved up $ to buy/rent buildings which were turned into chapels. This took years.
.
So for the period of almost 20 years, the only TLMs said on the planet were by Trad priests. Not authorized by new-rome and not available in parishes/dioceses. There was no FSSP. No ICK. No Summorum Pontificuм. No indult TLMs. Sure, there were some old, retired priests who said the TLM in a small parish chapel a few times a week. But not on sundays. Sundays, it was new mass or nothing. This is historical fact.
.
Get the picture?
-
Pax, you're basically saying that anyone who doesn't agree with the position of one particular Trad priest isn't a real trad, accusing of bad will, etc. Its the kind of thing that isn't typical of you, and its somewhat surprising in this case.
Not everyone in Tradition has held to the ultra rigorist position that Fr. Wathen did. Archbishop Lefebvre didn't. Bishop Williamson doesn't.
Its not "bad will" to disagree on this subject. Nor does it make one not a trad.
-
I'm satisfied that what I have written on this subject is true and inline with the Church's teaching. If there is error in what I have said may God make it plain to all so that it goes no further.
If anyone is interested here are three links (posted previously) which give canon 1258 in Latin and two English translations, along with practical explanations.
https://archive.org/details/1917CodeOfCanonLawCommentary/page/n2581/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/CasesOfConscienceForEnglishSpeakingV1/page/n150/mode/1up
https://archive.org/details/pointsofchurchla0000slat/page/21/mode/1up
-
That's a half-truth, and based on your repeated half-truths, i'll assume it's now dishonesty.
.
Yes, they have made a distinction between passive attendance, but such is allowed only under certain conditions. 1) protestant wedding (not a protestant service), 2) if there is a grave reason for attendance, 3) with permission of your bishop.
Here is 1917 Canon 1258.2.
§ 2. Passive or merely material presence can be tolerated for the sake of honor or civil office, for grave reason approved by the Bishop in case of doubt, at the funerals, weddings, and similar solemnities of non-Catholics, provided danger of perversion and scandal is absent.
1) The text says "and similar solemnities" of non-Cahtolics, so more than just weddings. That includes a baptism or even a bar mitzvah.
2) The canon does not require approval of the bishop in all cases, but *in case of doubt*.
-
That's a half-truth, and based on your repeated half-truths, i'll assume it's now dishonesty.
.
Yes, they have made a distinction between passive attendance, but such is allowed only under certain conditions. 1) protestant wedding (not a protestant service), 2) if there is a grave reason for attendance, 3) with permission of your bishop.
Here's canon 1258 yet again:
s1. Haud licitum est fidelibus quovis modo active assistere seu partem habere in sacris acatholicorum.
s2. Tolerari potest praesentia passiva seu materialis, civilis officii vel honoris causa, ob gravem rationem ab Episcopo in causu dubii probandum, in acatholicorum funeribus, nuptiis similibusque sollemniis, dummodo perversionis et scandali periculum absit.
It is unlawful for Catholics to assist actively in any way at, or take part in, the religious services of non-Catholics.
A passive or merely material presence may be tolerated, for reasons of civil duty or honor, at funerals, weddings, and similar celebrations, provided no danger of perversion or scandal arises from this assistance. In doubtful cases the reason for assisting must be grave, and recognized as such by the Bishop.
1) protestant wedding (not a protestant service)
Canon 1258 does not say protestant anywhere. It says non-Catholic.
s1. makes the distinction ACTIVE assistance. It does NOT forbid passive presence. It DOES forbid active assistance and taking part in a non-Catholic services (ie. joining in the prayers, serving as groomsman or bridesmaid, etc.)
It also does not make the distinction between a wedding and a service that you claim.
2) if there is a grave reason for attendance, 3) with permission of your bishop.
s2. ...In doubtful cases the reason for assisting must be grave, and recognized as such by the Bishop.
