Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: RomanCatholic1953 on January 12, 2021, 07:55:19 PM
-
Will Catholics Ever Return to Mass?
https://www.crisismagazine.com/2021/will-catholics-ever-return-to-mass?mc_cid=b7aa2089bf&mc_eid=72ec12853e
-
Well, my diocese has already closed down and sold off two mission chapels, leaving only one church open, and that at stringent restrictions. For those unable to travel long distances, or perhaps do not have a reliable vehicle, it means no more Mass or Sacraments, especially since the diocese has restricted distances and places the priests will visit, opting first, to send a “Eucharistic minister,” next to useless if one needs confession, extreme unction, confirmation, etc. I know of three cases now, where parents and close by friends have gathered (“illegally”) to baptize their own babies, and one instance of a wedding minus a priest. The couple give the Sacrament to one another before two witnesses.
I’m sad when I think of all the children who will grow up without any faith and even if having home religion, will not be able to make their first communion or get confirmed.
-
Not to the mess of Paul VI
-
I attend Mass via the Internet. However, there will never be a such a thing as receiving the Sacraments via the Internet.
The novus ordo church near where I live has been locked down since March. They are not Catholic anyway. The
distribution of communion looks more like a communion party where the communicants share in their hands the
communion wafers and pass around the cup. As a Senior I remember the old days in the church and the practices of
the new church are absolutely disgusting.
The sad thing is so many dying without the last sacraments. Even in the good times before covid it was difficult to get
a priest anyway.
-
The pedophile communists were closing down the Churches long before communist created covid. So many Churches and Christians attacked with permission of pervert pope.
-
The sad thing is so many dying without the last sacraments.
The Novus Ordo church eliminated the sacrament of Extreme Unction in 1968, not a one Novus Ordo parishioner has received Extreme Unction in 50+ years.
-
I know of three cases now, where parents and close by friends have gathered (“illegally”) to baptize their own babies, and one instance of a wedding minus a priest. The couple give the Sacrament to one another before two witnesses.
I’m sad when I think of all the children who will grow up without any faith and even if having home religion, will not be able to make their first communion or get confirmed.
If I had a child (or any other loved one) who needed to be baptized, and could not get a priest for whatever reason, I'd do it and not give it a moment's hesitation. Take a video, execute a notarized statement, then, when things return to normalcy, submit this as evidence of valid baptism.
As far as weddings, yes, I know canon law allows for it, but still, nobody ever has to get sacramentally married at any specific time. (If so, please someone explain when and why.) The affianced couple could always just consider that it is the Divine Will for them not to be able to receive the sacrament at this time, and remain chaste and affianced. People who desire a spouse, and cannot find one, go many years, possibly even a lifetime, without being able to get married. What makes affianced couples so special, then, that they have to get married "right here, right now"? (This is assuming no impediments and being otherwise free to marry.) The only thing I can think of, is if a couple had to get married to ensure some civil or temporal goods, such as insurance, next-of-kin rights, taxation, inheritance, or in the face of an imminent military deployment, but even then, you would need a civil magistrate or official of some sort. In some states, even a notary public can do that. (Note well that I am not asserting this would be a valid sacramental marriage, nor would it confer any marital rights. This should be clear, but if not, it's worth bringing up.)
Baptism is necessary for salvation, but matrimony isn't.
-
Baptism is necessary for salvation, but matrimony isn't.
No marriage, no sex, no babies to be baptized. Unless you have special insight into the timetable of present insanity, counseling people to hold off indefinitely is arguably unwise. Holy Church "allows" it for a reason -- and the Sacrament can be validly and lawfully confected, priest or no priest, for a reason. Your opinion, with all due respect, has no place. Godspeed.
-
If I had a child (or any other loved one) who needed to be baptized, and could not get a priest for whatever reason, I'd do it and not give it a moment's hesitation. Take a video, execute a notarized statement, then, when things return to normalcy, submit this as evidence of valid baptism.
As far as weddings, yes, I know canon law allows for it, but still, nobody ever has to get sacramentally married at any specific time. (If so, please someone explain when and why.) The affianced couple could always just consider that it is the Divine Will for them not to be able to receive the sacrament at this time, and remain chaste and affianced. People who desire a spouse, and cannot find one, go many years, possibly even a lifetime, without being able to get married. What makes affianced couples so special, then, that they have to get married "right here, right now"? (This is assuming no impediments and being otherwise free to marry.) The only thing I can think of, is if a couple had to get married to ensure some civil or temporal goods, such as insurance, next-of-kin rights, taxation, inheritance, or in the face of an imminent military deployment, but even then, you would need a civil magistrate or official of some sort. In some states, even a notary public can do that. (Note well that I am not asserting this would be a valid sacramental marriage, nor would it confer any marital rights. This should be clear, but if not, it's worth bringing up.)
Baptism is necessary for salvation, but matrimony isn't.
I wonder about those Catholics in Japan who were without priests/sacraments for 100's of years. ?