-
Ok, so you don't trust a priest who grew up pre-V2, went to a pre-V2 orthodox seminary, recognized the errors of V2 as they were happening in the 60s, refused to ever say the new mass and left his diocese, with no where to go, and with no $, when his bishop wouldn't let him continue to say the TLM. Then he wrote a book against the new mass, one of the first on the topic, only 2 years after this blasphemy was forced on the laity across the globe.
.
...This is a priest, as orthodox as they come, whom you won't listen to. Wow. I have no words...
I respect Fr. Wathen, and have shown it. This is what you had to say about the matter:
You can disagree with Fr Wathen all you want; he’s not infallible.
It is possible to respect someone and disagree with them simultaneously.
-
'm not going to write a history book to explain to you the common-knowledge of how Traditionalism started in the 60s and 70s. If you don't already know this, then you're woefully uneducated on the topic and shouldn't even be talking about it.
.
Suffice it to say, from the period of 1969 (when the new mass came out) til the period of 1988 (when new-rome started the indult mass), there were almost no TLMs said in parishes or dioceses across the globe. Everything was the new mass. Except those Trad priests who had left new-rome and found Trad laity, where mass was said in garages, hotel rooms, basements and rental halls. Until they saved up $ to buy/rent buildings which were turned into chapels. This took years.
.
So for the period of almost 20 years, the only TLMs said on the planet were by Trad priests. Not authorized by new-rome and not available in parishes/dioceses. There was no FSSP. No ICK. No Summorum Pontificuм. No indult TLMs. Sure, there were some old, retired priests who said the TLM in a small parish chapel a few times a week. But not on sundays. Sundays, it was new mass or nothing. This is historical fact.
Thank you for the brief history lesson I am quite familiar with everything that you wrote. However, none of your reply answered what I wrote:
1) Instead you have made several factually erroneous statements regarding protestantism,
2)have not provided evidence (beyond Fr. Wathen's book, of course) that most trad clergy used to hold said position,
3)and have insulted everyone who disagrees with you.
If you would like to provide actual evidence, I am open to considering it.
-
...provided no danger of perversion or scandal arises from this assistance.
I want to highlight this point, not so much for the regular posters who are pretty secure in the Faith, but for the αnσnymσus readers of CI who are at all different levels.
This part requires a judgment call and, if you are not certain, I recommend that you pray, study, and seek the advice of a trusted Priest, preferably one who has known you for a while, to help you do the right thing in your particular situation.
-
Yes, the 60s/70s were "horror days" for trads. Imagine converting to the Faith in those days, as I did.
-
It is unlawful for Catholics to assist actively in any way at, or take part in, the religious services of non-Catholics.
A passive or merely material presence may be tolerated, for reasons of civil duty office or honor, at funerals, weddings, and similar celebrations, provided no danger of perversion or scandal arises from this assistance. In doubtful cases the reason for assisting must be grave, and recognized as such by the Bishop.
Canon 1258 does not say protestant anywhere. It says non-Catholic.
s1. makes the distinction ACTIVE assistance. It does NOT forbid passive presence. It DOES forbid active assistance and taking part in a non-Catholic services (ie. joining in the prayers, serving as groomsman or bridesmaid, etc.)
It also does not make the distinction between a wedding and a service that you claim.
s2. ...In doubtful cases the reason for assisting must be grave, and recognized as such by the Bishop.
The red highlighted words in your above quote appear to be flying over your head....
No one's honor is at stake, of this there is no doubt - scratch this reason for going.
The OP's daughter's wedding has nothing whatsoever to do with any civil office, of this there is no doubt, scratch this reason for going. There is no grave reason, so scratch this idea too.
So with no doubts, with no honor at stake, with no civil office involved, and with no grave reason to attend at all, exactly what answer should be expected from the OP's bishop?
-
The red highlighted words in your above quote appear to be flying over your head....
No one's honor is at stake, of this there is no doubt - scratch this reason for going.
The OP's daughter's wedding has nothing whatsoever to do with any civil office, of this there is no doubt, scratch this reason for going. There is no grave reason, so scratch this idea too.
So with no doubts, with no honor at stake, with no civil office involved, and with no grave reason to attend at all, exactly what answer should be expected from the OP's bishop?
This work has a slightly different English translation that might make the meaning clearer for you:
https://archive.org/details/pointsofchurchla0000slat/page/21/mode/1up
You seem to be misunderstanding "honoris". From the Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Latin (Leo F. Stelton): "honor, distinction, esteem, reward, acknowledgement"
As for doubt simply reread the sentence:
In doubtful cases the reason for assisting must be grave, and recognized as such by the Bishop
The slightly different translation may help as well. Sorry, I don't have time right now to type it out.
-
Your fellow Marine, who is a heretic, gets killed saving your life. Do you attend his funeral?
No
-
No one's honor is at stake, of this there is no doubt - scratch this reason for going.
No, "honor" here IS the relevant reason. By your presence, you honor the deceased or the person(s) the ceremony is about.
Thus you can attend the funeral to honor a deceased relative, or deceased friend, or a deceased head of state (an example of honoring someone you may never have met).
Doing so is an act of virtue, but as a non-theological virtue it can be limited by potentially giving scandal or endangering one's faith.
-
This work has a slightly different English translation that might make the meaning clearer for you:
https://archive.org/details/pointsofchurchla0000slat/page/21/mode/1up
You seem to be misunderstanding "honoris". From the Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Latin (Leo F. Stelton): "honor, distinction, esteem, reward, acknowledgement"
As for doubt simply reread the sentence:
In doubtful cases the reason for assisting must be grave, and recognized as such by the Bishop
The slightly different translation may help as well. Sorry, I don't have time right now to type it out.
From your link......
...Still, his passive presence may be misunderstood. It may be looked upon as giving some sort of approbation or recognition to the claims of a false religion, or it may be a cause of scandal to others, or there may be danger of relaxing one's own religious fibre and giving in to the spirit of religious indifference.
For these reasons it is better, as a general rule, to keep away altogether from non-Catholic religious services as far as is possible. However, at times this is scarcely possible.
So the general rule is to keep away, the general rule is *not* to go, sit in the back and not participate.
He then gives a few good examples of what is meant by "honor/respect or civil office"....
A Catholic may be a registrar of marriages, and his office may require him to assist at a Protestant marriage in his official capacity. Or a Catholic tenant may be expected to be present at the funeral of his Protestant landlord. In these and similar cases the second section of Canon 1258 says that the passive presence of Catholics at non-Catholic religious services may be tolerated, if there be a good reason, and if there be no danger of perversion or of scandal. The duties of some special office or the need of showing respect will furnish the good reason required, and in such cases there will not be much danger of perversion or of scandal. In case of doubt whether the reason is sufficiently grave the canon requires that the bishop be consulted.
-
No, "honor" here IS the relevant reason. You honor the deceased or the people the ceremony is about by your presence.
How exactly is it honoring or respecting either the daughter or parents by their passive presence at non-Catholic wedding ceremony due to the daughter refusing to marry in a Catholic ceremony? Please explain.
-
How exactly is it honoring or respecting either the daughter or parents by their passive presence at non-Catholic wedding ceremony due to the daughter refusing to marry in a Catholic ceremony? Please explain.
Your presence at a wedding is you giving honor to the couple getting married. The only reason you're there is the wedding, unless you happen to be a member of the church where the wedding occurs.
Your question is conflating another issue. If a Catholic were to marry outside the Church (without dispensation, so invalid), you couldn't go (due to potentially giving scandal).
-
Your presence at a wedding is you giving honor to the couple getting married. The only reason you're there is the wedding, unless you happen to be a member of the church where the wedding occurs.
Your question is conflating another issue. If a Catholic were to marry outside the Church (without dispensation, so invalid), you couldn't go (due to potentially giving scandal).
You may think that my passive presence at a non-Catholic wedding gives honor or respect to the couple, but I think it is actually viewed as nothing other than my approval of them getting married in a non-Catholic service. I see no honor in that.