-
I wonder about those Catholics in Japan who were without priests/sacraments for 100's of years. ?
They lacked the "prudence" of modern Traddies...lol... :laugh2:
Of course I am joking, as they simply believed and trusted and practiced their faith as it is arranged/prescribed by God Himself.
-
I wonder about those Catholics in Japan who were without priests/sacraments for 100's of years. ?
Look at what 100s of years without priests/sacraments did to Japan, they've been worshiping Buddha ever since - no? I don't know, I am asking because it seems like everyone thinks they've kept the faith after 100s of years without priests/sacraments.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqhOSHKGln4
-
I believe (could be wrong) couples may marry without a priest if none can be had for over two months, to prevent concupisence, or if extenuating conditions exist, exactly like financial, legal, care of children, basic needs like food, clothing, shelter. In the case I heard about, the couple had purchased a house after being engaged for three years. They had both not signed a lease for the next calendar year, in the belief that they had a priest. At the last week, their county was locked down, making it impossible for the priest to come, they both had to be out of their rentals, and to complicate even more, the man has full custody of his special needs son with a woman to whom he was never married from his pre-conversion days. These were older people, in their late 40s, who had nowhere to go, iow, the man and son, at least, would be homeless. Rather than risking moving in together they did their own marriage.
-
Look at what 100s of years without priests/sacraments did to Japan, they've been worshiping Buddha ever since - no? I don't know, I am asking because it seems like everyone thinks they've kept the faith after 100s of years without priests/sacraments.
Close to 60% doesn't even believe in God. (https://blog.gaijinpot.com/japan-religious-atheist-country/) They will go to Shinto shrines on major holidays like New Year's, but do not functionally belong to a religion like people do in the West.
-
Marriage is essential for some. St. Paul teaches better to marry then to burn. Some will burn without marriage because of concupiscence.
The Japanese had marriage without priests during those years. They had valid matrimony and valid baptism. And they had the rosary.
There are many faithful Catholics in Japan. Japan never became a Catholic Country. Catholics were always a small minority. There is tradition there and even a Japanese priest in the SSPX.
-
Look at what 100s of years without priests/sacraments did to Japan, they've been worshiping Buddha ever since - no? I don't know, I am asking because it seems like everyone thinks they've kept the faith after 100s of years without priests/sacraments.
You know, I've gotten a bit tired of hearing about the hidden Japanese Catholics. People forget that Christianity is tiny in Japan. Even when it was safe to practice that tiny number has had almost no effect on the nation.
-
Will Catholics ever return to mass?
It may be that Catholics have not been to a mass since the Novus Ordo, the new sacrament of ordination, and the new formula for consecrating bishops. That's over 50+ years too.
-
No marriage, no sex, no babies to be baptized. Unless you have special insight into the timetable of present insanity, counseling people to hold off indefinitely is arguably unwise. Holy Church "allows" it for a reason -- and the Sacrament can be validly and lawfully confected, priest or no priest, for a reason. Your opinion, with all due respect, has no place. Godspeed.
Let me clarify. People not being able to marry for a year, well, they can always consider that this is the cross Our Lord has designed for them from all eternity. Entire Catholic populations not being able otherwise to marry for 200 years, as in the case of the isolated Japanese Catholics, that's another story entirely. As you well point out, no marriage, no sex, no babies to be baptized. That wouldn't be good.
And sorry (or maybe not), but the "concupiscence" thing cuts no ice with me whatsoever. This, too, could (and I submit, should) be viewed as the cross Our Lord wills one to bear. We are not cats in estrus. We have free will, and should always be seeking to join our sufferings with those of Our Lord, am I right or am I wrong? What of the husband who is irreparably injured in military combat and can never again perform the natural act? Does his wife, assuming she has those desires, cry "my concupiscence", or does she joyfully bear her cross for life? And as I alluded to above, what about those who can't get married? Many of them have concupiscence too.
Still, if the traditional canons of the Church allow marriage without a priest available for X period of time, so be it.
-
Marriage is essential for some. St. Paul teaches better to marry then to burn. Some will burn without marriage because of concupiscence.
I well know St Paul's words from Scripture, but again, what of those who want to marry but can't? Paraplegics confined to bed or wheelchair who, even if they could perform the natural act, can't find anyone? Women who are irredeemably ugly, fat, misshapen, deformed, have toxic personalities (their names are legion) or what have you? Men with the same disadvantages? Men who can't make enough money even to begin to support a wife and family?
I would hope that Our Lord would hear their cries, and alleviate their concupiscence in some way that doesn't involve sin, whatever that might be.
I'm reminded of what a priest once told me, "you don't mind bearing your crosses, as long as you get to pick them".
-
Question is: When will the Mass return? Matthew 24 refers to Daniel chapter 12, the Sacrifice of the Mass will end.
-
The question is:
Are most of these people Catholic in the first place?
Mass attendance is far from an indicator of orthodoxy.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/20/8-key-findings-about-catholics-and-abortion/
-
The question is:
Are most of these people Catholic in the first place?