I accept that they are (getting) married, but while I may have a want to be present, I have no need to be there for it, nor does my passive presence do anything for the good of their souls, and in that regard, if anything, it only makes matters worse.
-
You may think that my passive presence at a non-Catholic wedding gives honor or respect to the couple, but I think it is actually viewed as nothing other than my approval of them getting married in a non-Catholic service. I see no honor in that.
Even if the couple are themselves non-Catholic?
We have social ties with our friends and associates, some of whom are likely non-Catholic. There are limits and other considerations, but if my non-Catholic co-worker invites me to his son's non-Catholic wedding, it's at least a possibility that attending is the most virtuous course of action.
Providence may even lead to other benefits. I may later pull on the same social ties and invite him to my son's Catholic wedding, which might start my co-worker on the path to conversion.
-
Even if the couple are themselves non-Catholic?
We have social ties with our friends and associates, some of whom are likely non-Catholic. There are limits and other considerations, but if my non-Catholic co-worker invites me to his son's non-Catholic wedding, it's at least a possibility that attending is the most virtuous course of action.
Providence may even lead to other benefits. I may later pull on the same social ties and invite him to my son's Catholic wedding, which might start my co-worker on the path to conversion.
My reply was referencing the OP's situation.
For me, I do not go to any non-Catholic wedding or funeral services no matter what...I went to one NO funeral once about 20+ years ago and will never do that again, it was beyond sickening.
Anyway, consider that your thoughts regarding the conversion of a non-Catholic coming to your son's wedding, which is noble, fine and very good! But it might well be the same thoughts non-Catholics have regarding a Catholic going to their wedding - which is a reason why the general rule is to stay away from non-Catholic ceremonies.
-
It is unlawful for Catholics to assist actively in any way at, or take part in, the religious services of non-Catholics.
A passive or merely material presence may be tolerated, for reasons of civil duty or honor, at funerals, weddings, and similar celebrations, provided no danger of perversion or scandal arises from this assistance. In doubtful cases the reason for assisting must be grave, and recognized as such by the Bishop.
1. "Civil duty or honor" is one, complete thought. You guys are dishonestly separating the 2 into 2 different reasons. FALSE.
2. You can attend weddings/funerals (not masses), for the reason in #1. "Civil duty or honor".
3. What is civil duty/honor? This would be if a catholic mayor had to attend the death of a protestant senator or a protestant governor, or a protestant civil leader. This has to do with GOVERNMENT; that's what civil means.
.
4. Even if you water-down the "honor" reason to include family/friends, there is NO ALLOWANCE for attending a sunday service, merely funerals/weddings are allowed.
5. The reason for family/friends is not grave, so that's another watering-down you've done.
.
6. None of this includes an allowance for attending an illicit mass. Canon Law is clear on this. Attending illicit masses are a mortal sin.
7. None of this includes an allowance for attending masses from heretic priests (of the new rite or any heretics). Attending heretic masses is a mortal sin, per canon law.
8. None of this includes an allowance for attending masses which are profane, sacrilegious, or blasphemous. Canon law forbids attendance at such, under grave sin.
9. Doubfully valid masses = also grave sin, per canon law.
.
10. The worst error/lie you all commit is self-defining a new mass as a protestant service, so you can use the above canon to your liking. Such a shameful, deceitful act. You self-interpret whatever you want, to fit your own desires and your own version of Traditionalism. Such pride, such spiritual immaturity.
-
Not everyone in Tradition has held to the ultra rigorist position that Fr. Wathen did.
Yes, in the 70s and 80s, most did. They had no other choice. You either said the TLM outside of new-rome's authority, or you said the new mass along with the Modernists. The lines were drawn back then.
.
Archbishop Lefebvre didn't. Bishop Williamson doesn't.
They did agree, in theory. They also softened, over time, especially after the 1988 indult came into existence.
-
Yes, in the 70s and 80s, most did. They had no other choice. You either said the TLM outside of new-rome's authority, or you said the new mass along with the Modernists. The lines were drawn back then.
.
They did agree, in theory. They also softened, over time, especially after the 1988 indult came into existence.
I can't speak to numbers, but archbishop Lefebvre told people they could attend the new mass FOR SUNDAY OBLIGATION if they felt obliged to which is a lot further than anyone here is even arguing for. I've never heard any traditional clergy EXCEPT fr wathen say you can't go to a new mass for a funeral or wedding. Now there probably are some, maybe they're correct, but that's definitely not a requirement to be a traditional Catholic just because you say it is. Your accusing everyone who disagrees of bad will is uncharacteristically dimondite as well.
-
Pax, you're basically saying that anyone who doesn't agree with the position of one particular Trad priest isn't a real trad, accusing of bad will, etc. Its the kind of thing that isn't typical of you, and its somewhat surprising in this case.
No, that's not what I'm saying. You can disagree with Fr Wathen on the DEGREE of evil of the new mass, but you cannot say that the new mass is ok, and call yourself a Trad. There are many things in Tradition which are open for a debate (sede, BOD), this is not one of them. Traditionalism was founded as a 1:1 reaction against the new mass. This is a historical fact and cannot be debated. To say otherwise is revisionist history, which imperils all the souls of the youth today (who weren't alive then), and I won't tolerate it.
.
The secondary issue is the false interpretation of this canon, to apply to the new mass, ignoring ALL OTHER canons which apply AGAINST the new mass. Such a reading of canon law is false, stupid, uncatholic and ridiculous.
.
All of you who would *passively* attend a new mass would (I hope) shudder in horror, if you were asked by a "family member" to *passively* follow her into an abortion clinic and watch the procedure. You rightly see the evils against natural law, for God has written these laws onto every man's heart. But you fail to see the evils of the new mass because one cannot reason to evils against Faith or supernatural goods. Such recognition only comes from one's conscience (if it is properly formed) and also by actual grace.
.
My chastising you all is an actual grace. This is the only way you'll recognize the evils of the new mass, for your consciences are weak on the subject. Hate me if you want, but this is for your own good.
-
your accusing everyone who disagrees of bad will is uncharacteristically dimondite as well.
Emile is of bad will because he is illogically self-interpreting the canon. That's plain.
.
Others are of bad will because they don't know history, and want to create their own idea of why Traditionalism started. Most are converts so they wouldn't know.
-
but archbishop Lefebvre told people they could attend the new mass FOR SUNDAY OBLIGATION if they felt obliged to which is a lot further than anyone here is even arguing for.
He didn't say that, but attached numerous distinctions and qualifications. You're saying the above is wrong. Why would you write it?
-
But you fail to see the evils of the new mass because one cannot reason to evils against Faith or supernatural goods.
And yet the Church pre-V2 permitted Catholics to passively attend non-Cathoic services despite those services' evils against the Faith.
The secondary issue is the false interpretation of this canon, to apply to the new mass
No, we are not saying Canon 1258 applies to the new mass. Among other reasons, the new mass has the appearances of an approved Catholic rite. It's an argument by analogy from something we assumed you would accept.
Such recognition only comes from one's conscience (if it is properly formed) and also by actual grace.
My chastising you all is an actual grace.
Has it ever occurred to you that that perhaps your conscience is not properly formed? Perhaps those chastizing you are vehicles of actual graces for you?
-
I can't speak to numbers, but archbishop Lefebvre told people they could attend the new mass FOR SUNDAY OBLIGATION if they felt obliged to which is a lot further than anyone here is even arguing for. I've never heard any traditional clergy EXCEPT fr wathen say you can't go to a new mass for a funeral or wedding. Now there probably are some, maybe they're correct, but that's definitely not a requirement to be a traditional Catholic just because you say it is. Your accusing everyone who disagrees of bad will is uncharacteristically dimondite as well.