Mass attendance is far from an indicator of orthodoxy.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/20/8-key-findings-about-catholics-and-abortion/
Nominal Catholics are Cafeteria pick and choose what Catholic beliefs will be accepted. Most Catholics today accept abortion
and birth control. I have a photo of a first communion class of 200 children in 1957 compared to a photo first communion class in
2011 of 11 children.
Both photos were taken at a large parochial schools.
-
Of the few churches still open in my area, they are all trad, offering only the TLM. The visitors from the N.O. are beginning to realize what they've been missing. I think if/when there is a general re-opening, their new perspective will result in far reduced attendance at the N.O. (at some parishes) but increased at the TLM parishes and/or a demand for the traditional Mass at the old location. One trad location I know of has seen a 50% increase in parish registration, strictly from those visiting from the N.O.
-
As far as weddings, yes, I know canon law allows for it, but still, nobody ever has to get sacramentally married at any specific time. (If so, please someone explain when and why.) The affianced couple could always just consider that it is the Divine Will for them not to be able to receive the sacrament at this time, and remain chaste and affianced. People who desire a spouse, and cannot find one, go many years, possibly even a lifetime, without being able to get married. What makes affianced couples so special, then, that they have to get married "right here, right now"? (This is assuming no impediments and being otherwise free to marry.) The only thing I can think of, is if a couple had to get married to ensure some civil or temporal goods, such as insurance, next-of-kin rights, taxation, inheritance, or in the face of an imminent military deployment, but even then, you would need a civil magistrate or official of some sort. In some states, even a notary public can do that. (Note well that I am not asserting this would be a valid sacramental marriage, nor would it confer any marital rights. This should be clear, but if not, it's worth bringing up
The ministers of the Sacrament of Marriage are always the man and woman. This would be a valid sacramental marriage. In normal times, the priest is there to officiate as the witness before God, but he is not the minister of the Sacrament of Marriage. In my country he also performs the civil side of the marriage.
There is really no good reason to delay a proposed marriage where the prospective spouses would “burn”. Marriage should not be delayed indefinitely by an engaged couple. I can’t imagine however, having to get married for insurance or taxation etc. purposes.
-
There is really no good reason to delay a proposed marriage where the prospective spouses would “burn”. Marriage should not be delayed indefinitely by an engaged couple. I can’t imagine however, having to get married for insurance or taxation etc. purposes.
If they were otherwise ready to get married, and the only obstacle were the unavailability of a priest, okay, I'll buy that. I still think this is a bit of "catering" to people, and letting raw concupiscence rule the day, but neither would I be prepared to tell the entire population of a country (in a hypothetical situation) "no priests available in your country for Reason X for a year, well, that's just tough, consider this your cross to bear, no marriages for a year, God never gives us more than we can handle". Two months without a priest, then passe-partout to marry privately before witnesses with sacred vows (I'd recommend witnesses and notarized statements, but that's just the wannabe lawyer in me, I guess), I can buy that, it's within the Church's authority of binding and loosing, end of story. One can always make the case that just-married couples are so, shall we say, enthusiastic for one another --- this is all so "brand new" for them (or it should be, anyway, if they've been chaste during the engagement) that they will make very frequent use of their marital rights, and conceive a child in short order. One hopes so, anyway. As I always tell people, if you're not ready to have a child nine months after the wedding night (or at least to accept the possibility of it), then you're not ready to get married yet. In that case, then, yes, you just have to wait, concupiscence or no concupiscence. Again, we are not cats in estrus, we are not rare-earth magnets that are irresistibly attracted to one another.
As for your second objection, quite the contrary, there are any number of good reasons, to need to be legally married. The end of a tax year could be approaching, and you'd wish to be counted as married within that year, to obtain tax advantages. There could be a situation of "getting one's spouse on one's insurance", military service or deployments where you wish your spouse to have commissary privileges and other military benefits, establishing joint tenancy for a real estate purchase, access to the spouse's pension, and so on. Again, any number of good reasons. Though concupiscence isn't involved in any of these, they are, very possibly, more important "in the here and now" than the spiritual and moral reasons. The law and the courts couldn't care less whether you're having sex with one another, but they do care whether you have a right to insurance, pensions, tax breaks, and the like.
-
I meant to say "I'd recommend video and notarized statements", and the time frame for editing has passed. Obviously you always have witnesses, per canon law.
And when I said "more important than the spiritual or moral reasons", that was a clumsy turn of phrase. The idea I was trying to get across was, while a couple can always say "we're impeded for the moment from marrying, but we shall not sin, if we are that big of a temptation to one another, we'll spend our time together in public, or in the company of others, and make it a point not to be alone behind closed doors, until we can get married", the law and the government couldn't care less about your intentions --- they need to see a marriage license with ink and a certified time and date stamp on it, before you can file your taxes as a married couple, get on the spouse's good insurance, and so on.
-
Will Catholics Ever Return to Mass?
Not if they go to the Novus Ordo.