I heard many different priests both from the pulpit and in person tell us we cannot go to the new "mass," mostly prior to the 1980s but when the changes first hit, many (not all) of those priests who were kicked out of their rectories told us to avoid the whole NO like the plague that it is. I was too young then to fully understand why, but did end up figuring it out by the grace of God - but now, after all the devastation the evil thing has caused, it's easy to see, or should be imo, yet people STILL defend it not knowing or accepting what it really is.
I sometimes wonder why the trad clergy of all ranks devote so little time to this issue when it seems they should do everything they can to wholly condemn the evil thing, loud and clear, regularly. Perhaps to them it's yesterdays news, but too many of them believe it's only an inferior service.
-
They also softened, over time, especially after the 1988 indult came into existence.
Since we want to get the history right, 1988 was the creation of the Ecclesia Dei commission, and the wider application of pre-existing indults for the TLM, in response to +ABL consecrating bishops.
There were indults before 1988. If someone just said "the indult", I would probably assume they meant the wordwide indult of 1984.
There were even earlier ones such as the 1971 indult for the UK often called the "Agatha Christie indult".
-
No, we are not saying Canon 1258 applies to the new mass. Among other reasons, the new mass has the appearances of an approved Catholic rite. It's an argument by analogy from something we assumed you would accept.
You just perfectly explained in your above quote, in a nutshell, why it is more dangerous to go to a NO service than it is to go to a prot service, which is what Pax is talking about.
-
The the only difference between occasionally and never attending the Novus Ordo is that you are either occasionally attending the blasphemous service or you never attend the blasphemous service.
It really is that simple.
-
And yet the Church pre-V2 permitted Catholics to passively attend non-Cathoic services despite those services' evils against the Faith.
If you read Canon 1258, in the 1917 Code, the Church does not give Catholics permission for "Merely passive or material presence..."
It specifically states: "Merely passive or material presence may be tolerated..." It doesn't say it IS tolerated (or permitted, for that matter), but that it MAY be tolerated.
The Catholic Church did not give a "free pass" to Catholics, to attend non-Catholic ceremonies or service, even passively.
-
No, we are not saying Canon 1258 applies to the new mass.
Emile is. If you're not, then you should be disagreeing with Emile, not me.
.
It specifically states: "Merely passive or material presence may be tolerated..." It doesn't say it IS tolerated (or permitted, for that matter), but that it MAY be tolerated.
The Catholic Church did not give a "free pass" to Catholics, to attend non-Catholic ceremonies or service, even passively.
Exactly. But people who want to do their own bidding, gloss over the differences in meaning of "may", "is", "tolerate", "allowed", etc. And they ignore all other canons which contradict their new interpretation.
-
Pax I don't hate you and I'm not offended. I think you're being a little bit ridiculous but that's neither here nor there.
If you support the NO you can't be a trad I agree. None of us here supports the NO though. We're discussing whether or not the same canonical provisions that apply to Protestant services also apply to the new Mass. It's probable that they do but not certain.
Honestly if that makes me not traditional so be it I don't really care. I don't care about the label. But I do think archbishop Lefebvre did what was needed to save the church, that we should not worship at the new Mass, and that assisi definitively demonstrates that the church is in crisis such that the SSPX and similar organizations need to minister, preach, and worship even without the approval of Rome. If that doesn't make me a traditionalist I don't really care, but that's why I'm not indult
-
Byzcat, you raise a good point, that the word "Traditionalist" no longer has any meaning, as it once did. In the 70s and 80s, there were 2 camps - Trads vs Modernists. Now you have many different "flavors" of pro-TLM, most of whom don't have the strict standards of the 70s/80s. And anyone who simply "likes" the TLM considers himself a Trad. The word is dead and has lost all meaning. So have most doctrines. So be it. God will sort it out.
-
Has it ever occurred to you that that perhaps your conscience is not properly formed? Perhaps those chastizing you are vehicles of actual graces for you?
No, because I know history. I know the Fr Wathen's, Fr Hennifan's, Fr Gomar Depaw's, Bishop Castro Meyers, etc of the world. The Michael Davies' of the world. And the many european priests/monks whose names I cannot spell. They all agreed on the stance against the new mass. They were all well educated in pre-V2 orthodoxy.
.
People like Emile aren't arguing for something, aren't standing on any principle. They are merely arguing for an exception, a toleration, a permission. This proves they don't really agree with the principle in the first place, because they are hyper-focused on the exception and on the "gray area".
-
Byzcat, you raise a good point, that the word "Traditionalist" no longer has any meaning, as it once did. In the 70s and 80s, there were 2 camps - Trads vs Modernists. Now you have many different "flavors" of pro-TLM, most of whom don't have the strict standards of the 70s/80s. And anyone who simply "likes" the TLM considers himself a Trad. The word is dead and has lost all meaning. So have most doctrines. So be it. God will sort it out.
I mean I was born in '95 and am a recent convert so I get that there's gonna be different perspective on things.
But I still sorta think this is majoring on minors. I don't think Traditional Catholic is *meaningless*, but part of the issue is it has several different conflicting meanings. personally I consider FSSP/Indult groups to be "semi-trad" because at the end of the day, obedience comes first for them and tradition comes second. So I guess I see Tradition as primary as the defintion for "tradition." But I guess just because I think that doesn't mean its right,
-
I don't think Traditional Catholic is *meaningless*, but part of the issue is it has several different conflicting meanings.
Multiple conflicting meanings is the definition of confusion. Confusion on a word means there's no agreement. Lack of agreement means the word is useless.
-
Yes, you attend his funeral at the cemetery. You skip the mass at the NO church or protestant building.
.
Emile, your failure to make distinctions is your problem. It's "all or none" for you. That's not how life works.
You also, because you're a woman, put too much emphasis on society/family and not enough emphasis on principles/facts. God made women to be this way, but it's not all good. You need to recognize you have this built in bias and beware.
Ah! Pax has it in for you, Emile, because you are a woman. What a hoot! :jester: :laugh1: :laugh2: :fryingpan:
-
Apologies for coming into this thread 5 pages late (I do not intend to get involved), and apologies again if anyone has already mentioned this, but Cardinal Ottaviani did not write the Intervention.
-
Ah! Pax has it in for you, Emile, because you are a woman. What a hoot! :jester: :laugh1: :laugh2: :fryingpan:
Thanks, Nadir. Us gals gotta stick together! ;) :laugh1: :laugh1:
-
Emile, because you are a woman.
Argues like a woman. Putting sentimentality over theology. Misreading canon law out of emotion.
-
I don't mean to derail the thread, but how is the funeral or wedding of a heretic an "important occasion"?
:jester:
.
Hey guys look, we got ourselves a live one here!
-
Misreading canon law out of emotion.
So says someone who has misrepresented canon law.
-
Yes, IM the one misrepresenting canon law. :facepalm:
.
I’m the one who’s reinterpreting the following:
1. A tolerance which requires a bishops permission = a blanket allowance to go whenever.
.
2. A civil duty or honor = honoring a family member.
.
3. Grave reason = honoring a family member.
.
4. That a Protestant wedding on Saturday or a funeral = a Protestant “Communion meal”.
.
5. That a new mass = a Protestant service.
.
6. Protestant wedding toleration = toleration for a new mass (passive only).
.
7. Attendance at a new mass violates 4-5 other, specific canon laws, in a grave way, but no matter...the one about Protestant weddings is good enough for me. I’ll go. :facepalm:
.
8. Etc, etc. There are more illogical and immoral equivocations made but who has time to list them all?
.
This thread is a train wreck. Y’all should be ashamed.
-
So says someone who has misrepresented canon law.
I’d love to hear you explain how.
-
I’d love to hear you explain how.
Start with your #1
1. A tolerance which requires a bishops permission
Does the canon require a bishop's permission in all cases?
-
That’s what it says, does it not?
-
You could have looked at the canon or reviewed these threads.
It's clear you don't want to continue, which may be for the best.
-
You said you were going to explain the entire situation, not ask me multiple questions. All the issues have been covered. Feel free to write your summary argument.